Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-gb
August 28, 2007 - September 10, 2007
"Brian Kraut" wrote-
>I just bought a Sky Scout project with a completed fuselage.
Hey, Brian- what are you doing here on the Piet list? Aren't you a KR guy?
The Piet/Sky Scout cruise speed is lower than the stall speed of a KR! ;o)
And Greg wrote-
>BTW, Oscar, I met the guy who started the original build of your
>airplane this weekend up at my home field (5k6).
Would that be Joe Czaplicki? He and Corky, as well as test pilot Edwin,
have sent me some nice items to fill in the history behind 41CC... notes,
photos. It's a well-documented build. And the airplane logs made for some
very interesting and helpful reading and gave the airplane a much deeper
character to me.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | Stall Spin characteristics of the Pietenpol? |
I just finished reading Sammy Mason's "Stall, Spin, Safety" book. To you
current Piet flyers out there who have the Corvair engine and longer
fuselage what are the stall spin characteristics of the Pietenpol?
Anyone out there done much spin testing ? I would be interested in knowing
about fuel tank arrangements, gross weight, pilot and passenger weight
limitations and characteristics? And where the battery is placed to
accommodate better spin recovery.
I am starting to add on to my Piet project and am interested in any input
about elevator travel, etc. in regards to spin recovery.
Rob Stapleton
www.AlaskaSportPilotCenter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Chapman" <greg(at)mousetrax.com> |
Yep, that would be him. We were yakkin' (more like, I was yakkin) and he
started telling me about the Piet he started and sold to Corky and so on. He
was about two sentences in to the story when I started recognizing details.
It's fascinating because it's rare to see a machine carry that much interest
in its background throughout its life!
Greg Chapman
http://www.mousetrax.com
http://www.layer1wireless.com
"Don't start with me or I'll
replace you with a small and
efficient script!"
> And Greg wrote-
>
> >BTW, Oscar, I met the guy who started the original build of your
> >airplane this weekend up at my home field (5k6).
>
> Would that be Joe Czaplicki? He and Corky, as well as test pilot
> Edwin,
> have sent me some nice items to fill in the history behind 41CC...
> notes,
> photos. It's a well-documented build. And the airplane logs made for
> some
> very interesting and helpful reading and gave the airplane a much
> deeper
> character to me.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Schreiber" <got22b(at)subarubrat.com> |
| Subject: | Lift strut ends? |
I have the alumimum strut set and the wing side fitting is easy enough
to do. What have people done for fuselage side fittings? I saw the fork
and barrel that wicks sells and the barrel is definatly designed for the
steel struts.
-Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bending 4130 sheet |
Ed-
You're a pal.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed G.
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bending 4130 sheet
Oh....And always bend 4130 perpendicular to the grain of the steel.
The printing on the sheet runs with the grain. But you probably knew
that.....Ed G.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Lyscars
To: Piet List
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:47 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending 4130 sheet
Fellows,
Help...I've fallen and I can't get up! I'm ready to bend up some
.063 steel in a U-shape for pulley brackets (drawing # 800-05 for those
of you with plans) for my GN-1. The rough dim. is 2"x2" with 1/2"
between the sides. I don't have access to a brake, but I did construct
a bending block the way Uncle Tony Bengelis said to. Now what??
All thoughts appreciated by,
Al in Portland, Maine
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | brodhead pictures |
Does anyone have a picture of a big yellow Stinson landing at Brodhead on S
aturday? I have a picture of you taking our picture, I'd like to trade...
Steve E
Low and Slow Since 1929
Pietenpol Aircamper
steve(at)byu.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Value of EAA |
Amen brother
On 8/26/07, Graham Hansen <ghans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe the best thing is to build yourself a Pietenpol, have fun flying it
> around the patch, and just let the rest of the world go by.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Value of EAA |
Amen brother
On 8/26/07, Graham Hansen <ghans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe the best thing is to build yourself a Pietenpol, have fun flying it
> around the patch, and just let the rest of the world go by.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LSA and affordable flying |
Oscar Zuniga Seagull's story is very inspirational to say the least; so
inspirational in fact it had me cruising throughout Barnstormers trying to
find something "affordable" (and flying) that I could get into quickly.
What I found was really what I've thought all along... that "affordability"
is in the eye of the beholder. (Please see the subject line for the
applicability of the previous statement.)
In a matter of about thirty minutes I found close to 100 planes (that I
could buy today and fly tomorrow) that meet LSA minimums and cost between
$8,000 and $28,000, and the number easily doubles if I want to go as high as
$48,000. And I'm not talking all of them being flying lawn chairs with
two-strokes. Sure, there are several of those in the count, but everything I
considered is N numbered. And I went through maybe 25-35% of all the
experimentals on Barnstormers, so odds are good that another 100-200 could
be found and added to the list if I exhausted the search.
As a side note, if we wanted to up the ante to all available experimental
aircraft for sale (many too fast or too heavy for LSA) the number I found
under $28k explodes to over 350, and again, I only looked through maybe 35%
of the database. Bear in mind, I was looking in the $15,000 range per OZ's
criteria, and the vast number of planes ($12k-$18k) represents the majority.
If we expand our "affordable" LSA search to include basket cases, incomplete
projects or derelict non-flying (but had flown in the past) the count total
count jumps an easy 50 or so.
So the reality of it is that if you want to fly, LSA or PPL, the $100k S-LSA
planes that are all the rave of our favorite publications are not by any
means a limiting factor. LSA is not just for rich guys who are in fear of
losing their medicals.
I myself just bought into 1/5 of a $25k experimental that meets the LSA
minimums, but it's still not flying. :(
A few more weekends of wrenching however should get it in the air.
www.ContactMagazine.com/s-10/s-10.jpg
Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-
> list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar Zuniga
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 7:33 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: LSA and affordable flying
>
>
>
> I'm going to relate my story here for the benefit of those who might be on
> the fence.
>
> I was 5+ years in building my first homebuilt, a single-place, VW powered
> high-winger called the M-19 "Flying Squirrel". I realized my flying
> skills
> were going by the wayside as my project dragged on and I was looking up at
> airplanes flying by a whole lot more than I was actually flying. I was
> also
> a few years away from completing the Squirrel. I needed to fly and
> nothing
> seemed affordable.
>
> I got very interested in the Pietenpol for its simplicity, 2-place
> capability, proven design, excellent support, and long history. Starting
> a
> second project was out of the question; that would just put flying further
> out of reach. One day a newly-completed Piet became available, test hours
> flown off, but took my breath away with a $15,000 price tag. Time to
> think
> about things.
>
> 1. There is no other complete, new, 2-place, flying aircraft that I want
> to
> fly that is available for that price.
>
> 2. Neither of the two cars in my garage (one is 8 years old, one is not
> even
> 2) cost that little.
>
> 3. Our son owns an offshore fishing boat, twin outboard, that cost more
> than
> twice that.
>
> 4. Pick up any aviation magazine and look for airplanes that can be built
> and flown for anything less. Not ultralights; REAL aircraft, honest 2-
> place
> aircraft.
>
> 5. See (1.) above. Write a couple of checks to Corky and let's go flying.
>
> The point is that you're not going to get into the air in anything as
> sturdy, as clean, as fun, as honest as a Pietenpol for anything near the
> cost of one so why go looking. Look at the EAA "Wood Book" and read the
> piece that is titled something like, "Why Not Build a Wooden Airplane?" by
> Tony Bingelis and look at the 3 simplest wood aircraft that he lists. The
> Volksplane, the Flybaby, and the Pietenpol. Only the Piet is a 2-place
> high-winger, and the other two designs are veritable toddlers compared to
> the Piet design that has been proven since the 1930s.
>
> End of lecture. Build or buy a Piet and start enjoying flying as it was
> meant to be! I fly as a Sport Pilot, day VFR only, and sleep well at
> night
> after falling asleep dreaming about that next flight. You can too...
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/CorkyPiet.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LSA and affordable flying |
And speaking of "the eye of the beholder" I can't help wondering just what
a "real Plane" is. I've had the good fortune to fly a goodly number of
airplanes, from unltrlights to a KingAir and in-between. Each time I became
airborn I thought I was in a "real airplane". I consider myself to be way
above average in the Careful department and there have been some airplanes I
won't set in, let alone fly in. I have seen wonderful ultralights,
experimentals, and certified aircraft and I have seen awful ultralights,
experimentals and certified aircraft.
We wonder why so few go into flying and of those that do, not all that many
stay involved thru the years. One of the negative things about flying is it
seems to attract folks that feel that if you don't have what they have, you
don't have a real airplane. My friend that owns the KingAir has many
thousands of hours flying but yet has never flown in an experimental and
says their not a "real" plane and wishes the FAA would do away with them as
they clutter up the airports. Like Oscar, I didn't build my Piet but bought
it. I fell in love with it at first sight. Another friend (he owns a high
performance airplane) told me he thinks the Piet is the ugliest plane he has
ever seen and he knows where there is a plane just like his I should buy.
I guess I'm just tired of others bad mouthing airplanes they know nothing
about. I wonder how many folks have been turned away from flying because
they don't have the $15,000 or know anyone they can go in with to buy an
airplane. What is wrong with buying a "good" ultralight with a two-stroke
for 3 or 4 thousand and enjoy flying while building their Piet? (I've got
over 500 hours on two-strokes and have yet had one fail me).
My other world is boating and there I find a completely different attitude
than I find in flying. For the most part no matter the size of your boat
your welcome in most any group of boaters. You just don't hear "That's not
a real boat, it has a two-stroke". Their attitude lets everyone have fun.
Wish more pilots had that attitude. Just might help.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LSA and affordable flying |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
AMEN TO ALL OF THAT BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &
Tammy
Sent: August 29, 2007 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: LSA and affordable flying
And speaking of "the eye of the beholder" I can't help wondering just
what
a "real Plane" is. I've had the good fortune to fly a goodly number of
airplanes, from unltrlights to a KingAir and in-between. Each time I
became
airborn I thought I was in a "real airplane". I consider myself to be
way
above average in the Careful department and there have been some
airplanes I
won't set in, let alone fly in. I have seen wonderful ultralights,
experimentals, and certified aircraft and I have seen awful ultralights,
experimentals and certified aircraft.
We wonder why so few go into flying and of those that do, not all that
many
stay involved thru the years. One of the negative things about flying
is it
seems to attract folks that feel that if you don't have what they have,
you
don't have a real airplane. My friend that owns the KingAir has many
thousands of hours flying but yet has never flown in an experimental and
says their not a "real" plane and wishes the FAA would do away with them
as
they clutter up the airports. Like Oscar, I didn't build my Piet but
bought
it. I fell in love with it at first sight. Another friend (he owns a
high
performance airplane) told me he thinks the Piet is the ugliest plane he
has
ever seen and he knows where there is a plane just like his I should
buy.
I guess I'm just tired of others bad mouthing airplanes they know
nothing
about. I wonder how many folks have been turned away from flying
because
they don't have the $15,000 or know anyone they can go in with to buy an
airplane. What is wrong with buying a "good" ultralight with a
two-stroke
for 3 or 4 thousand and enjoy flying while building their Piet? (I've
got
over 500 hours on two-strokes and have yet had one fail me).
My other world is boating and there I find a completely different
attitude
than I find in flying. For the most part no matter the size of your
boat
your welcome in most any group of boaters. You just don't hear "That's
not
a real boat, it has a two-stroke". Their attitude lets everyone have
fun.
Wish more pilots had that attitude. Just might help.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LSA and affordable flying |
If you look in the right places they are to be found.
see ebay item 280145791850
Though many of us on the initial stages of the family financial happiness
(stability?) curve would not yet necessarily have the CFO's (chief financial
officer) blessing to spend the funds on such toys even at this quite
reasonable price for a "real" 180 mph go places airplane.
This happens to be George Graham's home built one of a kind e-racer. A true
amateur scratch built "Sperimental" with some unique features. The fuselage
of his own design, is actually wooden and not composite. And he uses a
naturally aspirated Mazda rotary 13b out of a 1986 RX-7 and original dual
plug/point distributor auto ignition. Sadly we lost George last week to a
rather sudden and fast progressing cancer. One of George's innovations is
the redrive he created out of the original RX7 tansmision. He flew it for
about 200 hrs before a failure led him to replace it with the RWS/Tracy
Crook unit instead.
Michael in Maine
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stall Spin characteristics of the Pietenpol? |
Rob, I have been flying my father's Piet NX92GB quite a bit in the last few weeks,
which has a corvair engine. I have done both power on and off stalls. If
rigged properly, I think you would have to really try to get in to a spin. Even
with the nose up in about a 40 degree angle and a full stall it doesn't seem
to fall off into a spin. I would be a little scared to intentionally spin
a piet. I think it would recover fine but could exceed vne if your not carefull.
Keep your CG where it is called for in the plans, Keep it cordinated when
flying, and as far as a stall lower the nose and your flying again. Unless
you were tail heavy I think the tail "stalls" (quits holding the nose up) well
before the wing stalls. We also put about 1-1.5 inches of washout in our wing,
so the tip stalls last, and it will help keep the stall gental.
Shad
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Good Weekend. |
Peter, Just wondering what oil temp you are getting now. Where is your oil temp
probe located on your engine? We moved ours to the lower rear case on the r/h
side below the pushrod tube. The first engine we had it located in the bottom
of the oil pan. The old system usually read about 230-240, and now it reads
260 in cruise and can go as high as 270 or so at extended full power opperation.
I am wondering if we are picking up heat from the #1 cylinder, through
the case. While doing touch and goes the oil temp will drop 20 degrees, from
downwind to touchdown, Seems oil would not cool down this fast?
Shad
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Bernie" <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Bending 4130 sheet |
Al,
You bend the first 90 degree in your two part block. The second bend
requires a tapered single block =BD=94 at the top and longer than the
fitting so it can be held horizontal in a vice (like on page 50 the
Bingelis book). Attached are a few pictures that may help.
Good Luck,
Tom Bernie
Gloucester, Mass
-----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 27, 2007 11:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending 4130 sheet
Fellows,
Help...I've fallen and I can't get up! I'm ready to bend up some .063
steel in a U-shape for pulley brackets (drawing # 800-05 for those of
you with plans) for my GN-1. The rough dim. is 2"x2" with 1/2" between
the sides. I don't have access to a brake, but I did construct a
bending block the way Uncle Tony Bengelis said to. Now what??
All thoughts appreciated by,
Al in Portland, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | LSA and affordable flying |
I have also flown ultralights and many military planes and I find that
pilots who make statements like that usually are not happy flying. I have a
friend in the Air Force that is a flight surgeon and also a psychiatrist.
In studies about the psyche of pilots, he said to many pilots, flying is
just a "job" to them and many actually have a fear of flying. They would
never consider flying anything that they have not had a year of training.
When most of these types retire or leave the service, they never fly
again...and that is not a loss.
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:03 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: LSA and affordable flying
>
>
> And speaking of "the eye of the beholder" I can't help wondering just
> what a "real Plane" is. I've had the good fortune to fly a goodly number
> of airplanes, from unltrlights to a KingAir and in-between. Each time I
> became airborn I thought I was in a "real airplane". I consider myself to
> be way above average in the Careful department and there have been some
> airplanes I won't set in, let alone fly in. I have seen wonderful
> ultralights, experimentals, and certified aircraft and I have seen awful
> ultralights, experimentals and certified aircraft.
> We wonder why so few go into flying and of those that do, not all that
> many stay involved thru the years. One of the negative things about
> flying is it seems to attract folks that feel that if you don't have what
> they have, you don't have a real airplane. My friend that owns the
> KingAir has many thousands of hours flying but yet has never flown in an
> experimental and says their not a "real" plane and wishes the FAA would do
> away with them as they clutter up the airports. Like Oscar, I didn't
> build my Piet but bought it. I fell in love with it at first sight.
> Another friend (he owns a high performance airplane) told me he thinks the
> Piet is the ugliest plane he has ever seen and he knows where there is a
> plane just like his I should buy.
> I guess I'm just tired of others bad mouthing airplanes they know nothing
> about. I wonder how many folks have been turned away from flying because
> they don't have the $15,000 or know anyone they can go in with to buy an
> airplane. What is wrong with buying a "good" ultralight with a two-stroke
> for 3 or 4 thousand and enjoy flying while building their Piet? (I've
> got over 500 hours on two-strokes and have yet had one fail me).
> My other world is boating and there I find a completely different attitude
> than I find in flying. For the most part no matter the size of your boat
> your welcome in most any group of boaters. You just don't hear "That's
> not a real boat, it has a two-stroke". Their attitude lets everyone have
> fun. Wish more pilots had that attitude. Just might help.
> Gene
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim White" <aa5flyer(at)gmail.com> |
I've been reading this list for about two months and have decided to
build a Pietenpol. I've ordered the plans and have talked frequently to
a Pietenpol builder (His plane was wrecked an is hanging in his hangar),
but I still have many questions. I would like to see a Pietenpol up
close, sit in it (for fit), and ask questions. I'm not looking for a
free ride, just want to become smarter before I start investing money.
I live in Springfield Ohio and would like to visit a Pietenpol owner in
this area.
Tim White
937 325 5625
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bending 4130 sheet |
Thanks, Tom-
I appreciate the pics, too!
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Bernie
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending 4130 sheet
Al,
You bend the first 90 degree in your two part block. The second bend
requires a tapered single block =BD" at the top and longer than the
fitting so it can be held horizontal in a vice (like on page 50 the
Bingelis book). Attached are a few pictures that may help.
Good Luck,
Tom Bernie
Gloucester, Mass
-----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 27, 2007 11:48 PM
To: Piet List
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending 4130 sheet
Fellows,
Help...I've fallen and I can't get up! I'm ready to bend up some .063
steel in a U-shape for pulley brackets (drawing # 800-05 for those of
you with plans) for my GN-1. The rough dim. is 2"x2" with 1/2" between
the sides. I don't have access to a brake, but I did construct a
bending block the way Uncle Tony Bengelis said to. Now what??
All thoughts appreciated by,
Al in Portland, Maine
- The Pietenpol-List Email Forum - -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List - NEW
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - --> http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Hart <robhart67(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Tim
Welcome on board. You will find the members of the list more than accomoda
ting with both advice and opportunities to share in their experiences. Bei
ng from Western Australia, and still in the early phases of building VH-PTN
, an extended fuselage Piet, I cannot offer anything more than encouragemen
t and best wishes. You'll not find yourself wanting in either the aircraft
or the esteemed members of the list. Make the most of both!Cheers
Rob
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=503&FName=R
ob&LName=Hart&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
From: aa5flyer(at)gmail.comTo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.comSubject: Pietenpol-
List: New GuyDate: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:56:29 -0400
I've been reading this list for about two months and have decided to build
a Pietenpol. I've ordered the plans and have talked frequently to a Pieten
pol builder (His plane was wrecked an is hanging in his hangar), but I stil
l have many questions. I would like to see a Pietenpol up close, sit in it
(for fit), and ask questions. I'm not looking for a free ride, just want
to become smarter before I start investing money. I live in Springfield Oh
io and would like to visit a Pietenpol owner in this area.
Tim White
937 325 5625
_________________________________________________________________
Explore the seven wonders of the world
BRE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim White" <aa5flyer(at)gmail.com> |
Rob
Thanks for the reply and encouragement. Really enjoy reading your
builder's log (I've put it in my favorites).
Thanks,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Hart
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Hi Tim
Welcome on board. You will find the members of the list more than
accomodating with both advice and opportunities to share in their
experiences. Being from Western Australia, and still in the early
phases of building VH-PTN, an extended fuselage Piet, I cannot offer
anything more than encouragement and best wishes. You'll not find
yourself wanting in either the aircraft or the esteemed members of the
list. Make the most of both!
Cheers
Rob
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=503&FName=
Rob&LName=Hart&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: aa5flyer(at)gmail.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:56:29 -0400
I've been reading this list for about two months and have decided to
build a Pietenpol. I've ordered the plans and have talked frequently to
a Pietenpol builder (His plane was wrecked an is hanging in his hangar),
but I still have many questions. I would like to see a Pietenpol up
close, sit in it (for fit), and ask questions. I'm not looking for a
free ride, just want to become smarter before I start investing money.
I live in Springfield Ohio and would like to visit a Pietenpol owner in
this area.
Tim White
937 325 5625
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Explore the seven wonders of the =en-US&form=QBRE'
target='_new'>Learn more!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Hall" <adaairport(at)cableone.net> |
Tim,
Are you considering buying or building? Just wondering.
Terry Hall
Sky Scout builder
Ada, OK
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim White
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Rob
Thanks for the reply and encouragement. Really enjoy reading your
builder's log (I've put it in my favorites).
Thanks,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Hart
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Hi Tim
Welcome on board. You will find the members of the list more than
accomodating with both advice and opportunities to share in their
experiences. Being from Western Australia, and still in the early
phases of building VH-PTN, an extended fuselage Piet, I cannot offer
anything more than encouragement and best wishes. You'll not find
yourself wanting in either the aircraft or the esteemed members of the
list. Make the most of both!
Cheers
Rob
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=503&FName=
Rob&LName=Hart&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
From: aa5flyer(at)gmail.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:56:29 -0400
I've been reading this list for about two months and have decided
to build a Pietenpol. I've ordered the plans and have talked frequently
to a Pietenpol builder (His plane was wrecked an is hanging in his
hangar), but I still have many questions. I would like to see a
Pietenpol up close, sit in it (for fit), and ask questions. I'm not
looking for a free ride, just want to become smarter before I start
investing money. I live in Springfield Ohio and would like to visit a
Pietenpol owner in this area.
Tim White
937 325 5625
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Explore the seven wonders of the =en-US&form=QBRE'
target='_new'>Learn more!
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Hall" <adaairport(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Aircraft Control Cables |
Hello everyone,
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable" that I can
buy locally and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by aircraft parts
suppliers? Both cables appear identical including similarity in price.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Terry Hall
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aircraft Control Cables |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
More money at aircraft parts suppliers most of the time.There are some
things ya just can't get at your local hardware store though,such as an
altimeter gauge.Then again there may be some hardware stores down
through the states that you probably could find such an item.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Hall
Sent: August 29, 2007 2:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Hello everyone,
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable" that I can
buy locally and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by aircraft parts
suppliers? Both cables appear identical including similarity in price.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Terry Hall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Skip Gadd" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net> |
Tim, Welcome to the list. I have a GN-1 in Parkersburg WV you can sit in. I am
about 1 1/2 hours 172 time or 4 hours auto time away from Springfield.
The GN-1's pilot pit is somewhat smaller than that of any Piet. GN-1 is 23 1/4".
1934 plans Piet is 29" and the Corvair Piet is 31". These dimensions are before
add on stuff like seat back, seat back foam, instrument panel and cock pit
coaming.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim White
Sent: 8/29/2007 10:00:25 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
I've been reading this list for about two months and have decided to build a Pietenpol.
I've ordered the plans and have talked frequently to a Pietenpol builder
(His plane was wrecked an is hanging in his hangar), but I still have many
questions. I would like to see a Pietenpol up close, sit in it (for fit), and
ask questions. I'm not looking for a free ride, just want to become smarter
before I start investing money. I live in Springfield Ohio and would like to
visit a Pietenpol owner in this area.
Tim White
937 325 5625
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Schreiber" <lmforge(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Aircraft Control Cables |
Terry,
I asked my AP-IA the same question and he said the local cable (if it is labeled
aircraft) is perfectly OK. When I checked prices, Aircraft Spruce was actually
cheaper, so I went with Aircraft Spruce.
Rick Schreiber
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hall
Sent: 8/29/2007 1:15:02 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Hello everyone,
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable" that I can buy locally
and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by aircraft parts suppliers? Both
cables appear identical including similarity in price. Any thoughts appreciated.
Terry Hall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Shad,
Oil temps are around 220F on a 70F day. The probe is mounted in the normal
Corvair place on the oil filter adapter housing. According to WW this puts
it just before the oil cooler.
Cheers
Peter.
Wonthaggi Australia
HYPERLINK "http://www.cpc-world.com/"http://www.cpc-world.com
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of shad bell
Sent: Wednesday, 29 August 2007 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A Good Weekend.
Peter, Just wondering what oil temp you are getting now. Where is your oil
temp probe located on your engine? We moved ours to the lower rear case on
the r/h side below the pushrod tube. The first engine we had it located in
the bottom of the oil pan. The old system usually read about 230-240, and
now it reads 260 in cruise and can go as high as 270 or so at extended full
power opperation. I am wondering if we are picking up heat from the #1
cylinder, through the case. While doing touch and goes the oil temp will
drop 20 degrees, from downwind to touchdown, Seems oil would not cool down
this fast?
Shad
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Pietenpol-List
4:29 PM
4:29 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
Tim,
If ever out New Jersey way, you can look at mine, and weather
permitting, give you a ride.
Let me know and I'll send a phone #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLrIDeDLR48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeyWuY2Gmpg
Took two friends named Don for a flight.
check out the sites on youtube.cam
Walt Evans
NX140DL
"No one ever learned anything by talking"
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim White
To: pietenpol list
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
I've been reading this list for about two months and have decided to
build a Pietenpol. I've ordered the plans and have talked frequently to
a Pietenpol builder (His plane was wrecked an is hanging in his hangar),
but I still have many questions. I would like to see a Pietenpol up
close, sit in it (for fit), and ask questions. I'm not looking for a
free ride, just want to become smarter before I start investing money.
I live in Springfield Ohio and would like to visit a Pietenpol owner in
this area.
Tim White
937 325 5625
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim White" <aa5flyer(at)gmail.com> |
Terry,
Although there are finished and partially finished projects for sale,
most are of some distance. I've strongly considered travelling to look
at them, but my wife told me she thought the whole idea was to build the
plane myself and she was right! Therefore I'm building from scratch,
but have many questions regarding engine, short or long fuselage, wider,
door for passenger, GN-1 or original, etc.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hall
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Tim,
Are you considering buying or building? Just wondering.
Terry Hall
Sky Scout builder
Ada, OK
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim White
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Rob
Thanks for the reply and encouragement. Really enjoy reading your
builder's log (I've put it in my favorites).
Thanks,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Hart
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Hi Tim
Welcome on board. You will find the members of the list more than
accomodating with both advice and opportunities to share in their
experiences. Being from Western Australia, and still in the early
phases of building VH-PTN, an extended fuselage Piet, I cannot offer
anything more than encouragement and best wishes. You'll not find
yourself wanting in either the aircraft or the esteemed members of the
list. Make the most of both!
Cheers
Rob
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=503&FName=
Rob&LName=Hart&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aa5flyer(at)gmail.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:56:29 -0400
I've been reading this list for about two months and have
decided to build a Pietenpol. I've ordered the plans and have talked
frequently to a Pietenpol builder (His plane was wrecked an is hanging
in his hangar), but I still have many questions. I would like to see a
Pietenpol up close, sit in it (for fit), and ask questions. I'm not
looking for a free ride, just want to become smarter before I start
investing money. I live in Springfield Ohio and would like to visit a
Pietenpol owner in this area.
Tim White
937 325 5625
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Explore the seven wonders of the =en-US&form=QBRE'
target='_new'>Learn more!
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Control Cables |
If it is real aircraft control cable there is no difference. The sure
way to tell is closely looking inside the strands of wire. There should
be thin strands of red fibers in the cable. It is there to tell you if
the cable has been over stressed. If it has the fibers break and stick
out of the windings. ( little red flags)
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hall
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Hello everyone,
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable" that I can
buy locally and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by aircraft parts
suppliers? Both cables appear identical including similarity in price.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Terry Hall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Schreiber" <got22b(at)subarubrat.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Control Cables |
I have seen he same cable at hardware stores and it is called aircraft
cable, it is also labled with a warning not to be used for aircraft. I
didn't know about the red fiber test. Is that on all aircraft cable or
just some? I have never seen it while cutting the cable I have from
wicks.
-scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
If it is real aircraft control cable there is no difference. The sure
way to tell is closely looking inside the strands of wire. There should
be thin strands of red fibers in the cable. It is there to tell you if
the cable has been over stressed. If it has the fibers break and stick
out of the windings. ( little red flags)
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hall
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Hello everyone,
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable" that I
can buy locally and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by aircraft
parts suppliers? Both cables appear identical including similarity in
price. Any thoughts appreciated.
Terry Hall
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Control Cables |
In a message dated 8/29/2007 1:09:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
adaairport(at)cableone.net writes:
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable" that I can buy
locally and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by aircraft parts suppliers?
Both cables appear identical including similarity in price. Any thoughts
appreciated.
Terry,
The cable sold by aircraft parts suppliers have an inspection process that
ensures the cable is of sufficient quality for aircraft application. The price
reflects the cost of this additional process, and it then has the stamp of the
FAA or PMA (Parts Manufacturers Associoation) approval.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "davissign" <davissign(at)mchsi.com> |
First off thanks to everyone on here for all the info and ideas you
post. My son and I been building on our piet for about a year now. Wing
ribs same as done. Thanks to Jack Textor we'll have some tail feathers
this weekend. Anyway back to the reason I am posting. Austin, my son
talked his mother into going to the Antique Airfield tonite. I had to
work late which seems to be the norm with my job. Anyway he talked a
fellow there into a ride in a Piet that is there for the fly-in this
weekend. I don't think he'll stop smiling for quite awhile. Plus not to
mention the boost it give him to get after our project. He is thirteen
now we are hoping to have it done by the time he turns 16 if all goes
well. Thanks again to everyone for all the information you pass on here.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/29/2007 8:57:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
aa5flyer(at)gmail.com writes:
I've been reading this list for about two months and have decided to build a
Pietenpol.
Tim,
Welcome to the list !! This is the place to have your questions answered.
I put up a web site to show others the experience I have had with this
wonderful hobby. Check out my web site: _http://nx770cg.com/_
(http://nx770cg.com/)
Chuck G.
Wichita, KS
NX770CG
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ride in a Piet. |
In a message dated 8/29/2007 10:41:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
davissign(at)mchsi.com writes:
First off thanks to everyone on here for all the info and ideas you post. My
son and I been building on our piet for about a year now. Wing ribs same as
done. Thanks to Jack Textor we'll have some tail feathers this weekend. Anyway
back to the reason I am posting. Austin, my son talked his mother into going to
the Antique Airfield tonite. I had to work late which seems to be the norm
with my job. Anyway he talked a fellow there into a ride in a Piet that is there
for the fly-in this weekend. I don't think he'll stop smiling for quite
awhile. Plus not to mention the boost it give him to get after our project. He
is
thirteen now we are hoping to have it done by the time he turns 16 if all goes
well. Thanks again to everyone for all the information you pass on here.
One of the perks of having built, and flying a Pietenpol, is to give people
rides, and see that smile !!
Was the guy there at Antique Airfield named Ben ?
He and I flew formation back from Brodhead to Antique Airfield this summer.
It was one of the most fun flights I've had flying the my Piet !! I've never
had that type of opportunity to fly with another Pietenpol for such a long
distance, down on the deck !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "davissign" <davissign(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ride in a Piet. |
Yes. Ben Taylor's his name. He a funny guy my boy thinks he's cool. We
are taking the model A up Friday night. I think we will camp til Sunday
then head for home. You think the piets fly low n slow. The A is just
plain slow!
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Ride in a Piet.
In a message dated 8/29/2007 10:41:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
davissign(at)mchsi.com writes:
First off thanks to everyone on here for all the info and ideas you
post. My son and I been building on our piet for about a year now. Wing
ribs same as done. Thanks to Jack Textor we'll have some tail feathers
this weekend. Anyway back to the reason I am posting. Austin, my son
talked his mother into going to the Antique Airfield tonite. I had to
work late which seems to be the norm with my job. Anyway he talked a
fellow there into a ride in a Piet that is there for the fly-in this
weekend. I don't think he'll stop smiling for quite awhile. Plus not to
mention the boost it give him to get after our project. He is thirteen
now we are hoping to have it done by the time he turns 16 if all goes
well. Thanks again to everyone for all the information you pass on here.
One of the perks of having built, and flying a Pietenpol, is to give
people rides, and see that smile !!
Was the guy there at Antique Airfield named Ben ?
He and I flew formation back from Brodhead to Antique Airfield this
summer. It was one of the most fun flights I've had flying the my Piet
!! I've never had that type of opportunity to fly with another
Pietenpol for such a long distance, down on the deck !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ride in a Piet. |
Tell Ben that Chuck said "Hey"
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | Alaska Pietenpol dreaming |
I have enjoyed reading this list's post, especially about flying the
Pietenpol.
Several days ago I asked about spins, and spin testing and no one has
answered. Has anyone done spin testing on their Pientenpol?
My dreams of flying and experiencing the feel of the controls are
weighing
heavier and heavier on my mind as I am getting closer to assembling my
wing.
Even as I gaze across the muskeg lake laced landscape from 600 feet on a
clear windless night in my Experimental Light Sport Antares, my thoughts
are
on flying the Pietenpol. How will it sound, will the struts and flying
wires
sing to me?
How will the smell of the earth below mix with the fuel, wood and
varnish as
I lift in a thermal.
Rob in Anchorage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net> |
Welcome to the list, Tim
One thing a few guys (including me) have done is build a mock-up of the
cockpit to see how they fit. You can use cheap lumber to do this, and
use door skin plywood for the gussets, sides and floor. I did this and
found it useful practice to get my carpentry skills up. The jig I made
for the mockup was later used for my actual fuselage. Take a look at my
builder's log at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=481&FName=Ben&LName=Charvet&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
You will find there is a lot of information available on the archives of
this list and on the other personal websites run by guys on this list.
Usually to solve any problem you can get two or three solutions to add
to your own ideas. I find that I spend more time thinking about what
I'm going to do than actually doing it.
Ben Charvet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | spinning the Piet |
I was hoping to see some responses to the question, too. I asked Charlie
(my CFI, mentor, check pilot, etc.) about it and he said that he wishes the
Piet had just a bit more rudder before he'd feel comfortable spinning it.
He has considerable aerobatic time, so I respect his opinion, but he didn't
leave me satisfied with the answer. I'm not afraid of spins but I don't
have a death wish, either. I intend to inquire further and maybe strap on
the 'chutes and spin 41CC intentionally sometime. It has felt solid and
predictable in both power-on and power-off stalls that I've done and the
rudder seems to have plenty of authority, but others here have mentioned
that the pilot can "mask" air over the tail in some configurations and that
may be what Charlie is concerned about.
Sounds a little too much like "Twilight Zone" to this engineer and I'm going
to inquire further.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Messenger Caf open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily.
Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Hall" <adaairport(at)cableone.net> |
Tim,
I think that you will enjoy the building process. I've found the
experience very rewarding. Good luck.
Terry Hall
Sky Scout builder
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim White
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Terry,
Although there are finished and partially finished projects for sale,
most are of some distance. I've strongly considered travelling to look
at them, but my wife told me she thought the whole idea was to build the
plane myself and she was right! Therefore I'm building from scratch,
but have many questions regarding engine, short or long fuselage, wider,
door for passenger, GN-1 or original, etc.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hall
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Tim,
Are you considering buying or building? Just wondering.
Terry Hall
Sky Scout builder
Ada, OK
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim White
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Rob
Thanks for the reply and encouragement. Really enjoy reading your
builder's log (I've put it in my favorites).
Thanks,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Hart
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Hi Tim
Welcome on board. You will find the members of the list more
than accomodating with both advice and opportunities to share in their
experiences. Being from Western Australia, and still in the early
phases of building VH-PTN, an extended fuselage Piet, I cannot offer
anything more than encouragement and best wishes. You'll not find
yourself wanting in either the aircraft or the esteemed members of the
list. Make the most of both!
Cheers
Rob
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=503&FName=
Rob&LName=Hart&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aa5flyer(at)gmail.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:56:29 -0400
I've been reading this list for about two months and have
decided to build a Pietenpol. I've ordered the plans and have talked
frequently to a Pietenpol builder (His plane was wrecked an is hanging
in his hangar), but I still have many questions. I would like to see a
Pietenpol up close, sit in it (for fit), and ask questions. I'm not
looking for a free ride, just want to become smarter before I start
investing money. I live in Springfield Ohio and would like to visit a
Pietenpol owner in this area.
Tim White
937 325 5625
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explore the seven wonders of the =en-US&form=QBRE'
target='_new'>Learn more!
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AMsafetyC(at)aol.com |
Tim,
Welcome, its always nice to see another join the builder ranks. I think we
all go through a research cycle of information , then existing projects
availability and finally resolve to build or rebuild. I know when I started my
project 8 months ago I was more interested in the flying part and thought
building was a means to an end. Somewhere along the line I began to enjoy the
build
process more and more.
I find it to be challenging and frustrating at time, however those times are
quickly washed away by the more settling Zen of the project. I am finding
the actual journey of the build a most rewarding and enjoyable exercise. I
cannot speak for the motivations or the rewards experienced by other builders
I
can only relate my experience.
Enjoy the journey first, the reward is sure to follow.
Having been to Broadhead for the first time this year I have seen the
rewards of the builders and listened to the stories. I look forward to the time
that I too can join that exclusive club of builders and of flying my build to
Broadhead for a peer review. I can think of no reward more gratifying than to
meet the builders head on and have them review my work also.
I have met no finer a group to be associated with and believe you will come
to respect them and to enjoy them. Good luck and like the rest of our
exclusive band of Piet enthusiast, if there is anything I can do to help or
assistance I can provide, I am at your dispposal.
My thoughts to share as you begin your journey!
John Recine
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn W. Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
"I find that I spend more time thinking about what I'm going to do than
actually doing it."
That's the beauty of this project. This way you actually end up "working
on the project" at work, stuck in traffic, sleeping, etc. It's much more
than an assembly process and keeps you engaged all the time.
Glenn Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: spinning the Piet |
Pat Green in Jacksonville told me story story about spinning the
Piet. This guy has a Piet with a BP conversion Corvair with belt driven
fan. He was commenting that his Piet with a rudder built to the plans
tended to loose rudder authority on the flair, especially with a tall
pilot. Anyway a friend of his strapped on a chute and took it up high
and put it into a spin. Pat was on the ground watching this, and he was
yelling Jump out!, Jump out! because it got pretty close to the ground
before the pilot recovered. Later on Pat had a small accident that
ended up with the Piet on its back and he had to rebuild the rudder. He
made it a little bit taller. After talking to him I added 3 or 4 inches
to my rudder when I built it. I'm extending my motormount 4 inches, so
the extra rudder authority won't hurt. Getting in and out of a Piet
that was spinning while wearing a parachute wouldn't be easy. Here is a
link to a picture of Pat's Piet. (He is over 70 years old and has been
flying this since the 70's)
Ben Charvet
http://flycorvair.com/green.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fly-in/Lunch - Slaughterville, OK - Sept. 8th '07 |
Just wanted to let everyone know that there is going to be a grass
strip fly-in at McCaslin Field in Slaughterville, OK (South of Norman)
on September 8th at 10AM. Sure would like to see some Pietenpols there.
Terry (Hall), this isn't too far from you, any chance you could make
it up here?
More information here:
http://www.wotelectronics.com/flyin
http://www.dfwpilots.com/board/index.php?showtopic=3208
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | spinning the Piet |
Oscar,
Masking air over the tail could be a very big problem in spin recovery. This
is why I asked.
I am thinking about building a headrest onto the turtle back but don't want
to disturb the air flow to the Vertical Stabilizer. I am a big guy and am
worried about spin recovery with aft CG, although I am going to fit the
Corvair on mine and have the longer fuselage. Any input on spins from
former, and current pilots would be useful to all of us.
RS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar Zuniga
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
I was hoping to see some responses to the question, too. I asked Charlie
(my CFI, mentor, check pilot, etc.) about it and he said that he wishes the
Piet had just a bit more rudder before he'd feel comfortable spinning it.
He has considerable aerobatic time, so I respect his opinion, but he didn't
leave me satisfied with the answer. I'm not afraid of spins but I don't
have a death wish, either. I intend to inquire further and maybe strap on
the 'chutes and spin 41CC intentionally sometime. It has felt solid and
predictable in both power-on and power-off stalls that I've done and the
rudder seems to have plenty of authority, but others here have mentioned
that the pilot can "mask" air over the tail in some configurations and that
may be what Charlie is concerned about.
Sounds a little too much like "Twilight Zone" to this engineer and I'm going
to inquire further.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Messenger Caf open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily.
Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | spinning the Piet |
Thanks. I am 6'-5" and am a little curious about spins and rudder authority.
I have not built the enging mounts for the Corvair yet so any information on
this is very helpful.
Regards,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
Pat Green in Jacksonville told me story story about spinning the
Piet. This guy has a Piet with a BP conversion Corvair with belt driven
fan. He was commenting that his Piet with a rudder built to the plans
tended to loose rudder authority on the flair, especially with a tall
pilot. Anyway a friend of his strapped on a chute and took it up high
and put it into a spin. Pat was on the ground watching this, and he was
yelling Jump out!, Jump out! because it got pretty close to the ground
before the pilot recovered. Later on Pat had a small accident that
ended up with the Piet on its back and he had to rebuild the rudder. He
made it a little bit taller. After talking to him I added 3 or 4 inches
to my rudder when I built it. I'm extending my motormount 4 inches, so
the extra rudder authority won't hurt. Getting in and out of a Piet
that was spinning while wearing a parachute wouldn't be easy. Here is a
link to a picture of Pat's Piet. (He is over 70 years old and has been
flying this since the 70's)
Ben Charvet
http://flycorvair.com/green.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Very true, can't think of a better way to get through a boring meeting is to
design your next Piet component in your head, or in your notebook (everyone
will think you are taking detailed notes).
Rick
On 8/30/07, Glenn W. Thomas wrote:
>
> glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
>
> "I find that I spend more time thinking about what I'm going to do than
> actually doing it."
>
> That's the beauty of this project. This way you actually end up "working
> on the project" at work, stuck in traffic, sleeping, etc. It's much more
> than an assembly process and keeps you engaged all the time.
>
> Glenn Thomas
> Storrs, CT
> http://www.flyingwood.com
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
After reading through the "Value of EAA" topic I decided to email the EAA and give
them some of my ideas since I'm not alone and not necessarily negative on
the EAA. I presented many of the ideas that were discussed in this thread and
some thoughts on how to bring people with frustrations like mine back into the
EAA fold. Some of the ideas I presented included expanding the EAA workshop
tours to include more stops (none in the Northeast right now), AirVenture builders
workshops could be expanded to include something more than a beginner's
welcome adding some advanced subjects like tooling, constructing jigs and tools,
and producing books that have plans for such that EAA could offer as some new
material. Overall, just something to make the homebuilders who feel they are
"the original EAA" to feel less displaced. I had a phone conversation with
the Media and Public Affairs representative, Dick Knapinski, and he encouraged
me to provide more feedback and seemed to appreciate that I came to him with
some suggestions rather than complaints. Of course, change remains to be seen,
and it will take time, but I got a general sense that my input would be reviewed
and that they were interested in hearing public outcry for things. If anyone
is inclined to do the same you should email him at dknapinski(at)eaa.org.
Worst case scenario if you continue to feel disenfrancised by the EAA it will
be through no fault of your own. Time will tell.
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131839#131839
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn W. Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
Rick makes an excellent point. For example I was in a 2 hour marathon
meeting yesterday and the topic was how our lab data would be delivered
from an outside company through HL7 messaging. I was seen busily
gathering all the perinent information and left the meeting with the
attached notes. The Piet must have saved me from dozing off at LEAST once
and made me quite a "productive" employee.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: spinning the Piet |
Oscar ole boy we know you're enjoying your Piet but, " don't try makin it
sump'un it ain't ".
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Snake On A Plane |
Check out this Associated Press blurb from last week.=C2- Good thing it wa
sn't a cottonmouth or rattler of some sort. I would have baled out, chute or
no chute! Yeeeshh!
I'll bet y'all do a very thorough pre-flight next time you fly! He-he-heh!
You all know what Samuel B. Jackson says about snakes on a plane -- just don
't say it here in this family blog!
Which reminds me - you know why cowboy boots are pointed?
For kicking rattlers in the a__ !
Fred B.
It was no movie moment when a physician, flying himself across Mississippi i
n a one-seat plane, discovered a stowaway =94 a gray rat snake.
Dr. Ed Carruth discovered the snake-on-a-plane when it began "licking" his a
rm Thursday, he told The Daily Leader of Brookhaven.
"I've been flying planes for 50 years and over 14,000 hours, and this is the
most unusual in-flight emergency I've encountered," he said. "I guess it wa
sn't exactly an emergency, but I did almost hurt myself when I saw it."
Needing to fly the plane and lacking tools to get rid of the snake, "I did s
ome aerobatics," Carruth said. "And once he got oriented, he went to the bac
k of the plane."
When Carruth arrived at Brookhaven Municipal Airport after his flight from M
eridian, officials called a snake expert to remove the reptile. It's not unc
ommon for snakes to live in airplane hangars, said Joey Pradillo, the expert
.
"The snakes are in there after the mice. And the hangar is cool on the insid
e, and that's why he was in there in the first place," he said. Pradillo rel
eased the snake into the wild.
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http
://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
Meeting notes..
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131858#131858
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_939.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Hall" <adaairport(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fly-in/Lunch - Slaughterville, OK - Sept. 8th '07 |
Steve,
Thanks for the invite, but I'll be out of town that weekend. BTW, the Ada
Airport is closed for a couple of weeks while the constuction company begins
our taxiway reconstruction project. Save the Bob's BBQ runs for another
time. Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fly-in/Lunch - Slaughterville, OK - Sept. 8th '07
>
>
> Just wanted to let everyone know that there is going to be a grass strip
> fly-in at McCaslin Field in Slaughterville, OK (South of Norman) on
> September 8th at 10AM. Sure would like to see some Pietenpols there.
>
> Terry (Hall), this isn't too far from you, any chance you could make it
> up here?
>
> More information here:
> http://www.wotelectronics.com/flyin
> http://www.dfwpilots.com/board/index.php?showtopic=3208
>
> Steve Ruse
> Norman, OK
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
Glen,
Where'd you get this pic of my Piet? :^)
Walt Evans
NX140DL
"No one ever learned anything by talking"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn W. Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New Guy
> Rick makes an excellent point. For example I was in a 2 hour marathon
> meeting yesterday and the topic was how our lab data would be delivered
> from an outside company through HL7 messaging. I was seen busily
> gathering all the perinent information and left the meeting with the
> attached notes. The Piet must have saved me from dozing off at LEAST once
> and made me quite a "productive" employee.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
Just wanted to give my opinion on the EAA descussion.
Even though I'd tried to join the EAA a few years ago, and it was a
joke. (The whole meeting was about who didn't bring enough beer at the
last picnic. and who need to put in more time at the next raffle.
Nothing about building planes).
I think that it's obvious that everyone is waiting for someone to amaze
them with a lecture on some aspect of airplane building. Like there is
some great plan by someone to put on shows for the builders.
NO,,,,I think that anyone who is half way through a building project is
qualified to give their own presentation at an EAA meeting.
I wish that I had the gift of Gab, and could share what I know properly,
to the newcommers. But I don't.
People who are halfway to completion ,,or less,,could greatly contribute
to the new guy who just got his plans. On stuff like,,,how to cut a
good wood joint, glueing, setting up a shop, Or making a rib jig.
Don't join the EAA to BE served,,,
Do join to serve the ones who haven't done it yet
Walt Evans
NX140DL
"No one ever learned anything by talking"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Been sitting on the sidelines and agree with most of what is said, both pro and
con EAA (I don't have to be consistant.) Two of three EAA chapters that I have
been around did what you describe below, Every meeting someone gets up and discusses
what they have been building, demonstrates a skill such as cutting foam
with a hotwire or reviewing how to do a new weight and balance chart for your
airplane. It is often as informal as everyone going over to someone's hanger
and asking questions. The third EAA chapter was more of a social club but those
who were building got togather and "networked" Pleasant experiences all three
times.
One big thing for me. "Don't ever ask me to sell hotdogs! if you need $20 I will
give it but don't assume I want to work really hard for just a little money!"
Blue Skies,
Steve Dortch
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 15:26
Subject: Pietenpol-List: EAA opinion
> Just wanted to give my opinion on the EAA descussion.
> Even though I'd tried to join the EAA a few years ago, and it was
> a joke. (The whole meeting was about who didn't bring enough beer
> at the last picnic. and who need to put in more time at the next
> raffle. Nothing about building planes).
>
> I think that it's obvious that everyone is waiting for someone to
> amaze them with a lecture on some aspect of airplane building.
> Like there is some great plan by someone to put on shows for the
> builders.NO,,,,I think that anyone who is half way through a
> building project is qualified to give their own presentation at an
> EAA meeting.
> I wish that I had the gift of Gab, and could share what I know
> properly, to the newcommers. But I don't.
> People who are halfway to completion ,,or less,,could greatly
> contribute to the new guy who just got his plans. On stuff
> like,,,how to cut a good wood joint, glueing, setting up a
> shop, Or making a rib jig.
>
> Don't join the EAA to BE served,,,
> Do join to serve the ones who haven't done it yet
>
> Walt Evans
> NX140DL
> "No one ever learned anything by talking"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EAA Opinions |
If the EAA was serious about understanding what the actual homebuilders are
thinking, they'd lurk in the various internet based forums like ours. I
know Knapinski lurks in the yahoo based canard-pusher group because he
occasionally has a comment posted, after that group (about 650 members, with
30-50 active posters to the website) starts a bitching session about the
EAA's do nothing attitude. Every forum group I attend has bitch sessions,
we in the Piete group ain't alone in this. Someone in the EAA may actually
lurk with many forum groups but yet don't seem to give a crap, what actual
homebuilders think or write. Fact is--- Air Venture is their only reason
being and this annual Oshcash project benefits only the commerical
businesses that make money from all aviator/builders and the tourism of the
great State of Wisconsin (love the cheese and Packers). They make very
little money running workshops for actual builders, so you can
fergitaboutit. The forum tents are non-money makers. Think about it, if
the new EAA was really serious about supporting the building and designing,
they'd be the computer web node for all things homebuilt aviation, they
don't host any free forums. They'd host on their computers this and other
forums, they'd have a research data bank with all tricks, techniques and
details developed by homebuilders for building planes, but they don't. What
would it cost them to web host and sort data banks of the last 40 years of
homebuilt aviation's innovations? The reason they don't do it is because
they're in the tourism business, webhosting wouldn't make them a penny.
Dick K. if you're lurking out there somewhere, you can contact me if you're
really interested in why old members like me have not contributed to the EAA
coffers for many years. I'm one of those foolish guys 20 years ago who did
the free composites workshop and spoke at the forum tents multiple times,
but no more. Guys like Paul P, Wittman, etc. are no more, so the EAA is
just another way of sucking money and waste time of homebuilders. Want guys
like me back? Come back to the EAA's roots and quit cowtowing to the big
aviation interest. Dick (if you're lurkin'), when is the last time any one
of you guys in Oshcash actually built or designed a simple low cost
homebuilt and put it in the public domain?
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: EAA Opinions
>
>
> After reading through the "Value of EAA" topic I decided to email the EAA
> and give them some of my ideas since I'm not alone and not necessarily
> negative on the EAA. I presented many of the ideas that were discussed in
> this thread and some thoughts on how to bring people with frustrations
> like mine back into the EAA fold. Some of the ideas I presented included
> expanding the EAA workshop tours to include more stops (none in the
> Northeast right now), AirVenture builders workshops could be expanded to
> include something more than a beginner's welcome adding some advanced
> subjects like tooling, constructing jigs and tools, and producing books
> that have plans for such that EAA could offer as some new material.
> Overall, just something to make the homebuilders who feel they are "the
> original EAA" to feel less displaced. I had a phone conversation with the
> Media and Public Affairs representative, Dick Knapinski, and he encouraged
> me to provide more feedback and seemed to apprecia!
> te that I came to him with some suggestions rather than complaints. Of
> course, change remains to be seen, and it will take time, but I got a
> general sense that my input would be reviewed and that they were
> interested in hearing public outcry for things. If anyone is inclined to
> do the same you should email him at dknapinski(at)eaa.org. Worst case
> scenario if you continue to feel disenfrancised by the EAA it will be
> through no fault of your own. Time will tell.
>
> --------
> Glenn Thomas
> N?????
> http://www.flyingwood.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131839#131839
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn W. Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
I emailed a different chapter in CT and mentioned my project and this
particular chapter has a bunch of Taylorcraft projects and some Piet
enthusiasts in it so my opinion of local chapters may change after my
first visit.
I understand the importance of sharing info and not just waiting to be fed
and complaining if you didn't get enough to eat. A specific reference I
can make is a tool I spotted at Brodhead this summer and Oshkosh where
they are both building Bleriots. This tool allows you to fit a shaping
template to either end of a piece of wood and rotate the wood while
pushing it into an oscillating drum sander to achieve the profile of the
template. I thought this tool was incredibly cool and plan to build one
to make my LG legs. I asked if the gentleman building the Bleriot would
mind giving me a demo and he said come by tomorrow and he would. By the
time he was done setting it up and getting ready to start there was a ring
of about 20 people, just like me, anxious to see this thing work. So, my
point is it doesn't matter if I gave the demo or just watched, if multiple
people learned and got excited the demo was worth it. My existing chapter
is not like that. There are tons of ideas folks have that you see and
think "I should have thought of that!". ...which is what I like about
going to Brodhead and meeting with other builders in my area.
The intent of the initial post was for others who have ideas for things
that would make EAA less disenfranchising, send them feedback. It can't
hurt. I spoke with Dick Knapinski for 30 minutes and he seemed to
understand my concerns and be willing to turn them into some type of
action. I know there are others out there that are much more articulate
than I and know a heck of a lot more about aviation than I do too.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Control Cables |
Scott
You have to look carefully to see the fibers. Unwind a inch or so of
cable you will see them if they are there.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Schreiber
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
I have seen he same cable at hardware stores and it is called aircraft
cable, it is also labled with a warning not to be used for aircraft. I
didn't know about the red fiber test. Is that on all aircraft cable or
just some? I have never seen it while cutting the cable I have from
wicks.
-scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
If it is real aircraft control cable there is no difference. The
sure way to tell is closely looking inside the strands of wire. There
should be thin strands of red fibers in the cable. It is there to tell
you if the cable has been over stressed. If it has the fibers break and
stick out of the windings. ( little red flags)
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hall
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Hello everyone,
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable" that I
can buy locally and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by aircraft
parts suppliers? Both cables appear identical including similarity in
price. Any thoughts appreciated.
Terry Hall
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP" <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
Glenn,
A true Picasso........
Sincerely,
Leonardo
"Glenn W. Thomas" wrote:
Rick makes an excellent point. For example I was in a 2 hour marathon
meeting yesterday and the topic was how our lab data would be delivered
from an outside company through HL7 messaging. I was seen busily
gathering all the perinent information and left the meeting with the
attached notes. The Piet must have saved me from dozing off at LEAST once
and made me quite a "productive" employee.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: spinning the Piet |
There was considerable discussion about spinning the Pietenpol a few years
back. I remember contributing a story about a friend's "hairy" experience
while spinning his Pietenpol, but won't include it now because it should be
in the archives.
Spinning any airplane that doesn't conform to a type specification, and has
unknown spin characteristics, could be dangerous. Individual Pietenpols tend
to differ in configuration, rigging, and weight distribution. Even if one
Pietenpol displays normal spinning (and recovery) behavior, this is no
guarantee that another Pietenpol will do the same.
Check the list archives regarding this thread---and be careful!
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | EAA, Homebuilts and Experimentals |
According to EAA's Earl Lawrence experimentals will not be covered in a
new
ADS-B equipage plan as part of the NexGen air traffic control. While
most of
us don't care about this the FAA does and will keep us out of A,B,C
airspace
without it.
Has anyone heard of equipage plans that require aircraft owners paying
for
10 percent, and the State or Feds paying 90 percent? This is scookum
high
tech equipment and we will all be required to use in about five years,
so
heads up!
RS
P.S. The award to start implementation was awarded Thursday:
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=9452
Rob Stapleton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EAA, Homebuilts and Experimentals |
Rob,
Just received a msg from AOPA and they state it won't happen until 2020.
Also hind sight should tell us something about projects by the FAA.
Their always so screwed up their never on time and never end up as they
were planned.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Stapleton, Jr.
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:44 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: EAA, Homebuilts and Experimentals
According to EAA's Earl Lawrence experimentals will not be covered in
a new ADS-B equipage plan as part of the NexGen air traffic control.
While most of us don't care about this the FAA does and will keep us out
of A,B,C airspace without it.
Has anyone heard of equipage plans that require aircraft owners paying
for 10 percent, and the State or Feds paying 90 percent? This is scookum
high tech equipment and we will all be required to use in about five
years, so heads up!
RS
P.S. The award to start implementation was awarded Thursday:
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=9452
Rob Stapleton
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
8/29/2007 8:21 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: spinning the Piet |
Great posting Graham! You may just have saved a butt or two by reminding
everyone that each and every Piet is different.
Thank you
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "baileys" <baileys(at)ktis.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Control Cables |
I'll stick my two cents in here. First I know very little about the
engineering of steel cables, but I did work for a company that made
cables of every possible type. Cable for off shore oil rigs to very
light weight flexible stuff.
They did make a cable that they had once sold as aircraft cable, but
they no longer call it that. They decided that it was just not worth
the risk of lawsuits. Now it is sold mostly in the ag market. I say
this for information purposes only I am not implying that one should run
out and buy uncertified cable.
Back to lurk mode
Bob B.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Scott
You have to look carefully to see the fibers. Unwind a inch or so of
cable you will see them if they are there.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Schreiber
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
I have seen he same cable at hardware stores and it is called
aircraft cable, it is also labled with a warning not to be used for
aircraft. I didn't know about the red fiber test. Is that on all
aircraft cable or just some? I have never seen it while cutting the
cable I have from wicks.
-scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
If it is real aircraft control cable there is no difference. The
sure way to tell is closely looking inside the strands of wire. There
should be thin strands of red fibers in the cable. It is there to tell
you if the cable has been over stressed. If it has the fibers break and
stick out of the windings. ( little red flags)
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hall
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Hello everyone,
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable" that
I can buy locally and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by aircraft
parts suppliers? Both cables appear identical including similarity in
price. Any thoughts appreciated.
Terry Hall
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Hall" <adaairport(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Control Cables |
Thanks for all the inputs on control cables. They have been extremely
helpful. Terry Hall
----- Original Message -----
From: baileys
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
I'll stick my two cents in here. First I know very little about the
engineering of steel cables, but I did work for a company that made
cables of every possible type. Cable for off shore oil rigs to very
light weight flexible stuff.
They did make a cable that they had once sold as aircraft cable, but
they no longer call it that. They decided that it was just not worth
the risk of lawsuits. Now it is sold mostly in the ag market. I say
this for information purposes only I am not implying that one should run
out and buy uncertified cable.
Back to lurk mode
Bob B.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Scott
You have to look carefully to see the fibers. Unwind a inch or so
of cable you will see them if they are there.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Schreiber
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
I have seen he same cable at hardware stores and it is called
aircraft cable, it is also labled with a warning not to be used for
aircraft. I didn't know about the red fiber test. Is that on all
aircraft cable or just some? I have never seen it while cutting the
cable I have from wicks.
-scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
If it is real aircraft control cable there is no difference.
The sure way to tell is closely looking inside the strands of wire.
There should be thin strands of red fibers in the cable. It is there to
tell you if the cable has been over stressed. If it has the fibers
break and stick out of the windings. ( little red flags)
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hall
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Control Cables
Hello everyone,
What is the difference between the "aircraft control cable"
that I can buy locally and the "aircraft control cable" for sale by
aircraft parts suppliers? Both cables appear identical including
similarity in price. Any thoughts appreciated.
Terry Hall
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: spinning the Piet - Pat Green Rudder |
I have talked with Pat Green, as well. He made his rudder and VStab 10 inches
taller than plans. The difference would not appear unusual to the casual observer,
but it certainly might to many Piet enthusiasts. William Wynne admired
the adaptation.
Pat's test pilot was 6 foot 5 inches tall, and while he had a parachute, he was
too much wedged in the cockpit to get out, so he had to fly it to correct it.
As I recall, he used up 2000' of altitude in multiple attempts at recovery.
Lots of sweat that day. The taller rudder was added later, as Ben says.
There may have been a CG issue, too, for Pat is not only far shorter, but likely
lighter than his test pilot. Pat added the height not only for his own peace
of mind, but also to gain more rudder authority in his own landings.
BTW, Pat is a great guy.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Aug 30, 2007 10:08 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
>
>
> Pat Green in Jacksonville told me story story about spinning the
>Piet. This guy has a Piet with a BP conversion Corvair with belt driven
>fan. He was commenting that his Piet with a rudder built to the plans
>tended to loose rudder authority on the flair, especially with a tall
>pilot. Anyway a friend of his strapped on a chute and took it up high
>and put it into a spin. Pat was on the ground watching this, and he was
>yelling Jump out!, Jump out! because it got pretty close to the ground
>before the pilot recovered. Later on Pat had a small accident that
>ended up with the Piet on its back and he had to rebuild the rudder. He
>made it a little bit taller. After talking to him I added 3 or 4 inches
>to my rudder when I built it. I'm extending my motormount 4 inches, so
>the extra rudder authority won't hurt. Getting in and out of a Piet
>that was spinning while wearing a parachute wouldn't be easy. Here is a
>link to a picture of Pat's Piet. (He is over 70 years old and has been
>flying this since the 70's)
>
>Ben Charvet
>http://flycorvair.com/green.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | Sky Scout and GN-1 wings |
I asked about a week ago if anyone knew of any other Sky Scouts built with GN-1
wings and I have not had any responses. That might mean that there are none
with the GN-1 wings, there are very few Sky Scouts, or I am asking in the wrong
place.
Are there any other Sky Scout builders or owners on this list? Can anyone refer
me to other good Sky Scout resources?
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sky Scout and GN-1 wings |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I may be wrong here but I believe the gn-1 wing is actually a J3 wing if
I'm not mistaken and this may help some to realize what they have or
don't have.I know the wings on my gn-1 Piet are J3's.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Kraut
Sent: August 31, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
I asked about a week ago if anyone knew of any other Sky Scouts built
with GN-1 wings and I have not had any responses. That might mean that
there are none with the GN-1 wings, there are very few Sky Scouts, or I
am asking in the wrong place.
Are there any other Sky Scout builders or owners on this list? Can
anyone refer me to other good Sky Scout resources?
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings |
| From: | "Glenn W. Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
Hi,
Dennis Hall has a pretty well-known Sky Scout. Don't think he's on the
list but if you contact someone at BPA
(http://www.pietenpols.org/id2.html) and told them you were trying to
reach him they might belp. His Sky Scout is hangared at Brodhead.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <dj(at)veghdesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings |
nope. originally Grega did put on J3 wings but that was way back in the
early days. The "normal" GN-1 has the same FC-10 profile as the Piet with
the exception of a slightly more blunt LE
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
> I may be wrong here but I believe the gn-1 wing is actually a J3 wing if
> I'm not mistaken and this may help some to realize what they have or
> don't have.I know the wings on my gn-1 Piet are J3's.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
> Kraut
> Sent: August 31, 2007 10:57 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
>
>
> I asked about a week ago if anyone knew of any other Sky Scouts built
> with GN-1 wings and I have not had any responses. That might mean that
> there are none with the GN-1 wings, there are very few Sky Scouts, or I
> am asking in the wrong place.
>
> Are there any other Sky Scout builders or owners on this list? Can
> anyone refer me to other good Sky Scout resources?
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Hall" <adaairport(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings |
Brian,
I am a Sky Scout builder in OK. I will be happy to answer questions. Terry
Hall
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
> I may be wrong here but I believe the gn-1 wing is actually a J3 wing if
> I'm not mistaken and this may help some to realize what they have or
> don't have.I know the wings on my gn-1 Piet are J3's.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
> Kraut
> Sent: August 31, 2007 10:57 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
>
>
> I asked about a week ago if anyone knew of any other Sky Scouts built
> with GN-1 wings and I have not had any responses. That might mean that
> there are none with the GN-1 wings, there are very few Sky Scouts, or I
> am asking in the wrong place.
>
> Are there any other Sky Scout builders or owners on this list? Can
> anyone refer me to other good Sky Scout resources?
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Sky Scout and GN-1 wings-- GN-1 foils |
Wings on GN-1s come in at least two variants:
-- actual J3 wings as removed from a J-3;
-- a "Grega" airfoil, has EXACTLY a Piet FC10 airfoil lower surface, but the shape
of a Cub upper wing surface.
This upper airfoil for the J-3 is either a Clark Y or USA35B-- I don't recall which.
(I know where to look on my other PC.)
I do know that I have laid my Piet ribs over a full-scale Grega drawing. The difference
in a side-by-side comparison with the Piet foil is that the Grega has
a more bulbuous nose for the first 20 percent of the chord length. That is,
it is more rounded on the front, and rises faster on the Y-axis sooner. A Clark
Y template (given me) comes very close to the shape of the Grega drawing's
upper wing.
This allegedly leads to more gentle stalls, resulting in smoother landing flares.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
>Sent: Aug 31, 2007 10:08 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
>
>I may be wrong here but I believe the gn-1 wing is actually a J3 wing if
>I'm not mistaken and this may help some to realize what they have or
>don't have.I know the wings on my gn-1 Piet are J3's.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
>Kraut
>Sent: August 31, 2007 10:57 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
>
>
>I asked about a week ago if anyone knew of any other Sky Scouts built
>with GN-1 wings and I have not had any responses. That might mean that
>there are none with the GN-1 wings, there are very few Sky Scouts, or I
>am asking in the wrong place.
>
>Are there any other Sky Scout builders or owners on this list? Can
>anyone refer me to other good Sky Scout resources?
>
>Brian Kraut
>Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
>www.engalt.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | Sky Scout and GN-1 wings-- GN-1 foils |
According to the Grega web site the difference is the GN-1 has the blunter leading
edge to improve stall characteristics. The spar locations were also changed
a little. I believe that they are a little closer together to make them a
little taller and stronger.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim
Willis
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings-- GN-1 foils
Wings on GN-1s come in at least two variants:
-- actual J3 wings as removed from a J-3;
-- a "Grega" airfoil, has EXACTLY a Piet FC10 airfoil lower surface, but the shape
of a Cub upper wing surface.
This upper airfoil for the J-3 is either a Clark Y or USA35B-- I don't recall which.
(I know where to look on my other PC.)
I do know that I have laid my Piet ribs over a full-scale Grega drawing. The difference
in a side-by-side comparison with the Piet foil is that the Grega has
a more bulbuous nose for the first 20 percent of the chord length. That is,
it is more rounded on the front, and rises faster on the Y-axis sooner. A Clark
Y template (given me) comes very close to the shape of the Grega drawing's
upper wing.
This allegedly leads to more gentle stalls, resulting in smoother landing flares.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
>Sent: Aug 31, 2007 10:08 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
>
>I may be wrong here but I believe the gn-1 wing is actually a J3 wing if
>I'm not mistaken and this may help some to realize what they have or
>don't have.I know the wings on my gn-1 Piet are J3's.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
>Kraut
>Sent: August 31, 2007 10:57 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
>
>
>I asked about a week ago if anyone knew of any other Sky Scouts built
>with GN-1 wings and I have not had any responses. That might mean that
>there are none with the GN-1 wings, there are very few Sky Scouts, or I
>am asking in the wrong place.
>
>Are there any other Sky Scout builders or owners on this list? Can
>anyone refer me to other good Sky Scout resources?
>
>Brian Kraut
>Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
>www.engalt.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
Tim, Our Piet is based in Centerburg Ohio,(30 miles north of columbus, chapman
is on the detroit sectional) about 1.5 hrs from springfield. I live on Chapman
Memorial Airport, and with prior notice you are welcome to fly in or drive to
check out the fit of the cockpit.
Shad
NX92GB
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sky Scout and GN-1 wings |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
My plane was started back in 1977 so that's probably why I have the J3
wings.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DJ Vegh
Sent: August 31, 2007 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
nope. originally Grega did put on J3 wings but that was way back in
the
early days. The "normal" GN-1 has the same FC-10 profile as the Piet
with
the exception of a slightly more blunt LE
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
> I may be wrong here but I believe the gn-1 wing is actually a J3 wing
if
> I'm not mistaken and this may help some to realize what they have or
> don't have.I know the wings on my gn-1 Piet are J3's.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
> Kraut
> Sent: August 31, 2007 10:57 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout and GN-1 wings
>
>
>
> I asked about a week ago if anyone knew of any other Sky Scouts built
> with GN-1 wings and I have not had any responses. That might mean
that
> there are none with the GN-1 wings, there are very few Sky Scouts, or
I
> am asking in the wrong place.
>
> Are there any other Sky Scout builders or owners on this list? Can
> anyone refer me to other good Sky Scout resources?
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | spinning the Piet |
Would you have any contact for Pat? I am also in Jacksonville and I was not
aware of any other Piets here.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ben
Charvet
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
Pat Green in Jacksonville told me story story about spinning the
Piet. This guy has a Piet with a BP conversion Corvair with belt driven
fan. He was commenting that his Piet with a rudder built to the plans
tended to loose rudder authority on the flair, especially with a tall
pilot. Anyway a friend of his strapped on a chute and took it up high
and put it into a spin. Pat was on the ground watching this, and he was
yelling Jump out!, Jump out! because it got pretty close to the ground
before the pilot recovered. Later on Pat had a small accident that
ended up with the Piet on its back and he had to rebuild the rudder. He
made it a little bit taller. After talking to him I added 3 or 4 inches
to my rudder when I built it. I'm extending my motormount 4 inches, so
the extra rudder authority won't hurt. Getting in and out of a Piet
that was spinning while wearing a parachute wouldn't be easy. Here is a
link to a picture of Pat's Piet. (He is over 70 years old and has been
flying this since the 70's)
Ben Charvet
http://flycorvair.com/green.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: spinning the Piet |
Brian,
My quasi-Piete (Aeronca wings) is at Kay Larken Airport in Palatka, about
45 min. down US17 from Naval Air Station JAX. Want to see it, let me know,
I'll put you in contact with my builder buddies who are at the airport most
days. No spins expected or planned, save them for the rated storebought
spam cans or Pitts.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
>
>
> Would you have any contact for Pat? I am also in Jacksonville and I was
> not
> aware of any other Piets here.
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ben
> Charvet
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:09 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
>
>
> Pat Green in Jacksonville told me story story about spinning the
> Piet. This guy has a Piet with a BP conversion Corvair with belt driven
> fan. He was commenting that his Piet with a rudder built to the plans
> tended to loose rudder authority on the flair, especially with a tall
> pilot. Anyway a friend of his strapped on a chute and took it up high
> and put it into a spin. Pat was on the ground watching this, and he was
> yelling Jump out!, Jump out! because it got pretty close to the ground
> before the pilot recovered. Later on Pat had a small accident that
> ended up with the Piet on its back and he had to rebuild the rudder. He
> made it a little bit taller. After talking to him I added 3 or 4 inches
> to my rudder when I built it. I'm extending my motormount 4 inches, so
> the extra rudder authority won't hurt. Getting in and out of a Piet
> that was spinning while wearing a parachute wouldn't be easy. Here is a
> link to a picture of Pat's Piet. (He is over 70 years old and has been
> flying this since the 70's)
>
> Ben Charvet
> http://flycorvair.com/green.html
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | spinning the Piet - Pat Green Rudder |
This is good info...I wonder who the test pilot was I would like to contact
him. How do I get a hold of Pat?
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet - Pat Green Rudder
I have talked with Pat Green, as well. He made his rudder and VStab 10
inches taller than plans. The difference would not appear unusual to the
casual observer, but it certainly might to many Piet enthusiasts. William
Wynne admired the adaptation.
Pat's test pilot was 6 foot 5 inches tall, and while he had a parachute, he
was too much wedged in the cockpit to get out, so he had to fly it to
correct it. As I recall, he used up 2000' of altitude in multiple attempts
at recovery. Lots of sweat that day. The taller rudder was added later, as
Ben says.
There may have been a CG issue, too, for Pat is not only far shorter, but
likely lighter than his test pilot. Pat added the height not only for his
own peace of mind, but also to gain more rudder authority in his own
landings.
BTW, Pat is a great guy.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Aug 30, 2007 10:08 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
>
>
> Pat Green in Jacksonville told me story story about spinning the
>Piet. This guy has a Piet with a BP conversion Corvair with belt driven
>fan. He was commenting that his Piet with a rudder built to the plans
>tended to loose rudder authority on the flair, especially with a tall
>pilot. Anyway a friend of his strapped on a chute and took it up high
>and put it into a spin. Pat was on the ground watching this, and he was
>yelling Jump out!, Jump out! because it got pretty close to the ground
>before the pilot recovered. Later on Pat had a small accident that
>ended up with the Piet on its back and he had to rebuild the rudder. He
>made it a little bit taller. After talking to him I added 3 or 4 inches
>to my rudder when I built it. I'm extending my motormount 4 inches, so
>the extra rudder authority won't hurt. Getting in and out of a Piet
>that was spinning while wearing a parachute wouldn't be easy. Here is a
>link to a picture of Pat's Piet. (He is over 70 years old and has been
>flying this since the 70's)
>
>Ben Charvet
>http://flycorvair.com/green.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rpound" <rpound(at)wk.net> |
| Subject: | Another Pesky "Newbie" |
Hi guys, I am new to this list also but I love the look of the Piet, the
slow mo. the high viz, low cost (relatively speaking) the old look and
the
build it your selfishness of the Piet. I am a first time builder-to-be
soon
I hope and I really like what I see in the Aircamper. I was somewhat
puzzled and dismayed though when I saw one advertised on E-Bay that said
the
empty weight was ~775 lbs. I understand that the max. gross is ~1060
lbs.
leaving according to my calculations ~285 of useful. With my
non-standard
weight of 245 lbs. there doesn't seem to be much leeway for fuel and
passengers. I do understand that the empty weight is a function of the
manner in which the aircraft is built, the accessories added, electrics
(or
not) picnic basket weight etc. but I would appreciate if you folks
could
give me some idea of the "Typical" empty, useful weights of your real
world
machines. You might also include some idea of the accessories or lack
thereof included on your machines.
I would like to get some idea of whether I need to stop the drooling and
look elsewhere or tell the missus that she is going to have to go on a
"Crash" diet to get down to the 40 lb. passenger weight limit. I will
do my
part to lose the eight pounds or so for the gallon of fuel to feed the
hungry hoard under the cowling at least for a quick turn around the
pasture
and dead stick 'er in hoping the ole bull doesn't see Piet as
competition
for his harem at touchdown.
Anyway I do thank you in advance for the info or a "steer" in the right
direction.
Thanks,
Rusted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pietn38b(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Another Pesky "Newbie" |
Rusted
My Piet uses a corvair engine with a minimal electric sys. for the ignition.
My empty weight came in at 625 lbs. and it shows a gross on the data plate
of 1200 lbs. It has been flown at that weight several times. Just watch the
"extras" or adding a little more bracing here and there and you can build a
good light airplane. I have had more fun with the Piet, both building and
flying , than any other airplane I have owned.
Have fun Jim Ballew
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Pesky |
My understanding is that the tube & fabric fuselage can save you a lot of weight
(as compared to wood).
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: rpound <rpound(at)wk.net>
>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 12:49 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky "Newbie"
>
>Hi guys, I am new to this list also but I love the look of the Piet, the
>slow mo. the high viz, low cost (relatively speaking) the old look and the
>build it your selfishness of the Piet. I am a first time builder-to-be soon
>I hope and I really like what I see in the Aircamper. I was somewhat
>puzzled and dismayed though when I saw one advertised on E-Bay that said the
>empty weight was ~775 lbs. I understand that the max. gross is ~1060 lbs.
>leaving according to my calculations ~285 of useful. With my non-standard
>weight of 245 lbs. there doesn't seem to be much leeway for fuel and
>passengers. I do understand that the empty weight is a function of the
>manner in which the aircraft is built, the accessories added, electrics (or
>not) picnic basket weight etc. but I would appreciate if you folks could
>give me some idea of the "Typical" empty, useful weights of your real world
>machines. You might also include some idea of the accessories or lack
>thereof included on your machines.
>
>
>
>I would like to get some idea of whether I need to stop the drooling and
>look elsewhere or tell the missus that she is going to have to go on a
>"Crash" diet to get down to the 40 lb. passenger weight limit. I will do my
>part to lose the eight pounds or so for the gallon of fuel to feed the
>hungry hoard under the cowling at least for a quick turn around the pasture
>and dead stick 'er in hoping the ole bull doesn't see Piet as competition
>for his harem at touchdown.
>
>
>
>Anyway I do thank you in advance for the info or a "steer" in the right
>direction.
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rusted
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Pesky |
775 is heavy for a Piet, many have been built around or a little under 600.
Don't have to go with a steel fuselage to get that low either (but it does
save a little weight). And many people have widened our fuselages and
leaned our seat backs back a little to accommodate us bigger builders.
Rick
On 9/1/07, Jim Ash wrote:
>
>
> My understanding is that the tube & fabric fuselage can save you a lot of
> weight (as compared to wood).
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: rpound <rpound(at)wk.net>
> >Sent: Sep 1, 2007 12:49 AM
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky "Newbie"
> >
> >Hi guys, I am new to this list also but I love the look of the Piet, the
> >slow mo. the high viz, low cost (relatively speaking) the old look and
> the
> >build it your selfishness of the Piet. I am a first time builder-to-be
> soon
> >I hope and I really like what I see in the Aircamper. I was somewhat
> >puzzled and dismayed though when I saw one advertised on E-Bay that said
> the
> >empty weight was ~775 lbs. I understand that the max. gross is ~1060
> lbs.
> >leaving according to my calculations ~285 of useful. With my
> non-standard
> >weight of 245 lbs. there doesn't seem to be much leeway for fuel and
> >passengers. I do understand that the empty weight is a function of the
> >manner in which the aircraft is built, the accessories added, electrics
> (or
> >not) picnic basket weight etc. but I would appreciate if you folks could
> >give me some idea of the "Typical" empty, useful weights of your real
> world
> >machines. You might also include some idea of the accessories or lack
> >thereof included on your machines.
> >
> >
> >
> >I would like to get some idea of whether I need to stop the drooling and
> >look elsewhere or tell the missus that she is going to have to go on a
> >"Crash" diet to get down to the 40 lb. passenger weight limit. I will do
> my
> >part to lose the eight pounds or so for the gallon of fuel to feed the
> >hungry hoard under the cowling at least for a quick turn around the
> pasture
> >and dead stick 'er in hoping the ole bull doesn't see Piet as competition
> >for his harem at touchdown.
> >
> >
> >
> >Anyway I do thank you in advance for the info or a "steer" in the right
> >direction.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Rusted
> >
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Pesky |
I meant to ask how tall Rusted is. At that weight, depending on his answer, either
lengthening (and/or seat re-positioning) or widening might be in order.
When I bought my Cub, I told my wife she'd have to lose some weight, for the exact
same reasons you mentioned. It didn't score me any points, and she still remembers
it, 14 years later.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 10:16 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky
>
>775 is heavy for a Piet, many have been built around or a little under 600.
>Don't have to go with a steel fuselage to get that low either (but it does
>save a little weight). And many people have widened our fuselages and
>leaned our seat backs back a little to accommodate us bigger builders.
>
>Rick
>
>On 9/1/07, Jim Ash wrote:
>>
>>
>> My understanding is that the tube & fabric fuselage can save you a lot of
>> weight (as compared to wood).
>>
>> Jim Ash
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: rpound <rpound(at)wk.net>
>> >Sent: Sep 1, 2007 12:49 AM
>> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky "Newbie"
>> >
>> >Hi guys, I am new to this list also but I love the look of the Piet, the
>> >slow mo. the high viz, low cost (relatively speaking) the old look and
>> the
>> >build it your selfishness of the Piet. I am a first time builder-to-be
>> soon
>> >I hope and I really like what I see in the Aircamper. I was somewhat
>> >puzzled and dismayed though when I saw one advertised on E-Bay that said
>> the
>> >empty weight was ~775 lbs. I understand that the max. gross is ~1060
>> lbs.
>> >leaving according to my calculations ~285 of useful. With my
>> non-standard
>> >weight of 245 lbs. there doesn't seem to be much leeway for fuel and
>> >passengers. I do understand that the empty weight is a function of the
>> >manner in which the aircraft is built, the accessories added, electrics
>> (or
>> >not) picnic basket weight etc. but I would appreciate if you folks could
>> >give me some idea of the "Typical" empty, useful weights of your real
>> world
>> >machines. You might also include some idea of the accessories or lack
>> >thereof included on your machines.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I would like to get some idea of whether I need to stop the drooling and
>> >look elsewhere or tell the missus that she is going to have to go on a
>> >"Crash" diet to get down to the 40 lb. passenger weight limit. I will do
>> my
>> >part to lose the eight pounds or so for the gallon of fuel to feed the
>> >hungry hoard under the cowling at least for a quick turn around the
>> pasture
>> >and dead stick 'er in hoping the ole bull doesn't see Piet as competition
>> >for his harem at touchdown.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Anyway I do thank you in advance for the info or a "steer" in the right
>> >direction.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >Rusted
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Rick Holland
>ObjectAge Ltd.
>Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Pesky |
Yes, may have been better to have bought a bigger aircraft than to have
incurred the wife's wrath for 14 years. (Or to have just built a widened
fuselage Piet).
Rick
On 9/1/07, Jim Ash wrote:
>
>
> I meant to ask how tall Rusted is. At that weight, depending on his
> answer, either lengthening (and/or seat re-positioning) or widening might be
> in order.
>
> When I bought my Cub, I told my wife she'd have to lose some weight, for
> the exact same reasons you mentioned. It didn't score me any points, and she
> still remembers it, 14 years later.
>
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
> >Sent: Sep 1, 2007 10:16 AM
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky
> >
> >775 is heavy for a Piet, many have been built around or a little under
> 600.
> >Don't have to go with a steel fuselage to get that low either (but it
> does
> >save a little weight). And many people have widened our fuselages and
> >leaned our seat backs back a little to accommodate us bigger builders.
> >
> >Rick
> >
> >On 9/1/07, Jim Ash wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> My understanding is that the tube & fabric fuselage can save you a lot
> of
> >> weight (as compared to wood).
> >>
> >> Jim Ash
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >From: rpound <rpound(at)wk.net>
> >> >Sent: Sep 1, 2007 12:49 AM
> >> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky "Newbie"
> >> >
> >> >Hi guys, I am new to this list also but I love the look of the Piet,
> the
> >> >slow mo. the high viz, low cost (relatively speaking) the old look and
> >> the
> >> >build it your selfishness of the Piet. I am a first time
> builder-to-be
> >> soon
> >> >I hope and I really like what I see in the Aircamper. I was somewhat
> >> >puzzled and dismayed though when I saw one advertised on E-Bay that
> said
> >> the
> >> >empty weight was ~775 lbs. I understand that the max. gross is ~1060
> >> lbs.
> >> >leaving according to my calculations ~285 of useful. With my
> >> non-standard
> >> >weight of 245 lbs. there doesn't seem to be much leeway for fuel and
> >> >passengers. I do understand that the empty weight is a function of
> the
> >> >manner in which the aircraft is built, the accessories added,
> electrics
> >> (or
> >> >not) picnic basket weight etc. but I would appreciate if you folks
> could
> >> >give me some idea of the "Typical" empty, useful weights of your real
> >> world
> >> >machines. You might also include some idea of the accessories or lack
> >> >thereof included on your machines.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I would like to get some idea of whether I need to stop the drooling
> and
> >> >look elsewhere or tell the missus that she is going to have to go on a
> >> >"Crash" diet to get down to the 40 lb. passenger weight limit. I will
> do
> >> my
> >> >part to lose the eight pounds or so for the gallon of fuel to feed the
> >> >hungry hoard under the cowling at least for a quick turn around the
> >> pasture
> >> >and dead stick 'er in hoping the ole bull doesn't see Piet as
> competition
> >> >for his harem at touchdown.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Anyway I do thank you in advance for the info or a "steer" in the
> right
> >> >direction.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >
> >> >Rusted
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Rick Holland
> >ObjectAge Ltd.
> >Castle Rock, Colorado
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roman Bukolt" <conceptmodels(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Pesky |
As in the words to that song, "It Ain't Necessarily So!".
I have a nicely built tube and fabric Piet with a Cont. A-65 engine in it
and its barebones empty wt. is 703 lb.
Roman Bukolt NX20795
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ash" <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky
>
> My understanding is that the tube & fabric fuselage can save you a lot of
> weight (as compared to wood).
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: rpound <rpound(at)wk.net>
>>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 12:49 AM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky "Newbie"
>>
>>Hi guys, I am new to this list also but I love the look of the Piet, the
>>slow mo. the high viz, low cost (relatively speaking) the old look and the
>>build it your selfishness of the Piet. I am a first time builder-to-be
>>soon
>>I hope and I really like what I see in the Aircamper. I was somewhat
>>puzzled and dismayed though when I saw one advertised on E-Bay that said
>>the
>>empty weight was ~775 lbs. I understand that the max. gross is ~1060 lbs.
>>leaving according to my calculations ~285 of useful. With my non-standard
>>weight of 245 lbs. there doesn't seem to be much leeway for fuel and
>>passengers. I do understand that the empty weight is a function of the
>>manner in which the aircraft is built, the accessories added, electrics
>>(or
>>not) picnic basket weight etc. but I would appreciate if you folks could
>>give me some idea of the "Typical" empty, useful weights of your real
>>world
>>machines. You might also include some idea of the accessories or lack
>>thereof included on your machines.
>>
>>
>>
>>I would like to get some idea of whether I need to stop the drooling and
>>look elsewhere or tell the missus that she is going to have to go on a
>>"Crash" diet to get down to the 40 lb. passenger weight limit. I will do
>>my
>>part to lose the eight pounds or so for the gallon of fuel to feed the
>>hungry hoard under the cowling at least for a quick turn around the
>>pasture
>>and dead stick 'er in hoping the ole bull doesn't see Piet as competition
>>for his harem at touchdown.
>>
>>
>>
>>Anyway I do thank you in advance for the info or a "steer" in the right
>>direction.
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Rusted
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Pesky |
I was wondering about that. My nicley built stick and fabric Piet with a
cont. A-65 engine, barebones weighs 669 on certified scales. I orignally
weighed it on bathroom scales and it weighed a lot more. A good reason to
find a set of certified scales (check with any car club or racing club).
Gene----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Bukolt" <conceptmodels(at)tds.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky
>
>
> As in the words to that song, "It Ain't Necessarily So!".
> I have a nicely built tube and fabric Piet with a Cont. A-65 engine in it
> and its barebones empty wt. is 703 lb.
> Roman Bukolt NX20795
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Ash" <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky
>
>
>>
>> My understanding is that the tube & fabric fuselage can save you a lot of
>> weight (as compared to wood).
>>
>> Jim Ash
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: rpound <rpound(at)wk.net>
>>>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 12:49 AM
>>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Pesky "Newbie"
>>>
>>>Hi guys, I am new to this list also but I love the look of the Piet, the
>>>slow mo. the high viz, low cost (relatively speaking) the old look and
>>>the
>>>build it your selfishness of the Piet. I am a first time builder-to-be
>>>soon
>>>I hope and I really like what I see in the Aircamper. I was somewhat
>>>puzzled and dismayed though when I saw one advertised on E-Bay that said
>>>the
>>>empty weight was ~775 lbs. I understand that the max. gross is ~1060
>>>lbs.
>>>leaving according to my calculations ~285 of useful. With my
>>>non-standard
>>>weight of 245 lbs. there doesn't seem to be much leeway for fuel and
>>>passengers. I do understand that the empty weight is a function of the
>>>manner in which the aircraft is built, the accessories added, electrics
>>>(or
>>>not) picnic basket weight etc. but I would appreciate if you folks could
>>>give me some idea of the "Typical" empty, useful weights of your real
>>>world
>>>machines. You might also include some idea of the accessories or lack
>>>thereof included on your machines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I would like to get some idea of whether I need to stop the drooling and
>>>look elsewhere or tell the missus that she is going to have to go on a
>>>"Crash" diet to get down to the 40 lb. passenger weight limit. I will do
>>>my
>>>part to lose the eight pounds or so for the gallon of fuel to feed the
>>>hungry hoard under the cowling at least for a quick turn around the
>>>pasture
>>>and dead stick 'er in hoping the ole bull doesn't see Piet as competition
>>>for his harem at touchdown.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Anyway I do thank you in advance for the info or a "steer" in the right
>>>direction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Rusted
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 269.13.2/983 - Release Date: 9/1/2007 4:20 PM
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | another "Johnson Airspeed Indicator" |
Just saw another nifty construction detail and drawing for a "Johnson
Airspeed Indicator", as used by the Dawn Patrol guys:
http://www.kcdawnpatrol.org/airspeed-indicator.htm
It's got dimensions and it's the right airspeed range for our airplanes...
30 to 90 MPH.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Get the device you want, with the Hotmail you love.
http://www.windowsmobile.com/hotmailmobile?ocid=MobileHMTagline_1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
Last week I hauled a project back from New Mexico to it's new home in
Midland Ontario. Great road trip. Now that I've got it home I,m starting
to have a few questions.
Has anyone tried making a built-up spar? The Spar material I have with this
project appears to be intended to build up the spar rather than routing it.
The aircraft has (or will have) a 3 piece wing.
It has the old style wooden gear legs so I'll be looking for wire wheels.
Looked into a set of 19 inch wheels from a supplier I found in a search of
the archives (http://www.airdromeairplanes.com/index.html) but they don't
have brakes integral to the wheel. Anyone got a suggestion. I want to cover
the wheels and I'd like the brakes to be as inconspicuous as possible.
I now have two sets of ribs. One set was built for me by David Stephens
(Dimension Wood) and is for sale.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Red Stewert Taildragger Fly-In Sat, Sun Mon |
Hello guys, I found out today (too late) that there is a taildragger fly-in at
Red Stewert Airfield, in Waynesville Ohio sept 1,2,3 (sat, sun, mon). I am planning
on flying down sun am and check it out. It should be a real grass roots,
brodhead style fly in. It is about 10 miles south of dayton ohio. It is
on the cinncinatti sectional. Check out there website and try to make it if you
can. It is about 100 SM one way for me, and I am going to plan on heading
down about 8-9 am on Sun.
Hope to see you there!
Shad
10hrs and counting on engine evolution #3.
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Welding Headache |
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
I've been playing around welding some scrap pieces and decided to make something
for my son. I learned that when you get the inner cone of the flame too close
to the puddle... POP!!! The puddle then comes down on you like 4th of July
fireworks. My problem is that it seems like the 1/16th R45 welding rod I'm using
doesn't quickly melt in the puddle. I've had to go over the welds again because
they look "slaggy" and without the rod to worry about on the second pass
I can watch everything smooth out into the puddle as I work it from one side
to the other. I've been trying to get a good size puddle going to ensure penetration
and it looks fair when I'm done. The problem is the welds don't seem
that strong. Actually, brittle is the word I would use. Any idea what I could
be doing wrong?? Using Harris Aviator torch with 1/16th square tubing and
1/8 x 1/2 strap. Welding the strap to the different size tubing doesn't seem
to be that hard, but then again, my welds aren't that strong. As a beginner you
can see progress pretty quickly. Just wish I could get the strength I always
associated with welding.
Thanks in advance!
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132304#132304
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rpound" <rpound(at)wk.net> |
Thanks for the help guys. I am 6'0" tall 245 lbs so I guess I would fit in
the "Widebody" category. It appears that MT weights vary considerably. Would
everyone agree that in general at least, the tube and fabric models are
lighter? I saw the Piet at the Rotec display in Oshkosh that was all wood it
was beautiful but I guess it doesn't matter how beautiful she is if she
can't drag my oversize carcass of the ground without incurring a hernia or
worse.
Is 1200 lbs the actual max gross? Is that with a different design or beefed
up in some manner or am I just misinformed about the 1060 lb gross? If that
is possible that would be great, at 1200 lb max even with a 700 lb MT that
leaves .....uhhh....(calculating sounds)......uhhhh..... about 500 lbs
useful AWESOME!! As in the words of that song "I believe I can fly"
That shore would hep from making a misstep that could haunt a man forever
like Rick boy! You know when you say it you done messed up but is shore is a
heap lot easier to let the ole cat out of the bag then hit is to put em back
in! Can I get a witness!
Thanks, Rusted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
I had the exploding puddle problem too. Some one on the list suggested
that I am using too small a tip, The smaller tip was getting too hot
causing the gas to ignite inside the tip and blasting the puddle away. I
went to the next size larger tip, which stayed cooler. It helped a
bunch. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
I concur on the tip possibly being too small. Trying to get too much heat out of
a tip would cause you to have an unusually elongated cone. When the cone touches
the weld as you say, you're causing the last stage of combustion to happen
engulfed by molten metal, which is a setup for an explosion and is what's causing
it to rain metal around you. It's easier to do this when the cone is too
long for the tip.
Are you familiar with the keyhole concept? When butt welding, there should be a
gap between the two pieces. Right where you're welding, you should be melting
a little bit from the edge of each piece, right before where you've laid down
filler. It actually looks rounded. This causes the gap area to look like a keyhole,
and it's a visual way to guarantee the penetration you want.
It also sounds like your filler rod might be a bit small for the work. I suppose
you can do it, but it forces you to really pour a lot of rod into the weld instead
of just touching it.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Leon Stefan <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 12:20 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Welding Headache
>
>
>I had the exploding puddle problem too. Some one on the list suggested
>that I am using too small a tip, The smaller tip was getting too hot
>causing the gas to ignite inside the tip and blasting the puddle away. I
>went to the next size larger tip, which stayed cooler. It helped a
>bunch. Leon S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
A second note -
Multiple passes on a weld in this context is bad news. Gas welding is notorious
for impurities that float to the top. There's a good chance you're embedding
the impurities from the first pass underneath the second; you can't assume the
junk will keep floating to the top on subsequent passes. It won't.
Gas welding, by its nature, will look slaggy. Once you get your heat right and
you can do this in one pass, wirebrush your weld down with a stiff brush and it
should look ok.
Keep practicing.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Glenn Thomas <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 11:54 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Welding Headache
>
>
>I've been playing around welding some scrap pieces and decided to make something
for my son. I learned that when you get the inner cone of the flame too close
to the puddle... POP!!! The puddle then comes down on you like 4th of July
fireworks. My problem is that it seems like the 1/16th R45 welding rod I'm using
doesn't quickly melt in the puddle. I've had to go over the welds again
because they look "slaggy" and without the rod to worry about on the second pass
I can watch everything smooth out into the puddle as I work it from one side
to the other. I've been trying to get a good size puddle going to ensure penetration
and it looks fair when I'm done. The problem is the welds don't seem
that strong. Actually, brittle is the word I would use. Any idea what I could
be doing wrong?? Using Harris Aviator torch with 1/16th square tubing and
1/8 x 1/2 strap. Welding the strap to the different size tubing doesn't seem
to be that hard, but then again, my welds aren't tha
!
> t strong. As a beginner you can see progress pretty quickly. Just wish I could
get the strength I always associated with welding.
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>--------
>Glenn Thomas
>N?????
>http://www.flyingwood.com
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132304#132304
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
Glen,
You chould use mild filler rod,
And make sure that you let the piece cool in still air (very important)
Walt Evans
NX140DL
"No one ever learned anything by talking"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Welding Headache
>
>
> I've been playing around welding some scrap pieces and decided to make
> something for my son. I learned that when you get the inner cone of the
> flame too close to the puddle... POP!!! The puddle then comes down on you
> like 4th of July fireworks. My problem is that it seems like the 1/16th
> R45 welding rod I'm using doesn't quickly melt in the puddle. I've had to
> go over the welds again because they look "slaggy" and without the rod to
> worry about on the second pass I can watch everything smooth out into the
> puddle as I work it from one side to the other. I've been trying to get a
> good size puddle going to ensure penetration and it looks fair when I'm
> done. The problem is the welds don't seem that strong. Actually, brittle
> is the word I would use. Any idea what I could be doing wrong?? Using
> Harris Aviator torch with 1/16th square tubing and 1/8 x 1/2 strap.
> Welding the strap to the different size tubing doesn't seem to be that
> hard, but then again, my welds aren't tha!
> t strong. As a beginner you can see progress pretty quickly. Just wish I
> could get the strength I always associated with welding.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --------
> Glenn Thomas
> N?????
> http://www.flyingwood.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132304#132304
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
Thanks guys. I'm using my largest tip right now (Harris #2). Using R45 which
is mild steel filler rod same thickness as the smallest piece I'm welding. I'm
going to try going up to 10lbs Oxygen and 10 lbs Acet. I've been keeping it
set at 7lbs. I'll pick up the next larger tip and see if that helps. It may
be just a matter of getting enough practice. Thanks for coming back with some
good suggestions so quickly.
Heading out to finish the current project right now.
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132331#132331
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
Glen,
My thoughts on tip size is kind of the other way. Think you have to go to a
smaller tip. Each tip is designed to have a certain minimum flow through it,
to not allow the burn to chase up inside. I used a Victor #0, i think, for
most of what I did. Had to go to #000 for the thin stuff.
Again, quoting my Mentor, The tip has to have the right amoumt of flow
through it, which also causes the air on the outside of the tip, to travel
down the length of the tip, and join the mix. This causes all the burning to
go in one direction.
Kind of like the spiral fins on the side of a verticle smoke stack. The
fumes exiting the end cause a low pressure area, that causes the air around
the outside of the pipe to rush up to fill it. On the way up it is made to
spiral, kind of like rifleing in a gun barrel.
Try a smaller tip
Walt Evans
NX140DL
"No one ever learned anything by talking"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welding Headache
>
>
> Thanks guys. I'm using my largest tip right now (Harris #2). Using R45
> which is mild steel filler rod same thickness as the smallest piece I'm
> welding. I'm going to try going up to 10lbs Oxygen and 10 lbs Acet. I've
> been keeping it set at 7lbs. I'll pick up the next larger tip and see if
> that helps. It may be just a matter of getting enough practice. Thanks
> for coming back with some good suggestions so quickly.
>
> Heading out to finish the current project right now.
>
> --------
> Glenn Thomas
> N?????
> http://www.flyingwood.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132331#132331
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
I found that too much OX will cause the pop you are talking about. Watch the
flame tip as you add OX to the mix. You bring the flame down to the single
diamond, then back off the OX so that there is some flame past the diamond at
the tip. To much ox will cause the metal to burn (pop) to much fuel will cause
soot to form on the surface.
Howdy
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
I'm not an expert welder, even though my life will some day depend on
it, but my experience matches Walt's. I've seen most of my popping
using the torch with the gas turned down too low. How much oxygen you
use should be a relatively fixed ratio to give the proper flame shape.
This a very important part of welding. I attended a welding workshop
at Sun-N-Fun a few years ago, and the instructor spent 15 minutes
showing me how to adjust the flame. Too much oxygen gives you a sharp
pointed inner cone that puts too much oxygen in the weld and could cause
your brittleness. If you haven't already, get a copy of the Finch
(Robert or Richard) book on welding, and he gives a lot of good
advice.I use the "0" tip for nearly everything on the Piet, unless the
metal is close to 1/8 inch thick, like landing gear legs. I use a chart
I picked up at a welding store that recommends tip sizes.
Ben Charvet
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | spinning the Piet - Pat green contact info |
Pat Green's home no. is 904.741.4018. Please extend my regards.
Tim Willis-- Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Kraut <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com>
>Sent: Aug 31, 2007 11:29 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
>
>
>Would you have any contact for Pat? I am also in Jacksonville and I was not
>aware of any other Piets here.
>
>Brian Kraut
>Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
>www.engalt.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ben
>Charvet
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:09 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spinning the Piet
>
>
> Pat Green in Jacksonville told me story story about spinning the
>Piet. This guy has a Piet with a BP conversion Corvair with belt driven
>fan. He was commenting that his Piet with a rudder built to the plans
>tended to loose rudder authority on the flair, especially with a tall
>pilot. Anyway a friend of his strapped on a chute and took it up high
>and put it into a spin. Pat was on the ground watching this, and he was
>yelling Jump out!, Jump out! because it got pretty close to the ground
>before the pilot recovered. Later on Pat had a small accident that
>ended up with the Piet on its back and he had to rebuild the rudder. He
>made it a little bit taller. After talking to him I added 3 or 4 inches
>to my rudder when I built it. I'm extending my motormount 4 inches, so
>the extra rudder authority won't hurt. Getting in and out of a Piet
>that was spinning while wearing a parachute wouldn't be easy. Here is a
>link to a picture of Pat's Piet. (He is over 70 years old and has been
>flying this since the 70's)
>
>Ben Charvet
>http://flycorvair.com/green.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AMsafetyC(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Power plant engines again |
I located a corvair not too far from my home, I have to buy the entire car
for the engine, which is reported to be run able if it had carbs on it.
The engine is a 95 hp and possibly a turbo, the sell thinks. Its a 1968
Monza, so I am not expecting anything special.
I am not certain I should be going after this one as a possible Piet power
plant since I know little about the best and worse of the corvair engines for
our applications. Can anyone give me any insight as to the use ability of this
engine design for my piet, naturally I am aware that I will have to
completely rebuild it and will be following the Wynn guide to do so.
I just need a little advice form the collective knowledge base of corvair
builders and users. I still have not settled on a particular power plant so I
was interested in finding out more about this engine and its ability to be used
in my piet.
Thanks
John Recine.
Its never too soon to search for a power plant, so I have read!
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power plant engines again |
Corvair engines for the later models (1965-1969) came in 95, 110, 140, and 180
hp, and further more subtle differences. 95's didn't come with turbos, only 180's,
so your seller obviously isn't up on their Corvairs. I believe William's
recommendation is to use a 110 (William, are you there to comment?) I've been
really sick the last couple days, so I'm not firing on all eight (or six, if you
prefer) as I try to hack up a lung and type at the same time, but if you're
going to tear it down to the mains anyhow (and you will want to), the 95 and
the 110 are to my recollection very similar. The're both pretty stout engines.
The stock 140 will have four carburetors and is unsuitable for your purposes.
The 180 will have the turbo and some rather distinct variations to support it
(as compared to the other engines); it is also unsuitable for your purposes.
If you can get to the car, there's a small casting that mounts to the rear of the
engine that holds the alternator, oil pressure sender, fuel pump, and oil filler
tube (an old friend calls it the holds-everything bracket). Nestled down
in front of that casting and behind the top shroud is an exposed section of engine
block with the engine code stamped on it. You may have to dig through leaves/grease/mice
nests/etc to expose it. I've got a little x-reference book called
the Corvair Junkyard Primer with all the codes listed in it and I can tell
you which engine you're looking at if you reply back to the list with it. You
also can't discount that people have swapped engines on cars so much the engine
might not be a match for the car model/year, not that you really care. Just
be aware that anything goes sometimes with finds like this.
Also, bring a wrench (13/16", if memory serves), put it on the end of the crank
and try to move it a little. If it isn't frozen, your chances of the engine being
good are better.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 12:33 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Power plant engines again
>
>I located a corvair not too far from my home, I have to buy the entire car
>for the engine, which is reported to be run able if it had carbs on it.
>
>The engine is a 95 hp and possibly a turbo, the sell thinks. Its a 1968
>Monza, so I am not expecting anything special.
>
>I am not certain I should be going after this one as a possible Piet power
>plant since I know little about the best and worse of the corvair engines for
>our applications. Can anyone give me any insight as to the use ability of this
> engine design for my piet, naturally I am aware that I will have to
>completely rebuild it and will be following the Wynn guide to do so.
>
>I just need a little advice form the collective knowledge base of corvair
>builders and users. I still have not settled on a particular power plant so I
>was interested in finding out more about this engine and its ability to be used
> in my piet.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>John Recine.
>
>Its never too soon to search for a power plant, so I have read!
>
>
>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
Do you remember the instructor at Sun 'n Fun or what he looked like?
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 12:08 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welding Headache
>
>
>I'm not an expert welder, even though my life will some day depend on
>it, but my experience matches Walt's. I've seen most of my popping
>using the torch with the gas turned down too low. How much oxygen you
>use should be a relatively fixed ratio to give the proper flame shape.
>This a very important part of welding. I attended a welding workshop
>at Sun-N-Fun a few years ago, and the instructor spent 15 minutes
>showing me how to adjust the flame. Too much oxygen gives you a sharp
>pointed inner cone that puts too much oxygen in the weld and could cause
>your brittleness. If you haven't already, get a copy of the Finch
>(Robert or Richard) book on welding, and he gives a lot of good
>advice.I use the "0" tip for nearly everything on the Piet, unless the
>metal is close to 1/8 inch thick, like landing gear legs. I use a chart
>I picked up at a welding store that recommends tip sizes.
>
>Ben Charvet
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Knowlton <flyingscott_k(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Power plant engines again |
John,
William Wynn's manual lists the serial numbers that are recommended good re
build candidates. It would be a good idea to have those handy to help you
make a decision on this purchase. I have helped to remove one Corvair engi
ne from a car and can tell you its a bear!! If you contact your closest CO
RSA chapter they are great at leading you to a supply of corvair engines of
ten which have already been removed from a rusted out "donor".
I was able to locate a good core for a hundred bucks within a twenty minute
drive from my home!! If you haven't purchased WW's manual ($60.00) I woul
d highly recommend you do. If you are just looking for serial numbers for
now I can extract them from my copy. Good luck.
Scott Knowlton
(slow builder in Burlington Ontario)
From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.comDate: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 12:33:53 -0400Subject: Re: Pie
tenpol-List: Power plant engines againTo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
I located a corvair not too far from my home, I have to buy the entire car
for the engine, which is reported to be run able if it had carbs on it.
The engine is a 95 hp and possibly a turbo, the sell thinks. Its a 1968 Mon
za, so I am not expecting anything special.
I am not certain I should be going after this one as a possible Piet power
plant since I know little about the best and worse of the corvair engines f
or our applications. Can anyone give me any insight as to the use ability o
f this engine design for my piet, naturally I am aware that I will have to
completely rebuild it and will be following the Wynn guide to do so.
I just need a little advice form the collective knowledge base of corvair b
uilders and users. I still have not settled on a particular power plant so
I was interested in finding out more about this engine and its ability to b
e used in my piet.
Thanks
John Recine.
Its never too soon to search for a power plant, so I have read!
AOL.com.
_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
E
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Power plant engines again |
>
> Corvair engines for the later models (1965-1969) came in 95, 110, 140, and
> 180 hp, and further more subtle differences. 95's didn't come with turbos,
> only 180's,
Although you are technically accurate, and by no means do I want to sound
disagreeable, but when a car has been available to "mechanics" for over 40
years, there are no guarantee of matching equipment.
The reality of it is, a 180 turbo induction system (including exhaust) will
bolt to any model head (long block), from and early 80hp up to late 180hp
9and it would run), excluding the 140; but I suppose that if one were to
bock off the second set of intake ports (carb base flanges) one could also
bolt a turbo to a 140 and it would also run.
Not that anyone in their right mind would do this, and no telling how long
it would run before it detonates itself... but you never know.
I wrote this a few years ago. It may help.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/CorvAIRCRAFT/EngineID.htm
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
Lots of years ago I spent an entire week at Osh doing the composites
workshop and had time to hangout with the volunteer instructors at the
welding workshop. If memory serves me, they insisted the flame had to be
slightly rich in fuel and lite on the oxygen. The flame was adjusted just
down to the diamond blue tip and then backed off on the oxygen to make a
"carbon rich flame". Reason- the excess oxygen in the flame would burn out
the 0.30 % (I think, that's what the 30 stands for in 4130) carbon thats in
4130 steel, leaving a weaker weld. If the flame is oxygen rich the carbon
burning up in the steel making CO2 gas will make the weld pop and bubble up.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ash" <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welding Headache
>
> Do you remember the instructor at Sun 'n Fun or what he looked like?
>
> Jim Ash
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
>>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 12:08 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welding Headache
>>
>>
>>I'm not an expert welder, even though my life will some day depend on
>>it, but my experience matches Walt's. I've seen most of my popping
>>using the torch with the gas turned down too low. How much oxygen you
>>use should be a relatively fixed ratio to give the proper flame shape.
>>This a very important part of welding. I attended a welding workshop
>>at Sun-N-Fun a few years ago, and the instructor spent 15 minutes
>>showing me how to adjust the flame. Too much oxygen gives you a sharp
>>pointed inner cone that puts too much oxygen in the weld and could cause
>>your brittleness. If you haven't already, get a copy of the Finch
>>(Robert or Richard) book on welding, and he gives a lot of good
>>advice.I use the "0" tip for nearly everything on the Piet, unless the
>>metal is close to 1/8 inch thick, like landing gear legs. I use a chart
>>I picked up at a welding store that recommends tip sizes.
>>
>>Ben Charvet
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP" <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power plant engines again |
John,
Make sure you purchase the correct corvair engine listed by William Wynne. There
are certain models to stay away from....And Ibelieve one of them is the turbo
charged designed?...I was going to use a corvair in my application...(another
story for another time) But I do remember in his conversion guide he makes
mention of specific engines that will work for his conversion...
Hope this helps before you spend $$ on a wrong engine model...
Ken H
Fargo, ND
I located a corvair not too far from my home, I have to buy the entire car
for the engine, which is reported to be run able if it had carbs on it.
The engine is a 95 hp and possibly a turbo, the sell thinks. Its a 1968 Monza,
so I am not expecting anything special.
I am not certain I should be going after this one as a possible Piet power plant
since I know little about the best and worse of the corvair engines for our
applications. Can anyone give me any insight as to the use ability of this engine
design for my piet, naturally I am aware that I will have to completely
rebuild it and will be following the Wynn guide to do so.
I just need a little advice form the collective knowledge base of corvair builders
and users. I still have not settled on a particular power plant so I was
interested in finding out more about this engine and its ability to be used in
my piet.
Thanks
John Recine.
Its never too soon to search for a power plant, so I have read!
AOL.com.
Kenneth M. Heide, BA,CPO,FAAOP
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power plant engines again |
John, Having rebuilt our corvair engine 2 1/2 times I can give a little bit of
advise. Your best bet is to first get the wynne mannual, and the Finch corvair
mannuals, and also the GM mannuals. Then locate a 1965-1969 non turbo engine.
Wynne's mannual tells which ones to stay away from, DO YOUR RESEARCH, AND
CHECK PART NUMBERS ON THE HEADS, THE EMISION FRIENDLY VERSIONS ARE HAZZARDOUS
TO YOUR WELL BEING.. From experiance I recomend NOT using the 1964 engine. The
heads and cylinders are different than the 65-69 engines, and 65-69 are interchangable.
The 65-69 heads and cylinders are "beefier" than the 64. I would
also recomend buying a set of jugs, and pistons (forged) from clarks corvair,
You will have to have a head shop install the wrist pins in the piston and
rod, unless you have a rod heater, it doesn't cost too much. We found out the
hard way about making sure the heads are good. If you buy an engine make sure
the sparkplug holes are clean and not helicoiled.
We have 16hrs on the new engine and all is well. The head was the culprit that
caused or contributed to a broken crankshaft after 60 hrs, and burned up the
#4 piston 5 hrs after rebuilding with a nitrided crank. I am starting to get
more comfortable with the corvair, as we had some major let downs, but they
were all out of the ordinarry wierd problems we encountered. Feel free to e-mail
me off list if you have any other questions.
Shad
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
Glen,
What pressures are your reguators set at?
Clif
If the flame is oxygen rich the carbon
> burning up in the steel making CO2 gas will make the weld pop and bubble
> up.
> Gordon
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Flying the Chevy (NX92GB) |
Well she's still running good "knock knock". I flew down to Stewart Field in Waynesville
Ohio today for the taildragger fly-in. It only took 1hr 15 min each
way, and it is almost exsactly 100sm each way. Maby we should have put NR92GB,
instead of NX ha ha ha. Thats an honnest 80mph. We have 16 hrs on the piet
in the last 3 weeks. I saw Skipp Gadd there, he flew his 172 in on sat, looked
like a good turn out but I got there just before "Go Home Time". This would
be another good unofficial piet fly in in the future, no asphault, just dust
and grass. Now all I have to do is start flight testing with weight in the
front cockpit, Then I can stay out longer if I bring the wife along. Hope you
all have a wonderfull Labor Day.
Shad
NX92GB
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power plant engines again |
Where is this car? I've had my eye out for a decent late-model body.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 12:33 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Power plant engines again
>
>I located a corvair not too far from my home, I have to buy the entire car
>for the engine, which is reported to be run able if it had carbs on it.
>
>The engine is a 95 hp and possibly a turbo, the sell thinks. Its a 1968
>Monza, so I am not expecting anything special.
>
>I am not certain I should be going after this one as a possible Piet power
>plant since I know little about the best and worse of the corvair engines for
>our applications. Can anyone give me any insight as to the use ability of this
> engine design for my piet, naturally I am aware that I will have to
>completely rebuild it and will be following the Wynn guide to do so.
>
>I just need a little advice form the collective knowledge base of corvair
>builders and users. I still have not settled on a particular power plant so I
>was interested in finding out more about this engine and its ability to be used
> in my piet.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>John Recine.
>
>Its never too soon to search for a power plant, so I have read!
>
>
>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Power plant engines again |
Been there.
My '66 Ultravan came with a '61 distributor and the numbers on the rods were backwards
(6-1 instead of 1-6), which I didn't find out until one of the rods shot
through the crank cover.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Panzera <panzera@experimental-aviation.com>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 3:37 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Power plant engines again
>
>
>>
>> Corvair engines for the later models (1965-1969) came in 95, 110, 140, and
>> 180 hp, and further more subtle differences. 95's didn't come with turbos,
>> only 180's,
>
>Although you are technically accurate, and by no means do I want to sound
>disagreeable, but when a car has been available to "mechanics" for over 40
>years, there are no guarantee of matching equipment.
>
>The reality of it is, a 180 turbo induction system (including exhaust) will
>bolt to any model head (long block), from and early 80hp up to late 180hp
>9and it would run), excluding the 140; but I suppose that if one were to
>bock off the second set of intake ports (carb base flanges) one could also
>bolt a turbo to a 140 and it would also run.
>
>Not that anyone in their right mind would do this, and no telling how long
>it would run before it detonates itself... but you never know.
>
>I wrote this a few years ago. It may help.
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/CorvAIRCRAFT/EngineID.htm
>
>Pat
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
I don't remember his name, but he had a big beard. I didn't see him
there last year.
Ben
Jim Ash wrote:
>
>Do you remember the instructor at Sun 'n Fun or what he looked like?
>
>Jim Ash
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>
>>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
>>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 12:08 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welding Headache
>>
>>
>>I'm not an expert welder, even though my life will some day depend on
>>it, but my experience matches Walt's. I've seen most of my popping
>>using the torch with the gas turned down too low. How much oxygen you
>>use should be a relatively fixed ratio to give the proper flame shape.
>>This a very important part of welding. I attended a welding workshop
>>at Sun-N-Fun a few years ago, and the instructor spent 15 minutes
>>showing me how to adjust the flame. Too much oxygen gives you a sharp
>>pointed inner cone that puts too much oxygen in the weld and could cause
>>your brittleness. If you haven't already, get a copy of the Finch
>>(Robert or Richard) book on welding, and he gives a lot of good
>>advice.I use the "0" tip for nearly everything on the Piet, unless the
>>metal is close to 1/8 inch thick, like landing gear legs. I use a chart
>>I picked up at a welding store that recommends tip sizes.
>>
>>Ben Charvet
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
This list is the best! Where else could you throw out a question to the world
before bed and wake up almost expecting some kind of help. I took Dan Wilson's
advice. With regulators at 7 lbs. I opened the acetylene wide open, then opened
the oxygen wide open and backed down the pressure at the oxy regulator till
I saw a nice neutral flame. Cone was clear and a little larger than I'd been
seeing before and made nice puddles with no popping and able to weld straight
through in one pass. I think with #2 tip it was a little too much heat so
I'm going to take Walt's advice and go back down to the #0 tip. Thanks to everyone,
I really enjoyed reading each suggestion and the remaining welds show that
the advice from this list is fantastic.
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132432#132432
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP" <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power plant engines again |
Shad,
Enjoyed meeting you and your father at Brodhead....Please email me a number
where I can contact you for some deep corvair engine conversation.
Ken H
Fargo, ND
shad bell wrote:
John, Having rebuilt our corvair engine 2 1/2 times I can give a little bit
of advise. Your best bet is to first get the wynne mannual, and the Finch corvair
mannuals, and also the GM mannuals. Then locate a 1965-1969 non turbo engine.
Wynne's mannual tells which ones to stay away from, DO YOUR RESEARCH,
AND CHECK PART NUMBERS ON THE HEADS, THE EMISION FRIENDLY VERSIONS ARE HAZZARDOUS
TO YOUR WELL BEING.. From experiance I recomend NOT using the 1964 engine.
The heads and cylinders are different than the 65-69 engines, and 65-69 are
interchangable. The 65-69 heads and cylinders are "beefier" than the 64. I
would also recomend buying a set of jugs, and pistons (forged) from clarks corvair,
You will have to have a head shop install the wrist pins in the piston
and rod, unless you have a rod heater, it doesn't cost too much. We found out
the hard way about making sure the heads are good. If you buy an engine make
sure the sparkplug holes are clean and not
helicoiled. We have 16hrs on the new engine and all is well. The head was the
culprit that caused or contributed to a broken crankshaft after 60 hrs, and
burned up the #4 piston 5 hrs after rebuilding with a nitrided crank. I am starting
to get more comfortable with the corvair, as we had some major let downs,
but they were all out of the ordinarry wierd problems we encountered. Feel
free to e-mail me off list if you have any other questions.
Shad
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Kenneth M. Heide, BA,CPO,FAAOP
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder
tool.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: another "Johnson Airspeed Indicator" |
Oscar you did it again. What a great find!
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: another "Johnson Airspeed Indicator"
>
>
> Just saw another nifty construction detail and drawing for a "Johnson
> Airspeed Indicator", as used by the Dawn Patrol guys:
>
> http://www.kcdawnpatrol.org/airspeed-indicator.htm
>
> It's got dimensions and it's the right airspeed range for our airplanes...
> 30 to 90 MPH.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get the device you want, with the Hotmail you love.
> http://www.windowsmobile.com/hotmailmobile?ocid=MobileHMTagline_1
>
>
> --
> 269.13.2/984 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 12:59 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | watch out Fisherman |
Felix was packing winds of up to 165 mph as it headed west, according to
the U.S. National Hurricane Center. It was projected to skirt Honduras'
coastline on Tuesday before slamming into Belize on Wednesday.
Hurricane watches have been issued for the Caribbean coast of Guatemala
and the entire coast of Belize as Felix churns west through the
Caribbean.
Walt Evans
NX140DL
"No one ever learned anything by talking"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cabane fitting question |
| From: | "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Happy Labor Day all! I'm fabricating my rear cabane fittings and had a
question. I'm doing the three piece wing. The plans show a width of
=BE inch for the piece that wraps under the spar center section. I'm
thing about making that piece 1 inch. Have other done this or should I
stick with =BE?
Thanks,
Jack
Jack Textor
Vice President
3737 Woodland Avenue
Suite #300
West Des Moines, IA 50266
515-225-7000
www.thepalmergroup.com <http://www.thepalmergroup.com/>
This e-mail, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential, and
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error, and then please
delete it. Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP" <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Engine question...... |
Fellow Pieter's:
Forgive me for sticking my neck out.....just curious how many other applications
of engines have been tried in the pietenpol? With Continental and Lycoming
prices on the rise, just wondering if other applications have been used (outside
of the Model A also)?
Sincerely,
Village idiot
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question...... |
If you don't mine building the engine yourself you can do a Corvair for
around $3000 - $6000 depending on how much you can fabricate yourself.
Rick
On 9/3/07, KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP wrote:
>
> Fellow Pieter's:
>
> Forgive me for sticking my neck out.....just curious how many other
> applications of engines have been tried in the pietenpol? With Continental
> and Lycoming prices on the rise, just wondering if other applications have
> been used (outside of the Model A also)?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Village idiot
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Headache |
That would be Richard Smoot.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 7:54 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welding Headache
>
>
>I don't remember his name, but he had a big beard. I didn't see him
>there last year.
>
>Ben
>Jim Ash wrote:
>
>>
>>Do you remember the instructor at Sun 'n Fun or what he looked like?
>>
>>Jim Ash
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>
>>>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
>>>Sent: Sep 2, 2007 12:08 PM
>>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welding Headache
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not an expert welder, even though my life will some day depend on
>>>it, but my experience matches Walt's. I've seen most of my popping
>>>using the torch with the gas turned down too low. How much oxygen you
>>>use should be a relatively fixed ratio to give the proper flame shape.
>>>This a very important part of welding. I attended a welding workshop
>>>at Sun-N-Fun a few years ago, and the instructor spent 15 minutes
>>>showing me how to adjust the flame. Too much oxygen gives you a sharp
>>>pointed inner cone that puts too much oxygen in the weld and could cause
>>>your brittleness. If you haven't already, get a copy of the Finch
>>>(Robert or Richard) book on welding, and he gives a lot of good
>>>advice.I use the "0" tip for nearly everything on the Piet, unless the
>>>metal is close to 1/8 inch thick, like landing gear legs. I use a chart
>>>I picked up at a welding store that recommends tip sizes.
>>>
>>>Ben Charvet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | tail gear collapse |
Gang,
I broke the Piet's tail gear this afternoon - broke at the welds of
the "V", just ahead of the vertical spring. The 30 year old welds
couldn't take the pounding that occurs with one of my multi-hop
landings.
Does anyone know of a gear that can be bought? The current gear uses
the two steel tubes in a V as per the later plans (I think) with a
spring running vertically at the point of the "V". What we have now
is probably not repairable. I've attached photos prior to the
collapse. They're not very good; I'll try to upload better ones later.
We have four fly-ins starting 10 days from now that I'd really like
to make if at all possible. One of them my Dad is coming into town
specifically to ride in the Piet to. I'm open to any suggestions
about how to beg, borrow, or buy a complete "V". Note that the
tailwheel and hardware is fine; it's just the "V" that is knackered.
In the mean time, I'm ordering tubing from AS&S to make a new one.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question...... |
Ken,
There is a list somewhere of all the engines someone had compiled that had bveen
used on a the Piet. I can't find it now.
As you likely know the big three for Piets has been-- the Ford Model A and B, the
Continental (most often A65), and the Corvair. The older Continentals and
the Corvairs seems most practical to me, and their numbers would seem to confirm
that.
Other aircraft engines include some Lycoming, Franklin, and more recently Rotax,
as well as a great many radials (those spread across not too many actual flying
planes-- many "one-offs").
Other auto engines include several Subarus and a few more modern small Fords (an
English or Euro engine, I think). A Toyota, Nissan or Mazda should work as
well as a small Ford engine, but it's most often better to follow a trail of adaptation
than blaze a new one. No doubt someone has put a Mazda rotary in a
Piet, too. These other auto engines are water-cooled. The Subarus have the advantage
of pancake design and some good documentation.
No one should try a VW,--" the other air-cooled auto engine"-- in a Piet, I believe,
for the combo of the Piet's weight, drag and 2-place capacity is at the
edge of the best VWs; e.g., Great Plains, IMO.
The Corvairs are almost an aircraft engine at the outset. Other than the Model
A or Corvair, the other auto engines almost always require a speed (rpm) reducer.
If you are going that way, something to consider would be a modern motorcycle
engine with fuel injection and all that. For motorcycle engines, the Honda
Gold Wing has higher torque and lower rpm than most other motorcylces, and
would be my choice on paper. I think you might get a used one for $1200 or so,
but then might have to figure out how to adapt computer and fuel injection
issues. Direct drive might actually work on this particular engine.
However, as I've said, I favor the Continentals or the Corvair. What are you considering?
Tim in central TX
AM
>To: Pietenpol
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine question......
>
>Fellow Pieter's:
>
> Forgive me for sticking my neck out.....just curious how many other applications
of engines have been tried in the pietenpol? With Continental and Lycoming
prices on the rise, just wondering if other applications have been used (outside
of the Model A also)?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Village idiot
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tail gear collapse |
Jeff
Seems to me, you have the new tube coming, you can make a new one in a
afternoon. Slap on a couple coats of paint and do the fly ins.
Can you do your own welding? If not, someone here might do it for you.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
> Gang,
>
> I broke the Piet's tail gear this afternoon - broke at the welds of
> the "V", just ahead of the vertical spring. The 30 year old welds
> couldn't take the pounding that occurs with one of my multi-hop
> landings.
>
> Does anyone know of a gear that can be bought? The current gear uses
> the two steel tubes in a V as per the later plans (I think) with a
> spring running vertically at the point of the "V". What we have now
> is probably not repairable. I've attached photos prior to the
> collapse. They're not very good; I'll try to upload better ones later.
>
> We have four fly-ins starting 10 days from now that I'd really like
> to make if at all possible. One of them my Dad is coming into town
> specifically to ride in the Piet to. I'm open to any suggestions
> about how to beg, borrow, or buy a complete "V". Note that the
> tailwheel and hardware is fine; it's just the "V" that is knackered.
> In the mean time, I'm ordering tubing from AS&S to make a new one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: tail gear collapse |
Does anyone know the tubing specs for this application? The diameter
of the tubes use previously is 5/8", but I can't tell what the
thickness is.
Thanks,
Jeff
>
>
>Jeff
>Seems to me, you have the new tube coming, you can make a new one in
>a afternoon. Slap on a couple coats of paint and do the fly ins.
>Can you do your own welding? If not, someone here might do it for you.
>Dick
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 5:19 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
>
>>Gang,
>>
>>I broke the Piet's tail gear this afternoon - broke at the welds of
>>the "V", just ahead of the vertical spring. The 30 year old welds
>>couldn't take the pounding that occurs with one of my multi-hop
>>landings.
>>
>>Does anyone know of a gear that can be bought? The current gear uses
>>the two steel tubes in a V as per the later plans (I think) with a
>>spring running vertically at the point of the "V". What we have now
>>is probably not repairable. I've attached photos prior to the
>>collapse. They're not very good; I'll try to upload better ones later.
>>
>>We have four fly-ins starting 10 days from now that I'd really like
>>to make if at all possible. One of them my Dad is coming into town
>>specifically to ride in the Piet to. I'm open to any suggestions
>>about how to beg, borrow, or buy a complete "V". Note that the
>>tailwheel and hardware is fine; it's just the "V" that is knackered.
>>In the mean time, I'm ordering tubing from AS&S to make a new one.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Jeff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | tail gear collapse |
Jeff,
5/8 inch 20 gauge (0.035")??. You will need about 34 inches.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Tuesday, 4 September 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
Does anyone know the tubing specs for this application? The diameter
of the tubes use previously is 5/8", but I can't tell what the
thickness is.
Thanks,
Jeff
>
>
>Jeff
>Seems to me, you have the new tube coming, you can make a new one in
>a afternoon. Slap on a couple coats of paint and do the fly ins.
>Can you do your own welding? If not, someone here might do it for you.
>Dick
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 5:19 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
>
>>Gang,
>>
>>I broke the Piet's tail gear this afternoon - broke at the welds of
>>the "V", just ahead of the vertical spring. The 30 year old welds
>>couldn't take the pounding that occurs with one of my multi-hop
>>landings.
>>
>>Does anyone know of a gear that can be bought? The current gear uses
>>the two steel tubes in a V as per the later plans (I think) with a
>>spring running vertically at the point of the "V". What we have now
>>is probably not repairable. I've attached photos prior to the
>>collapse. They're not very good; I'll try to upload better ones later.
>>
>>We have four fly-ins starting 10 days from now that I'd really like
>>to make if at all possible. One of them my Dad is coming into town
>>specifically to ride in the Piet to. I'm open to any suggestions
>>about how to beg, borrow, or buy a complete "V". Note that the
>>tailwheel and hardware is fine; it's just the "V" that is knackered.
>>In the mean time, I'm ordering tubing from AS&S to make a new one.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Jeff
>
>
4:32 PM
4:32 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine question...... |
In a message dated 9/3/2007 11:41:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com writes:
Forgive me for sticking my neck out.....just curious how many other
applications of engines have been tried in the pietenpol? With Continental and
Lycoming
prices on the rise, just wondering if other applications have been used
(outside of the Model A also)?
The 'Pietenpol Aircamper' has had a wider variety of engines installed in
this airframe, than any other aircraft in history. Direct drive, long stroke
engines that swing a big prop work best.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tail gear collapse |
Jeff,
The plans tail skid call for 5/8" 20ga (.035") wall thickness. One thing to
keep in mind is how much higher the tail sits, after you put that wheel under
the 'Vee'. On my plane, I tried to keep the tail as low as I could, by
installing the wheel behind the aft edge of the 'Vee', in order to keep the tail
as
low as possible. This helps with doing full stall landings, and keeps a lot
of the twisting loads from breaking the assembly. On the ground, I spin the
tail around and around with the smoke on, and haven't had any problems twisting
the tail assembly.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Hall" <adaairport(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Strut mounted Airspeed Indicator |
Hello everyone,
Here is a copy of the strut mounted airspeed indicator that was dicussed
over the weekend. I was able to obtain it last year from another
source. It appears that it is making the Internet rounds.
I have built one for my Sky Scout, and it does seem to work when I hold
it outside a car window.
Regards to all and happy building,
Terry Hall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I had an email from Ron and Patricia Hollmer in Corpus Christi, TX- they now
own Howard Henderson's Ford A-powered Piet and keep it at Rockport, TX. I
added them to the Frappr site.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Share your special parenting moments!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I received a nice laminated photo of the "Piet kids" in the mail last week.
I think they sent out photos to everyone who contributed to their
restoration project and trip to Oshkosh. Very encouraging to see young
people carring the 75 year old design into the 21st century and beyond!
Who knows; there might be a daydreaming young student doodling in class
right now, working on a biodiesel Piet or a hydrogen Piet or something else
like that, even as we speak...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Test your celebrity IQ. Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes!
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | tail gear collapse |
Peter,
Thanks for the reply. I finally had a chance to go through the list
archives. There is one posting that suggests using 0.049,
specifically stating that he found that 0.035 wasn't strong enough. I
think I may have just confirmed that! (Well, for MY bouncey landings,
anyway).
Jeff
>
>
>Jeff,
>
>5/8 inch 20 gauge (0.035")??. You will need about 34 inches.
>
>Cheers
>
>Peter
>Wonthaggi Australia
>http://www.cpc-world.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
>Boatright
>Sent: Tuesday, 4 September 2007 12:18 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
>
>
>Does anyone know the tubing specs for this application? The diameter
>of the tubes use previously is 5/8", but I can't tell what the
>thickness is.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Indeed some aircraft test setups have been made using the Honda Goldwing
engine (not on a Piet) and it's a nice engine, very available, but the
thrust output shaft is not on the engine centerline. The writeup is in
Contact! magazine and is available from Contact!.
There are so many nice little inline water-cooled fours available out of
cars these days, but as Tim mentioned... you'd be blazing new trails every
time you adapt a new one. And most (all?) would require a redrive to put
the power in the right RPM range for our props and speeds.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Gear up for Halo 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer.
http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_MSNHMTxt_1
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tail gear collapse |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
Jeff,
I haven't built my tail gear yet (I would first need a fuselage to mount
it on), but one thing that I remember reading regarding tailgear
construction was the following:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=Mvc-001s.jpg
&PhotoID=93
Ken Perkins builds and sells these really nice tailgear assemblies (at
least the one on his Air Camper looks really nice). Don't know what the
price is, or if it would fit your application as-is. Note that Ken says
he uses .049" wall thickness to construct his gear, as he found that
.035" as shown in the plans is too light for use with a tailwheel. (It's
probably adequate for a tailskid, though).
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
Does anyone know the tubing specs for this application? The diameter of
the tubes use previously is 5/8", but I can't tell what the thickness
is.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question...... |
Some of the fellows in the rotary world have been working on a 1/2 Mazda 13B
engine to fit LSA category AC. That is a single rotor Wankel made out of a
Mazda RX7 13B rotary. Estimated power at 100 hp and complete weight under
200lbs. Don't know if any have flown yet but it looks promising as you can
use the more inexpensive Hirth redirve instead of the more costly RWS unit.
Off the shelf components such as shortened E-shaft (crank) Peripheral port
rotor housing and aluminum end housing are available from the rotary racing
suppliers. The fellow in the attached pictures cooked up his own single
rotor Wankel out of junkyard parts. Should make for a nice set up for an
Aircamper.
michael in maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | tail gear collapse |
Speaking of tail assembly I have the same type "V" and a solid rubber wheel,
is there a modification to make this castoring wheel stearable? I haven't
installed it yet and am looking at how to rig this up?
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:36 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
Jeff,
I haven't built my tail gear yet (I would first need a fuselage to mount
it on), but one thing that I remember reading regarding tailgear
construction was the following:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=Mvc-001s.jpg
&PhotoID=93
Ken Perkins builds and sells these really nice tailgear assemblies (at
least the one on his Air Camper looks really nice). Don't know what the
price is, or if it would fit your application as-is. Note that Ken says
he uses .049" wall thickness to construct his gear, as he found that
.035" as shown in the plans is too light for use with a tailwheel. (It's
probably adequate for a tailskid, though).
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
Does anyone know the tubing specs for this application? The diameter of
the tubes use previously is 5/8", but I can't tell what the thickness
is.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Guys,
In our efforts to become better welders, this might help. I've read
about it, and have been using it when I TIG, especially metals that are
very sensative to contamination (aluminum for example) but it should
help with gas welding too.
In the interest of keeping contamination to your rod minimal, keep the
rod tip in the gas envelope between "dabs", or until the end isn't red
anymore. Many of us do this naturally, but many of us also probably
pull it completely out and forget about it until we need it again.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Winter <twinter1(at)unl.edu> |
Yesterday I took a strip of wood five and one half foot long strip,
1/4'x1/2', and nails and used the strip for a french curve, along
the points I'd already measured out for the wing rib. Like
modeling!! Pine board instead of homosote, nails instead of pins,
spruce instead of balsa! If my spruce "french curve" did not hit ALL
the points spot-on, I didn't worry: the original curve followed the
way a strip of wood could be bent, so I figgered the wood knew more
about it than my measured points. Cut out the full size paper rib,
and spray-painted around it on the board. Two sessions and I've
nearly got the rib jig. Much more relaxing than wrenching on the
engines. (Hammer and billet on kerosene-soaked pistons!)
________________________________________________________________________________
> There are so many nice little inline water-cooled fours available out of
> cars these days, but as Tim mentioned... you'd be blazing new trails every
> time you adapt a new one. And most (all?) would require a redrive to put
> the power in the right RPM range for our props and speeds.
On paper a Corvair needs a redrive to extract its full potential, but the
beauty of it is that when you elect to leave some HP on the table and accept
a lower output by going direct drive and limiting the revs accordingly, you
add simplicity and longevity.
I'm sure there are any number of lightweight import (water-cooled, DOHC, 16V
etc.) four bangers that make 125-145+ ponies at 6K RPM, that probably could
make 85HP+ @ 3250 RPM direct drive and power a Piet nicely.
BUT!!! as mentioned, the builder would be a pioneer.
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tail gear collapse |
You could bring it to the Big Piet Factory next Monday night . I'm sure it
can be fixed.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: tail gear collapse
> Gang,
>
> I broke the Piet's tail gear this afternoon - broke at the welds of
> the "V", just ahead of the vertical spring. The 30 year old welds
> couldn't take the pounding that occurs with one of my multi-hop
> landings.
>
> Does anyone know of a gear that can be bought? The current gear uses
> the two steel tubes in a V as per the later plans (I think) with a
> spring running vertically at the point of the "V". What we have now
> is probably not repairable. I've attached photos prior to the
> collapse. They're not very good; I'll try to upload better ones later.
>
> We have four fly-ins starting 10 days from now that I'd really like
> to make if at all possible. One of them my Dad is coming into town
> specifically to ride in the Piet to. I'm open to any suggestions
> about how to beg, borrow, or buy a complete "V". Note that the
> tailwheel and hardware is fine; it's just the "V" that is knackered.
> In the mean time, I'm ordering tubing from AS&S to make a new one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol kids |
Hey !! I received that picture of the 'Pietenpol Kids' too !! You're right
on Oscar, about our next generation of Pietenpol Builders. There is also a
good article about them in the Sport Aviation that I got today. No doubt these
kids are much more confident about any endeavor they choose in their life, and
I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that several of them will someday build a
Pietenpol of their own !!
>From Trees & Rags
to
Stick & Rudder
Pietenpols are Forever !!
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: tail gear collapse |
Barry,
Much, much thanks for the kind offer. My hangar mate (who was in the
front cockpit when I took the Piet on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride) is going
to take a crack it first. If we can't figure it out by next Monday,
you might just see me pull up with busted gear in hand and tail
between my legs!
Jeff
>
>You could bring it to the Big Piet Factory next Monday night . I'm
>sure it can be fixed.
>Barry
>
--
_____________________________________________________________
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: | Ryan Michals <aircamperace(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question...... |
One of the attractive features of the Piet for me was the fact that it uses a low
revving engine. The sound of an old Ford or Continental puttin' along adds
to the whole experiance, rather than somthin' on the nose screeming like it may
blow apart at any moment (no offense ultralight guys).
Ryan
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder
tool.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Ron & Patricia Hollmer's Piet |
I've sent a picture of Ron & Patricia's Piet to Chris Tracy for uploading to
his excellent photo archive site and I'm sure he'll let us know when he has
a chance to upload it. It's a beauty. Very classic lines... Ford Model A
engine that appears to run the conversion just as Messrs. Pietenpol and
Hoopman's drawings show. It has jury struts (vertical) but no horizontal
stiffener between them. It has X-brace wires in the passenger side cabane
bay, no cabane struts. V-type tailwheel with the spring per plans but with
a tailwheel added rather than a skid. Center section fuel tank per plans.
A very nice laminated semi-scimitar or paddle type prop, obviously
hand-carved or at least made to order.
The photo seems to show that there is either no cover on the section of the
top boot cowl where the instruments go, or else it is hinged down in the
picture because the rear of the instruments can be seen. The tail surfaces
have bendable (fixed) aluminum trim tabs on both rudder and elevator and
both are deflected, indicating that there were some trim issues.
Classic wooden main gear legs, solid axle with bungee suspension, and looks
like no brakes of any kind.
He reports that he was surprised at how well it performs with the Ford A
engine (but admittedly he's located at sea level and there are no forests
there than I know of!), has about 15 hours in it and everybody he gives
rides to loves it, but it flies a bit heavy on the right wing and apparently
does not have threaded fork clevises on the wing strut ends to allow
adjusting the wing incidence to wash it out a bit to take out the heaviness.
He's looking into that.
I've got to go visit these folks...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft Office Live!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol kids |
I got my pic tonight. I am impressed by the way the kids look, their enthusiasm
and readiness, and by the plane. It's great that they are getting attention,
sponsorship, and personal development. I am glad we are a part of that. Thanks
to all involved in MT.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
>Sent: Sep 4, 2007 6:07 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol kids
>
>Hey !! I received that picture of the 'Pietenpol Kids' too !! You're right
>on Oscar, about our next generation of Pietenpol Builders. There is also a
>good article about them in the Sport Aviation that I got today. No doubt these
>kids are much more confident about any endeavor they choose in their life, and
>I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that several of them will someday build a
>Pietenpol of their own !!
>
>>From Trees & Rags
> to
>Stick & Rudder
>
>Pietenpols are Forever !!
>
>
>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Ron and Patricis Hollmer's Piet |
Oscar and All,
The picture can be found at
http://westcoastpiet.com/howard_henderson_444hh.htm it's the one on the very
bottom.
Oscar, I see brakes. They look to be small, perhaps 4-inch, drum brakes.
If you look closely I think he has pins on the axel like Mike Cuy.
Grant MacLaren has a great write-up on this plane at
http://users.aol.com/bpabpabpa/n444mh1.html
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Ron and Patricis Hollmer's Piet |
I think the rims are making it look like there are brakes. The spokes are
still straight (as in Howard's original build) so unless someone added them,
there probably aren't any brakes.
I want mine to look like Howard's when it grows up!!!! That thing is
beautiful.
jm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:46 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Ron and Patricis Hollmer's Piet
>
>
> Oscar and All,
>
> The picture can be found at
> http://westcoastpiet.com/howard_henderson_444hh.htm it's the one on the
> very bottom.
> Oscar, I see brakes. They look to be small, perhaps 4-inch, drum brakes.
> If you look closely I think he has pins on the axel like Mike Cuy.
>
> Grant MacLaren has a great write-up on this plane at
> http://users.aol.com/bpabpabpa/n444mh1.html
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
> Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine question...... |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
My 80 hp Franklin just hums,no screaming and yes up here in cold Canada
it is an ultralight and when it starts that's when it putts.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan
Michals
Sent: September 4, 2007 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question......
One of the attractive features of the Piet for me was the fact that it
uses a low revving engine. The sound of an old Ford or Continental
puttin' along adds to the whole experiance, rather than somthin' on the
nose screeming like it may blow apart at any moment (no offense
ultralight guys).
Ryan
________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Several years a guy in Alabama was flying a Piet with a Chevy 4 cyl.
from an S-10. It later crashed for reasons not the fault of the engine.
I'm still waiting for him to come foreward with all the details. (good
thing I'm not holding my breath) If you missed the Model A forum at
Brodhead, we learned about an automotive engineer who has re designed
the model A engine to modern standards and is planning to have it
produced in China for about 3K if he can get enough interest. for a
production run. E-mail him and tell him you'll take a dozen!
modelaengine.com Leon S. in Ks. who hasn't touched the Piet yet this
year.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AMsafetyC(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of hp
out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would much
rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and redrive.
Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a max
rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is greatly
appreciated!
John
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Dallas" <bec176(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
John, The big change would be in the cam profile. You need to find an
automotive machinist that knows cams and can grind a profile for the
torque/RPM range that you want. The bad thing is more than likely the
horsepower will be considerably lower than the stock engine trying to get
the peak torque at say 2600 RPM.
Jim Dallas
>From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:44:22 EDT
>
>What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of hp
>out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would much
>rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and
>redrive.
>
>Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a max
>rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
>
>I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
>already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
>greatly
>appreciated!
>
>John
>
>
>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
Has anyone checked this one out?
http://www.donovanengineering.com/Blocks/ModelDBlock.html
In my "wild about car" days, Donovan engines were about the best.
I have asked for information but it hasn't arrived yet.
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority
of hp out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I
would much rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full
rpm and redrive.
Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a
max rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
greatly appreciated!
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
A good rule of thumb is RPM x displacement (in cubic inches) =F7 5,250
will
get you close to what you can expect from HP.
So as an example, your 2000cc (122 cubes) @ 3,250 RPM could net upwards
of
75 ponies. If you need to turn it slower, say 2,750 RPM then HP drops to
59.
So if you increase the cubes by bore and stroke (if that=92s possible)
you
could gain a few ponies back. You can also pick a little more power by
increasing the compression ratio and by playing with the timing.
Cam grind can help too if you can find such a cam. Most cams made for
little
motors are to help the engine spin faster. Do you know of a stock torque
curve graph that=92s out there for this engine?
The good thing about trying to find extra power with an auto conversion
is
the lack of a need for =93drivability=94. You pretty much have three
throttle
positions, wide open, cruise, and pattern and not any start-and-stop
driving
like with a car.
But with direct drive you have to concern yourself with the crank. A
PSRU
can isolate the crank from all the gyroscopic concerns imposed by the
prop
(in addition to thrust), and in many cases, offer some sort of torsional
vibration damping.
Pat
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of
hp
out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would
much
rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and
redrive.
Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a
max
rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
greatly appreciated!
John
_____
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons.
Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short
stroke and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and
storebought aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but
you ain't gonna find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the
above torque requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet
and buy engine designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite
the bullet again and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's
modified, somewhat proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU,
do to rpm needed to get torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the
pistons are oppossed like VW or Corvair, thus they don't vibrate
themselves to death at high rpms. Biggest problem with looking a
alternate sources of power is waste of your time and money. I know it's
called experimental, but the engine alternative experiment has been
beaten to death by every type and sort of homebuilder and some spam cans
with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole Buick V-8's. There's
tonnes of research and experiment documentation out there in
internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have
worked and are working are well documented.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority
of hp out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I
would much rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full
rpm and redrive.
Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a
max rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
greatly appreciated!
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
You could even do a direct drive Subaru as Ed Barros is doing on his highly
modified KR in Agentina.
Cant get much simpler and afordable than that.
http://www.kr2-egb.com.ar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
| From: | "skellytownflyer" <hanover(at)centramedia.net> |
Well I wonder how the re-drive bug engine is holding up that gene what's his name
in Missourri builds and also sells the drive unit for? I have a friend that
wants to buy one of his backyard flyer's with one of them on it pretty bad.but
unless he sells his Tailwind for a pretty good price-I doubt he will.another
buddy is thinking along the same lines if he sells his Glassair.that's the fastest
plane I ever got to fly for sure.but they are geting into the Light Sport
mentality now instead of just wanting to go fast.I guess the grass is surely
allways greener on the other side of the runway.Don't know why one of those engines
would'nt power a Piet pretty well too and surely be lighter than a model
A or a Corvair.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132979#132979
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BFD" <mr.clean(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
Thats a good one! lol
Low rpm torque comes from short stroke and large diameter piston
engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought aircraft engines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
BFD seems to have a tad of doubt, soooo. Here's an example for doubting
BFD's. GM and Ford both made a 3.8l V-6 engine. Equal displacement but
Ford engine has larger bore and shorter stroke to get same cubic inches
as GM. Get a copy of the torque curve and ck it out yourself who has
the highest torque at lowest RPM's. Ford and Chrysler (Cummings) both
making approx same displacement diesel engine, the Cummings engine has
larger bore and shorter stroke, look up the torque curve and see who has
highest torque at lowest RPM.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: BFD
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
Thats a good one! lol
Low rpm torque comes from short stroke and large diameter piston
engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought aircraft engines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "baileys" <baileys(at)ktis.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
IMHO the bug engine at it's current level of development would be a good
candidate as long as one didn't try and push it too hard. I belive the
redrive you mention is one from Valley Engineering aka Culver Props.
Father and Son team Gene and Larry Smith are the ones running the show
http://www.culverprops.com/index.php
Even if you aren't interested in a bug engine it is an interesting site
to browse. Also I belive they won an award for their Briggs & Stratton
conversion at EAA.
----- Original Message -----
From: skellytownflyer
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Engine question
Well I wonder how the re-drive bug engine is holding up that gene
what's his name in Missourri builds and also sells the drive unit for? I
have a friend that wants to buy one of his backyard flyer's with one of
them on it pretty bad.but unless he sells his Tailwind for a pretty good
price-I doubt he will.another buddy is thinking along the same lines if
he sells his Glassair.that's the fastest plane I ever got to fly for
sure.but they are geting into the Light Sport mentality now instead of
just wanting to go fast.I guess the grass is surely allways greener on
the other side of the runway.Don't know why one of those engines
would'nt power a Piet pretty well too and surely be lighter than a model
A or a Corvair.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132979#132979
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | voltage regulator |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I am putting the generator back into the 80 hp Franklin that I have on
my GN-1 Aircamper. It supplies 12v to recharge the battery. Could
someone shed some light on what would be the best voltage regulator to
buy for this application, thanks for any info in advance.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: voltage regulator |
Harvey,
My admittedly modest contribution, after suffering with related problems.
Besides voltage and current (Amps), you have to know if your generator is
type "A" or "B" circuit.
All Delco Remy generators are type "A." For better explanation, go to
_www.aerotechlou.com_ (http://www.aerotechlou.com) , "Troubleshooting alternator and
generator issues".
As an example: my Pacer has a Delco Remy generator (hence type "A") 12V and
35 Amps. The VR recommended is Electrodelta VR300, which will cost you app.
$150.00.
The automotive version -- performancewise the same as the aircraft grade -
is a VR22, generally found or ordered from NAPA / Car Quest and the like. It
was used in GM Corvair cars and is still used by many a farm tractor. It should
cost you around $35.00. One last word: buy American. The current Chinese
crop is worse than the toys they make, in the words of people in the known
(Ecorse Electric/MI).
Best of luck,
Miguel
N8714D
PA22/20-150
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
I believe I need a new ELT, and I am wondering what would be the best
place to put it. I can easily mount it behind the pilot's seat, but
that hurts rear CG. I can mount it up front, but the metal cowling
will be detrimental to antenna operation (I don't want the antenna to
be external).
Right now I'm leaning towards the AmeriKing AK-450 ELT. I'd really,
really prefer the 406mhz ELTs, since they actually might work in a
real emergency, but I can't stomach the $1,000 price tag, when I can
get a standard ELT for 20% of that price.
So, give me your ELT location suggestions. Any pictures would be great.
Thanks,
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | copyright question |
A little off-topic but not much. Does anyone on the list know if the
designs published in the 1930s Flying & Glider Manuals are copyrighted? I
have all the manuals and have looked for something to that effect on the
covers and inside the manuals, but all I find is that the EAA Foundation or
someone else has reprinted them in modern times and offered them for sale as
new printings.
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
A place for moms to take a break!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
| From: | "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> |
I've been pondering the VW TDI diesel engine for a Piet...
I own one (in a car). 90hp, peak torque at 1850 rpm.
No idea how much it weights - guestimating that it's in the ballpark of a Model
A's weight.
Biggest real-world issue would be fuel availability. The type of airports most
likely to sell Jet-A are the type of airports I'd be least likely to visit.
But from a technical perspective I believe it could be done.
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=133176#133176
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Skip Gadd" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net> |
Steve,
I used the AK-450 and located it behind the seat. The ELT antenna is the
dark vertical line between the elevator push/pull rod and rudder cable. The
aft location is not a problem for me since I weigh 90 lbs less than the guy
I bought the plane from. Since the plane is wood and experimental you can
locate the antenna inside the fuze. I used the same ground plane for the
com and ELT antennas. If you do mount the ELT up front, I wouldn't worry
about the cowl interfering with the antenna operation, since if the ELT
activated the plane may be upside down and the cowl would be a great ground
plane;)
Skip
>
> So, give me your ELT location suggestions. Any pictures would be great.
> Thanks,
> Steve Ruse
> Norman, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Steve;
I actually gave some thought to putting the ELT in the wing center section
when I moved it, since 41CC has neither a wing locker nor a fuel tank there.
Problem is the antenna, which needs to stand vertically for best signal
output (I believe). So... I ended up moving mine from up between the pax'
feet to back behind the pilot where Corky mounted an aluminum ground plane.
I've mounted both the ELT whip and the VHF COMM antenna on the same ground
plane but separated them as far as possible. Far from ideal, but at least
no antennae show.
Alternatively, you can mount the radio wherever you want and put the whip
back behind the seat with only some coax cable between them. You're going
to need an antenna lead-in cable one way or the other and the losses aren't
going to be too terribly great for a couple of feet of coax cable. I have
some extra, premade coax whips with BNC connectors on both ends if you want
one.
My CFI reminded me that the 121.5 Mhz SARSAT won't be officially monitored
beyond 2/1/2009 and those of us who elect to continue to fly under the
grandfather clause with the old ELTs will have to rely on overflying
aircraft or ground stations who happen to be monitoring 121.5 for help in
time of need. Sort of like, "if a tree falls in the forest after 2/1/2009,
will the FAA hear it fall?". My response was, I'm still waiting for anyone
to acknowledge the ELT in 41CC going off when it went on its back a couple
of years ago and sat in Zapata for a week with the ELT yelping away. I
wouldn't hold my breath and I sure won't spring $1,000 for a fancier ELT for
my Piet.
If I go down in this fun little airplane, just wrap me in a piece of the
fabric from it before you plant me 6 feet under. And since I probably won't
complain about anything at that point, go ahead and toss the old 121.5 Mhz
ELT from the airplane in the grave with me. Just be sure to flip the switch
from 'armed' to 'off' before you do, and in order to comply with the FARs
remove the old battery from service and replace with a new one ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo!
http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_hotmailtextlink1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
This just came to us in Alaska today:
Termination of 121.5 MHz Beacons for Satellite Alerting is Coming Soon
Notice Number: NOTC0981
On 1 February 2009, the International Cospas-Sarsat [1][1] Organization
(U.S. included) will terminate processing of distress signals emitted by
121.5 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs). This means that pilots
flying aircraft equipped with 121.5 MHz ELTs after that date will have
to
depend on pilots of over flying aircraft and or ground stations
monitoring
121.5 to hear and report distress alert signals, transmitted from a
possible
crash site.
Why is this happening?
Although lives have been saved by 121.5 MHz ELTs, the downside has been
their propensity to generate false alerts (approximately 98 percent of
all
121.5 MHz alerts are false), and their failure to provide rescue forces
with
timely and accurate crash location data. Both of which actually delay
rescue
efforts and have a direct effect on an individual's chance for survival.
Rescue forces have to respond to all 121.5 MHz alerts to determine if
they
are real distress alerts or if they are being generated by an
interferer, an
inadvertent activation (by the owner) or equipment failure.
Is there an alternative?
Yes, the Cospas-Sarsat System (U.S. included) has been and will continue
processing emergency signals transmitted by 406 MHz ELTs. These 5 Watt
digital beacons transmit a much stronger signal, are more accurate,
verifiable and traceable to the registered beacon owner (406 MHz ELTs
must
be registered by the owner in accordance with Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regulation). Registration allows the search and rescue
authorities to contact the beacon owner, or his or her designated
alternate
by telephone to determine if a real emergency exists. Therefore, a
simple
telephone call often solves a 406 MHz alerts without launching costly
and
limited search and rescue resources, which would have to be done for a
121.5
MHz alert. For these reasons, the search and rescue community is
encouraging
aircraft owners to consider retrofit of 406 MHz ELTs or at a minimum,
consider the purchase of a handheld 406 MHz Personal Locator Beacon
(PLB)
which can be carried in the cockpit while continuing to maintain a fixed
121.5 MHz ELT mounted in the aircraft's tail.
Remember, after February 1, 2009, the world-wide Cospas-Sarsat satellite
system will no longer process 121.5 MHz alert signals. Pilots involved
in
aircraft accidents in remote areas will have to depend on pilots of over
flying aircraft and or ground stations to hear emergency ELT distress
signals. For further information concerning the termination of 121.5 MHz
data processing visit www.sarsat.noaa.gov
Rob Stapleton, BFI/ Sport Pilot
www.AlaskaSportPilotCenter.net
907-230-9425
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | copyright question |
They are in public domain if the copyright holder is dead. It is possible
for the copyright holder to deed the rights to a trust but this is usually
done to make sure that they are re-distributed for public use.
RS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar Zuniga
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: copyright question
A little off-topic but not much. Does anyone on the list know if the
designs published in the 1930s Flying & Glider Manuals are copyrighted? I
have all the manuals and have looked for something to that effect on the
covers and inside the manuals, but all I find is that the EAA Foundation or
someone else has reprinted them in modern times and offered them for sale as
new printings.
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
A place for moms to take a break!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
Haa, ja, ja,
Good reply and fitting.
Thanks for the humor Oscar!
RS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar Zuniga
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ELT location
Steve;
I actually gave some thought to putting the ELT in the wing center section
when I moved it, since 41CC has neither a wing locker nor a fuel tank there.
Problem is the antenna, which needs to stand vertically for best signal
output (I believe). So... I ended up moving mine from up between the pax'
feet to back behind the pilot where Corky mounted an aluminum ground plane.
I've mounted both the ELT whip and the VHF COMM antenna on the same ground
plane but separated them as far as possible. Far from ideal, but at least
no antennae show.
Alternatively, you can mount the radio wherever you want and put the whip
back behind the seat with only some coax cable between them. You're going
to need an antenna lead-in cable one way or the other and the losses aren't
going to be too terribly great for a couple of feet of coax cable. I have
some extra, premade coax whips with BNC connectors on both ends if you want
one.
My CFI reminded me that the 121.5 Mhz SARSAT won't be officially monitored
beyond 2/1/2009 and those of us who elect to continue to fly under the
grandfather clause with the old ELTs will have to rely on overflying
aircraft or ground stations who happen to be monitoring 121.5 for help in
time of need. Sort of like, "if a tree falls in the forest after 2/1/2009,
will the FAA hear it fall?". My response was, I'm still waiting for anyone
to acknowledge the ELT in 41CC going off when it went on its back a couple
of years ago and sat in Zapata for a week with the ELT yelping away. I
wouldn't hold my breath and I sure won't spring $1,000 for a fancier ELT for
my Piet.
If I go down in this fun little airplane, just wrap me in a piece of the
fabric from it before you plant me 6 feet under. And since I probably won't
complain about anything at that point, go ahead and toss the old 121.5 Mhz
ELT from the airplane in the grave with me. Just be sure to flip the switch
from 'armed' to 'off' before you do, and in order to comply with the FARs
remove the old battery from service and replace with a new one ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo!
http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_hotmailtextlink1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Wood Landing Gear |
Seeing as the list is a bit slow with builders, I'm going to chime in here.
After a lot of late night building my wood gear legs are finally finished.
It took a lot longer to build the wood gear then I though but then again
everything takes me 10 times longer to build then I think it should.
Also, whom ever came up with the idea of using the split nuts to hold the
cable while swaging was a genius. Photo attached of these wonderful things.
I found them at OSH Hardware store in the electrical section. I would bet
you could find them at most good hardware stores. I have been using the
Swage-it Tools #2 Swaging tool and it works great. I even cut open a sleeve
to see how well it was crimping it on to the wire. I was really impressed by
its area of contact and the swaged fitting. Also, it is very easy to use by
my self.
I will post larger pictures to my website in a few days.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
Rob, did the NTSB ever come up with a cause for the crash that killed
Mike and his student?
Gene
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
9/6/2007 8:36 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | voltage regulator |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
Thankyou very much for that info.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
Sent: September 6, 2007 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: voltage regulator
Harvey,
My admittedly modest contribution, after suffering with related
problems.
Besides voltage and current (Amps), you have to know if your generator
is type "A" or "B" circuit.
All Delco Remy generators are type "A." For better explanation, go to
www.aerotechlou.com, "Troubleshooting alternator and generator issues".
As an example: my Pacer has a Delco Remy generator (hence type "A") 12V
and 35 Amps. The VR recommended is Electrodelta VR300, which will cost
you app. $150.00.
The automotive version -- performancewise the same as the aircraft grade
- is a VR22, generally found or ordered from NAPA / Car Quest and the
like. It was used in GM Corvair cars and is still used by many a farm
tractor. It should cost you around $35.00. One last word: buy American.
The current Chinese crop is worse than the toys they make, in the words
of people in the known (Ecorse Electric/MI).
Best of luck,
Miguel
N8714D
PA22/20-150
________________________________
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LWATCDR <lwatcdr(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
Not exactly correct. In fact way off.
For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get
but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on
the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed.
So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably
want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The
bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will
effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people
tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when.
They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making
very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the
other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they
use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak
is very high in the RPM band.
Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction
and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start
on flame travel and forced induction.
So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio
for turning the prop that you want to turn.
The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst
possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very
little torque.
I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems
a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a
lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could
be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both
Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they
could also be very interesting.
The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern
motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the
thrust bearings will handle the load a
On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote:
>
>
> Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons.
> Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short stroke
> and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought
> aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't gonna
> find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque
> requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy engine
> designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet again
> and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat
> proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to get
> torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like VW or
> Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms. Biggest
> problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time and
> money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative
> experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of homebuilder
> and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole Buick
> V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out there in
> internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have worked
> and are working are well documented.
> Gordon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
>
> What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of hp
> out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would much
> rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and redrive.
>
> Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a max
> rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
>
> I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
> already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
> greatly appreciated!
>
> John
>
>
> ________________________________
> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
> target=_blank>AOL.com.
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AMsafetyC(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
As this all sounds like a balancing act but then engine torque/rpm issues
can be mitigated in some degree by matching up a propeller to that engine to
determine the best combination to avoid exceeding the 92% of Mach speed at the
propeller tip at a maximum allowable Rpm. which at any luck will be at the
max torque.
I located this calculator to help make those calculations and plugging in a
number of variables.
_http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html_
(http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html)
Like most things in this life, its not the end all but it certainly helps
take much of the guess work out of the balancing act.
John
BTW does anyone have a resource for torque curve charts I want to check my
engine options to see what they actually look like on the torque charts
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "skellytownflyer" <hanover(at)centramedia.net> |
Well I bought new Gell cell battery last summer when I got my Tri-pacer annualed.Yea
I know it's not a *iet-but is aircraft.I didn't fly much and it was dead
by mid-winter.messed around and charged it back up and flew once or twice but
still had to jump it.but didn't take it back in time to get it replaced.now
I'm wondering if there are any tricks to getting a gel cell to accept a charge?
I put a solar panel on the roof of the hangar in winter and kept it hooked up
but it won't maintain a charge.wondering if hitting it with a heavy charger
might wake it up-have tried slow charge and it seems to indicate enough voltage
to cut back pretty quick but just won't hold.might crank it that day but a few
days later-go back and it's dead.Gill put out some bad batteries I know.but
I'm a tightwad and would'nt mind trying to get a little use out of it.still planning
on starting cover on my GN-1 wings in about 6 weeks.Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=133284#133284
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
I think the original thread on this discussion came regarding how to get by
without the PRU using a car engine. Guess if one was building an engine for
a tractor pull then having the long stroke for leverage on the crank good
idea, or if building a NASCAR engine for routine 9000rpm (short stroke)
would be great but we're talking aircraft. Engines like Lyco have very large
bore and short stroke. Designed to run hours at a time for decades at 2500
rpm and at peak torque. Think the reason for big bore aircraft engines is
first for durability and then improved breathing and lower frictional
losses. Without PRU cannot run any car engine at RPM's needed to get to
peak of torque curve, so what can you do to move the torque curve peak back
to say 2700 rpm. Very few options. Don't think any car engine is designed
for long durations of 4000 rpms even if you use a PRU. Could make cam
changes to open small valves on small cylinders but in a big bore engines
you already have larger and unshrouded valves away from the cylinder walls,
no need to experiment with the cam. To adjust for poorer fuel/air burn in
bigger bore you'd need two plugs per cylinder. The shorter stroke would
mean less losses due to friction and less vibration. Subaru's seem to work
for aircraft because they are 3.46" bore and 2.591" stroke, but still need
two plugs and PRU to get the advertised 125hp. To get a car engine to work
so it could run like a aircraft engine you have to consider: vibration (less
with short stroke), and fuel/air vacuum pumping by the intake stroke of the
cylinder (bigger valves on big bore engines). Someplace there's a website
for a guy that builds VW engines for racing, he had made many changes in
the cams and still came to the conclusion it all came down to bigger bore
engines means better breathing and less frictional losses. I have a V-6
3.8L Ford engine with supercharger down at the hanger in FL, including motor
mount, 225hp at 5200 rpm according to Ford. I'll donate it to anyone who
wants to put it on their C-172 and do the flight testing with or without a
PRU. Big fan of idea auto engines for aircraft, but haven't seen anything
I'm willing to fly, yet.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "LWATCDR" <lwatcdr(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
> Not exactly correct. In fact way off.
> For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get
> but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on
> the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed.
> So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably
> want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The
> bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will
> effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people
> tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when.
> They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making
> very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the
> other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they
> use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak
> is very high in the RPM band.
> Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction
> and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start
> on flame travel and forced induction.
>
> So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio
> for turning the prop that you want to turn.
> The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst
> possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very
> little torque.
>
> I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems
> a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a
> lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could
> be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both
> Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they
> could also be very interesting.
> The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern
> motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the
> thrust bearings will handle the load a
>
> On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons.
>> Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short
>> stroke
>> and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought
>> aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't
>> gonna
>> find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque
>> requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy engine
>> designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet again
>> and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat
>> proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to
>> get
>> torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like VW
>> or
>> Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms.
>> Biggest
>> problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time
>> and
>> money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative
>> experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of homebuilder
>> and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole
>> Buick
>> V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out there
>> in
>> internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have
>> worked
>> and are working are well documented.
>> Gordon
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>>
>>
>> What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of
>> hp
>> out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would
>> much
>> rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and
>> redrive.
>>
>> Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a max
>> rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
>>
>> I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
>> already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
>> greatly appreciated!
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
>> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
>> target=_blank>AOL.com.
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Big Bore&Short Stroke Versus Small Bore&Long Stroke |
Piet Friends,
I have to pitch into this subject.
1 - There is no relationship between PCU (Power Cylinder Unit: piston, rings
and cylinder) wear and bore X stroke combinations. A large range can be made
to achieve expected life limits.
2 - For aircraft engines, the overriding design objective is lightness and
lower BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Minimizing thermal losses (hence
lower BSFC) favors big bores and few cylinders. Given more displacement per
cylinder, less of the same are necessary to generate the power needed, hence
less weight. Example: 4 cyl. Lyc.O-360 versus 6 cyl. Cont. O-360: both are
real 200HP engines. The Lycosaurus has lower BSFC (more mpg) and vibrates more.
The Contisaurus has higher BSFC (less mpg) and is smooth as silk. Smoothness
comes from lower thrust loads (the force pistons exert on cylinder walls) and
better balancing of primary/secondary forces and internal binaries, a
natural with 6 cyl. configuration. So, a large displacement per cylinder rotating
at lower speed is capable of generating the same power as a lower displacement
rotating at higher speed. Short strokes, as said before, implies high conrod
angularity and higher thrust load. Higher thrust load generates friction
losses and greater wear, if same materials are used.
3 - Given the above, large bores predominate. Thus large valves can be used,
resulting in filling efficiencies (so called volumetric efficiency) far in
excess of those achieved by the run-of-the-mill automotive engine. However,
large valves do not induce the high turbulence levels needed for fast
combustion. Thus the extreme sensitivity of our slow revving, big bore aircraft
engines to fuel Octane rating. Higher Octane fuels are needed to preclude
detonation but this slows combustion even more! Therefore, twin spark plugs are
needed
to expedite things. In effect twin spark plugs slice the combustion chamber
in 2 and ensure freedom of detonation under high loads. Incidentally, this is
the root explanation for speed loss when checking magnetos. Normal
combustion is, paradoxically, very slow (20 to 100 m/s). Very high revving engines
(Ferrari V12 comes to mind) have tiny pistons/combustion chambers and get away
with a single spark plug.
4 - Our Lycosaurus and Contisaurus are not perfect (...and in some aspects
irritably so, example in point carbs and mechanical fuel injection, not to
mention single timing magnetos...) but are unbeatable in their primary function:
reliability/safety.
5 - Can one turn an automotive engine into a good aircraft engine? The
answer is an unequivocal YES.
6 - Done properly, almost any automotive engine should have at least 1000h
TBO.
Sorry for the lengthy mail. Intention was to contribute +.
Cheers,
Miguel Azevedo
PA22/20-150
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Potential Auto engine for Pietes |
For those of you bent on trying an auto conversion for your Piete
project, especially considering the prior thread re H.P and torque,
etc.
You may want to look into the engine and chain-driven gears for the
Toyota Prius, engine no. 1NZ-FXE. Only 1.5L but very light all aluminum
engine, twin overhead cam, good torque at 4200 rpms. Probably be hard
to find a wreck but with more cars on the road each year, they'll
eventually be plentiful. Google it, you'll find lots of data on engine
and drive train (no clutch or torque converter). Maybe not enough to
swing a big prop or heavy plane, but a good potential.
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol kids |
I received one a couple days ago also. Very thoughtful of them. I took wood
shop in high school and enjoyed it but I can't imagine how exciting it would
have been to have worked on a project like a Pietenpol. Especially getting
to take a ride in it knowing that I had built a part of it.
Rick
On 9/4/07, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>
> I received a nice laminated photo of the "Piet kids" in the mail last
> week.
> I think they sent out photos to everyone who contributed to their
> restoration project and trip to Oshkosh. Very encouraging to see young
> people carring the 75 year old design into the 21st century and beyond!
>
> Who knows; there might be a daydreaming young student doodling in class
> right now, working on a biodiesel Piet or a hydrogen Piet or something
> else
> like that, even as we speak...
>
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Test your celebrity IQ. Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes!
>
> http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Schreiber" <got22b(at)subarubrat.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question |
This is all very odd to me. We have a Lotus that runs a Toyota 2ZZ based
engine built by Yamaha and it turns almost 9k stock, and is turning 12k
after the build. It is like driving a sportbike with a steering wheel. My
other daily driver is a Subaru 04 STi that put down 300 stock and is now at
just over 500 after a larger turbo, IC, injectors, pump etc. and ECU
reflash. That is where my auto mindset comes from. When I first started
building I looke at auto and aero engines as the same. HP + HP etc. After
allot of looking at the real world I came to see that they are very
different an that people like Gordon have a real point. Granted the model A
engine was not that different from an aero engine in many respects. The more
I get used to it, and as I start down the road of building my second plane,
an Acro Sport II, I see that a 360ci 4Cyl which would be terrible in the
auto world makes sense in the aero world. That said, the PSRU is a valid
idea and Subaru engines are ideal if any are for conversion. I really wanted
to run an EA81 in my Peit and I do think it could have worked but the A65
won out for various reasons, chiefly insurance.
-Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
>
> I think the original thread on this discussion came regarding how to get
> by without the PRU using a car engine. Guess if one was building an
> engine for a tractor pull then having the long stroke for leverage on the
> crank good idea, or if building a NASCAR engine for routine 9000rpm (short
> stroke) would be great but we're talking aircraft. Engines like Lyco have
> very large bore and short stroke. Designed to run hours at a time for
> decades at 2500 rpm and at peak torque. Think the reason for big bore
> aircraft engines is first for durability and then improved breathing and
> lower frictional losses. Without PRU cannot run any car engine at RPM's
> needed to get to peak of torque curve, so what can you do to move the
> torque curve peak back to say 2700 rpm. Very few options. Don't think any
> car engine is designed for long durations of 4000 rpms even if you use a
> PRU. Could make cam changes to open small valves on small cylinders but
> in a big bore engines you already have larger and unshrouded valves away
> from the cylinder walls, no need to experiment with the cam. To adjust
> for poorer fuel/air burn in bigger bore you'd need two plugs per cylinder.
> The shorter stroke would mean less losses due to friction and less
> vibration. Subaru's seem to work for aircraft because they are 3.46"
> bore and 2.591" stroke, but still need two plugs and PRU to get the
> advertised 125hp. To get a car engine to work so it could run like a
> aircraft engine you have to consider: vibration (less with short stroke),
> and fuel/air vacuum pumping by the intake stroke of the cylinder (bigger
> valves on big bore engines). Someplace there's a website for a guy that
> builds VW engines for racing, he had made many changes in the cams and
> still came to the conclusion it all came down to bigger bore engines means
> better breathing and less frictional losses. I have a V-6 3.8L Ford
> engine with supercharger down at the hanger in FL, including motor mount,
> 225hp at 5200 rpm according to Ford. I'll donate it to anyone who wants
> to put it on their C-172 and do the flight testing with or without a PRU.
> Big fan of idea auto engines for aircraft, but haven't seen anything I'm
> willing to fly, yet.
> Gordon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LWATCDR" <lwatcdr(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
>
>>
>> Not exactly correct. In fact way off.
>> For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get
>> but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on
>> the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed.
>> So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably
>> want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The
>> bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will
>> effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people
>> tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when.
>> They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making
>> very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the
>> other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they
>> use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak
>> is very high in the RPM band.
>> Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction
>> and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start
>> on flame travel and forced induction.
>>
>> So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio
>> for turning the prop that you want to turn.
>> The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst
>> possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very
>> little torque.
>>
>> I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems
>> a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a
>> lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could
>> be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both
>> Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they
>> could also be very interesting.
>> The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern
>> motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the
>> thrust bearings will handle the load a
>>
>> On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons.
>>> Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short
>>> stroke
>>> and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought
>>> aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't
>>> gonna
>>> find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque
>>> requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy engine
>>> designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet
>>> again
>>> and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat
>>> proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to
>>> get
>>> torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like VW
>>> or
>>> Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms.
>>> Biggest
>>> problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time
>>> and
>>> money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative
>>> experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of
>>> homebuilder
>>> and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole
>>> Buick
>>> V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out
>>> there in
>>> internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have
>>> worked
>>> and are working are well documented.
>>> Gordon
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
>>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>>>
>>>
>>> What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of
>>> hp
>>> out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would
>>> much
>>> rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and
>>> redrive.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a
>>> max
>>> rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
>>>
>>> I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
>>> already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
>>> greatly appreciated!
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
>>> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
>>> target=_blank>AOL.com.
>>>
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weir" <billweir(at)lon.imag.net> |
Let me add a couple points re automobile engines for Piets.
My son and I laid out the table to start a Piet and hen he got into the two
jobs stage of life and I've become too old but here are a couple thoughts we
had.
Ed Lubits took his Piet to Oshkosh in the early 80s with a Ford 1600cc
Fiesta engine with his own design timing belt reduction. Worked well.
We did not weigh a VW Rabbit turbo diesel but that is certainly one to which
we gave thought. Does anyone have the weight of one with a reduction drive?
One can buy a gear reduction drive for about $1800 out of Montreal set up
for either Subaru EA81 [1800cc] or a Suzuki 1000 or 1300. Suzuki built a
very pretty 1300cc twin cam and with the afore mentioned reduction that was
the way we intended to go. Although the Subaru idea never left us mostly
because of the amount of research on that engine. I think one could obtain
acceptable results with the 2.2 or 2.5 Subaru running direct drive but
because of the size of prop one needs for a Piet the rpm would be limited
and the hp accordingly.
And, of course now that there seems to be good success putting one on a
Zenith there is work being done on at least one locally.
Bill Weir
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pietenpol-List Digest Server" <pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 2:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 09/07/07
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 07-09-07&Archive=Pietenpol
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 07-09-07&Archive=Pietenpol
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Fri 09/07/07: 10
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 03:38 AM - Re: ELT info (Gene & Tammy)
> 2. 04:08 AM - Re: voltage regulator ()
> 3. 08:23 AM - Re: Engine question (LWATCDR)
> 4. 11:02 AM - Re: Engine question (AMsafetyC(at)aol.com)
> 5. 12:58 PM - battery life (skellytownflyer)
> 6. 04:43 PM - Re: Engine question (Gordon Bowen)
> 7. 05:45 PM - Re: Big Bore&Short Stroke Versus Small Bore&Long Stroke
> (AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com)
> 8. 07:55 PM - Potential Auto engine for Pietes (Gordon Bowen)
> 9. 07:59 PM - Re: Pietenpol kids (Rick Holland)
> 10. 10:45 PM - Re: Engine question (Scott Schreiber)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ELT info
>
> Rob, did the NTSB ever come up with a cause for the crash that killed
> Mike and his student?
> Gene
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> 9/6/2007 8:36 AM
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: voltage regulator
> From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
>
> Thankyou very much for that info.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
> Sent: September 6, 2007 5:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: voltage regulator
>
>
> Harvey,
>
> My admittedly modest contribution, after suffering with related
> problems.
>
> Besides voltage and current (Amps), you have to know if your generator
> is type "A" or "B" circuit.
>
> All Delco Remy generators are type "A." For better explanation, go to
> www.aerotechlou.com, "Troubleshooting alternator and generator issues".
>
> As an example: my Pacer has a Delco Remy generator (hence type "A") 12V
> and 35 Amps. The VR recommended is Electrodelta VR300, which will cost
> you app. $150.00.
>
> The automotive version -- performancewise the same as the aircraft grade
> - is a VR22, generally found or ordered from NAPA / Car Quest and the
> like. It was used in GM Corvair cars and is still used by many a farm
> tractor. It should cost you around $35.00. One last word: buy American.
> The current Chinese crop is worse than the toys they make, in the words
> of people in the known (Ecorse Electric/MI).
>
> Best of luck,
>
> Miguel
>
> N8714D
>
> PA22/20-150
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
>
> ..
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: LWATCDR <lwatcdr(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
>
> Not exactly correct. In fact way off.
> For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get
> but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on
> the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed.
> So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably
> want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The
> bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will
> effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people
> tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when.
> They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making
> very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the
> other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they
> use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak
> is very high in the RPM band.
> Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction
> and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start
> on flame travel and forced induction.
>
> So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio
> for turning the prop that you want to turn.
> The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst
> possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very
> little torque.
>
> I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems
> a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a
> lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could
> be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both
> Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they
> could also be very interesting.
> The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern
> motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the
> thrust bearings will handle the load a
>
> On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons.
>> Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short
>> stroke
>> and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought
>> aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't
>> gonna
>> find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque
>> requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy engine
>> designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet again
>> and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat
>> proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to
>> get
>> torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like VW
>> or
>> Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms.
>> Biggest
>> problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time
>> and
>> money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative
>> experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of homebuilder
>> and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole
>> Buick
>> V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out there
>> in
>> internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have
>> worked
>> and are working are well documented.
>> Gordon
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>>
>>
>> What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of
>> hp
>> out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would
>> much
>> rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and
>> redrive.
>>
>> Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a max
>> rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
>>
>> I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
>> already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
>> greatly appreciated!
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
>> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
>> target=_blank>AOL.com.
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
> As this all sounds like a balancing act but then engine torque/rpm issues
> can be mitigated in some degree by matching up a propeller to that engine
> to
> determine the best combination to avoid exceeding the 92% of Mach speed
> at the
>
> propeller tip at a maximum allowable Rpm. which at any luck will be at
> the
> max torque.
>
> I located this calculator to help make those calculations and plugging in
> a
> number of variables.
>
> _http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html_
> (http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html)
>
> Like most things in this life, its not the end all but it certainly helps
> take much of the guess work out of the balancing act.
>
> John
>
> BTW does anyone have a resource for torque curve charts I want to check my
> engine options to see what they actually look like on the torque charts
>
>
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: battery life
> From: "skellytownflyer" <hanover(at)centramedia.net>
>
>
> Well I bought new Gell cell battery last summer when I got my Tri-pacer
> annualed.Yea
> I know it's not a *iet-but is aircraft.I didn't fly much and it was dead
> by mid-winter.messed around and charged it back up and flew once or twice
> but
> still had to jump it.but didn't take it back in time to get it
> replaced.now
> I'm wondering if there are any tricks to getting a gel cell to accept a
> charge?
> I put a solar panel on the roof of the hangar in winter and kept it hooked
> up
> but it won't maintain a charge.wondering if hitting it with a heavy
> charger
> might wake it up-have tried slow charge and it seems to indicate enough
> voltage
> to cut back pretty quick but just won't hold.might crank it that day but a
> few
> days later-go back and it's dead.Gill put out some bad batteries I
> know.but
> I'm a tightwad and would'nt mind trying to get a little use out of
> it.still planning
> on starting cover on my GN-1 wings in about 6 weeks.Raymond
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=133284#133284
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
>
> I think the original thread on this discussion came regarding how to get
> by
> without the PRU using a car engine. Guess if one was building an engine
> for
> a tractor pull then having the long stroke for leverage on the crank good
> idea, or if building a NASCAR engine for routine 9000rpm (short stroke)
> would be great but we're talking aircraft. Engines like Lyco have very
> large
> bore and short stroke. Designed to run hours at a time for decades at 2500
> rpm and at peak torque. Think the reason for big bore aircraft engines is
> first for durability and then improved breathing and lower frictional
> losses. Without PRU cannot run any car engine at RPM's needed to get to
> peak of torque curve, so what can you do to move the torque curve peak
> back
> to say 2700 rpm. Very few options. Don't think any car engine is designed
> for long durations of 4000 rpms even if you use a PRU. Could make cam
> changes to open small valves on small cylinders but in a big bore engines
> you already have larger and unshrouded valves away from the cylinder
> walls,
> no need to experiment with the cam. To adjust for poorer fuel/air burn in
> bigger bore you'd need two plugs per cylinder. The shorter stroke would
> mean less losses due to friction and less vibration. Subaru's seem to
> work
> for aircraft because they are 3.46" bore and 2.591" stroke, but still
> need
> two plugs and PRU to get the advertised 125hp. To get a car engine to
> work
> so it could run like a aircraft engine you have to consider: vibration
> (less
> with short stroke), and fuel/air vacuum pumping by the intake stroke of
> the
> cylinder (bigger valves on big bore engines). Someplace there's a website
> for a guy that builds VW engines for racing, he had made many changes in
> the cams and still came to the conclusion it all came down to bigger bore
> engines means better breathing and less frictional losses. I have a V-6
> 3.8L Ford engine with supercharger down at the hanger in FL, including
> motor
> mount, 225hp at 5200 rpm according to Ford. I'll donate it to anyone who
> wants to put it on their C-172 and do the flight testing with or without a
> PRU. Big fan of idea auto engines for aircraft, but haven't seen anything
> I'm willing to fly, yet.
> Gordon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LWATCDR" <lwatcdr(at)gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
>
>>
>> Not exactly correct. In fact way off.
>> For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get
>> but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on
>> the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed.
>> So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably
>> want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The
>> bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will
>> effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people
>> tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when.
>> They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making
>> very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the
>> other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they
>> use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak
>> is very high in the RPM band.
>> Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction
>> and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start
>> on flame travel and forced induction.
>>
>> So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio
>> for turning the prop that you want to turn.
>> The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst
>> possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very
>> little torque.
>>
>> I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems
>> a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a
>> lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could
>> be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both
>> Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they
>> could also be very interesting.
>> The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern
>> motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the
>> thrust bearings will handle the load a
>>
>> On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons.
>>> Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short
>>> stroke
>>> and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought
>>> aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't
>>> gonna
>>> find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque
>>> requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy engine
>>> designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet
>>> again
>>> and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat
>>> proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to
>>> get
>>> torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like VW
>>> or
>>> Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms.
>>> Biggest
>>> problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time
>>> and
>>> money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative
>>> experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of
>>> homebuilder
>>> and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole
>>> Buick
>>> V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out
>>> there
>>> in
>>> internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have
>>> worked
>>> and are working are well documented.
>>> Gordon
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
>>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>>>
>>>
>>> What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of
>>> hp
>>> out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would
>>> much
>>> rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and
>>> redrive.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a
>>> max
>>> rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
>>>
>>> I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
>>> already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
>>> greatly appreciated!
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
>>> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
>>> target=_blank>AOL.com.
>>>
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 7
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Big Bore&Short Stroke Versus Small Bore&Long
> Stroke
>
> Piet Friends,
> I have to pitch into this subject.
> 1 - There is no relationship between PCU (Power Cylinder Unit: piston,
> rings
> and cylinder) wear and bore X stroke combinations. A large range can be
> made
> to achieve expected life limits.
> 2 - For aircraft engines, the overriding design objective is lightness and
> lower BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Minimizing thermal losses
> (hence
>
> lower BSFC) favors big bores and few cylinders. Given more displacement
> per
> cylinder, less of the same are necessary to generate the power needed,
> hence
> less weight. Example: 4 cyl. Lyc.O-360 versus 6 cyl. Cont. O-360: both are
> real 200HP engines. The Lycosaurus has lower BSFC (more mpg) and vibrates
> more.
>
> The Contisaurus has higher BSFC (less mpg) and is smooth as silk.
> Smoothness
>
> comes from lower thrust loads (the force pistons exert on cylinder walls)
> and
> better balancing of primary/secondary forces and internal binaries, a
> natural with 6 cyl. configuration. So, a large displacement per cylinder
> rotating
>
> at lower speed is capable of generating the same power as a lower
> displacement
>
> rotating at higher speed. Short strokes, as said before, implies high
> conrod
> angularity and higher thrust load. Higher thrust load generates friction
> losses and greater wear, if same materials are used.
> 3 - Given the above, large bores predominate. Thus large valves can be
> used,
> resulting in filling efficiencies (so called volumetric efficiency) far in
> excess of those achieved by the run-of-the-mill automotive engine.
> However,
> large valves do not induce the high turbulence levels needed for fast
> combustion. Thus the extreme sensitivity of our slow revving, big bore
> aircraft
>
> engines to fuel Octane rating. Higher Octane fuels are needed to preclude
> detonation but this slows combustion even more! Therefore, twin spark
> plugs are
> needed
> to expedite things. In effect twin spark plugs slice the combustion
> chamber
> in 2 and ensure freedom of detonation under high loads. Incidentally,
> this is
>
> the root explanation for speed loss when checking magnetos. Normal
> combustion is, paradoxically, very slow (20 to 100 m/s). Very high revving
> engines
>
> (Ferrari V12 comes to mind) have tiny pistons/combustion chambers and get
> away
>
> with a single spark plug.
> 4 - Our Lycosaurus and Contisaurus are not perfect (...and in some aspects
> irritably so, example in point carbs and mechanical fuel injection, not to
> mention single timing magnetos...) but are unbeatable in their primary
> function:
>
> reliability/safety.
> 5 - Can one turn an automotive engine into a good aircraft engine? The
> answer is an unequivocal YES.
> 6 - Done properly, almost any automotive engine should have at least 1000h
> TBO.
> Sorry for the lengthy mail. Intention was to contribute +.
> Cheers,
> Miguel Azevedo
> PA22/20-150
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 8
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Potential Auto engine for Pietes
>
> For those of you bent on trying an auto conversion for your Piete
> project, especially considering the prior thread re H.P and torque,
> etc.
> You may want to look into the engine and chain-driven gears for the
> Toyota Prius, engine no. 1NZ-FXE. Only 1.5L but very light all aluminum
> engine, twin overhead cam, good torque at 4200 rpms. Probably be hard
> to find a wreck but with more cars on the road each year, they'll
> eventually be plentiful. Google it, you'll find lots of data on engine
> and drive train (no clutch or torque converter). Maybe not enough to
> swing a big prop or heavy plane, but a good potential.
> Gordon
>
> ________________________________ Message 9
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol kids
>
> I received one a couple days ago also. Very thoughtful of them. I took
> wood
> shop in high school and enjoyed it but I can't imagine how exciting it
> would
> have been to have worked on a project like a Pietenpol. Especially getting
> to take a ride in it knowing that I had built a part of it.
>
> Rick
>
> On 9/4/07, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>>
>> taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>>
>> I received a nice laminated photo of the "Piet kids" in the mail last
>> week.
>> I think they sent out photos to everyone who contributed to their
>> restoration project and trip to Oshkosh. Very encouraging to see young
>> people carring the 75 year old design into the 21st century and beyond!
>>
>> Who knows; there might be a daydreaming young student doodling in class
>> right now, working on a biodiesel Piet or a hydrogen Piet or something
>> else
>> like that, even as we speak...
>>
>>
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> San Antonio, TX
>> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Test your celebrity IQ. Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes!
>>
>> http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> ObjectAge Ltd.
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> ________________________________ Message 10
> ____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Scott Schreiber" <got22b(at)subarubrat.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
>
> This is all very odd to me. We have a Lotus that runs a Toyota 2ZZ based
> engine built by Yamaha and it turns almost 9k stock, and is turning 12k
> after the build. It is like driving a sportbike with a steering wheel. My
> other daily driver is a Subaru 04 STi that put down 300 stock and is now
> at
> just over 500 after a larger turbo, IC, injectors, pump etc. and ECU
> reflash. That is where my auto mindset comes from. When I first started
> building I looke at auto and aero engines as the same. HP + HP etc. After
> allot of looking at the real world I came to see that they are very
> different an that people like Gordon have a real point. Granted the model
> A
> engine was not that different from an aero engine in many respects. The
> more
> I get used to it, and as I start down the road of building my second
> plane,
> an Acro Sport II, I see that a 360ci 4Cyl which would be terrible in the
> auto world makes sense in the aero world. That said, the PSRU is a valid
> idea and Subaru engines are ideal if any are for conversion. I really
> wanted
> to run an EA81 in my Peit and I do think it could have worked but the A65
> won out for various reasons, chiefly insurance.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>
>
>>
>>
>> I think the original thread on this discussion came regarding how to get
>> by without the PRU using a car engine. Guess if one was building an
>> engine for a tractor pull then having the long stroke for leverage on the
>> crank good idea, or if building a NASCAR engine for routine 9000rpm
>> (short
>> stroke) would be great but we're talking aircraft. Engines like Lyco have
>> very large bore and short stroke. Designed to run hours at a time for
>> decades at 2500 rpm and at peak torque. Think the reason for big bore
>> aircraft engines is first for durability and then improved breathing and
>> lower frictional losses. Without PRU cannot run any car engine at RPM's
>> needed to get to peak of torque curve, so what can you do to move the
>> torque curve peak back to say 2700 rpm. Very few options. Don't think
>> any
>> car engine is designed for long durations of 4000 rpms even if you use a
>> PRU. Could make cam changes to open small valves on small cylinders but
>> in a big bore engines you already have larger and unshrouded valves away
>> from the cylinder walls, no need to experiment with the cam. To adjust
>> for poorer fuel/air burn in bigger bore you'd need two plugs per
>> cylinder.
>> The shorter stroke would mean less losses due to friction and less
>> vibration. Subaru's seem to work for aircraft because they are 3.46"
>> bore and 2.591" stroke, but still need two plugs and PRU to get the
>> advertised 125hp. To get a car engine to work so it could run like a
>> aircraft engine you have to consider: vibration (less with short stroke),
>> and fuel/air vacuum pumping by the intake stroke of the cylinder (bigger
>> valves on big bore engines). Someplace there's a website for a guy that
>> builds VW engines for racing, he had made many changes in the cams and
>> still came to the conclusion it all came down to bigger bore engines
>> means
>> better breathing and less frictional losses. I have a V-6 3.8L Ford
>> engine with supercharger down at the hanger in FL, including motor mount,
>> 225hp at 5200 rpm according to Ford. I'll donate it to anyone who wants
>> to put it on their C-172 and do the flight testing with or without a PRU.
>> Big fan of idea auto engines for aircraft, but haven't seen anything I'm
>> willing to fly, yet.
>> Gordon
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "LWATCDR" <lwatcdr(at)gmail.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Not exactly correct. In fact way off.
>>> For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get
>>> but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on
>>> the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed.
>>> So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably
>>> want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The
>>> bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will
>>> effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people
>>> tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when.
>>> They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making
>>> very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the
>>> other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they
>>> use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak
>>> is very high in the RPM band.
>>> Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction
>>> and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start
>>> on flame travel and forced induction.
>>>
>>> So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio
>>> for turning the prop that you want to turn.
>>> The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst
>>> possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very
>>> little torque.
>>>
>>> I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems
>>> a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a
>>> lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could
>>> be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both
>>> Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they
>>> could also be very interesting.
>>> The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern
>>> motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the
>>> thrust bearings will handle the load a
>>>
>>> On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons.
>>>> Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short
>>>> stroke
>>>> and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought
>>>> aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't
>>>> gonna
>>>> find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque
>>>> requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy
>>>> engine
>>>> designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet
>>>> again
>>>> and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat
>>>> proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to
>>>> get
>>>> torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like
>>>> VW
>>>> or
>>>> Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms.
>>>> Biggest
>>>> problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time
>>>> and
>>>> money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative
>>>> experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of
>>>> homebuilder
>>>> and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole
>>>> Buick
>>>> V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out
>>>> there in
>>>> internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have
>>>> worked
>>>> and are working are well documented.
>>>> Gordon
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
>>>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of
>>>> hp
>>>> out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would
>>>> much
>>>> rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and
>>>> redrive.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a
>>>> max
>>>> rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range?
>>>>
>>>> I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I
>>>> already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is
>>>> greatly appreciated!
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
>>>> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
>>>> target=_blank>AOL.com.
>>>>
>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Big Bore&Short Stroke Versus Small Bore&Long Stroke |
Miguel:
All that said, the direct drive Corvair engine as per William Wynne's recipe
is consistently proven and in quite a reasonable sample that it can be done
safely, by the average pedestrian and a low a cost as you can get.
As you mention dual plugs helps prevent detonation and this is one of the
finicky points in the Corvair running on single plugs. But once you replace
the cam to relocate peak torque, replace cast pistons for forged in order to
withstand the occasional occurrence of detonation and sort out the fine
tuning out to keep it from happening, 100 hp with no redrive can be
accomplished on that engine at a reasonable cost.
I personally have become quite partial to the Mazda 13B rotary. No valves,
no pistons, few moving parts and no opposing powerstrokes to shake it all
appart.
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/
For this one you do need a redrive to achieve reasonable numbers. But once
over the 3000$ expense for that fine piece of machinery most of the rest of
it is quite within the "beer money" means of this working stiff. A complete
rebuild kit for a used core can be had for 500$ and a savable core can be
had for a couple hundred. A "short block" (sans accessories) rebuilt engine
can be had for 2500$ from various road racing suppliers if you opt to not
rebuild a used core yourself. And it has no valves to burn out. It will do
150 to 180 hp and that is really babying it, as the folks in the track
racing world are making 3 and 4 times that running at 9 thou RPM. Yes a bit
much for the Aircamper, but the point is that affordable and proven auto
engine conversions are out there to be had.
Saludos
Michael in Maine. (previously of Caracas where I was also once known as
Miguel)
http://rides.webshots.com/album/147451245dhnmgI
----- Original Message -----
From: AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Big Bore&Short Stroke Versus Small Bore&Long
Stroke
Piet Friends,
I have to pitch into this subject.
1 - There is no relationship between PCU (Power Cylinder Unit: piston,
rings and cylinder) wear and bore X stroke combinations. A large range can
be made to achieve expected life limits.
2 - For aircraft engines, the overriding design objective is lightness and
lower BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Minimizing thermal losses
(hence lower BSFC) favors big bores and few cylinders. Given more
displacement per cylinder, less of the same are necessary to generate the
power needed, hence less weight. Example: 4 cyl. Lyc.O-360 versus 6 cyl.
Cont. O-360: both are real 200HP engines. The Lycosaurus has lower BSFC
(more mpg) and vibrates more. The Contisaurus has higher BSFC (less mpg) and
is smooth as silk. Smoothness comes from lower thrust loads (the force
pistons exert on cylinder walls) and better balancing of primary/secondary
forces and internal binaries, a natural with 6 cyl. configuration. So, a
large displacement per cylinder rotating at lower speed is capable of
generating the same power as a lower displacement rotating at higher speed.
Short strokes, as said before, implies high conrod angularity and higher
thrust load. Higher thrust load generates friction losses and greater wear,
if same materials are used.
3 - Given the above, large bores predominate. Thus large valves can be
used, resulting in filling efficiencies (so called volumetric efficiency)
far in excess of those achieved by the run-of-the-mill automotive engine.
However, large valves do not induce the high turbulence levels needed for
fast combustion. Thus the extreme sensitivity of our slow revving, big bore
aircraft engines to fuel Octane rating. Higher Octane fuels are needed to
preclude detonation but this slows combustion even more! Therefore, twin
spark plugs are needed to expedite things. In effect twin spark plugs slice
the combustion chamber in 2 and ensure freedom of detonation under high
loads. Incidentally, this is the root explanation for speed loss when
checking magnetos. Normal combustion is, paradoxically, very slow (20 to 100
m/s). Very high revving engines (Ferrari V12 comes to mind) have tiny
pistons/combustion chambers and get away with a single spark plug.
4 - Our Lycosaurus and Contisaurus are not perfect (...and in some aspects
irritably so, example in point carbs and mechanical fuel injection, not to
mention single timing magnetos...) but are unbeatable in their primary
function: reliability/safety.
5 - Can one turn an automotive engine into a good aircraft engine? The
answer is an unequivocal YES.
6 - Done properly, almost any automotive engine should have at least 1000h
TBO.
Sorry for the lengthy mail. Intention was to contribute +.
Cheers,
Miguel Azevedo
PA22/20-150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
See what'target="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Poole" <dxechkn(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans |
We do not care for the Grega method of sealing the aileron gap with
fabric. Can anyone suggest other ways? We are thinking about putting a
radius filler on the aileron and an angle on the wing with about a 1/4
inch of gap.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
I hear rumor that there is a place somewhere in Ohio that sells aluminum
streamline tubing for Piet struts. Can someone point me to the place.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aluminum struts |
Try....WWW.Sky-tek.com/struts
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Kraut<mailto:brian.kraut(at)engalt.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: aluminum struts
I hear rumor that there is a place somewhere in Ohio that sells
aluminum streamline tubing for Piet struts. Can someone point me to the
place.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com<http://www.engalt.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
a 3 cyl in line Geo Metro block that looks suitable for a Piet. Fuel
injected too.
Note the plate sandwiched bewent the block and oil pan to allow a flange for
a bed mount.
http://www.airtrikes.net/engines.shtml
michael in maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Big Bore&Short Stroke Versus Small Bore&Long Stroke |
Michel,
Fully agree with your appreciation of Mazda rotaries!
I think highly of these powerplants and have been told by people from
Washington State that even TBO is quite meaningless in this case. Somebody from
Puyallup area stated that only when you cannot start easily is when you are
being told that a rebuild is in order. The guy had 2000+h in one engine...
I do not understand - maybe I do - why home builders have not zoomed into
Wankels a long time ago.
Almost no vibration, light, insensitive to Octane rating (heck, our military
uses Curtiss-Wright designed Wankels with JP4 as fuel, direct injected and
twin spark ignited...!), very compact frontal area, exceedingly robust
internals, garanteed long TBO and so forth... What else do you want?
Problem areas are higher BSFC ( more than compensated by lower frontal area
and weight) and safely handling the extreme exhaust heat. A solution to the
last is the modern, space age heat blankets from Federal Mogul Corp (USA). Like
any 2 stroke engine, Wankels benefit greatly from tuned exhaust systems but
mutting exhaust noise might prove difficult. However, almost everybody loves
the famous P51/Spitfire/Hurricane exhaust noise. Well, Wankels are closer to
that than anything else out there...
Nice to have met you.
I am a Brazilian by birth and living here in this God's country for the last
10 years. Becoming an American Citizen this year!
Cheers,
Miguel
N8714D
PA22/20-150
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New Realtime Spell Checker Added To Matronics Forums! |
Dear Listers,
Today 9/8/2007 I have added a new real-time spell checker function to all of the
BBS Forums at Matronics. When you reply or create a new message on the Forums,
you will notice that misspelled words will be high-lighted in yellow. If
you left-click on the word, you will be prompted with a drop-down list of suggested
spellings.
http://forums.matronics.com
Enjoy!
Matt Dralle
Matornics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans |
Wayne, The way I sealed the gaps was by going to a sign company and
buying a sheet of vinyl (matching the color of my plane) that they make
letters for signs out of. I then cut strips (can be any size you want)
and take the paper side off of 1/2 of the width exposing the sticky
surface. I then place the two sticky sides together forming a tape that
has the color I want (one color side up and one color side down) and has
two sticky sides (one up and one down). I then form an "S" thru the gap
sticking the tape to the top of the wing and the underside of the
aileron. I know I have made this as clear as mud.
Gene ----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Poole
To: Pietenpol-List(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans
We do not care for the Grega method of sealing the aileron gap with
fabric. Can anyone suggest other ways? We are thinking about putting a
radius filler on the aileron and an angle on the wing with about a 1/4
inch of gap.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
9/7/2007 4:40 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans |
I am going to do the ailerons in my Sky scout just like a KR-2 with a full
length aluminum piano hinge.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Wayne Poole
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:30 PM
To: Pietenpol-List(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans
We do not care for the Grega method of sealing the aileron gap with
fabric. Can anyone suggest other ways? We are thinking about putting a
radius filler on the aileron and an angle on the wing with about a 1/4 inch
of gap.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
That is them. Thanks.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed G.
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:48 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aluminum struts
Try....WWW.Sky-tek.com/struts
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Kraut
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: aluminum struts
I hear rumor that there is a place somewhere in Ohio that sells aluminum
streamline tubing for Piet struts. Can someone point me to the place.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans |
Mine has the piano hinge...
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Kraut
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:47 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans
I am going to do the ailerons in my Sky scout just like a KR-2 with a
full length aluminum piano hinge.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Wayne
Poole
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:30 PM
To: Pietenpol-List(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans
We do not care for the Grega method of sealing the aileron gap with
fabric. Can anyone suggest other ways? We are thinking about putting a
radius filler on the aileron and an angle on the wing with about a 1/4
inch of gap.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Bernie" <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans |
Wayne,
I didn't like it much either, but gave up trying to figure another
system that maintained the same horn geometry. So, I glued the fabric
gap seals prior to finishing the wing and now I can't remove the aileron
without cutting the fabric. It came out better than I expected. Guess
I'm just lazy, but take a look.
Tom Bernie
Gloucester Mass
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Poole
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Gap - GN- 1 Grega plans
We do not care for the Grega method of sealing the aileron gap with
fabric. Can anyone suggest other ways? We are thinking about putting a
radius filler on the aileron and an angle on the wing with about a 1/4
inch of gap.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gardiner Mason" <airlion(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Location |
skip, can you tell me more about your ground plane and location? I am almost
ready to start covering.thanks, gardiner mason. ps I plan on putting an ant.
on top of of the turtle back headrest for my icom handheld. I was told that
I could line the fibreglass headrest with alum foil for the groundplane.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Skip Gadd" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:21 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ELT Location
> Steve,
> I used the AK-450 and located it behind the seat. The ELT antenna is the
> dark vertical line between the elevator push/pull rod and rudder cable.
> The
> aft location is not a problem for me since I weigh 90 lbs less than the
> guy
> I bought the plane from. Since the plane is wood and experimental you can
> locate the antenna inside the fuze. I used the same ground plane for the
> com and ELT antennas. If you do mount the ELT up front, I wouldn't worry
> about the cowl interfering with the antenna operation, since if the ELT
> activated the plane may be upside down and the cowl would be a great
> ground
> plane;)
> Skip
>
>
>>
>> So, give me your ELT location suggestions. Any pictures would be great.
>> Thanks,
>> Steve Ruse
>> Norman, OK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike King" <mikek120(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new Texas Piet |
Oscar,
Please send me contact information for Ron and Patricia Hollmer in
Corpus.
I just moved from Dallas to Corpus to work for KRIS-KFD-KAJA-CW....a
four station television group. Rockport is just few miles from me and I
have
a few television advertising clients there.
I am going to move my GN-1 from Dallas to Corpus in the next few months
and would like to see the Hollmer's new plane. Maybe we can get a South
Texas Piet/GN-1 group together for some flying fun.
Thanks.
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Portland / Corpus Christi, Texas
----- Original Message -----
From: Oscar Zuniga
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: new Texas Piet
I had an email from Ron and Patricia Hollmer in Corpus Christi, TX-
they now
own Howard Henderson's Ford A-powered Piet and keep it at Rockport,
TX. I
added them to the Frappr site.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Share your special parenting moments!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVE CATES" <davecates(at)charter.net> |
I'm new to this but was initially intrigued by the idea of Bernie's
statement with the first Corvair , USE WHAT IS AVAILABLE. With great
anticipation I've been thinking of
my 1'st choice the a-65. the Corvair, the E-81 and so on. Has anyone
ever noticed the torque and HP of some air cooled motor cycles. Keep
the transmission start down the runway in 2nd or third gear and work up
to 4,5,6, when in a tailwind when airborne or as power permits. By the
way most of these use a belt drive pulley or sprocket for chain to
easily design a PSRU to fit the prop application that you may have on
hand. I know this way out of the box but as a machinist and engineer I
never found a box that was not begging to be opened. Back to looking for
that elusive continental.... THANX Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chet's Mail" <Chethartley1(at)mchsi.com> |
Question to the group I have Don Hicks piet N920Y with the model A eng.
While working my way up to take off speed by doing several taxi test, I
find the aircraft keeps trying to pull to the left.
I have several thousand hours of flight time and have owned two trail
drager aircraft. But this one has a funny feel.
I have the stright axle, with wire wheels.
Any thoughts???
Thank you for your time Chet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Mike; you wrote-
>Please send me contact information for Ron and Patricia Hollmer in Corpus.
>Maybe we can get a South Texas Piet/GN-1 group together for
>some flying fun.
Sorry, but Ron and I are Pietenpol people and we aren't interested in any
sort of getting together with GN-1 people.
!!!!!!!!!!!!JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's a snip from Ron's post to me:
>Anyway I hope you have a safe trip to Port A, you will be driving within
>two miles of our house if you come out over the JFK bridge and take 361,
>you are welcome anytime or if you need anything while in the area, call us
>at 361-288-4559 or my cell 361-443-6075. Best Regards,
>Ron and Patricia Hollmer
We just got back from Port Aransas today and I was wondering about flying
down one of these Saturdays to swap lies with Ron and Patricia. Our
youngest son is a deckhand aboard the Francesca, a 60' Hatteras out of Port
Aransas and he's been wanting me to fly down so I can take him up to see
Mustang Island from the air, as well as the inshore Gulf and Corpus Christi
bay (as much as can be seen without tangling with those Navy and Coast Guard
folks).
Mike, I hope you hook up with the Hollmers and best of luck in your new job
in the Coastal Bend...
Oscar Zuniga
Pietenpol Aircamper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/CorkyPiet.html
_________________________________________________________________
Test your celebrity IQ. Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes!
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Speed Taxi |
Is it trying to lift the right wing, or just veering to the left? More
than the normal amount that you would correct with right rudder?
Ben
Chet's Mail wrote:
> Question to the group I have Don Hicks piet N920Y with the model A eng.
>
> While working my way up to take off speed by doing several taxi test,
> I find the aircraft keeps trying to pull to the left.
>
> I have several thousand hours of flight time and have owned two trail
> drager aircraft. But this one has a funny feel.
>
> I have the stright axle, with wire wheels.
>
> Any thoughts???
>
> Thank you for your time Chet.
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Engines |
I've been watching this thread for a few days. The beauty of
experimental aviation is it allows your creativity to flow. However,
before you spend lots of time developing some exotic powerplant, check
around to see what is insurable. I guess if you live out in the desert
somewhere there is little chance you'd end up doing some damage on the
ground it won't be a problem. I switched to an A-65 after collecting 3
Corvair cores because it looked like insurance would be a problem. Just
my experience. I've heard of others insuring a William Wynn Corvair
conversio, and I'm pretty sure the Model A has been around long enough
to insure, but some of the stuff I've heard mentioned might cause an
underwriter some heartburn. Its your butt in the seat if things go
terribly wrong, but its your heirs that have to deal with the
aftermath. Just a thought....
Ben Charvet
DAVE CATES wrote:
> I'm new to this but was initially intrigued by the idea of Bernie's
> statement with the first Corvair , USE WHAT IS AVAILABLE. With great
> anticipation I've been thinking of
> my 1'st choice the a-65. the Corvair, the E-81 and so on. Has anyone
> ever noticed the torque and HP of some air cooled motor cycles. Keep
> the transmission start down the runway in 2nd or third gear and work
> up to 4,5,6, when in a tailwind when airborne or as power permits. By
> the way most of these use a belt drive pulley or sprocket for chain to
> easily design a PSRU to fit the prop application that you may have on
> hand. I know this way out of the box but as a machinist and engineer I
> never found a box that was not begging to be opened. Back to looking
> for that elusive continental.... THANX Dave
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kmordecai001(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Continental A-75 cruise rpm question |
Pieters,
Keeping in mind that the only dumb question is the one that didn't get asked,
here's a question for the Continental putt-putt guru's out there :-)
I replaced my 72 x 42 Hegy recently on the Continental A-75 with a Performance
Props 73 x 39, to get the static and climb rpm up into the A-75's rpm range. The
numbers came out as follows in Florida summer late-in-the-day conditions:
Hegy 72 x 42 Perf.
Props
Static 2150 2450
climbout @ 50mph 2200 2550
WOT level flight 2350 somewhere
past redline....I didn't go there......
cruise @ 65 mph 2150 2500
The original Hegy was a good A-65 prop, but didn't let the A-75 rev up to get it's
extra 10 hp. The Performance Prop seems to be a good A-75 climb prop, which
was the goal, but...........
Continental lists redline at 2300 and cruise at 2150 for the A-65. The Hegy was
an A-65 prop and performed as such.
The same manual lists A-75 redline at 2600 and cruise at 2300 (a 300 rpm difference??)
With the new prop, 2450-2500 is achieved at about the same throttle setting as
was used previously to get a 2150-2200 rpm cruise with the old prop. Oil pressure
and temp are exactly the same as before (35 psi and 145-150F), and it feels
happy & smooth. Now the question:
Am I doing any harm to this engine running it this way? I can't understand why
Continental's A-65 redline and cruise rpm are only 150 rpm apart, while the
A-75 numbers are 300 rpm apart. If I pull back to 2300 rpm, I'm at what feels
like 50-60% throttle. (hard to say without a manifold pressure guage, but the
throttle is pulled waaaay back).
Thanks in advance for any input. My gut tells me this situation is OK, but there's
a lot of tribal knowledge out there & it never hurts to ask....
Dave Mordecai
Panacea, FL
NX520SF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Speed Taxi |
Chet
I had the same problem with mine, a straight axle, wire wheels, but a
A-65 engine. But first, a basic rule with the Piet is that EVERYTHING
makes a diffrence.
I had rudder cables that went from the rudder bar to a point behind the
seat where I had joined them to the tailwheel, a "Y". When I would taxi
and lift the tail, the plane immediatly would veere to the left. This
caused me to run off the runway a couple of times. I found that the
tailwheel springs were storing energy and when the tail lifted, the
rudder would shift. I replaced the cables with dual cables from the
rudder bar, problem solved.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chet's Mail
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: High Speed Taxi
Question to the group I have Don Hicks piet N920Y with the model A
eng.
While working my way up to take off speed by doing several taxi test,
I find the aircraft keeps trying to pull to the left.
I have several thousand hours of flight time and have owned two trail
drager aircraft. But this one has a funny feel.
I have the stright axle, with wire wheels.
Any thoughts???
Thank you for your time Chet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Speed Taxi |
Almost sounds like you have a brake dragging. Might also want to check
your hub for heat after a run.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Chet's Mail
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: High Speed Taxi
Question to the group I have Don Hicks piet N920Y with the model A
eng.
While working my way up to take off speed by doing several taxi test,
I find the aircraft keeps trying to pull to the left.
I have several thousand hours of flight time and have owned two trail
drager aircraft. But this one has a funny feel.
I have the stright axle, with wire wheels.
Any thoughts???
Thank you for your time Chet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
9/9/2007 10:17 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental A-75 cruise rpm question |
Dave,
I suspect that you'll get a lot of answers. I think that that as long
as you use top oil, change it often, and keep temps in range, then
you'll do fine at anything under redline even for long runs.
How's your climb rate with the new prop?
Jeff
>
>Pieters,
>...
> Hegy 72 x 42
>Perf. Props
>Static 2150
>2450
>climbout @ 50mph 2200 2550
>WOT level flight 2350
>somewhere past redline....I didn't go there......
>cruise @ 65 mph 2150 2500
>
>....
>Continental lists redline at 2300 and cruise at 2150 for the A-65.
>The Hegy was an A-65 prop and performed as such.
>The same manual lists A-75 redline at 2600 and cruise at 2300 (a 300
>rpm difference??)
>
>With the new prop, 2450-2500 is achieved at about the same throttle
>setting as was used previously to get a 2150-2200 rpm cruise with
>the old prop. Oil pressure and temp are exactly the same as before
>(35 psi and 145-150F), and it feels happy & smooth. Now the
>question:
>
>Am I doing any harm to this engine running it this way? I can't
>understand why Continental's A-65 redline and cruise rpm are only
>150 rpm apart, while the A-75 numbers are 300 rpm apart. If I pull
>back to 2300 rpm, I'm at what feels like 50-60% throttle. (hard to
>say without a manifold pressure guage, but the throttle is pulled
>waaaay back).
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
I have a very interresting Sky Scout project. The wings and tail were
removed and used on an Aircamper. A new tail was made, but not covered yet.
New ribs are made for the Grega GN-1 wing. I guess I will call it a GN-1/2
when I am done.
I got all of the ribs and the spar material with the project. The original
Scout plans show spars that are 1" wide and 4 3/4" tall. Front and aft
spars are the same. The plans show most of the spar routed out on the
inside to give an I beam section that is 1" wide at the top and bottom and
1/2" wide in the webs. Makes a lot of sense since you want the strength on
the caps of the spars. The GN-1 spar plans show them being 1" thick without
the routed out section at all. The rear spar location is moved aft in the
GN-1 so the rear spar is only 4 1/4" tall.
For some reason that I don't understand the spar material I got is not 1"
thick, it is 3/4" thick although the ribs are still made for 1" thick spars.
What I am thinking of doing is running the spars I have through a planer and
getting them down to 1/2" thick then laminating 1/4" X 3/4" webs on the top
and bottom on both sides. That will give me the same I beam section as
shown on the plans. I will glue on vertical pieces at each rib location and
will glue in plywood sections between the webs where the wing attach
fittings and the strut attach fittings go. This will give me every bit of
the strength of the original Sky Scout routed spar sections and likely more.
A few things I am considering is maybe keeping the 3/4" and just laminating
1/4" strips on one side to make it easier to build and stronger, but
heavier. Also thought of doing that just on the aft spar since it is
shorter on the GN-1 wing and would not be as strong in the I beam
configuration with the 1/2" web as the original taller scout spars are.
Then again, the rear spar does not carry near the load of the front spar and
the taller spar in the original scout plans is probably overkill anyway.
I am also thinking that maybe the full thickness spars like the Grega plans
show would be best. Who knows, might want to build an aircamper fuselage
and move these wings and tail to it someday. Already happened on this plane
once. Are the regular Aircamper original spars routed like the Scout were
or are they the full 1" thick?
Thoughts? Suggestions?
Anyone have any idea how many Gs the original aircamper wings are designed
for?
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
The project I bought in New Mexico has stock for the built up spar as well
rather than full dimension. There is no reason this would not be strong
enough if the glue provides enough strength.
but I wonder if any one out there has done this or not?
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Kraut
Sent: September 9, 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: funny spars
I have a very interresting Sky Scout project. The wings and tail were
removed and used on an Aircamper. A new tail was made, but not covered yet.
New ribs are made for the Grega GN-1 wing. I guess I will call it a GN-1/2
when I am done.
I got all of the ribs and the spar material with the project. The original
Scout plans show spars that are 1" wide and 4 3/4" tall. Front and aft
spars are the same. The plans show most of the spar routed out on the
inside to give an I beam section that is 1" wide at the top and bottom and
1/2" wide in the webs. Makes a lot of sense since you want the strength on
the caps of the spars. The GN-1 spar plans show them being 1" thick without
the routed out section at all. The rear spar location is moved aft in the
GN-1 so the rear spar is only 4 1/4" tall.
For some reason that I don't understand the spar material I got is not 1"
thick, it is 3/4" thick although the ribs are still made for 1" thick spars.
What I am thinking of doing is running the spars I have through a planer and
getting them down to 1/2" thick then laminating 1/4" X 3/4" webs on the top
and bottom on both sides. That will give me the same I beam section as
shown on the plans. I will glue on vertical pieces at each rib location and
will glue in plywood sections between the webs where the wing attach
fittings and the strut attach fittings go. This will give me every bit of
the strength of the original Sky Scout routed spar sections and likely more.
A few things I am considering is maybe keeping the 3/4" and just laminating
1/4" strips on one side to make it easier to build and stronger, but
heavier. Also thought of doing that just on the aft spar since it is
shorter on the GN-1 wing and would not be as strong in the I beam
configuration with the 1/2" web as the original taller scout spars are.
Then again, the rear spar does not carry near the load of the front spar and
the taller spar in the original scout plans is probably overkill anyway.
I am also thinking that maybe the full thickness spars like the Grega plans
show would be best. Who knows, might want to build an aircamper fuselage
and move these wings and tail to it someday. Already happened on this plane
once. Are the regular Aircamper original spars routed like the Scout were
or are they the full 1" thick?
Thoughts? Suggestions?
Anyone have any idea how many Gs the original aircamper wings are designed
for?
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Aileron piano hinge |
Speaking of the piano hinge, does any one know where a guy can find the
straight wire in .90 in a length longer than the standard 6 ft. hinge
length? I want to bend the wire as shown in the AS&S catalog (Cessna
hinge ) with a loop to go under a screw to keep it in place. AS&S, and
WIX sell the hinge wire separate, but only in the same length as the
hinge. ( 6ft. ) I don't want to shorten the hinge to reveal enough wire
to do what I want to do, and don;t have the patience, skill, or desire
(or eye sight ) to drill a tiny hole ti install a nearly microscopic
cotter pin. The exposed wire also is a nice place to grab the wire and
pull it out for easy removal of an aileron. Does any one know who
manufactures these hinges, so that I may go directly to the source? Leon
Stefan in Ks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron piano hinge |
A S & S sells Music wire in .90 in any length, page 44. I would assume it
would work but I'm sure there's someone on the list that would know for
sure.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 2:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron piano hinge
>
> Speaking of the piano hinge, does any one know where a guy can find the
> straight wire in .90 in a length longer than the standard 6 ft. hinge
> length? I want to bend the wire as shown in the AS&S catalog (Cessna
> hinge ) with a loop to go under a screw to keep it in place. AS&S, and
> WIX sell the hinge wire separate, but only in the same length as the
> hinge. ( 6ft. ) I don't want to shorten the hinge to reveal enough wire
> to do what I want to do, and don;t have the patience, skill, or desire
> (or eye sight ) to drill a tiny hole ti install a nearly microscopic
> cotter pin. The exposed wire also is a nice place to grab the wire and
> pull it out for easy removal of an aileron. Does any one know who
> manufactures these hinges, so that I may go directly to the source? Leon
> Stefan in Ks.
>
>
> --
> 10:17 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Continental A-75 cruise rpm question |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com> |
The main difference between the A65 and A75 is the A75 has drilled
connecting rods allowing oil to spray on the underside of the pistons
for additional cooling. I believe the A75 also had a waffle pattern of
ribs cast into the underside of the pistons to aid cooling. This is
what allows the higher operating speeds, essentially alowing continuous
operation at the A65's redline.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-75 cruise rpm question
Dave,
I suspect that you'll get a lot of answers. I think that that as long as
you use top oil, change it often, and keep temps in range, then you'll
do fine at anything under redline even for long runs.
How's your climb rate with the new prop?
Jeff
>
>Pieters,
>...
> Hegy 72 x 42 Perf. Props
>Static 2150
>2450
>climbout @ 50mph 2200 2550
>WOT level flight 2350
>somewhere past redline....I didn't go there......
>cruise @ 65 mph 2150 2500
>
>....
>Continental lists redline at 2300 and cruise at 2150 for the A-65.
>The Hegy was an A-65 prop and performed as such.
>The same manual lists A-75 redline at 2600 and cruise at 2300 (a 300
>rpm difference??)
>
>With the new prop, 2450-2500 is achieved at about the same throttle
>setting as was used previously to get a 2150-2200 rpm cruise with the
>old prop. Oil pressure and temp are exactly the same as before
>(35 psi and 145-150F), and it feels happy & smooth. Now the
>question:
>
>Am I doing any harm to this engine running it this way? I can't
>understand why Continental's A-65 redline and cruise rpm are only 150
>rpm apart, while the A-75 numbers are 300 rpm apart. If I pull back to
>2300 rpm, I'm at what feels like 50-60% throttle. (hard to say without
>a manifold pressure guage, but the throttle is pulled waaaay back).
>
>
_________________________________________________
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify
the sender
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - Norsk
- Portuguese
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Brian,
The 3/4" spars are plenty strong for your plane as they are, even for
an Aircamper (assuming they meet all the specs for aircraft-grade).
Both Bernard's later recommendation on this, as well as the
experience of probably hundreds of builders proves this. The 1"
spars, like much of the rest of the plane, is an over-build. Glue
1/2" wide strips of 1/8" plywood vertically on your spar (both sides)
at each rib station and your ribs go on perfectly. If you are using
Grega ribs, you should cut down your rear spar to fit that width.
Kip Gardner
On Sep 9, 2007, at 11:00 PM, Brian Kraut wrote:
>
>
> I have a very interresting Sky Scout project. The wings and tail were
> removed and used on an Aircamper. A new tail was made, but not
> covered yet.
> New ribs are made for the Grega GN-1 wing. I guess I will call it
> a GN-1/2
> when I am done.
>
> I got all of the ribs and the spar material with the project. The
> original
> Scout plans show spars that are 1" wide and 4 3/4" tall. Front and
> aft
> spars are the same. The plans show most of the spar routed out on the
> inside to give an I beam section that is 1" wide at the top and
> bottom and
> 1/2" wide in the webs. Makes a lot of sense since you want the
> strength on
> the caps of the spars. The GN-1 spar plans show them being 1"
> thick without
> the routed out section at all. The rear spar location is moved aft
> in the
> GN-1 so the rear spar is only 4 1/4" tall.
>
> For some reason that I don't understand the spar material I got is
> not 1"
> thick, it is 3/4" thick although the ribs are still made for 1"
> thick spars.
>
> What I am thinking of doing is running the spars I have through a
> planer and
> getting them down to 1/2" thick then laminating 1/4" X 3/4" webs on
> the top
> and bottom on both sides. That will give me the same I beam
> section as
> shown on the plans. I will glue on vertical pieces at each rib
> location and
> will glue in plywood sections between the webs where the wing attach
> fittings and the strut attach fittings go. This will give me every
> bit of
> the strength of the original Sky Scout routed spar sections and
> likely more.
>
> A few things I am considering is maybe keeping the 3/4" and just
> laminating
> 1/4" strips on one side to make it easier to build and stronger, but
> heavier. Also thought of doing that just on the aft spar since it is
> shorter on the GN-1 wing and would not be as strong in the I beam
> configuration with the 1/2" web as the original taller scout spars
> are.
> Then again, the rear spar does not carry near the load of the front
> spar and
> the taller spar in the original scout plans is probably overkill
> anyway.
>
> I am also thinking that maybe the full thickness spars like the
> Grega plans
> show would be best. Who knows, might want to build an aircamper
> fuselage
> and move these wings and tail to it someday. Already happened on
> this plane
> once. Are the regular Aircamper original spars routed like the
> Scout were
> or are they the full 1" thick?
>
> Thoughts? Suggestions?
>
> Anyone have any idea how many Gs the original aircamper wings are
> designed
> for?
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Good weekend of building |
| From: | "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Morning friends,
Had a great weekend building. I finally figured out how to get the
second bend in the cabane fittings. Used a makeshift brake held between
a vise and large C-clamp. This portion of the project has been
daunting, so I was glad to figure it out. To see a picture, it's on
August 28, 2007 - September 10, 2007
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-gb