CG range of the Riblett is very close to the Piet, with a lighter engine up front
I add a slight bungee pull on the forward side of the stick, when the Werner
went on a little back pressure was added. except when full power was applyed
on the Werner a forward pressure was applyed to keep from climbing over 2000
FPM.
I kept the spar the same as Piet as all the fittings don't require a change.
The cord line is higher on the 612, I suspect the angle of incident can be reduced.
I have flown with 5 different engines on the same Piet and do-not change
anything, just to test engines, Now that I am trying the 612 I retry engines .
Don't be surprised to see a great improvement in flight, when using the 612.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195943#195943
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels(at)tds.net>
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
Date:
Jul 31, 2008
Just back from EAA
B & B Specialties is where I buy all my turnbuckles, all aircraft
quality and with any type ends you want, the whole assembly costs
about $10.00 each. Their prices are as little as 1/2 the price others
in the same Fly Market are charging and their prices are the same all
yr. around, not "Show Specials". They don't have a catalog but get
part numbers out of AC/S, call them, order by part number and you'll
get the best price anywhere.
(913) 884-5930
I can't even begin to imagine anyone building a Piet, trying to save a
couple bucks by buying hardware store stuff that they are going to
trust their LIFE with??
Stick with aircraft quality but save by buying from reliable sources
like B&B Specialties.
Amen
On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
> >
>
>
> I got to thinking about "hardware store" turnbuckles as a possible
> alternative to AN/MS hardware and paged over to McMaster-Carr to
> snoop. Found some surprises. For example, let's take the typical
> 1/8" 7x19 aircraft cable. It's rated at 2000 lbs. strength. For
> that, let's pick an AN/MS turnbuckle with AN4 (1/4") threads, an eye
> on one end and a fork on the other, roughly 4-1/2" long. It is
> rated something a little over 2000 lbs. so it's a good match for
> that cable.
>
> Searching "the hardware store", we start with open-body aluminum
> "screen door" turnbuckles with 1/4" threaded eyes and find that it
> might be rated a couple of hundred pounds, obviously due to the
> aluminum body and the minimal number of threads on the eyes that
> engage the body. Move on to galvanized steel and the strength
> improves to a couple of hundred pounds, still very affordable. Now
> on to the better stuff and we find stainless steel turnbuckles,
> which are available in both open and closed body and seem to engage
> maybe twice as many threads but are rated no more than 800 lbs. and
> also have a caution that the working load should not be exceeded.
> Can you say "fails rather sharply"?
>
> The cost of hardware store (or nautical/marine, I found) is a lot
> more attractive but the strength is just not there without really
> getting heavy. Is the aircraft hardware 'overkill' for the working
> loads? I don't know. I have not run any sort of analysis to
> determine the aerodynamic loadings on any of them, but when we go
> from 2000 lbs. rating to a couple of hundred, someone had better do
> some testing. Same goes for home-made tensioners.
>
> I'm all in favor of better mousetraps, but let's test these things
> against their working stresses before we substitute. Those
> stainless turnbuckles look great to me and are about 1/3 the price
> of AN/MS hardware, but I would have to assure myself that they could
> handle the flight loads with at least a 2x factor of safety because
> my skinny a$$ is worth more than a $10 turnbuckle.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dennis Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com>
Subject:
Re: Corvair hub on Piet. plans
Date:
Jul 31, 2008
Michael:
I have an older edition of WW's that had the drawing for the hub.
There were some other drawings also, but I have filed them away and am
unable to put my hands on them right now. It was always his thing that
if you wanted to make your own he would go out of his way to assist you
and many did and do now. If you are a person who doesn't have access to
a machine shop or the time, he will sell you the parts, but he at least
gives you the choice and nudges you in the direction of doing things
yourself if you are wanting to try but not quite sure. Its not just the
manual you are buying, but the help to the point of holding your hand if
you need it. You probably won't, but it is good to know you have a plan
B every now and then.
dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Perez
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair hub on Piet. plans
Thanks Oscar, a very well written responce. IF I decide to do
the Corvair, I will have to get these mentioned books. I see they are
quite pricy, but what others are available? Machining either hub won't
be an issue, I just wanted to get the best suited part that I could make
that has already been proven. (Rather then make up my own fron scratch.)
Mine will more then likely be 6061-T6 aluminum. Nothing has been
decided...just gathering intel. and you have been of great help.
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair hub on Piet. plans
To: "Pietenpol List"
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 10:39 PM
Mike;
Doesn't look to me like anybody actually answered your question about
the
differences between the two hubs (Pietenpol and Wynne) for the Corvair
conversion, so I'll throw in my two cents' worth and see if I can add
anything.
I have the Pietenpol drawings and the hub sheets are dated November of
1972.
The material indicated for the hub is "aluminum casting". The design
pioneered the use of a "safety shaft" through the center of the hub
into a threaded 3/4" deep bore in the center of the crankshaft end
(nose).
The safety shaft is called out to be a 5" long, 1" dia. 4130 or 4140
steel rod, or 1" dia. by .250" wall 4130 steel tube, threaded 18
threads to the inch. The hub is mounted to the crankshaft flange using
standard
Chevy 11/32" capscrews, 1" long. This requires that the holes in the
hub be bored very deep into it and that a long, thinwall socket be used
to
tighten them. The flange itself has a standard bolt pattern and is
.438"
thick at the prop flange. Overall length is given as 2.875".
I say all of this to contrast this hub to the Wynne hub, which is quite
a bit
beefier but is obviously an adaptation and improvement on Mr.
Pietenpol's
hub. It is 3.5" long with a 1.1" thick prop flange, and is machined
from 2024 aluminum, but William says it could be made from 6061.
William's
design uses a safety shaft that is 6" long because the hub is a bit
heavier, longer, and stouter- and the safety shaft threads 1" into the
crank nose rather than 3/4" as in the Pietenpol. The threads are 14
threads per inch (coarser than the Pietenpol). While the Pietenpol hub
body is
slightly tapered, the Wynne design is straight, again making it beefier.
William's preferred method of mounting to the crank flange is through
the
use of what William calls "hybrid studs", which are threaded with the
Chevy 11/32" on one end and a more standard 3/8-24 thread on the nut end
that holds the hub to the crank flange.
Here's what William says about the Pietenpol hub in his manual, of which
I
have three different editions dating back more than 10 years: "This
method
was pioneered by Bernie [sic] Pietenpol in the early 1960s. Although I
know of
no failures of Bernie's way of doing it, my method is a little different
and
uses different materials, but the concept is the same." He also says,
"The Pietenpol method is brought up for technical reference only. If
you
are building an exact replica of Bernie's engine, his son Don is the
best
source of information on it. Years ago, a number of cast aluminum hubs
were
made to Bernie's drawings. Some of these are still floating around for
sale. These are light duty units suited only to the modest flying done
by
Pietenpols.".
My take-away: make your hub using the Pietenpol or the Wynne drawings,
but
ALWAYS use a safety shaft and ALWAYS use at least 6061 aluminum, NOT any
cast
material. To my non-machinist's eye, the two hubs require about the
same
amount of machine work to produce but the Wynne hub has no tapers to cut
and is
stronger in some important areas, and is a little less than an inch or
so
longer.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
From:
Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Affordable Flying Center featured aircraft: Pietenpol
Air Camper
Here is a link to Bill Rewey's Piet at Oshkosh. It was getting more
attention than anything else in the Affordable Flying Center
http://www.airventure.org/2008/4wed30/afc.html
Ben Charvet
Mims, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
From:
Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
I wonder about that exact subject...the loads on a control surface/turn buc
kle/cable in a Piet. Say 90 MPH and a sharp "full deflection" pull of the e
levator...what kind of load does that put on the-cables, etc? For that ma
tter, the hindges, wood at the attaching points, etc. I have NO idea, but c
urious. I would think a wood component would let go long before a steel cab
le/tunbuckle...?
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 10:13 PM
I got to thinking about "hardware store" turnbuckles as a possible
alternative to AN/MS hardware and paged over to McMaster-Carr to snoop. Fo
und
some surprises. For example, let's take the typical 1/8" 7x19 aircraft
cable. It's rated at 2000 lbs. strength. For that, let's pick an AN/MS
turnbuckle with AN4 (1/4") threads, an eye on one end and a fork on the
other, roughly 4-1/2" long. It is rated something a little over 2000 lbs.
so it's a good match for that cable.
Searching "the hardware store", we start with open-body aluminum
"screen door" turnbuckles with 1/4" threaded eyes and find that
it might be rated a couple of hundred pounds, obviously due to the aluminum
body
and the minimal number of threads on the eyes that engage the body. Move o
n to
galvanized steel and the strength improves to a couple of hundred pounds, s
till
very affordable. Now on to the better stuff and we find stainless steel
turnbuckles, which are available in both open and closed body and seem to e
ngage
maybe twice as many threads but are rated no more than 800 lbs. and also ha
ve a
caution that the working load should not be exceeded. Can you say "fails
rather sharply"?
The cost of hardware store (or nautical/marine, I found) is a lot more
attractive but the strength is just not there without really getting heavy.
Is
the aircraft hardware 'overkill' for the working loads? I don't
know. I have not run any sort of analysis to determine the aerodynamic loa
dings
on any of them, but when we go from 2000 lbs. rating to a couple of hundred
,
someone had better do some testing. Same goes for home-made tensioners.
I'm all in favor of better mousetraps, but let's test these things
against their working stresses before we substitute. Those stainless
turnbuckles look great to me and are about 1/3 the price of AN/MS hardware,
but
I would have to assure myself that they could handle the flight loads with
at
least a 2x factor of safety because my skinny a$$ is worth more than a $10
turnbuckle.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
From:
hvandervoo(at)aol.com
Load on the control cables cables is easy to calculate
The control stick is nothing more than a lever, I do not have the
drawings in front of me, but let us assume a 1: 10 ratio (it is lower)
Stick forces in my Pietenpol are fairly light, never measured it but my
guess would be between 1- 3 pounds.
But again lets assume a worst case scenario of 10 Lbs.
That would be 10 x 10 = 100 Lbs of force on a cable rated for 2000.
(1/8")
One reason why I have 3/32 cable on my controls (rated for 1000 Lbs) to
save weight
If you reverse the calculation I need to lean on the controls with more
than 100 Lbs to break the cable.
An air plane that needs 100+ Lbs at the stick to control it has
something else wrong.
Now why do we use cable that is rated 10 times load, simply because
some unseen damage (corrosion or chafing) can reduce the cable strenght
and you want enough left to save your butt.
My 2 cents
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 6:28 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
I wonder about that exact subject...the loads on a control surface/turn
buckle/cable in a Piet. Say 90 MPH and a sharp "full deflection" pull
of the elevator...what kind of load does that put on thecables, etc?
For that matter, the hindges, w
ood at the attaching points, etc. I have
NO idea, but curious. I would think a wood component would let go long
before a steel cable/tunbuckle...?
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 10:13 PM
I got to thinking about "hardware store" turnbuckles as a possible
alternative to AN/MS hardware and paged over to McMaster-Carr to snoop.
Found
some surprises. For example, let's take the typical 1/8" 7x19 aircraft
cable. It's rated at 2000 lbs. strength. For that, let's pick an AN/MS
turnbuckle with AN4 (1/4") threads, an eye on one end and a fork on the
other, roughly 4-1/2" long. It is rated something a little over 2000
lbs.
so it's a good match for that cable.
Searching "the hardware store", we start with open-body aluminum
"screen door" turnbuckles with 1/4" threaded eyes and find that
it might be rated a couple of hundred pounds, obviously due to the
aluminum body
and the minimal number of threads on the eyes that engage the body.
Move on to
galvanized steel and the strength improves to a couple of hundred
pounds, still
very affordable. Now on to the better stuff and we find stainless steel
turnbuckles, which are available in both open
and closed body and seem
to engage
maybe twice as many threads but are rated no more than 800 lbs. and
also have a
caution that the working load should not be exceeded. Can you say
"fails
rather sharply"?
The cost of hardware store (or nautical/marine, I found) is a lot more
attractive but the strength is just not there without really getting
heavy. Is
the aircraft hardware 'overkill' for the working loads? I don't
know. I have not run any sort of analysis to determine the aerodynamic
loadings
on any of them, but when we go from 2000 lbs. rating to a couple of
hundred,
someone had better do some testing. Same goes for home-made tensioners.
I'm all in favor of better mousetraps, but let's test these things
against their working stresses before we substitute. Those stainless
turnbuckles look great to me and are about 1/3 the price of AN/MS
hardware, but
I would have to assure myself that they could handle the flight loads
with at
least a 2x factor of safety because my skinny a$$ is worth more than a
$10
turnbuckle.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
D=======================
=====
3D=====
D=======================
===========
D=======================
===========
D=======================
===========
=0
A
**************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
From:
Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
That all makes sense to me. I wonder,though, given your worse case scenerio
, if a pully would break free from the wood long before a cable letting go?
Just curious...things to ponder, I guess.
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, hvandervoo(at)aol.com wrote:
From: hvandervoo(at)aol.com <hvandervoo(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 9:21 AM
Load on the control cables cables is easy to calculate
The control stick is nothing more than a lever, I do not have the
drawings in front of me, but let us assume a 1: 10 ratio (it is lower)
Stick forces in my Pietenpol are fairly light, never measured it but my
guess would be between 1- 3 pounds.
But again lets assume a worst case scenario of 10 Lbs.
That would be 10 x 10 = 100 Lbs of force on a cable rated for 2000.
(1/8")
One reason why I have 3/32 cable on my controls (rated for 1000 Lbs) to
save weight
If you reverse the calculation I need to lean on the controls with more
than 100 Lbs to break the cable.
An air plane that needs 100+ Lbs at the stick to control it has
something else wrong.
Now why do we use cable that is rated 10 times load, simply because
some unseen damage (corrosion or chafing) can reduce the cable strenght
and you want enough left to save your butt.
My 2 cents
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 6:28 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
I wonder about that exact subject...the loads on a control surface/turn
buckle/cable in a Piet. Say 90 MPH and a sharp "full deflection" pull
of the elevator...what kind of load does that put on the-cables, etc?
For that matter, the hindges, w
ood at the attaching points, etc. I have
NO idea, but curious. I would think a wood component would let go long
before a steel cable/tunbuckle...?
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 10:13 PM
I got to thinking about "hardware store" turnbuckles as a possible
alternative to AN/MS hardware and paged over to McMaster-Carr to snoop.
Found
some surprises. For example, let's take the typical 1/8" 7x19
aircraft
cable. It's rated at 2000 lbs. strength. For that, let's pick an
AN/MS
turnbuckle with AN4 (1/4") threads, an eye on one end and a fork on the
other, roughly 4-1/2" long. It is rated something a little over 2000
lbs.
so it's a good match for that cable.
Searching "the hardware store", we start with open-body aluminum
"screen door" turnbuckles with 1/4" threaded eyes and find that
it might be rated a couple of hundred pounds, obviously due to the
aluminum body
and the minimal number of threads on the eyes that engage the body.
Move on to
galvanized steel and the strength improves to a couple of hundred
pounds, still
very affordable. Now on to the better stuff and we find stainless steel
turnbuckles, which are available in both open
and closed body and seem
to engage
maybe twice as many threads but are rated no more than 800 lbs. and
also have a
caution that the working load should not be exceeded. Can you say
"fails
rather sharply"?
The cost of hardware store (or nautical/marine, I found) is a lot more
attractive but the strength is just not there without really getting
heavy. Is
the aircraft hardware 'overkill' for the working loads? I don't
know. I have not run any sort of analysis to determine the aerodynamic
loadings
on any of them, but when we go from 2000 lbs. rating to a couple of
hundred,
someone had better do some testing. Same goes for home-made tensioners.
I'm all in favor of better mousetraps, but let's test these things
against their working stresses before we substitute. Those stainless
turnbuckles look great to me and are about 1/3 the price of AN/MS
hardware, but
I would have to assure myself that they could handle the flight loads
with at
least a 2x factor of safety because my skinny a$$ is worth more than a
$10
turnbuckle.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=0
A
**************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject:
Homemade Turnbuckles
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
I like your logical approach, Hans.
When talking about the strength of any system, we always go back to the old
adage of "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link". In the case of
the control cables, as Oscar had pointed out, 1/8" aircraft cable is rated
at 2000lb, and a 1/4" (AN4) turnbuckle has the same rating. Sounds plenty
strong. However, are the sheet metal control horns the cables are tied to
rated for 2000lb? Is the connection of that control horn to the wood rated
for 2000 lb? Not even close! So, your choice of using 3/32" cables (and I
would assume AN3 turnbuckles) makes sense to me. If the system is loaded
anywhere near 1000 lb it will fail somewhere else other than the
cable/turnbuckle . Even if you were to exert a 50 lb force at the stick
(which would be 500 lb of tension on the cable and the control horns), your
choice of cable still has a factor of safety of 2. Of course, regardless of
what size cable is used, regular inspections are critical.
This is the same type of logic I was applying when looking at the
possibility of making the "homemade turnbuckles" that started this thread.
It has always been my intention to do controlled, real world testing of any
assembly that I come up with before I would even consider putting them in my
plane. After the design is refined, I plan to build several sample
assemblies which would be placed in tension, with the load incrementally
increased to the point of failure. If the result is not satisfactory, the
idea goes in the trash bin, and we move on.
Regarding hardware store turnbuckles, these things are crudely made, and I
would stay away from them.
Regarding the actual cables, I would NOT buy my "aircraft" cables at the
hardware store. The cable they sell is more likely "commercial" cable
(although it might be referred to as aircraft cable) which is not
lubricated, and will be far less resistant to fatigue failure. Just bite the
bullet and buy the real thing. Also, if a cable is running over a pulley, be
sure to use galvanized cable, rather than stainless steel, as the stainless
steel cable will fail before the galvanized. If the cables do not change
direction, stainless is okay (like tail bracing wires or landing gear
bracing wires, etc.)
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Waldo Pepper (Robert Redford) feels he has missed out on the glory of aerial combat
in World War I after being made a flight instructor. When the fighting ends,
Waldo has taken up barnstorming to make a living. He soon tangles with rival
barnstormer Axel Olsson (Bo Svenson). The two eventually wind up flying for
the traveling air show owned by Dillhoefer (Philip Bruns). In an effort to attract
bigger crowds, Dillhoefer introduces several young ladies into the show,
including Mary Beth (Susan Sarandon) and Patsy (Kelly Jean Peters). As the show
moves from town to town, and the crew practices new stunts, they experience
problems, errors, and crashes. As a result of the death of Mary Beth during a
wing walking stunt, Waldo is grounded by a federal aviation inspector, a man
from Waldo's past named Newt (Geoffrey Lewis). Waldo ultimately loses his pilot's
license, but this doesn't stop him from flying for very long.
Under an alias, Waldo gets a job as a stunt pilot in a Hollywood film depicting
the air battles of the Great War. Famous German air ace Ernst Kessler (Bo Brundin)
has also been hired by the producers, as a consultant and to fly a Fokker
Dr. I replica. The disillusioned, bitter and heavy drinking depiction of Kessler
is based on the real German ace and stunt flier Ernst Udet. During filming
of a famous wartime duel, though their fighters are unarmed, Waldo and Kessler
begin dogfighting in deadly earnest, using their airplanes as weapons.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
Subject:
Re:The Great Waldo Pepper
It certainly looses a bunch in the nutshell version
In a message dated 8/1/2008 2:06:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com writes:
That's it in a nutshell!!!!!!!!!!!!
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of H RULE
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re:The Great Waldo Pepper
Waldo Pepper (Robert Redford) feels he has missed out on the glory of aerial
combat in _World War I_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) after
being made a flight instructor. When the fighting ends, Waldo has taken up
_barnstorming_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnstorming) to make a living. He
soon tangles with rival barnstormer Axel Olsson (_Bo Svenson_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Svenson) ). The two eventually wind up flying for the
traveling air show owned by Dillhoefer (_Philip Bruns_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bruns) ). In an effort to attract bigger crowds, Dillhoefer introduces
several young ladies into the show, including Mary Beth (_Susan Sarandon_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Sarandon) ) and Patsy (Kelly Jean Peters).
As the show moves from town to town, and the crew practices new stunts, they
experience problems, errors, and crashes. As a result of the death of Mary
Beth during a _wing walking_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_walking) stunt,
Waldo is grounded by a federal aviation inspector, a man from Waldo's past
named Newt (_Geoffrey Lewis_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Lewis_(actor)) ). Waldo ultimately loses his pilot's license, but this doesn't stop
him from flying for very long.
Under an alias, Waldo gets a job as a stunt pilot in a _Hollywood_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood) film depicting the air battles of the Great
War. Famous German air ace Ernst Kessler (Bo Brundin) has also been hired by
the producers, as a consultant and to fly a _Fokker Dr. I_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_Triplane) replica. The disillusioned, bitter and heavy
drinking depiction of Kessler is based on the real German ace and stunt flier
_Ernst Udet_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Udet) . During filming of a
famous wartime duel, though their fighters are unarmed, Waldo and Kessler begin
_dogfighting_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight) in deadly earnest,
using their airplanes as weapons.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
________________________________________________________________________________
OK, I'll try again to post some low resolution pictures (out of respect
for those who suffer from dial-up modems) from last weekend's Brodhead
Pietenpol Extravaganza:
The grass was green, the mosquitos were plentiful and hungry, and the
Pietenpols were in abundance (at least more so than the Hatz Biplanes).
Here is a picture of the field:
<>
Here is what it looked like from my Pietenpol at 300' AGL:
<>
There was good food, and good camaraderie. And lots of Piet builders
taking pictures and making notes from every flying Pietenpol on the
field (I think there were a total of 14 Piets there):
<>
By the way, on the way home I went by Jackson, TN to visit my Mom.
Coming out of there Monday morning, Flight Service forecast "a few
clouds at 600' ". By the time I got to the Tennessee River at Clifton,
this is what I found:
<>
Shortly after that picture was taken, it walled in all around me and I
was suddenly in full IMC. If I didn't have a Turn & Bank indicator I
don't know what I would have done. As it was, I did a 180 and went back
to Jackson to wait for it to clear up.
Made it back home Tuesday afternoon. In 5 days I put a little over 34
hours on the airplane and flew just over 1900 miles.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is p
rohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
orsk - Portuguese
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Brodhead Pictures
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
Didn't know a Piet could go that high! That's encouraging...;<)
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, working on fuselage
(11 ribs down.)
_____
<>
Shortly after that picture was taken, it walled in all around me and I was
suddenly in full IMC. If I didn't have a Turn & Bank indicator I don't know
what I would have done. As it was, I did a 180 and went back to Jackson to
wait for it to clear up.
Made it back home Tuesday afternoon. In 5 days I put a little over 34 hours
on the airplane and flew just over 1900 miles.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is
prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands -
Norsk - Portuguese
________________________________________________________________________________
Actually, I was at about 2,000' when that picture was made. Those
clouds were really low (or I would have just gone under them when they
started forming). I was near the Tennessee River and I suspect that
over the river they went all the way down to the deck
Jack
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Boothe
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Pictures
Didn't know a Piet could go that high! That's encouraging.....;<)
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, working on fuselage
(11 ribs down...)
_____
<>
Shortly after that picture was taken, it walled in all around me and I
was suddenly in full IMC. If I didn't have a Turn & Bank indicator I
don't know what I would have done. As it was, I did a 180 and went back
to Jackson to wait for it to clear up.
Made it back home Tuesday afternoon. In 5 days I put a little over 34
hours on the airplane and flew just over 1900 miles.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,
please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you
is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
- Norsk - Portuguese
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is p
rohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
orsk - Portuguese
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
I've decided to "bump up" the top of my center section fuel tank, moth
style, to get another hour.
Now that the top will visible, I want it to look decent.
My problem is that when I weld the cap flange to the top of the curved
section, it distorts the top something fierce.
I'm tig welding aluminum. I'm going to try again with the top flat on my
welding table and the flange clamped down. I was thinking I'd cut the hole
later which might help keep things in position.
Any ideas on how to get a nice distortion free top?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: No Title
From:
"Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
Douwe,
Any chance you could snap a picture to show what kind of distortion you're getting,
and what the application looks like? It would really help in terms of offering
pertinent advise. Is the tank fully welded other than the filler, or is
the top of the tank not yet attached to the rest of the tank?
The usual way to deal with welding distortion is twofold, especially with aluminum,
which requires more heat to weld than steel or stainless.
First, you should expect that there will be some distortion. If you are expecting
to have a perfect, smooth, distortion-free weld that requires no post-weld
correction, you are likely to be disappointed every time. Knowing the ways that
welds will act allows you to use methods that can minimize that distortion.
Using TIG will help, because the weld is more concentrated. The first step is
to tack-weld the two pieces together in as many places as possible, to minimize
movement as you do the final seam welding. After the pieces are tacked together,
check for positioning, and adjust with a small hammer as required. When you
are happy with the positioning, you can weld off the entire joint. Since this
weld's primary function is to be liquid-proof, rather than structural, make
the welds as small as possible.
Secondly, the most effective method of removing weld distortion is through the
use of a sophisticated set of instruments called a hammer and a backing bar (or
block). The extreme, localized heat of welding puts a lot of stresses into the
metal in and around the weld. In the areas where the weld shrinks the metal,
you need to stretch it back to it's pre-weld state. This is where the hammer
and backing bar come in.
Of course, the best approach might be to take an entirely different approach, and
install a flanged filler neck, which would be attached with mechanical fasteners
- eliminating the welding, and all the distortion that goes with it. Here's
a link to the way Jim Markle did his. Looks good to me.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReportDetail.cfm?BuildLogID=396&PlaneID=52
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196081#196081
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
From:
"walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
test
test
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
my project
Evening Everyone,
I want to apologize and take back the statement when I said that we were shortening
the wing. That indeed was a misstep on my part and I wanted to clarify.
What I am going is that after the 14th rib is made dad and I would look at what
is the best to proceed in the rib construction. My dad would would like to modify
the jig and build the ribs where the aileron will be place. Alternatively
we could do what Ben C and Hans have suggested and just take a saw to it we
will just have to wait and see.
On another note who what the great waldo pepper. I gather that its a movie but
thats all I know I have never seen it.
take care & Happy Building or flying,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject:
project progress
Date:
Aug 01, 2008
Everyone:
Had a wonderful time at Brodhead, but didn't get to talk to everyone,
always a disappointment. It is amazing that no matter how many times
you go and look at often the same Piets, depending on what point you are
in on your own project, you see new details that you never noticed
before. I learned a LOT this trip!
After returning, I blasted, primed, and painted all of my steel parts
(well, almost all). Today, I started bolting things on PERMANENTLY!!
Before I did, though, I weighed my fuselage. Mine is a short fuselage,
with only minor modifications. No fittings whatsoever, only wood and
varnish, my completed fuselage weighs 33.6 lbs. according to my digital
bathroom scale. I know there have been postings on here with fuselage
weights, but I am too lazy to look them up right now. How does this
compare to others???
My biggest problem is that I will not have another day off until next
Thursday to go out and work again, bummer!!
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
I was reading you post about the aluminum warping when you weld it, a friend of
mine works for LifeLine ambulance where they scratch build ambulances. they
had the same problem when welding the window and door frames in the large panels
of aluminum. The solution was surprisingly low tech.
They have large pieces of 2x6 rectangular aluminum tubing that they have capped
on both ends which they filled with water then freeze them they clamp the frozen
tubes about 1 inch away from the seam and weld. works like a charm.
Jake
--------
"Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter, and
those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196111#196111
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
welding
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
Thanks for the welding tips.
Bill, I am welding the flange on the top before attaching to the tank. I
think I may have gotten sloppy and let the flange move away from the sheet
as I tacked it.
Jake, great tip!! i had thought something like that might soak up the heat
but hadn't thought of such a clean solution.
Love this forum!!
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
<catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject:
Re: my project
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
Ben,
Why do you need to modify the wing rib jig? I thought the recommended method
of construction was to build the ailerons in-place and then cut them free.
As I understand it this helps the ailerons line up perfectly with the rest
of the wing. This would mean all the ribs are built the same.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: my project
I wish I had an answer for you chris. This is just what my dad wants to do. Maybe
in his mind it might be easier not sure on that!
----- Original Message ----
From: "catdesigns(at)att.net" <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2008 10:26:11 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my project
Ben,
Why do you need to modify the wing rib jig? I thought the recommended method
of construction was to build the ailerons in-place and then cut them free.
As I understand it this helps the ailerons line up perfectly with the rest
of the wing. This would mean all the ribs are built the same.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: welding
From:
jb.spiegel(at)us.schneider-electric.com
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
Douwe,
I would also avoid cutting the hole till your finished.
Jake
"Douwe Blumberg"
Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
08/02/2008 09:54 AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
To
"pietenpolgroup"
cc
Subject
Pietenpol-List: welding
Thanks for the welding tips.
Bill, I am welding the flange on the top before attaching to the tank. I
think I may have gotten sloppy and let the flange move away from the sheet
as I tacked it.
Jake, great tip!! i had thought something like that might soak up the heat
but hadn't thought of such a clean solution.
Love this forum!!
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the MessageL
abs Email Security System.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
From:
"Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: my project
Correct, you build the ailerons as part of the wing and saw it out later,
makes aileron construction very easy.
Rick
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 9:26 AM, wrote:
>
> Ben,
>
> Why do you need to modify the wing rib jig? I thought the recommended
> method of construction was to build the ailerons in-place and then cut them
> free. As I understand it this helps the ailerons line up perfectly with the
> rest of the wing. This would mean all the ribs are built the same.
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
> Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
From:
"walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: my project
Ben,
Yeah, you build the whole wing, in one piece,,,then you glue in the airleron
spars, and when done, cut out the airleron. Works great.
PS I would trammel the wing before glueing in the airleron stuff and
cutting. This makes sure all is parallel.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my project
>
> Ben,
>
> Why do you need to modify the wing rib jig? I thought the recommended
> method of construction was to build the ailerons in-place and then cut
> them free. As I understand it this helps the ailerons line up perfectly
> with the rest of the wing. This would mean all the ribs are built the
> same.
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
> Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: my project
what do you mean by trammel the wing?
Ben in MN
----- Original Message ----
From: walt <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2008 11:05:27 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my project
Ben,
Yeah, you build the whole wing, in one piece,,,then you glue in the airleron
spars, and when done, cut out the airleron. Works great.
PS I would trammel the wing before glueing in the airleron stuff and
cutting. This makes sure all is parallel.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my project
>
> Ben,
>
> Why do you need to modify the wing rib jig? I thought the recommended
> method of construction was to build the ailerons in-place and then cut
> them free. As I understand it this helps the ailerons line up perfectly
> with the rest of the wing. This would mean all the ribs are built the
> same.
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
> Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
From:
"walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: my project
Ben,
You can check the archives, and I'm sure others will jump in.
But it's a process, that has to be done on all wings, where, using a long
device that you can make yourself. consisting of a rod with 2 pins at right
angles. You pick points near both ends of the spar where the ribs cross. By
taking diagonal comparisons of each, you can tell if the "rectangle" is
square. This means pushing or pulling each spar slightly till the
criss-cross readings are equal. Usually done when the flying and drag wires
are installed. This way when you glue in the aierleron spars are glued
in,,,all will be square
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ramler" <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my project
>
>
> what do you mean by trammel the wing?
> Ben in MN
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: walt <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2008 11:05:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my project
>
>
> Ben,
> Yeah, you build the whole wing, in one piece,,,then you glue in the
> airleron
> spars, and when done, cut out the airleron. Works great.
> PS I would trammel the wing before glueing in the airleron stuff and
> cutting. This makes sure all is parallel.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <catdesigns(at)att.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 11:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my project
>
>
>>
>> Ben,
>>
>> Why do you need to modify the wing rib jig? I thought the recommended
>> method of construction was to build the ailerons in-place and then cut
>> them free. As I understand it this helps the ailerons line up perfectly
>> with the rest of the wing. This would mean all the ribs are built the
>> same.
>>
>> Chris Tracy
>> Sacramento, Ca
>> Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
Subject:
Piets in Hawaii
Just back form a 10 day business trip that included Brodhead and I am out
again on Tuesday for Hawaii on business, I may be there for about a week.
Any Piets on the big island or any of the islands for that matter?
Ill be there soon enough and would love to visit a Piet Hawaiian style.
John
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com
Date:
Aug 02, 2008
Subject:
Re: Inspection holes (wing)
"Wait till you get to the part about the empty oatmeal cardboard containers
;o)"
Oscar, oh great, that will be the one thing we obsess about till we know =)
On the road from Osh down to Brodhead right now, I don't expect to post this
till returning to Scholler.
Regards, Chrissi
CG Products, Custom Aircraft Hardware
www.CozyGirrrl.com
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
==============================
If you have a "Spam Blocker" that requires
we fill out a form you will not hear from us.
Please do not make your spam problem ours.
In a message dated 5/27/2008 12:56:22 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
taildrags(at)hotmail.com writes:
Wait till you get to the part about the empty oatmeal cardboard containers
;o)
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
________________________________________________________________________________
John,
-
With all the travel you do..... I want your job! What is it that you do aga
in?.....airplane security agent inspecting flight attendant demeanors?.....
.lol
Kenneth M. Heide, BA, CPO, FAAOP
-
--- On Sat, 8/2/08, AMsafetyC(at)aol.com wrote:
From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com <AMsafetyC(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piets in Hawaii
Date: Saturday, August 2, 2008, 8:04 PM
Just back form a 10 day business trip that included Brodhead and I am out a
gain on Tuesday for Hawaii on business, I may be there for about a week.
-
Any Piets on the big island or any of the islands for that matter?
-
Ill be there soon enough and would love to visit a Piet Hawaiian style.
-
John
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews
on AOL Autos.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Girrrlz-
Legend has it (actually, this has been verified by old-timers) that Bernard Pietenpol
used empty Quaker Oatmeal cardboard cartons to make the top surface covers
of the leading edges on his wings. Find THAT in your AC 43.13-!
Search the archives and you'll also find remarks indicating that he used the tops
of 55 gal drums for the material for control horns, empty dope cans for various
metal bits, and the like. Welcome to low 'n' slow homebuilding.
A new age it ain't, but it sure is fun. I can attest to that with just about an
even 1.0 hrs. in yesterday's logbook with 41CC, after Hurricane Dolly's rains
really greened up the countryside. Purrrfect Pietenpoling, and made me go back
to the hangar and work on my smoke system some more. I hope to be making
smoke with it by the time this year's "Wings 'n' Wheels" event rolls around in
September on our our field.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Not-A-Tri-Pacer
Date:
Aug 03, 2008
Hey, now! Here's a name I recognize, Jim Hamilton:
http://www.airventure.org/2008/7sat2/around_field.html
One of my very best friends in Oregon is Jim's brother, Jack. A true low-and-slow
flier. They have a place up on Graves Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River,
and I flew Jack in to their dirt strip in a Super Cub one beautiful and cool
morning for one of my most memorable flights in Oregon.
They don't make too many of 'em like Jim and Jack Hamilton anymore...
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: welding
From:
"Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date:
Aug 03, 2008
Douwe,
Since you are welding the cap to the top before welding the top to the tank, it
should make it much easier for you to do some of the straightening. You should
be able to set the welded assembly on to a hard, solid surface (like an anvil,
or a piece of steel plate) to act as the backing bar, when you gently use a
hammer to stretch the metal back to the shape you want. Of course, if, as you
say, the two components were not correctly positioned when tacking, that will
be a big contributing factor to your distortion. Usually, it is possible to tap
with a hammer to close small gaps before welding off the joints.
Good luck.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196360#196360
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is it?
From:
"Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Just how feasible is it for an amateur pilot to build a Pietenpol and then learning
to fly in it?
I know it's doable, but is it actually a realistic, smart endeavor?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196398#196398
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Any Piets in N.C.?
From:
"Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Does anyone know of any Piets, particularly already flying, in NC?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196399#196399
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
TGSTONE236(at)aol.com
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Subject:
Re: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is
it?
what is eastern NC?East of Raleigh or east of I-95? North eastern or south
eastern NC a little more specific to area.
In a message dated 8/4/2008 9:59:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Tom Anderson"
Just how feasible is it for an amateur pilot to build a Pietenpol and then
learning to fly in it?
I know it's doable, but is it actually a realistic, smart endeavor?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196398#196398
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
AN machine screw questions
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
"Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com>
Hi All,
Back from OSH and Brodhead, great time, good to see all my friends!
Planning to use 10-32 screws for attaching tail hinges and ailerons.
Would the 60k tensile strength be ok or should I go with the 125k?
Thanks!
Jack
www.textors.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
"ALAN LYSCARS" <alyscars(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible
is it?
Tom,
Only you can answer that one with confidence. Many guys who have come
before us, I suspect, have done it. Their assessment of the personal risk
was just that: personal.
So it is yours.
Al in NH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:55 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is
it?
>
>
> Just how feasible is it for an amateur pilot to build a Pietenpol and then
> learning to fly in it?
> I know it's doable, but is it actually a realistic, smart endeavor?
>
> --------
> Location: Eastern N.C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196398#196398
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is it?
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Tom;
I'd say learning to fly in your own Piet would be great, with a couple of caveats.
First, have an experienced test pilot fly off the hours and complete all
the necessary tweaking so it will fly right. The last thing a student needs is
to be learning in an out-of-rig airplane. Second, make sure there is some sort
of intercom. While that was not an option back in the days when Piets were
first flown, it sure helps when instructing. Last, but not least, it might
take quite a bit of courage for an instructor to ride in that front cockpit and
not have brakes or carb heat control. He or she can "save" a botched maneuver
with power and flight controls but it would sure be nice to have brakes up
front and absolutely essential to safety of flight to have proper operation of
carb heat control.
Ignition switch and fuel cutoff would also be nice to have in both cockpits but
a lot of people have learned to fly in airplanes without access to them for both
student and instructor.
If you can find an instructor willing to teach you in your Piet, go for it. The
airplane is certainly going to be a good teacher. And if I misunderstood your
question and you are already a pilot, then it's a no-brainer. Definitely doable.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible
is it?
I suppose it's do-able, but one of the tricks is to find a flight instructor who
knows taildraggers and is willing to do it in your plane. The instructor is
going to have to learn the characteristics of your plane at the same time as they're
teaching you, unless you let them fly it first. If you're really lucky,
you might be able to find a test pilot / instructor that could do both your flight
tests and your instruction for you. As a non-pilot you absolutely do not
want to do your own flight testing; this is one of those times where experience
is worth a lot.
Also keep in mind you'd probably be receiving your instruction while seated in
the back, which means your instructor is going to be crammed into the front hole.
So besides the above criteria, they might have to be pretty flexible also.
You'd also need a full set of controls and gauges both front and back.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Anderson <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
>Sent: Aug 4, 2008 9:55 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is it?
>
>
>Just how feasible is it for an amateur pilot to build a Pietenpol and then learning
to fly in it?
>I know it's doable, but is it actually a realistic, smart endeavor?
>
>--------
>Location: Eastern N.C.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196398#196398
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
"TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com>
Subject:
Re: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible
is it?
>Just how feasible is it for an amateur pilot to build a Pietenpol and
then learning to fly in it?
>I know it's doable, but is it actually a realistic, smart endeavor?
Tom
Speaking from my own personal experience, it's certainly doable to
build your own Pietenpol, even if you'r not already a pilot and have no
experience building airplanes. You just need to be willing to learn as
you go and be willing to junk parts that are not "up-to-snuff" (whatever
that means.)
Learning to fly in that homebuilt Pietenpol - that's going to be a LOT
more difficult. First you have to find a licensed instructor with a
tailwheel rating who is willing to risk his own neck in a homebuilt that
he didn't build. Then, you have to find someone who will take your
creation and herd it through it's 40-hour testing phase to the final FAA
approval stage before you would be allowed to have a second person (you)
in the airplane. After that, the rest would be a piece of cake. It's
not like the old days when Bernard P. designed his own plane and then
taught himself to fly in it. BUT, don't let that stop you! Learn to
fly in a Spam can - one with a tailwheel if you can manage it - and then
you will be ready on that glorious day when your Piet is ready to
"...slip the surly bonds of earth..." I'm beginning to see that
perticular light at the end of the tunnel but it's still mighty dim.
Tom Stinemetze
McPherson, KS
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is
it?
From:
"Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Oscar,
Thanks for the response and no, you didn't misunderstand at all. I've got several
(
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196424#196424
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is it?
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Jim is right... if your instructor has no experience in a Piet, then he or she
had better learn the airplane first. Duh. My instructor had flown 41CC quite
a bit before he ever started my checkout, plus he is an old taildragger pilot
from way back, so he didn't bat an eye about flying it from the front seat or
instructing me in it. Matter of fact, to demonstrate different maneuvers he
would set it up and then ask me what the airspeed indicator was showing. Without
fail, he could nail it by sound and feel without benefit of the ASI but I
would at least provide a vane-type airspeed indicator hung out on the strut so
the front-seater has an idea of what the airspeed is.
But now we're picking nits. The question was, "how feasible is it?" and I'm of
the opinion that it is quite feasible.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Well, I know of at least one. Mine. I'm based at Cox Field (NC81) in
Apex, NC.
As for learning in your Pietenpol, the tough thing is going to be
getting an instructor who is interested in teaching you in a Pietenpol.
I'm not sure how he (or she) could get paid since it is not legal to fly
commercially in an experimental aircraft other than for "tranisition
training". I don't think primary flight instruction would qualify as
transition training. But if you can find a flight instructor who
doesn't mind flying from the front cockpit of a Pietenpol, for free,
then I suppose you can do it.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Anderson
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Any Piets in N.C.?
Does anyone know of any Piets, particularly already flying, in NC?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196399#196399
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject:
Re: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is
it?
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
I agree. It would be too hard to communicate for primary training in a
Piet. Try a Champ or a 172.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible is
it?
Jim is right... if your instructor has no experience in a Piet, then he or
she had better learn the airplane first. Duh. My instructor had flown 41CC
quite a bit before he ever started my checkout, plus he is an old
taildragger pilot from way back, so he didn't bat an eye about flying it
from the front seat or instructing me in it. Matter of fact, to demonstrate
different maneuvers he would set it up and then ask me what the airspeed
indicator was showing. Without fail, he could nail it by sound and feel
without benefit of the ASI but I would at least provide a vane-type airspeed
indicator hung out on the strut so the front-seater has an idea of what the
airspeed is.
But now we're picking nits. The question was, "how feasible is it?" and I'm
of the opinion that it is quite feasible.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
"David Jones" <planecrazy2020(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Waldo Pepper Movie
Gentleman,
I bought a copy of the Waldo Pepper DVD while at Oshkosh for $32.00 (New).
The vendor imports the DVD's from Germany. The DVD cover is in German, but
the movie is in English. The movie is titled "Tollkuhne Flieger" with
Robert Redford. If anyone is interested go to www.warshows.com
or call at 1-973-328-8488.
Take care,
David
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Any Piets in N.C.?
From:
"Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Thanks for the response, Jack.
BTW, is there any chance I could come by sometime and take a look at your Piet...possibly
even take a ride in it to see if I'd even like it?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196438#196438
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Marshall Lumsden <mlumsden(at)charter.net>
Subject:
Re: Building, then learning to fly it - how feasible
is it?
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
When I was a kid in the mid 1930s on a farm in Michigan, a neighbor
bought one of the first, if not the first version of an Air Camper
plan. First he built the wing and tail, grafted them onto a wooden
frame making a glider out of it and had a friend tow him aloft with a
Ford truck. Thus he taught himself the rudiments of flying, then he
completed the Air Camper in his barn and just took off in it. He
flew it a lot for several years. Every summer evening after the
chores were done, he was up puttering around overhead. The Piet self-
destructed in his barn where it was stored during WWII because he was
grounded by the government. After the war he bought a Funk and
continued to fly until he was in his eighties., He never bothered to
get a pilots license. His Piet wasn't much different from the modern
ones, but he sure had the desire to learn to fly.
On Aug 4, 2008, at 7:22 AM, ALAN LYSCARS wrote:
>
>
> Tom,
>
> Only you can answer that one with confidence. Many guys who have
> come before us, I suspect, have done it. Their assessment of the
> personal risk was just that: personal.
>
> So it is yours.
>
> Al in NH
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Anderson"
>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:55 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building, then learning to fly it - how
> feasible is it?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Just how feasible is it for an amateur pilot to build a Pietenpol
>> and then learning to fly in it?
>> I know it's doable, but is it actually a realistic, smart endeavor?
>>
>> --------
>> Location: Eastern N.C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196398#196398
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
paying for flight instruction
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
I had no trouble with my instructor. I was keeping 41CC in his hangar for the
duration, so I paid him hangar rent that was appropriate to the services rendered
and that was that. And since he and I are both rated in category and class,
and I learned in conventional gear years ago when I first started flying (no
taildragger endorsement required), his checking me out in the Piet was nothing
more than transition training.
I can see now that it could be a bigger issue than just finding an instructor who
is willing to instruct you in your own experimental aircraft. However, I would
bet that some suitable arrangement could be worked out without violating
any FARs. The intent is that experimental aircraft be constructed and operated
for recreational and educational purposes, not commercial ones, so it would
have to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the $@%&* law.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Sure. Where are you located? I don't give rides out of Cox - runway
is too short to clear the trees with a passenger, but I can meet you in
Sanford (TTA, 6,000' runway). Right now the Piet is down for
maintenance after 34 hours of flying to and from Brodhead. I need to do
an oil change as well as repair the cooling shrouds on the engine. Both
shrouds developed cracks in the attach brackets. I've ordered some
steel to replace the aluminum brackets and hope to have the repairs made
by next weekend.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Anderson
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Any Piets in N.C.?
Thanks for the response, Jack.
BTW, is there any chance I could come by sometime and take a look at
your Piet...possibly even take a ride in it to see if I'd even like it?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196438#196438
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Any Piets in N.C.?
From:
"Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Jack,
I live in Wilson and work in Raleigh.
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196455#196455
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject:
Taking instruction in your homebuilt
Jack et al.,
I certainly could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that an
instructor can be paid for instructing in a homebuilt airplane.
Rental cannot be charged on the plane (that is, the owner of the
plane cannot be paid for its use). There are several other
considerations (noted in the sources below), but I don't think that
the FARs disallow an instructor being paid.
I am planning to take instruction in my Piet. I had an instructor
lined up who was quite excited about providing instruction and had
done so in other amateur-built experimental planes, but our schedules
never jibed (his "day job" expanded right when we were getting going).
BTW, The EAA has a list of sport pilot instructors, and one of the
column headers is: Willing to Instruct in Experimental Aircraft?
It's divvied up by state, and the URL for N.C. is:
http://www.sportpilot.org/instructors/north%20carolina_1.html
This link requires logging in as an EAA member.
----------------------------------------
Sources that suggest an instructor can be paid for instructing in a
homebuilt (AOPA, EAA, etc.):
From Ron Wanttaja's website, a reprint of the old rec.aviation.homebuilt FAQ
Q334: Can I take lessons/get my license in my homebuilt?
A. Like so many things in aviation, the answer is, "Yes, but..."
There is no regulations to prevent your taking lessons or your
flight test in a homebuilt aircraft. Your ability to do so will
depend on finding an instructor willing to instruct in a homebuilt,
as well as an Examiner willing to administer the test in the
aircraft. Neither is automatic, and you'll have little recourse if
they refuse.
If you would like to take lessons in your homebuilt, ask around at
your local EAA chapter. Many EAA members are instructors, and
would probably be more willing. My local chapters, for instance,
include several CFIs who administer BFRs in members' homebuilts.
http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/FAQ.HTM
----------------------------------
From AOPA Online:
Homebuilts can't be used in a commercial operation. (An instructor
may be paid for services provided in an experimental airplane, but
charges can't be levied for use of the airplane.) You or your student
cannot rent a homebuilt for the purpose of training.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=198
----------------------------------
A fuller discussion is provided at EAA's website, but doesn't
directly bear on this question (I provide it here because it lists
useful considerations):
* Flight Instruction in an Experimental/Amateur-Built Aircraft
*
Am I allowed to receive flight Instruction in an Experimental
/Amateur -Built aircraft?
The short answer is yes, you can receive flight training in an
amateur-built aircraft. However, there are some issues that may limit
this opportunity.
First, the aircraft in question must have already completed it's
flight test phase (called "phase one operations"). Phase one is
usually either the first 25 or 40 hours of operation, depending on
what engine/prop combination is installed. During phase one
operations, only the pilot can be in the aircraft, so no dual flight
instruction could take place in the aircraft during this
time.Assuming that the aircraft has completed phase one operations
and has been moved into phase two (normal) operations, flight
training in the aircraft would be allowed. The next issue is finding
a CFI (certified flight instructor) who is willing to provide primary
training in the homebuilt aircraft in question. Not all CFI's are
willing to give instruction in homebuilt aircraft.
Another issue is whether the aircraft in question meets all the
requirements of training for the license or rating sought. For
private pilot certificates and above, there are requirements for
night and instrument training, as well as radio navigation, so the
aircraft used for training must be equipped for these operations. If
the amateur-built aircraft does not have the appropriate equipment, a
second aircraft will have to be used for those portions of the
training. Splitting your training between two aircraft will certainly
add additional hours to the flight training but will provide the
added benefit of experiencing more than one aircraft's flight
characteristics.
The next thing to consider is the practical test (checkride). This is
governed by 14 CFR 61.45, which states that the applicant must
present a standard, limited, or primary category aircraft for the
practical test. However, this regulation also allows the Designated
Pilot Examiner (DPE) the discretion to administer the test in an
Experimental-Amateur Built aircraft. Some DPE's are not willing to
give a practical test in an amateur-built aircraft, so you may have
to find an aircraft acceptable to the DPE in which to take your
checkride. Also, the aircraft used for the checkride must be equipped
to perform all the tasks listed in the Practical Test Standards for
the license or rating sought. Depending on the level of equipment in
your homebuilt, you may end up taking your checkride in the aircraft
in which you did your night and instrument training
As a practical matter, you will only be able to do your primary
training in a homebuilt that you own. This is due to the fact that
the operating limitations (which are issued as a part of the
aircraft's airworthiness certificate) for a homebuilt prohibit the
carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire. This means
that the owner of a homebuilt aircraft cannot rent the aircraft to
you, as that would constitute carrying a person for compensation or
hire.
Finally, you need to make sure you can properly insure the aircraft
for primary training (including solo). Depending on the aircraft,
insurance may not be available for an owner that is not yet a
certificated pilot. Even if you can acquire aircraft insurance as a
student pilot, this may or may not be cost-effective. You'll have to
balance the cost of this insurance against the cost of renting an
available training aircraft from your local FBO (Fixed Base
Operator). Note that even if you rent an aircraft from an FBO it is
strongly recommend that you carry non-owner insurance (often called
"renter's insurance") to protect you in the event of an accident. The
insurance premium for your homebuilt will probably drop considerably
once you get your pilot certificate and a few hours of experience in
your logbook.
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Flight%20Instruction%20in%20an%20Experimental_Amateur-Built%20Aircraft.html?
>
>
>...
>As for learning in your Pietenpol, the tough thing is going to be
>getting an instructor who is interested in teaching you in a Pietenpol.
>I'm not sure how he (or she) could get paid since it is not legal to fly
>commercially in an experimental aircraft other than for "tranisition
>training". I don't think primary flight instruction would qualify as
>transition training. But if you can find a flight instructor who
>doesn't mind flying from the front cockpit of a Pietenpol, for free,
>then I suppose you can do it.
>
>Jack Phillips
>NX899JP
>
--
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
"Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: project
Did that include oil?
Rick
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:43 PM, skellytown flyer wrote:
>
> i have been off the list as far as posting after changing e-mail servers
> but maybe this will work.I am trying to get moving again on the project I
> bought from D.J. last year.I just pulled the Corvair engine from the mount
> this afternoon and decided to weigh it before moving it out of the way while
> I work on the fuselage.if I was seeing the scales right-( they were pretty
> well covered up with the base I set it on) but including the 15# for the
> wood base I made to sit it on it looked like 240# so that would be about
> 225# without it.and that didn't include the carb and tubing left hanging on
> the firewall,the starter or the exhaust stacks i removed,prop and bolts etc.
> does this sound reasonable? I sure would like to get this plane flying in
> the next year.but I am not real fond of the EIS unit in the panel.I know
> they are not cheap but seems to me that a couple of steam gages would look a
> lot more natural in a Piet.-well a GN-1 anyway.Raymond
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194962#194962
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Ribs and sanding
Afternoon Group,
A quick question. How well should I be sanding the joints on the opposite side
before gluing?
take care,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
"Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
Subject:
Re: Ribs and sanding
I scored with #60 grit. Just a couple of passes with the sandpaper at 2
angles and only enough to give the glue something to grab. I vacuumed away
all the dust with a shop vac. All glued surfaces including gussets and
capstrip got with the 60 grit.
On 8/4/08, Ben Ramler wrote:
>
> >
>
> Afternoon Group,
> A quick question. How well should I be sanding the joints on the
> opposite side before gluing?
> take care,
> Ben in MN
>
>
--
Glenn Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Ribs and sanding
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Ben,
AC 43.13, Section 1, Paragraph 5, quote, "...Sandpaper must never be used to
smooth softwood surfaces that are to be glued. Sawed surfaces must approach
well-planed surfaces in uniformity, smoothness, and freedom from crushed
fibers..."
Fortunately, though, almost all the strength in our ribs comes from the
gussets.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, working on fuselage
(11 ribs down)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ribs and sanding
Afternoon Group,
A quick question. How well should I be sanding the joints on the
opposite side before gluing?
take care,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Ribs and sanding
hmm. I wonder what sandpaper I'm using. Maybe I sanded to much away then be
caus I sanded until there was not dried up glue left from the other side is
this over kill?=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Glenn Thoma
s =0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: M
onday, August 4, 2008 6:06:56 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Ribs and sa
nding=0A=0A=0AI scored with #60 grit.- Just a couple of passes with the s
andpaper at 2 angles and only enough to give the glue something to grab.-
I vacuumed away all the dust with a shop vac.- All glued surfaces includ
ing gussets and capstrip got with the- 60 grit.=0A=0A-=0AOn 8/4/08, Ben
Ramler wrote: =0A--> Pietenpol-List message pos
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Ribs and sanding
so why did you tell me that Gary? so you trying to tell not sand ok I can do that.
Ben in MN
----- Original Message ----
From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2008 6:15:55 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Ribs and sanding
Ben,
AC 43.13, Section 1, Paragraph 5, quote, "...Sandpaper must never be used to
smooth softwood surfaces that are to be glued. Sawed surfaces must approach
well-planed surfaces in uniformity, smoothness, and freedom from crushed
fibers..."
Fortunately, though, almost all the strength in our ribs comes from the
gussets.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, working on fuselage
(11 ribs down)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ribs and sanding
Afternoon Group,
A quick question. How well should I be sanding the joints on the
opposite side before gluing?
take care,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: project
From:
"skellytown flyer" <rhano(at)att.net>
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
yes the weight did include oil in the case.,but not the carb or the exhaust stacks
except the cast iron headers.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196521#196521
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Ribs and sanding
From:
"Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
Not sure if I should step into this one, since it looks like there is some confusion,
but here goes anyway.
I'm going to assume that Ben's question has to do with sanding the bonding surface
of the plywood gussets for his wing ribs. If that's right, then Glenn's reply
is what you're looking for. Just scuff up the surface, since plywood can have
a "glazed" surface as it is received. This glazed surface just needs to be
scratched a bit to permit the epoxy to penetrate the plywood and make a decent
bond. You shouldn't really be removing material from the plywood, just making
it more bond-able.
Gary's comments refer more to glue joints for end-grain spruce (or whatever softwood
you are building with). When spruce is sawn, the end grain has open pores
which will absorb the adhesive. If the end is sanded (and especially if the
wood gets burned in sanding), the pores tend to get clogged, which impedes the
absorption of the adhesive. If the epoxy doesn't "bite" into the wood, the joint
will not achieve the strength that is needed. That is a bad thing.
So, Ben, if you are asking about sanding the "gluing side" of the plywood gussets,
then, yes you should sand them, like Glenn said. If that's not what you're
asking, then maybe you need to re-state your question more clearly.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196540#196540
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 04, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Ribs and sanding
Sorry Everyone,
Yep that is what I was asking. just dealing with sanding then gluing. I am building
with douglas fir so spruce is of no concern to me. Another question I am
unsure of what grit of sandpaper I am using, and my dad is unsure to. If I can
describe it by its color the sandpaper I am using is a grey color.
take care,
Ben
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Church <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2008 9:30:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ribs and sanding
Not sure if I should step into this one, since it looks like there is some confusion,
but here goes anyway.
I'm going to assume that Ben's question has to do with sanding the bonding surface
of the plywood gussets for his wing ribs. If that's right, then Glenn's reply
is what you're looking for. Just scuff up the surface, since plywood can have
a "glazed" surface as it is received. This glazed surface just needs to be
scratched a bit to permit the epoxy to penetrate the plywood and make a decent
bond. You shouldn't really be removing material from the plywood, just making
it more bond-able.
Gary's comments refer more to glue joints for end-grain spruce (or whatever softwood
you are building with). When spruce is sawn, the end grain has open pores
which will absorb the adhesive. If the end is sanded (and especially if the
wood gets burned in sanding), the pores tend to get clogged, which impedes the
absorption of the adhesive. If the epoxy doesn't "bite" into the wood, the joint
will not achieve the strength that is needed. That is a bad thing.
So, Ben, if you are asking about sanding the "gluing side" of the plywood gussets,
then, yes you should sand them, like Glenn said. If that's not what you're
asking, then maybe you need to re-state your question more clearly.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196540#196540
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
charles loomis <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
How hard is it to get into the front seat
I think I remember seeing a video showing that it was pretty difficult. The reason
I ask is because my misses is not the most flexible person and she has a bad
back. I really wish to build a Pietenpol with a Model A engine, but I also
want to take her flying and show her why there is nothing else like it.
Charley
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Charley,
Keri-Ann Price sells plans for a modification to add a door to the passenger
seat. Her website is:
http://www.geocities.com/keriannprice/Pietenpol_Plan_Packages.html
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "charles loomis" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>
> I think I remember seeing a video showing that it was pretty difficult.
> The reason I ask is because my misses is not the most flexible person and
> she has a bad back. I really wish to build a Pietenpol with a Model A
> engine, but I also want to take her flying and show her why there is
> nothing else like it.
> Charley
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Bill,
Dale Johnson built a pull tester for testing the cables on NX18235. We
also used it to test some homemade turnbuckle barrels.
Dale would be happy to do a test on one or more of your turnbuckles.
Let me know if you are interested.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Ken,
I kind of got sidetracked away from the homemade turnbuckles for a
while, and I've actually been building my tailfeathers. So, the short
answer to your question is "No, I haven't".
Having said that, here's the long answer.
I didn't do any strength calculations, but I have a strong feeling
that the turnbuckles as I made them will be sufficient in strength, but
I have yet to do some real-world pull testing to see what they can
safely handle. Before I do the pull test I wanted to refine the design a
bit to make them a bit more user friendly. That way I'll be testing the
proper part, not just something similar. I still plan to do it, just not
right now. If you need an answer right now, I think just about anyone
could make up a set of these in a short period of time, and then do
their own testing using a simple apparatus (lever and pivot). When I do
get around to revising the design and doing the pull-testing, I'll share
the results with the list.
If you want more details about how I made the prototype, let me know.
Bill C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of KMHeide,
BA, CPO, FAAOP
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:37 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Bill,
Have you nailed down the materials (thickness, width, length,
rod size, etc) to manufacture the turnbuckles for the tail section?
After seeing the price for the turnbuckles on Aircraft Spruce and
others, I think making my own would be a great idea... any assistance?
Kenneth M. Heide, BA, CPO, FAAOP
________________________________________________________________________________
Look on the back. Most quality sandpaper will have the grit size printed on the
back. It will be a number ranging from 60 (very coarse) to 600 (extremely fine).
Do you have the Tony Bingelis books? If not, you should buy them.
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 Ben Ramler
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ribs and sanding
Sorry Everyone,
Yep that is what I was asking. just dealing with sanding then gluing. I am building
with douglas fir so spruce is of no concern to me. Another question I am
unsure of what grit of sandpaper I am using, and my dad is unsure to. If I can
describe it by its color the sandpaper I am using is a grey color.
take care,
Ben
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Church <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2008 9:30:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ribs and sanding
Not sure if I should step into this one, since it looks like there is some confusion,
but here goes anyway.
I'm going to assume that Ben's question has to do with sanding the bonding surface
of the plywood gussets for his wing ribs. If that's right, then Glenn's reply
is what you're looking for. Just scuff up the surface, since plywood can have
a "glazed" surface as it is received. This glazed surface just needs to be
scratched a bit to permit the epoxy to penetrate the plywood and make a decent
bond. You shouldn't really be removing material from the plywood, just making
it more bond-able.
Gary's comments refer more to glue joints for end-grain spruce (or whatever softwood
you are building with). When spruce is sawn, the end grain has open pores
which will absorb the adhesive. If the end is sanded (and especially if the
wood gets burned in sanding), the pores tend to get clogged, which impedes the
absorption of the adhesive. If the epoxy doesn't "bite" into the wood, the joint
will not achieve the strength that is needed. That is a bad thing.
So, Ben, if you are asking about sanding the "gluing side" of the plywood gussets,
then, yes you should sand them, like Glenn said. If that's not what you're
asking, then maybe you need to re-state your question more clearly.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196540#196540
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
From:
"John Recine" <AmsafetyC(at)aol.com>
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Charley
For what its worth I was considering the door also. I was just really concerned
reluctant to cut the upper longeron weakening the structure for an occasional
rider. That thought was reaffirmed by my tech councelor. You may want to reconsider
that also
John
------Original Message------
From: gcardinal
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Aug 5, 2008 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Charley,
Keri-Ann Price sells plans for a modification to add a door to the passenger
seat. Her website is:
http://www.geocities.com/keriannprice/Pietenpol_Plan_Packages.html
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "charles loomis" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>
> I think I remember seeing a video showing that it was pretty difficult.
> The reason I ask is because my misses is not the most flexible person and
> she has a bad back. I really wish to build a Pietenpol with a Model A
> engine, but I also want to take her flying and show her why there is
> nothing else like it.
> Charley
>
>
>
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
"walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Charley,
I've found that if a person really wants to get in they will.
I added a step on the rear gear leg that really helps.
Good friend of mine of 35 years, was the last of the people not to get polio
shots.
His legs are shriveled and only 50% there.
But he wanted to get in and he did. Had a great time.
But then he couldn't get out! Me and a friend, grabbed him and lifted him
out.
A fun time was had by all.
Big thing about the Piet that no one had discussed, is the tight room for
your feet on the rudder with a big butt sitting there.
Once had to make up a feeble excuse about the winds aloft, cause I couldn't
take a big-butted lady, who would have loved a ride
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "charles loomis" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>
> I think I remember seeing a video showing that it was pretty difficult.
> The reason I ask is because my misses is not the most flexible person and
> she has a bad back. I really wish to build a Pietenpol with a Model A
> engine, but I also want to take her flying and show her why there is
> nothing else like it.
> Charley
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Has anyone talked with Frank Pavliga ? His Piet used 3/32 cable to cross angle
support the cabanes, and had to keep tightening because of stretch, and replaced
them after a few hours of flight. Do other applications of 3/32 cable experience
the same problem ? Don't chance it.
Allen Rudolf's piet still flys with 1/8 Th" cables and the plane weights under
640 Lbs. And will fly two people on a 90 Deg. day with a standard Ford A just
turning 1950 RPM.
Pieti Lowell[/quote]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196610#196610
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
In theory, we should be able to build stronger turnbuckles than standard aircraft
ones. The A/C turnbuckles are made of brass. Their male threads are rolled,
making them stronger than the cut threads we would make. However, I believe
the female (tapped) threads are cut. That would likely be the wekaer link,
and more likely to strip in tension. Moreover, brass is has less tensile and
shering strength than either steel or stainless steel.
Building our own turnbuckles out of stainless steel (female) and a cap bolt (male)
might be the best of all worlds. The high quality steel cap bolt (socket
head) has rolled threads and is case hardened, as well. The mating female part
(homemade) has cut threads, but the S.S. material is much stronger than the
brass. Moreover, the builder might experiment with slightly undersize tap drills
to achieve nearly interference fit (more thread-to-thread surface). This
last step might not be practical, and a real tap-breaker, but perhaps a worthy
experiment.
Also, as in the demontrated design, the homebuilder can make the straps that carry
the loads on the ends of the entire turnbuckle assembly as thick and wide
as needed.
Of course, as stated first in this note... this is only THEORY, and that is why
testing is so important.
If it works, the proper homemade turnbuckle would be not only cheaper, but better
than store-bought aircraft quality. It would also be more in keeping with
the barndoor hinge, baling wire, and oatmeal carton LE heritage of the Piet itself.
Note, though, that this is definitely NOT an appeal for Home Depot turnbuckles.
Tim in central Texas
-----Original Message-----
>From: gcardinal <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Aug 5, 2008 6:22 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
>
>Bill,
>
>Dale Johnson built a pull tester for testing the cables on NX18235. We also used
it to test some homemade turnbuckle barrels.
>Dale would be happy to do a test on one or more of your turnbuckles.
>Let me know if you are interested.
>
>Greg Cardinal
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Church
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:34 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
>
>
> Ken,
>
> I kind of got sidetracked away from the homemade turnbuckles for a while, and
I've actually been building my tailfeathers. So, the short answer to your question
is "No, I haven't".
> Having said that, here's the long answer.
> I didn't do any strength calculations, but I have a strong feeling that the
turnbuckles as I made them will be sufficient in strength, but I have yet to do
some real-world pull testing to see what they can safely handle. Before I do
the pull test I wanted to refine the design a bit to make them a bit more user
friendly. That way I'll be testing the proper part, not just something similar.
I still plan to do it, just not right now. If you need an answer right now,
I think just about anyone could make up a set of these in a short period of
time, and then do their own testing using a simple apparatus (lever and pivot).
When I do get around to revising the design and doing the pull-testing, I'll
share the results with the list.
> If you want more details about how I made the prototype, let me know.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:37 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Have you nailed down the materials (thickness, width, length, rod size,
etc) to manufacture the turnbuckles for the tail section? After seeing the price
for the turnbuckles on Aircraft Spruce and others, I think making my own
would be a great idea... any assistance?
>
>
> Kenneth M. Heide, BA, CPO, FAAOP
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Maybe this would be an area for the CozyGirrrls to make some parts.
There are several dozen turnbuckles required to build a Pietenpol, and
they could offer a turnbuckle kit.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Willis
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
In theory, we should be able to build stronger turnbuckles than standard
aircraft ones. The A/C turnbuckles are made of brass. Their male
threads are rolled, making them stronger than the cut threads we would
make. However, I believe the female (tapped) threads are cut. That
would likely be the wekaer link, and more likely to strip in tension.
Moreover, brass is has less tensile and shering strength than either
steel or stainless steel.
Building our own turnbuckles out of stainless steel (female) and a cap
bolt (male) might be the best of all worlds. The high quality steel cap
bolt (socket head) has rolled threads and is case hardened, as well.
The mating female part (homemade) has cut threads, but the S.S. material
is much stronger than the brass. Moreover, the builder might experiment
with slightly undersize tap drills to achieve nearly interference fit
(more thread-to-thread surface). This last step might not be practical,
and a real tap-breaker, but perhaps a worthy experiment.
Also, as in the demontrated design, the homebuilder can make the straps
that carry the loads on the ends of the entire turnbuckle assembly as
thick and wide as needed.
Of course, as stated first in this note... this is only THEORY, and that
is why testing is so important.
If it works, the proper homemade turnbuckle would be not only cheaper,
but better than store-bought aircraft quality. It would also be more in
keeping with the barndoor hinge, baling wire, and oatmeal carton LE
heritage of the Piet itself. Note, though, that this is definitely NOT
an appeal for Home Depot turnbuckles.
Tim in central Texas
-----Original Message-----
>From: gcardinal <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Aug 5, 2008 6:22 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
>
>Bill,
>
>Dale Johnson built a pull tester for testing the cables on NX18235. We
also used it to test some homemade turnbuckle barrels.
>Dale would be happy to do a test on one or more of your turnbuckles.
>Let me know if you are interested.
>
>Greg Cardinal
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Church
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:34 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
>
>
> Ken,
>
> I kind of got sidetracked away from the homemade turnbuckles for a
while, and I've actually been building my tailfeathers. So, the short
answer to your question is "No, I haven't".
> Having said that, here's the long answer.
> I didn't do any strength calculations, but I have a strong feeling
that the turnbuckles as I made them will be sufficient in strength, but
I have yet to do some real-world pull testing to see what they can
safely handle. Before I do the pull test I wanted to refine the design a
bit to make them a bit more user friendly. That way I'll be testing the
proper part, not just something similar. I still plan to do it, just not
right now. If you need an answer right now, I think just about anyone
could make up a set of these in a short period of time, and then do
their own testing using a simple apparatus (lever and pivot). When I do
get around to revising the design and doing the pull-testing, I'll share
the results with the list.
> If you want more details about how I made the prototype, let me know.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of KMHeide,
BA, CPO, FAAOP
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:37 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Have you nailed down the materials (thickness, width, length,
rod size, etc) to manufacture the turnbuckles for the tail section?
After seeing the price for the turnbuckles on Aircraft Spruce and
others, I think making my own would be a great idea... any assistance?
>
>
> Kenneth M. Heide, BA, CPO, FAAOP
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: fuel drain locations
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Hi Douwe,
I have placed fuel outlets in most locations and finally just use the rear right,
because a boarding passenger will hit the left rear with his shoulder, and
if you fly with the ball in the center either rear locations will work. The center
location, "Allen Rudolf's " will get tagged very often by a passenger boarding.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196620#196620
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: best movie scenes
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
If you want to see some neat Piet flying, take a gander at " Red Betsy ", Ted Davis
did the flights in this movie. Type the title in the search web.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196625#196625
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Frued table saw blades
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
You are quite right, I use a 80 tooth carbide to saw my spars from a 6"X 2-1/2"
X 14 Ft. Lg. Sitkus, when I flipped the beam over and reversed ends the surface
never needed a plane job.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196627#196627
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject:
Homemade Turnbuckles
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Tim,
Now you've got me re-energized and ready to get back to work on the
turnbuckle prototyping, with a new twist.
I'm going to try making one from oatmeal cartons and stove bolts!
Or not.
Actually there's no need to make them stronger than A/C turnbuckles, just
equal. But the use of higher strength materials (st.st. vs brass) could
allow for some weight savings, based on a strength to weight basis.
Stainless steel will provide necessary corrosion resistance, like brass,
since most of the turnbuckles are exposed to the elements. Using smaller tap
drills will definitely become a source of extreme frustration for anyone
working with stainless steel, and the cost of broken taps will very quickly
exceed the cost of buying A/C turnbuckles.
One feature that I have not yet figured out is a method to safety wire such
a homemade turnbuckle.
I don't actually anticipate doing any further development on my prototypes
until sometime later in the fall, when it gets too cold out in the garage
for epoxy to cure. When I have some results, I'll share them with the list.
But that doesn't mean someone else can't go ahead with their own ideas /
prototypes / testing.
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
-->
In theory, we should be able to build stronger turnbuckles than standard
aircraft ones. The A/C turnbuckles are made of brass. Their male threads
are rolled, making them stronger than the cut threads we would make.
However, I believe the female (tapped) threads are cut. That would likely
be the wekaer link, and more likely to strip in tension. Moreover, brass is
has less tensile and shering strength than either steel or stainless steel.
Building our own turnbuckles out of stainless steel (female) and a cap bolt
(male) might be the best of all worlds. The high quality steel cap bolt
(socket head) has rolled threads and is case hardened, as well. The mating
female part (homemade) has cut threads, but the S.S. material is much
stronger than the brass. Moreover, the builder might experiment with
slightly undersize tap drills to achieve nearly interference fit (more
thread-to-thread surface). This last step might not be practical, and a
real tap-breaker, but perhaps a worthy experiment.
Also, as in the demontrated design, the homebuilder can make the straps that
carry the loads on the ends of the entire turnbuckle assembly as thick and
wide as needed.
Of course, as stated first in this note... this is only THEORY, and that is
why testing is so important.
If it works, the proper homemade turnbuckle would be not only cheaper, but
better than store-bought aircraft quality. It would also be more in keeping
with the barndoor hinge, baling wire, and oatmeal carton LE heritage of the
Piet itself. Note, though, that this is definitely NOT an appeal for Home
Depot turnbuckles.
Tim in central Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Roll Call
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Chet,
Have you:
Set timing at 28 Deg ?
Cleaned the casting out from the water inlet with a stiff wire ?
Use a Ford T water pump in place of the A pump ?
Check head gasket and H2O openings.in castings ?
Radiator clean and large enough ?
Auto fuel ?
I run a Ford B supped- up to 90 HP and when it ran hot,In the water pump I found
one impeller of two broke off, welded it on, solved problem, I use a Funk pump,
externally mounted, like the "T" pump, which I have used in the past with
success.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196633#196633
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need to be
set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Ben,
Check the plans, the ailerons are built integral with the wing and
cut out after you have completed building & trammeling the wing. I'm
not there yet, but maybe someone else on the list can expain the
process.
Kip Gardner
On Aug 5, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ben Ramler wrote:
>
>
> Afternoon Group,
> Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the
> ribs need to be set aside for the ailerons?
> 73,
> Ben in MN
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
John Franklin <jbfjr(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Aug 5, 2008 9:21 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
>
>
>In theory, we should be able to build stronger turnbuckles than standard aircraft
ones. The A/C turnbuckles are made of brass. Their male threads are rolled,
making them stronger than the cut threads we would make. However, I believe
the female (tapped) threads are cut. That would likely be the wekaer link,
and more likely to strip in tension. Moreover, brass is has less tensile and
shering strength than either steel or stainless steel.
Tim,
I also thought this was the case regarding the SS turnbuckles, but check out the
ones that McMaster-Carr sells:
http://www.mcmaster.com/ p/n 3082T21
These are SS turnbuckles comparable to the AN130-16S that AS&S sells, but they
are longer. For some reason the SS turnbuckles at McMaster are rated at 400lbs
whereas the AN130-16S are rated at 1600lbs. I don't understand how the brass
turnbuckles could be 4X as strong as the SS but perhaps some of the mechanical
gurus can enlighten us. It may be the type of SS that is used, or perhaps
the eyelet is not welded. That said, I would think 400lbs would be plenty strong
for a low & slow Aircamper. BTW, the AN130-16S sells for about $27 and the
McMaster SS one is just over $17.
Regards,
John F.
Richmond, TX (Eduordo was a bust!)
GN-1 Aircamper
Corvair 164cid
________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
HelsperSew(at)aol.com
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Subject:
Model A mag timing
Lowell,
I have my mags set to 30 degrees, per what Ken Perkins recommends. What do
you think?
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
________________________________________________________________________________
Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need to be
set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
"Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: project
William Wynne told me the ready to fly weight of the Corvair including wood
prop and around 6 lbs for a mount comes to 240 lbs (with starter). Sounds
like yours will come to more than that.
Rick
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM, skellytown flyer wrote:
>
> yes the weight did include oil in the case.,but not the carb or the exhaust
> stacks except the cast iron headers.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196521#196521
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Ben I built the entire wing except for the wing tip bow, diagonals and
plywood leading edge covering. then I made up the three airleron spars and
slid them into place from the wing end and glued them in with T-88. The wing
has to be square when this is done. I used the plumb bob method which is
described at the top of page 66 of the " EAA Aircraft building Techniques
WOOD" book checking the alighnment continuously during construction. If you
don't have one it is available through EAA book store and well worth it but
there are other methods of squareing the wing. I did one set of airleron
spars with the wing verticle as shown in the book and the other wing
horizontal on saw horses, the horizontal one was much easier to work with.
All 30 ribs are identicle thanks to the genious of Mr. B. Pietenpol but the
airleron spars only pick up the outer six/seven. Once the airleron spars
were glued in I used my rib jig to make the inside end rib for the airleron.
I used the wing tip bow to mark the airleron spar ends and carefully cut
them to match up to the tip bow with a good sharp box saw. I then glued on
the wing tip bow, the airleron diagonals. the inner end blocking and even
installed my airleron hinges. I then cut the airleron free with my box saw.
since it was part of the wing when it was built it fits perfectly. This is
the way I did it and it worked perfectly I'm sure there are other valuable
opinions from people on the list. Hope this helps.
Ed Grentzer
>From: Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>Afternoon Group,
> Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs
>need to be set aside for the ailerons?
>73,
>Ben in MN
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
From:
"Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
walt,
How big-butted are you talking about here?
Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Tom,
There is a saying that you may not have heard since you are fairly
new to the list - "This plane was designed when midgets ruled the
earth!" Bernard, by all accounts, was about 5'4" and weighed maybe
140 lbs. Now that's just about my size, and my wife is about the
same, and our daughter will probably be about equal or less as an
adult, so for us, yes, it's a capable 2-seater. Heck, we could even
carry 50-60 lbs of baggage if there was space for it! For two 200+
lb. guys, add in a full load of fuel and you're close to gross, if
not over, depending on how light or heavy you built your plane.
Kip G.
On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>
> walt,
> How big-butted are you talking about here?
> Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
>
> --------
> Location: Eastern N.C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
yes at least page 1 page.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need to be
set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time reading plans
though to be honest.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need to be
set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Yikes!
Ben, what are you doing trying to build a plane without having or reading
the plans???
The plans is all there is.
There ain't no other way to do it.
Maybe it's time to order a new set of plans (or put the project to rest).
Or are you just pulling our collective leg?
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time
reading plans though to be honest.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need
to be set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
From:
"Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Build light!
Somewhere I once saw "Simplicate and add lightness!"
Just for some numbers, I have an A-65 Continental and it weighs in at 626lbs. empty.
Full fuel is just under 15 gallons. I regularly carry a 230lb. passenger
with full fuel and me at nearly 185 lbs. It doesn't exactly claw for altitude
at that weight, but basically I know if I can get the passenger into the front
hole I can lift them out of a respectable field.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196754#196754
________________________________________________________________________________
Should work great, even without an impulse. Max RPM is the results, In the olden
days 73 Oct. was max. Then 25 Deg. is what most mfg. recommended. Keep plugs
at .015"/.018" or it is hard starting.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196757#196757
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
"walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Absolutely a two seater.
Had my 190 pounder brother-in law up today. and I weigh 210#
But you have to build light.
My empty weight was at 595#. With us and gas, still climbs like crazy.
Look at this youtube. with Don at 180#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLrIDeDLR48
No white knuckles at all.
Build light
build light
build light
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>
>
> walt,
> How big-butted are you talking about here?
> Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
>
> --------
> Location: Eastern N.C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Has anybody done the door mod with a tube-and-fabric fuselage instead of a wooden
one?
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: gcardinal <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Aug 5, 2008 7:10 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>
>
>Charley,
>
>Keri-Ann Price sells plans for a modification to add a door to the passenger
>seat. Her website is:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/keriannprice/Pietenpol_Plan_Packages.html
>
>Greg
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "charles loomis" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:48 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>
>
>>
>> I think I remember seeing a video showing that it was pretty difficult.
>> The reason I ask is because my misses is not the most flexible person and
>> she has a bad back. I really wish to build a Pietenpol with a Model A
>> engine, but I also want to take her flying and show her why there is
>> nothing else like it.
>> Charley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
"walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: Just for kicks
I love those colors. :^))
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Just for kicks
>
> Just thought I'd throw this picture in from a week or so ago, somewhere in
> Ohio...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196756#196756
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/flying_circus00541_181.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
nope. Dad said the flyer and glider manual is what to use.
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 4:39:04 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Yikes!
Ben, what are you doing trying to build a plane without having or reading
the plans???
The plans is all there is.
There ain't no other way to do it.
Maybe it's time to order a new set of plans (or put the project to rest).
Or are you just pulling our collective leg?
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time
reading plans though to be honest.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need
to be set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
you have 150 to spend??? I don't!
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 4:39:04 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Yikes!
Ben, what are you doing trying to build a plane without having or reading
the plans???
The plans is all there is.
There ain't no other way to do it.
Maybe it's time to order a new set of plans (or put the project to rest).
Or are you just pulling our collective leg?
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time
reading plans though to be honest.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need
to be set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Ben, Ben, Ben.
Yes, it is possible to build an Air Camper from the Flying and Glider Manual
drawings. I wouldn't want to, but it's been done. Those drawings are so
small I find them pretty hard to read, though. Nonetheless, those are your
plans. I assume you "splurged" for the $8 for the EAA reprint of the FGM.
Use those plans to deternmine how many ribs are affected by the ailerons.
As for $150 being too much to spend, how do you plan to build the rest of
the plane if $150 for a set of plans is too much money? How are you going to
come up with the cash for a motor? How about a propellor? Wheels?
Instruments? The cheapest recent build that I can recall hearing about was
around $5,000. Assuming someone gave you all of the materials to build the
plane, and you live on a property big enough to have your own runway, what
are you going to do when it comes time to fill the tank at $5 a gallon (or
more)? The Pietenpol is one of the most economical "real" aircraft you can
build. It can be built cheaply, but it still ain't free.
Building an airplane from plans drawn in 1934 is a challenge.
Building an airplane without using those plans, and not spending any money
is called dreaming.
Pleasant dreams, Ben.
BC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
nope. Dad said the flyer and glider manual is what to use.
you have 150 to spend??? I don't!
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 4:39:04 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Yikes!
Ben, what are you doing trying to build a plane without having or reading
the plans???
The plans is all there is.
There ain't no other way to do it.
Maybe it's time to order a new set of plans (or put the project to rest).
Or are you just pulling our collective leg?
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time
reading plans though to be honest.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need
to be set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Chet's Mail" <Chethartley1(at)mchsi.com>
Subject:
Re: Roll Call
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Lowell,
I have had the radiator checked, my timing is 28 degrees but I plan to try
30 degrees. My waster inlet looks to be clean, and I'm runing 100LL. My pump
looks to be in excellent shape, I just replaced the head gasket.
How can you tell a Model T waster pump from a Model A?
Does any one know if Don Hicks used a T or A water pump?
Chet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:27 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Roll Call
>
>
> Chet,
> Have you:
> Set timing at 28 Deg ?
> Cleaned the casting out from the water inlet with a stiff wire ?
> Use a Ford T water pump in place of the A pump ?
> Check head gasket and H2O openings.in castings ?
> Radiator clean and large enough ?
> Auto fuel ?
> I run a Ford B supped- up to 90 HP and when it ran hot,In the water pump I
> found one impeller of two broke off, welded it on, solved problem, I use a
> Funk pump, externally mounted, like the "T" pump, which I have used in the
> past with success.
> Pieti Lowell
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196633#196633
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
"Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
And the long fuselage version gives you a bit more cockpit length and you
can always widen the fuselage as many have done (widened mine two inches).
Of course that doesn't necessarily increase your gross weight.
Rick
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner <
kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
> kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
>
> Tom,
>
> There is a saying that you may not have heard since you are fairly new to
> the list - "This plane was designed when midgets ruled the earth!" Bernard,
> by all accounts, was about 5'4" and weighed maybe 140 lbs. Now that's just
> about my size, and my wife is about the same, and our daughter will probably
> be about equal or less as an adult, so for us, yes, it's a capable 2-seater.
> Heck, we could even carry 50-60 lbs of baggage if there was space for it!
> For two 200+ lb. guys, add in a full load of fuel and you're close to gross,
> if not over, depending on how light or heavy you built your plane.
>
> Kip G.
>
> On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>> walt,
>> How big-butted are you talking about here?
>> Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
>>
>> --------
>> Location: Eastern N.C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
"Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Just for kicks
Looks just as beautiful in Ohio as it did at Broadhead.
Rick
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Don Emch wrote:
>
> Just thought I'd throw this picture in from a week or so ago, somewhere in
> Ohio...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196756#196756
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/flying_circus00541_181.jpg
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
And to look at it from the other perspective, my Pietenpol is very close to
Don's in most respects (65 Continental, wire wheels), but mine is heavy,
weighing 745 lbs empty. I also carry 15 gallons of fuel, and I weigh 200.
I can carry passengers as heavy as 205 - as long as I'm flying off a 6,000'
runway. Climb rate on a hot day with a 200 lb passenger is somewhere around
100 fpm, +/- 90 fpm.
My home field is 2,000' long and I will NOT carry passengers out of it. You
midwesterners don't know how good you've got it. When you say a strip is
2,000' long, you fail to mention that that is the RUNWAY length, but that
the approaches are long and flat and you can fly a mile before you hit
anything. In North Carolina, when we say a runway is 2,000 long, that means
after 2,000' you come to the 100' tall trees. You've got to be able to get
off the ground and then CLIMB! I've done the calculations, and if I lift
off after a 400' roll, that means I've got 1600' to climb 100'. At 50 mph
I'll cover that 1600' in 21.8 seconds, and in that 21.8 seconds at 200 fpm I
will climb exactly 72 feet. Would I carry passengers out of a short field
in the Midwest? I did it at Brodhead and got about that much climb rate.
Will I do it at home? No thanks - I'll fly 15 miles and meet them at
Sanford, with a 6,000' runway and approaches similar to Wisconsin.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Emch
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Build light!
Somewhere I once saw "Simplicate and add lightness!"
Just for some numbers, I have an A-65 Continental and it weighs in at
626lbs. empty. Full fuel is just under 15 gallons. I regularly carry a
230lb. passenger with full fuel and me at nearly 185 lbs. It doesn't
exactly claw for altitude at that weight, but basically I know if I can get
the passenger into the front hole I can lift them out of a respectable
field.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196754#196754
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
charles loomis <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
So would the Model A pull the pietenpol along safely with 320 lbs of humans + fuel?
"I say it that way so I don't get in trouble for telling the misses weight."
hehe
--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Don Emch wrote:
> From: Don Emch <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 7:59 AM
> Emch"
>
> Build light!
>
> Somewhere I once saw "Simplicate and add
> lightness!"
>
> Just for some numbers, I have an A-65 Continental and it
> weighs in at 626lbs. empty. Full fuel is just under 15
> gallons. I regularly carry a 230lb. passenger with full
> fuel and me at nearly 185 lbs. It doesn't exactly claw
> for altitude at that weight, but basically I know if I can
> get the passenger into the front hole I can lift them out of
> a respectable field.
>
> Don Emch
> NX899DE
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196754#196754
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Hey Jack,
Same considerations down here in Georgia. 2000' means up and out and
on top of it ALL in 2000'.
This and other considerations (heat, humidity, too much BBQ) explains
the puckered look of most pilot seats in Piets from the South... ;)
Lotta sphincter muscles workin' over time down here on hot days in Piets...
Jeff
>
>And to look at it from the other perspective, my Pietenpol is very close to
>Don's in most respects (65 Continental, wire wheels), but mine is heavy,
>weighing 745 lbs empty. I also carry 15 gallons of fuel, and I weigh 200.
>I can carry passengers as heavy as 205 - as long as I'm flying off a 6,000'
>runway. Climb rate on a hot day with a 200 lb passenger is somewhere around
>100 fpm, +/- 90 fpm.
>
>My home field is 2,000' long and I will NOT carry passengers out of it. You
>midwesterners don't know how good you've got it. When you say a strip is
>2,000' long, you fail to mention that that is the RUNWAY length, but that
>the approaches are long and flat and you can fly a mile before you hit
>anything. In North Carolina, when we say a runway is 2,000 long, that means
>after 2,000' you come to the 100' tall trees. You've got to be able to get
>off the ground and then CLIMB! I've done the calculations, and if I lift
>off after a 400' roll, that means I've got 1600' to climb 100'. At 50 mph
>I'll cover that 1600' in 21.8 seconds, and in that 21.8 seconds at 200 fpm I
>will climb exactly 72 feet. Would I carry passengers out of a short field
>in the Midwest? I did it at Brodhead and got about that much climb rate.
>Will I do it at home? No thanks - I'll fly 15 miles and meet them at
>Sanford, with a 6,000' runway and approaches similar to Wisconsin.
>
>Jack Phillips
>NX899JP
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Emch
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:59 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>
>
>Build light!
>
>Somewhere I once saw "Simplicate and add lightness!"
>
>Just for some numbers, I have an A-65 Continental and it weighs in at
>626lbs. empty. Full fuel is just under 15 gallons. I regularly carry a
>230lb. passenger with full fuel and me at nearly 185 lbs. It doesn't
>exactly claw for altitude at that weight, but basically I know if I can get
>the passenger into the front hole I can lift them out of a respectable
>field.
>
>Don Emch
>NX899DE
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196754#196754
>
>
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
One of the old Buckeye Association newsletters (back in the days when
Frank pavliga was the editor, I think) had a drawing on a way to do
this.
Kip G.
On Aug 5, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Jim Ash wrote:
>
> Has anybody done the door mod with a tube-and-fabric fuselage
> instead of a wooden one?
>
> Jim Ash
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gcardinal <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
>> Sent: Aug 5, 2008 7:10 AM
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: How hard is it to get into the front
>> seat
>>
>>
>>
>> Charley,
>>
>> Keri-Ann Price sells plans for a modification to add a door to the
>> passenger
>> seat. Her website is:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/keriannprice/Pietenpol_Plan_Packages.html
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "charles loomis" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:48 AM
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I remember seeing a video showing that it was pretty
>>> difficult.
>>> The reason I ask is because my misses is not the most flexible
>>> person and
>>> she has a bad back. I really wish to build a Pietenpol with a
>>> Model A
>>> engine, but I also want to take her flying and show her why there is
>>> nothing else like it.
>>> Charley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
NX18235 has 3/32 cables bracing the cabanes. No adjustments needed in 140
hours of flying.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:04 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Homemade Turnbuckles
>
>
> Has anyone talked with Frank Pavliga ? His Piet used 3/32 cable to cross
> angle support the cabanes, and had to keep tightening because of stretch,
> and replaced them after a few hours of flight. Do other applications of
> 3/32 cable experience the same problem ? Don't chance it.
> Allen Rudolf's piet still flys with 1/8 Th" cables and the plane weights
> under 640 Lbs. And will fly two people on a 90 Deg. day with a standard
> Ford A just turning 1950 RPM.
> Pieti Lowell[/quote]
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196610#196610
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject:
intercom
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
Does anyone have a intercom installed? I tried a portable Sigtronics
and it didnt work, it kept the mic open because of wind noise. I'm
thinking it might work if I installed a PTT in the front cockpit and we
talked but broadcast the conversation, but I dont want that.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject:
intercom
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Dick,
I use an HM200 (http://www.ozpilot.com.au/cgi-bin/webitempage.pl?hm200).
There is a fair amount of wind noise but I put some large foam covers over
the microphone (ala Sports Commentators) and that stops some of it. It also
plugs nicely into the Icom hand held.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Navratil
Sent: Wednesday, 6 August 2008 2:14 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: intercom
Does anyone have a intercom installed? I tried a portable Sigtronics and it
didnt work, it kept the mic open because of wind noise. I'm thinking it
might work if I installed a PTT in the front cockpit and we talked but
broadcast the conversation, but I dont want that.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Bill,
If you are going to blast me for what I am going to do maybe I should consider
dropping off the list.
Ben in MN
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 5:53:25 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Ben, Ben, Ben.
Yes, it is possible to build an Air Camper from the Flying and Glider Manual
drawings. I wouldn't want to, but it's been done. Those drawings are so
small I find them pretty hard to read, though. Nonetheless, those are your
plans. I assume you "splurged" for the $8 for the EAA reprint of the FGM.
Use those plans to deternmine how many ribs are affected by the ailerons.
As for $150 being too much to spend, how do you plan to build the rest of
the plane if $150 for a set of plans is too much money? How are you going to
come up with the cash for a motor? How about a propellor? Wheels?
Instruments? The cheapest recent build that I can recall hearing about was
around $5,000. Assuming someone gave you all of the materials to build the
plane, and you live on a property big enough to have your own runway, what
are you going to do when it comes time to fill the tank at $5 a gallon (or
more)? The Pietenpol is one of the most economical "real" aircraft you can
build. It can be built cheaply, but it still ain't free.
Building an airplane from plans drawn in 1934 is a challenge.
Building an airplane without using those plans, and not spending any money
is called dreaming.
Pleasant dreams, Ben.
BC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
nope. Dad said the flyer and glider manual is what to use.
you have 150 to spend??? I don't!
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 4:39:04 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Yikes!
Ben, what are you doing trying to build a plane without having or reading
the plans???
The plans is all there is.
There ain't no other way to do it.
Maybe it's time to order a new set of plans (or put the project to rest).
Or are you just pulling our collective leg?
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time
reading plans though to be honest.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Afternoon Group,
Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need
to be set aside for the ailerons?
73,
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Re: Ribs and sanding
Date:
Aug 05, 2008
End grain cannot be succesfully glued. It may hold for a
short time with little stress on it but you'd better not trust
your backside to it. Glueing edge or flat grain will hold
up to the strength of the fibers.
Sanded joints will never be as strong as planed or scraped
ones. Wood faces should also be fresh at the time of
glueing. The best way is to learn how to use and properly
sharpen cabinet scrapers. It's not that hard but does have
it's own learning curve. Isn't that what we're supposed to
be doing? Learning?
http://woodgears.ca/scraper/index.htmlhttp://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/w00007.asp?
"Life is change. Growth is optional. Choose wisely." ~Karen Kaiser Clark
Clif
>
> Gary's comments refer more to glue joints for end-grain spruce (or
> whatever softwood you are building with). When spruce is sawn, the end
> grain has open pores which will absorb the adhesive. If the end is sanded
> (and especially if the wood gets burned in sanding), the pores tend to get
> clogged, which impedes the absorption of the adhesive. If the epoxy
> doesn't "bite" into the wood, the joint will not achieve the strength that
> is needed. That is a bad thing.
> Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Marc Davis <marcs_listreading(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Homemade Turnbuckles
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
I've seen the following idea used to save money on turnbuckles. The turnbu
ckles for the cross bracing inside the wing are eliminated.
This is done by preloading the cables before crimping the nicopress. The w
ing is first trammeled. Then the first end of the cable is installed as nor
mal. The second end of the cable is run through the nicopress=2C around th
e thimble and back through the nicopress. It then continues about half wa
y towards the first end. At this point it passes over a pulley and down th
rough a hole in the table that the wing is on. At the end of the cable han
g weights to tension the cable. Both cables in a pair are setup like this.
When everything is set the second nicopress is crimed and the excess cab
le is cut off. No turnbuckles needed. The down side is that you have to r
eplace the cables to re trammel the wing but I don't think this is done ver
y often.
Marc
_________________________________________________________________
Get Windows Live and get whatever you need=2C wherever you are. Start here
.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home_082008
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Ben, I thought you came to this list to learn and get advice? If you only
came to hear what you want to hear, then maybe you would be better going
elsewhere. The builders here were asked for their advice and they gave it.
They didn't blast you at all. I've belonged to this groug for several years
and have yet seen anyone blast anybody. I have seen an outstanding exchange
of ideas. When I first came to the group "I" thought one of the old timers
was blasting me. Others set me straight and the "old timer" (sorry Corky)
has been a mentor and a friend.
If you stick around, you just might learn a thing or two AND make some great
mentors/friends.
Gene in Tennessee having a great time flying N502R (sure glad I didn't let
false pride get in my way and I stuck around)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ramler" <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
>
> Bill,
> If you are going to blast me for what I am going to do maybe I should
> consider dropping off the list.
> Ben in MN
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 5:53:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
>
>
> Ben, Ben, Ben.
>
> Yes, it is possible to build an Air Camper from the Flying and Glider
> Manual
> drawings. I wouldn't want to, but it's been done. Those drawings are so
> small I find them pretty hard to read, though. Nonetheless, those are your
> plans. I assume you "splurged" for the $8 for the EAA reprint of the FGM.
> Use those plans to deternmine how many ribs are affected by the ailerons.
>
> As for $150 being too much to spend, how do you plan to build the rest of
> the plane if $150 for a set of plans is too much money? How are you going
> to
> come up with the cash for a motor? How about a propellor? Wheels?
> Instruments? The cheapest recent build that I can recall hearing about was
> around $5,000. Assuming someone gave you all of the materials to build the
> plane, and you live on a property big enough to have your own runway, what
> are you going to do when it comes time to fill the tank at $5 a gallon (or
> more)? The Pietenpol is one of the most economical "real" aircraft you can
> build. It can be built cheaply, but it still ain't free.
>
> Building an airplane from plans drawn in 1934 is a challenge.
> Building an airplane without using those plans, and not spending any money
> is called dreaming.
>
> Pleasant dreams, Ben.
>
>
> BC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:30 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> nope. Dad said the flyer and glider manual is what to use.
>
> you have 150 to spend??? I don't!
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 4:39:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Yikes!
>
> Ben, what are you doing trying to build a plane without having or reading
> the plans???
> The plans is all there is.
> There ain't no other way to do it.
>
> Maybe it's time to order a new set of plans (or put the project to rest).
>
> Or are you just pulling our collective leg?
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:08 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time
> reading plans though to be honest.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Afternoon Group,
> Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs need
> to be set aside for the ailerons?
> 73,
> Ben in MN
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 4:05 PM
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
intercom
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Hi Dick,
I've got one and it works to some extent. It is a panel mount (I think it
is Sigtronics but will have to check it to make sure). It did not work well
using regular headphones, but when I use the leather flying helmets from
Gibson & Barnes that have headsets built in with noise cancelling
microphones, it works fairly well. The squelch is always open, but you can
at least hear each other talk. Sure is nice when taking passengers for a
ride.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Navratil
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:14 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: intercom
Does anyone have a intercom installed? I tried a portable Sigtronics and it
didnt work, it kept the mic open because of wind noise. I'm thinking it
might work if I installed a PTT in the front cockpit and we talked but
broadcast the conversation, but I dont want that.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Just for kicks
From:
"Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Andrew King sent me this shot after flying it back from Brodhead. He needed to
make a pit stop and the freshly cut wheat looked just right! The farmer will
never know he owned an airstrip for a short time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196846#196846
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
intercom/headsets
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
"Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Dick,
I have a 9 volt battery powered 2-place Sigtronics intercom w/ squelch
and volume control. Microphone sponges/covers are a must
to cut wind noise and if possible use noise cancelling head sets. I
just purchased a Flightcom Classic ANR (active noise reduction)
headset to replace my very old Pilot Avionics at Oshkosh and tried it
last weekend and could hear unicom frequencies 75% better
than I did with my old Pilot Avionics units. Transmissions were so much
more clear as well. I'm sold on ANR headsets.
I'm now saving up for a second set of the Flightcom Classics.
By the way I shopped every vendor at OSH for the best price on the
Flightcom Classic ANR's and Gulfcoast Avionics was the best
at $269. Steer clear from the Pilotmall.com
Mike C.
PS-- I have a very new Lightspeed ANR headset for sale (which is
fantastic) but the ear shape doesn't fit my khaki cloth helmet style.
I forget what model but they are nice.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
turnbuckles
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
"Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
B&B Aircraft Supplies - This is a mom and pop shop with a whole
warehouse full of new aircraft parts. Nice people and great prices.
Check here before you go elsewhere. No website, so you need to call or
fax your order. Phone - 913-884-5930. Fax 913-84-6533.
Many of you on the list know this to be the most cost effective place to
purchase brass turnbuckles but the point was driven home
again when I visited them at Oshkosh. No frills, no web site, but
excellent prices on turnbuckles if you want to cut to the chase
and speed up your process.
________________________________________________________________________________
Ben,
I think you've gotten some good advice from those on the list,
particularly Bill Church.. More than once you have posted a note to the
effect that you want to make different ribs for the ailerons than the
rest of the wing, and several people (myself included) have said as
nicely as possible that the way you build this wing (which is mentioned
in the F&GM) is to build the wing then cut the ailerons free. Yet you
seem to persist in wanting to do it differently.
People on this list are primarily interested in helping others to build
good SAFE Pietenpols. There is a good deal of bantering and a lot of
humor but basically, most people want to help others as they themselves
were helped at various stages of their projects. It is a bit
frustrating when a new builder comes along, asks for advice, then
discards it, seeming to say "I know better how to do this than all those
who have actually built and flown one of these planes".
Remember, the purpose of allowing amateur built airplanes to be licensed
as "Experimental", according to the FAA is to encourage "Education and
Recreation". It is NOT necessarily to allow people to build a plane as
cheaply as possible. You can build a Pietenpol for as little as $5,000
or so, if you really know what you are doing and are a very good
"scrounger". More likely it will cost something between $10,000 and
$15,000. Remember that this will be spread over several years. I've
got about $15,000 in mine but that was spread over 8 years of building,
so I tell people that I spent as much on this airplane as a 2-pack a day
smoker would have spent on cigarettes in the same timeframe.
There are several areas that should NOT be scrimped on. I would include
the plans and builders manual in that category. If you have built
airplanes before, it is possible to build a flying Pietenpol from the
F&GM plans, but it would be difficult - especially if you are trying to
do things cheaply. For example, the F&GM plans only show the straight
axle, wire wheel type of landing gear. Having built that, I can assure
you that it is NOT the cheapest gear you can build. My wheels alone
cost nearly $1,000.
My recommendation is to buy the improved (1934) plans from the Pietenpol
family. You really also need the Tony Bingelis books to explain 95% of
the procedures you will need to learn to be able to build this airplane.
A Pietenpol is a fairly simple design, but you will need to know more
techniques than a high school shop class will teach. It is not exactly
like building a birdhouse - there is a lot more to it, such as welding
and trammeling, and rigging and aligning. Remember - your life will
depend on the quality of your workmanship. This list will offer worlds
of good advice, but it does no good unless you heed it.
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 Gene &
Tammy
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Ben, I thought you came to this list to learn and get advice? If you
only
came to hear what you want to hear, then maybe you would be better going
elsewhere. The builders here were asked for their advice and they gave
it.
They didn't blast you at all. I've belonged to this groug for several
years
and have yet seen anyone blast anybody. I have seen an outstanding
exchange
of ideas. When I first came to the group "I" thought one of the old
timers
was blasting me. Others set me straight and the "old timer" (sorry
Corky)
has been a mentor and a friend.
If you stick around, you just might learn a thing or two AND make some
great
mentors/friends.
Gene in Tennessee having a great time flying N502R (sure glad I didn't
let
false pride get in my way and I stuck around)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ramler" <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
>
> Bill,
> If you are going to blast me for what I am going to do maybe I should
> consider dropping off the list.
> Ben in MN
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 5:53:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
>
>
> Ben, Ben, Ben.
>
> Yes, it is possible to build an Air Camper from the Flying and Glider
> Manual
> drawings. I wouldn't want to, but it's been done. Those drawings are
so
> small I find them pretty hard to read, though. Nonetheless, those are
your
> plans. I assume you "splurged" for the $8 for the EAA reprint of the
FGM.
> Use those plans to deternmine how many ribs are affected by the
ailerons.
>
> As for $150 being too much to spend, how do you plan to build the rest
of
> the plane if $150 for a set of plans is too much money? How are you
going
> to
> come up with the cash for a motor? How about a propellor? Wheels?
> Instruments? The cheapest recent build that I can recall hearing about
was
> around $5,000. Assuming someone gave you all of the materials to build
the
> plane, and you live on a property big enough to have your own runway,
what
> are you going to do when it comes time to fill the tank at $5 a gallon
(or
> more)? The Pietenpol is one of the most economical "real" aircraft you
can
> build. It can be built cheaply, but it still ain't free.
>
> Building an airplane from plans drawn in 1934 is a challenge.
> Building an airplane without using those plans, and not spending any
money
> is called dreaming.
>
> Pleasant dreams, Ben.
>
>
> BC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:30 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> nope. Dad said the flyer and glider manual is what to use.
>
> you have 150 to spend??? I don't!
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 4:39:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Yikes!
>
> Ben, what are you doing trying to build a plane without having or
reading
> the plans???
> The plans is all there is.
> There ain't no other way to do it.
>
> Maybe it's time to order a new set of plans (or put the project to
rest).
>
> Or are you just pulling our collective leg?
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:08 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time
> reading plans though to be honest.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Afternoon Group,
> Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs
need
> to be set aside for the ailerons?
> 73,
> Ben in MN
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 4:05 PM
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"JERRY GROGAN" <jerry(at)SKYCLASSIC.NET>
Subject:
intercom
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Dick I have a open cockpit Skybolt with the same or louder noise
problem. I used a Micro-Air radio with a built in intercom. I installed
a centering togle switch in both cockpits. If you push it down you talk
to each other. And if you push it up you talk to the world. It works
very well. Glad I could finaly give some advice.
Jerry Grogan
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:52 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: intercom
Hi Dick,
I've got one and it works to some extent. It is a panel mount (I
think it is Sigtronics but will have to check it to make sure). It did
not work well using regular headphones, but when I use the leather
flying helmets from Gibson & Barnes that have headsets built in with
noise cancelling microphones, it works fairly well. The squelch is
always open, but you can at least hear each other talk. Sure is nice
when taking passengers for a ride.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Navratil
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:14 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: intercom
Does anyone have a intercom installed? I tried a portable Sigtronics
and it didnt work, it kept the mic open because of wind noise. I'm
thinking it might work if I installed a PTT in the front cockpit and we
talked but broadcast the conversation, but I dont want that.
Dick N.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Jack,
I have never ever implied that I know more than the rest of the people on this
list and I am a little offended that you would even suggest a such a thing. Just
because I always try to do things differently doesn't that I am ignoreing
you.
Ben in MN
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 6:58:22 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Ben,
I think you've gotten some good advice from those on the list,
particularly Bill Church.. More than once you have posted a note to the
effect that you want to make different ribs for the ailerons than the
rest of the wing, and several people (myself included) have said as
nicely as possible that the way you build this wing (which is mentioned
in the F&GM) is to build the wing then cut the ailerons free. Yet you
seem to persist in wanting to do it differently.
People on this list are primarily interested in helping others to build
good SAFE Pietenpols. There is a good deal of bantering and a lot of
humor but basically, most people want to help others as they themselves
were helped at various stages of their projects. It is a bit
frustrating when a new builder comes along, asks for advice, then
discards it, seeming to say "I know better how to do this than all those
who have actually built and flown one of these planes".
Remember, the purpose of allowing amateur built airplanes to be licensed
as "Experimental", according to the FAA is to encourage "Education and
Recreation". It is NOT necessarily to allow people to build a plane as
cheaply as possible. You can build a Pietenpol for as little as $5,000
or so, if you really know what you are doing and are a very good
"scrounger". More likely it will cost something between $10,000 and
$15,000. Remember that this will be spread over several years. I've
got about $15,000 in mine but that was spread over 8 years of building,
so I tell people that I spent as much on this airplane as a 2-pack a day
smoker would have spent on cigarettes in the same timeframe.
There are several areas that should NOT be scrimped on. I would include
the plans and builders manual in that category. If you have built
airplanes before, it is possible to build a flying Pietenpol from the
F&GM plans, but it would be difficult - especially if you are trying to
do things cheaply. For example, the F&GM plans only show the straight
axle, wire wheel type of landing gear. Having built that, I can assure
you that it is NOT the cheapest gear you can build. My wheels alone
cost nearly $1,000.
My recommendation is to buy the improved (1934) plans from the Pietenpol
family. You really also need the Tony Bingelis books to explain 95% of
the procedures you will need to learn to be able to build this airplane.
A Pietenpol is a fairly simple design, but you will need to know more
techniques than a high school shop class will teach. It is not exactly
like building a birdhouse - there is a lot more to it, such as welding
and trammeling, and rigging and aligning. Remember - your life will
depend on the quality of your workmanship. This list will offer worlds
of good advice, but it does no good unless you heed it.
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 Gene &
Tammy
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Ben, I thought you came to this list to learn and get advice? If you
only
came to hear what you want to hear, then maybe you would be better going
elsewhere. The builders here were asked for their advice and they gave
it.
They didn't blast you at all. I've belonged to this groug for several
years
and have yet seen anyone blast anybody. I have seen an outstanding
exchange
of ideas. When I first came to the group "I" thought one of the old
timers
was blasting me. Others set me straight and the "old timer" (sorry
Corky)
has been a mentor and a friend.
If you stick around, you just might learn a thing or two AND make some
great
mentors/friends.
Gene in Tennessee having a great time flying N502R (sure glad I didn't
let
false pride get in my way and I stuck around)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ramler" <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
>
> Bill,
> If you are going to blast me for what I am going to do maybe I should
> consider dropping off the list.
> Ben in MN
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 5:53:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
>
>
> Ben, Ben, Ben.
>
> Yes, it is possible to build an Air Camper from the Flying and Glider
> Manual
> drawings. I wouldn't want to, but it's been done. Those drawings are
so
> small I find them pretty hard to read, though. Nonetheless, those are
your
> plans. I assume you "splurged" for the $8 for the EAA reprint of the
FGM.
> Use those plans to deternmine how many ribs are affected by the
ailerons.
>
> As for $150 being too much to spend, how do you plan to build the rest
of
> the plane if $150 for a set of plans is too much money? How are you
going
> to
> come up with the cash for a motor? How about a propellor? Wheels?
> Instruments? The cheapest recent build that I can recall hearing about
was
> around $5,000. Assuming someone gave you all of the materials to build
the
> plane, and you live on a property big enough to have your own runway,
what
> are you going to do when it comes time to fill the tank at $5 a gallon
(or
> more)? The Pietenpol is one of the most economical "real" aircraft you
can
> build. It can be built cheaply, but it still ain't free.
>
> Building an airplane from plans drawn in 1934 is a challenge.
> Building an airplane without using those plans, and not spending any
money
> is called dreaming.
>
> Pleasant dreams, Ben.
>
>
> BC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:30 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> nope. Dad said the flyer and glider manual is what to use.
>
> you have 150 to spend??? I don't!
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 4:39:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Yikes!
>
> Ben, what are you doing trying to build a plane without having or
reading
> the plans???
> The plans is all there is.
> There ain't no other way to do it.
>
> Maybe it's time to order a new set of plans (or put the project to
rest).
>
> Or are you just pulling our collective leg?
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:08 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> not sure where the rest of the plans went to though. I have hard time
> reading plans though to be honest.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:03:57 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Count them. You do have the plans, don't you?
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Ramler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
>
> -->
>
> Afternoon Group,
> Here's a question... Once all 31 ribs are made how many of the ribs
need
> to be set aside for the ailerons?
> 73,
> Ben in MN
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 4:05 PM
>
________________________________________________________________________________
No offense intended, Ben, any more than you intended to offend people by asking
their advice and then ignoring what they told you. Now go spend less time sending
emails and more time making sawdust!
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Jack,
I have never ever implied that I know more than the rest of the people on this
list and I am a little offended that you would even suggest a such a thing. Just
because I always try to do things differently doesn't that I am ignoreing
you.
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
From:
"Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
This is very interesting stuff.
BTW, how does a Piet's useful load compare to some other small planes like a C-152
and J-3 Cub? I mean "real world" usefulness, not the published numbers.
I just don't want to spend years building an aircraft only to find out that I (6'2"
and 195 lbs) can't carry a 180 lb. passenger without scaring the schit out
of myself. I'd be kinda heartbroken if I couldn't share the ride with others.
Jack,
I think you're probably a gold nugget for my research. What's the best way for
me to get in touch with you?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196872#196872
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
agian I wasn't ignoreing anyone!
later
Ben
----- Original Message ----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinalhealth.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 8:59:18 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
No offense intended, Ben, any more than you intended to offend people by asking
their advice and then ignoring what they told you. Now go spend less time sending
emails and more time making sawdust!
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Jack,
I have never ever implied that I know more than the rest of the people on this
list and I am a little offended that you would even suggest a such a thing. Just
because I always try to do things differently doesn't that I am ignoreing
you.
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: intercom
When I was getting the taildragger endorsement maybe 15 years ago, I was in a rented
J-3 with the instructor up front. As is common in Cubs, we never shut the
door. He had a voice-activated portable which I found annoying because there
was only one squelch control, but the noise levels between the two seat were
very different. Your squelch choices were nobody talks, or both mics were always
open. Plus a single volume control was never quite balanced between front and
back seats, although I admittedly have a volume control on my headset. When
I bought my Cub, I went looking for a voice-activated portable that had individual
squelch and volume controls. IIRC there weren't a lot of choices at the
time, and I ended up with PS Engineering's Aerocom II (which I don't think is
made any more). The separate squelch and volume controls did the trick for me.
One down side is that my passengers don't have access to their controls, so I
have to adjust them for both of us. I also have a PTT, which is used just for
radio transmitting. If memory serves, I can also rig a radio PTT for my passenger,
but I've never done it.
I haven't really kept up with the improvements in intercoms in the last 10 years
or so because mine works just fine for my purposes. I spoke with the folks at
PS Engineering 4 or 5 years ago at Sun 'n Fun and I guess their squelch circuits
are automatic now, at least for the models I cared about. The down side to
letting an engineer decide how a circuit should behave is the risk that the
choices he made and built into the design might not work for your specific needs.
I'm not a fan of one-size fits all / one size fits nobody engineering, and
I resent having the squelch control removed. My concern would be that they tailored
the circuits towards spam can airplanes with enclosed environments, possibly
at the expense of open-cockpits, because they probably move more units in
that market space. But to be fair, if the engineering is truly that sophisticated
and works the way I would like it to, then I might actually concede and
join the 21st century come time to purchase my next intercom.
Granted it ain't open cockpit, but Cubs are notoriously noisy. After having flown
only once without a headset or any hearing protection, I'll never do it again.
I'm frankly amazed how anybody can communicate at all over the din, let alone
with a voice-activated system.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dick Navratil <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
>Sent: Aug 6, 2008 12:13 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: intercom
>
>Does anyone have a intercom installed? I tried a portable Sigtronics and it didnt
work, it kept the mic open because of wind noise. I'm thinking it might
work if I installed a PTT in the front cockpit and we talked but broadcast the
conversation, but I dont want that.
>Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dave Abramson" <davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Hello All!
I am building the short fuselage version.... I sat in it and said NO
WAY!!!! (I am 6'2") I then removed the front seat, moved the rudder bar
forward. Now I fit! But it is now a single seat with baggage in front.
Maybe I will make a Mail Plane out of her!!!!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:28 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
And the long fuselage version gives you a bit more cockpit length and you
can always widen the fuselage as many have done (widened mine two inches).
Of course that doesn't necessarily increase your gross weight.
Rick
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner
wrote:
Tom,
There is a saying that you may not have heard since you are fairly new
to the list - "This plane was designed when midgets ruled the earth!"
Bernard, by all accounts, was about 5'4" and weighed maybe 140 lbs. Now
that's just about my size, and my wife is about the same, and our daughter
will probably be about equal or less as an adult, so for us, yes, it's a
capable 2-seater. Heck, we could even carry 50-60 lbs of baggage if there
was space for it! For two 200+ lb. guys, add in a full load of fuel and
you're close to gross, if not over, depending on how light or heavy you
built your plane.
Kip G.
On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
walt,
How big-butted are you talking about here?
Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jose Soto" <jsoto5(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Dave, let me know how it works as I am also 6'2", but I have not begun the
building process yet! I am getting the engine ready first and reading as mu
ch as I can. I helped build a Piet back in 87, it was just the ribs, so I h
ave a long way to learn, but I am having so much fun I don't think I'll eve
r build another R/C aircraft! Thanks for the posts, they are a real help!!!
Joser
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Abramson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front sea
t
Hello All!
I am building the short fuselage version.... I sat in it and said NO WAY
!!!! (I am 6'2") I then removed the front seat, moved the rudder bar forw
ard. Now I fit! But it is now a single seat with baggage in front. Maybe
I will make a Mail Plane out of her!!!!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol
-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:28 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front s
eat
And the long fuselage version gives you a bit more cockpit length and y
ou can always widen the fuselage as many have done (widened mine two inches
). Of course that doesn't necessarily increase your gross weight.
Rick
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner wrote:
h(at)earthlink.net>
Tom,
There is a saying that you may not have heard since you are fairly ne
w to the list - "This plane was designed when midgets ruled the earth!" Be
rnard, by all accounts, was about 5'4" and weighed maybe 140 lbs. Now tha
t's just about my size, and my wife is about the same, and our daughter wil
l probably be about equal or less as an adult, so for us, yes, it's a capab
le 2-seater. Heck, we could even carry 50-60 lbs of baggage if there was s
pace for it! For two 200+ lb. guys, add in a full load of fuel and you're
close to gross, if not over, depending on how light or heavy you built you
r plane.
Kip G.
On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
c(at)yahoo.com>
walt,
How big-butted are you talking about here?
Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
"TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Joser:
An Air Camper is a radio controlled (i.e. R/C) aircraft - - assuming your
wife is on the other end of the intercom circuit.
Stinemetze
>I am having so much fun I don't think I'll ever build another R/C
aircraft! Thanks for the posts, they are a real help!!!
>Joser
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
If you have the long fuselage plans, have a good look at the mods I made.
Use the long fuse plan, but refer to the short fuse plan for building the
bridge decks and turtle deck. If you do that, the front cockpit stays the
same but you will gain approx 9 inches in the rear cockpit. I also reclined
the rear seat by 1 1/2" for comfort.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Anderson" <tomanderson_nc(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
>
>
> This is very interesting stuff.
> BTW, how does a Piet's useful load compare to some other small planes like
> a C-152 and J-3 Cub? I mean "real world" usefulness, not the published
> numbers.
>
> I just don't want to spend years building an aircraft only to find out
> that I (6'2" and 195 lbs) can't carry a 180 lb. passenger without scaring
> the schit out of myself. I'd be kinda heartbroken if I couldn't share the
> ride with others.
>
> Jack,
> I think you're probably a gold nugget for my research. What's the best
> way for me to get in touch with you?
>
> --------
> Location: Eastern N.C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196872#196872
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Tom,
Useful load of a Pietenpol is kind of a nebulous term since the builder
can specify what the gross weight of the airplane is. I can only speak
to my own plane's performance. With a Continental A65, and a Sensenich
72x40 prop I have taken a passenger as heavy as 205 in it on a 93F day.
I am 6'2" and weigh 200. We had full fuel that day so our total weight
was 745 (empty weight) + 8 (oil) + 90 (fuel) + 200 (me) + 205
(passenger) = 1,248 lbs. We got off the ground in about 500' and then
slogged upwards at the blistering rate of about 100 - 150 fpm. We were
flying from a 6,000' runway. You can do it, and if your home field has
a long runway you will have no problems. If you fly out of the typical
North Carolina grass strip you will be lucky to have 2500 feet before
you get to the tall skinny pines we have around here. A Piet doesn't
work so well on such a strip - at least when carrying passengers.
If you build your Piet lightly, your performance will be much enhanced.
Most Piets are at least 100 lbs lighter than mine. The things that
added weight to mine are:
1. Long fuselage
2. Fuselage 1" wider than plans
3. Straight axle
4. Wire Wheels
5. Polyurethane paint (added at least 60 lbs)
6. Semi-electrical system (battery, no generator, radio, transponder,
intercom)
7. Instruments in the front cockpit (maybe 4 lbs added)
8. Seat cushions (sure was nice for the 34 hour round trip to Brodhead)
Build it Light! Every time I have to turn a passenger down for a ride
from a short runway I'm reminded of the features that added weight to
mine (of course, flying it by myself, I LOVE those features).
Best way to get in touch with me is through this email address, the
phone number below, or by my cellphone (919) 427-4440. You can email me
at home: pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net but I don't check it every day.
Jack Phillips, PE
Sr. Manager, Disposable Products Research & Development
Cardinal Health Clinical Technologies & Services
Creedmoor, NC
(919) 528-5212
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
This is very interesting stuff.
BTW, how does a Piet's useful load compare to some other small planes
like a C-152 and J-3 Cub? I mean "real world" usefulness, not the
published numbers.
I just don't want to spend years building an aircraft only to find out
that I (6'2" and 195 lbs) can't carry a 180 lb. passenger without
scaring the schit out of myself. I'd be kinda heartbroken if I couldn't
share the ride with others.
Jack,
I think you're probably a gold nugget for my research. What's the best
way for me to get in touch with you?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196872#196872
_________________________________________________
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:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Ben,
When I read your reply, I thought that maybe the words I wrote were not
clear, and could be taken the wrong way, but I see that a few other listers
have confirmed that what I wrote was not out of line (Thanks Gene and Jack
for the support).
My comments were not intended to "blast" you. Sorry to hear you took them
that way. They were offered in the spirit of helping. You asked for advice,
and that is what I gave. Based on your comments, it seemed as though you did
not grasp the size or complexity of the project. As with any advice, it is
yours to do with as you please.
But, honestly Ben, are you planning to build a Pietenpol with only one page
of the plans, which you find hard to follow? If you are, I suggest that you
really need to find a local experienced mentor to guide you through the
building process on a one-on-one basis. These plans have (almost) all the
information needed to build an airplane, but there are a lot of areas that
are a challenge to decipher. I read and interpret drawings every day as part
of my job, and even I find some parts of these plans a bit difficult, so I
can't imagine how hard it would be for someone who finds plans hard to
follow.
If you really intend to build yourself an Air Camper, you will not want to
drop off the list, because this list is a wealth of information, with lots
of members who have tons of experience (lots more than me), which most are
willing and eager to share. On the other hand, if you are going to get
offended by someone's reply to your questions, maybe you need to give your
questions a bit more thought before throwing them out there for a reply.
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Bill,
If you are going to blast me for what I am going to do maybe I should
consider dropping off the list.
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Ben
We all like to put our mark on our planes and I'm certainly one who has done
that. But you have to realize that anything you do to this plane will have
a major effect on the flight characterisics, including the most minor
changes. If you make changes without knowing what those effects might be,
you may be headed for a plane that doesnt perform well or is just dangerous.
If you make changes, draw on the experience of others. The first one is the
question of ailereons. A number of others have encouraged you to build the
wing with ailereons attached, that is the only way to get a true surface.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ramler" <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Jack,
I have never ever implied that I know more than the rest of the people on
this list and I am a little offended that you would even suggest a such a
thing. Just because I always try to do things differently doesn't that I am
ignoreing you.
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dave Abramson" <davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Make a note to put more of an angle on the seat back.... It is a little too
vertical.
Too late for mine, but I have read about alot of people doing it! Wish I
knew before I built mine!
Cheers!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jose Soto
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:39 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Dave, let me know how it works as I am also 6'2", but I have not begun the
building process yet! I am getting the engine ready first and reading as
much as I can. I helped build a Piet back in 87, it was just the ribs, so I
have a long way to learn, but I am having so much fun I don't think I'll
ever build another R/C aircraft! Thanks for the posts, they are a real
help!!! Joser
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Abramson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front
seat
Hello All!
I am building the short fuselage version.... I sat in it and said NO
WAY!!!! (I am 6'2") I then removed the front seat, moved the rudder bar
forward. Now I fit! But it is now a single seat with baggage in front.
Maybe I will make a Mail Plane out of her!!!!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:28 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front
seat
And the long fuselage version gives you a bit more cockpit length and
you can always widen the fuselage as many have done (widened mine two
inches). Of course that doesn't necessarily increase your gross weight.
Rick
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner
wrote:
Tom,
There is a saying that you may not have heard since you are fairly
new to the list - "This plane was designed when midgets ruled the earth!"
Bernard, by all accounts, was about 5'4" and weighed maybe 140 lbs. Now
that's just about my size, and my wife is about the same, and our daughter
will probably be about equal or less as an adult, so for us, yes, it's a
capable 2-seater. Heck, we could even carry 50-60 lbs of baggage if there
was space for it! For two 200+ lb. guys, add in a full load of fuel and
you're close to gross, if not over, depending on how light or heavy you
built your plane.
Kip G.
On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
walt,
How big-butted are you talking about here?
Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ics.com
.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
"Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA FORSCOM" <Steven.D.Dortch(at)us.army.mil>
About a week ago I climbed into the front seat of Oscar Zuniga's
"Improved" (long) Piet. I am 5ft 8in and 203 LBS and my legs are not
limber. It was a job but not too hard. I kind of climbed thru and then
backed into the hole. Sitting in the front I had my knees up higher than
normal. It felt much better when I put my feet on the rudders. It was
fun and comfortable enough for a normal short Piet Flight, but I would
not want to spend hours in it. Raising the bottom of the Instrument
(that is singular, Oscar only has one guage up front) panel would help
for someone taller.
The Piet climbed out much better than my friends Aeronca Champ with the
same Roaring C-65. It was about 95degrees or more. Oscar is much smaller
than me. he did note that the size of the passenger does not affect CG
since the PAX is on the center of Gravity.
M2C
Steve D
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
-->
This is very interesting stuff.
BTW, how does a Piet's useful load compare to some other small planes
like a C-152 and J-3 Cub? I mean "real world" usefulness, not the
published numbers.
I just don't want to spend years building an aircraft only to find out
that I (6'2" and 195 lbs) can't carry a 180 lb. passenger without
scaring the schit out of myself. I'd be kinda heartbroken if I couldn't
share the ride with others.
Jack,
I think you're probably a gold nugget for my research. What's the best
way for me to get in touch with you?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196872#196872
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jose Soto" <jsoto5(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Thanks! I'll note it now.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Abramson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front sea
t
Make a note to put more of an angle on the seat back.... It is a little
too vertical.
Too late for mine, but I have read about alot of people doing it! Wish I
knew before I built mine!
Cheers!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol
-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jose Soto
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:39 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front s
eat
Dave, let me know how it works as I am also 6'2", but I have not begun
the building process yet! I am getting the engine ready first and reading a
s much as I can. I helped build a Piet back in 87, it was just the ribs, so
I have a long way to learn, but I am having so much fun I don't think I'll
ever build another R/C aircraft! Thanks for the posts, they are a real hel
p!!! Joser
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Abramson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front
seat
Hello All!
I am building the short fuselage version.... I sat in it and said NO
WAY!!!! (I am 6'2") I then removed the front seat, moved the rudder bar
forward. Now I fit! But it is now a single seat with baggage in front. M
aybe I will make a Mail Plane out of her!!!!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-piete
npol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:28 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the fro
nt seat
And the long fuselage version gives you a bit more cockpit length a
nd you can always widen the fuselage as many have done (widened mine two in
ches). Of course that doesn't necessarily increase your gross weight.
Rick
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner wrote:
dbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Tom,
There is a saying that you may not have heard since you are fairl
y new to the list - "This plane was designed when midgets ruled the earth!"
Bernard, by all accounts, was about 5'4" and weighed maybe 140 lbs. Now
that's just about my size, and my wife is about the same, and our daughter
will probably be about equal or less as an adult, so for us, yes, it's a c
apable 2-seater. Heck, we could even carry 50-60 lbs of baggage if there w
as space for it! For two 200+ lb. guys, add in a full load of fuel and yo
u're close to gross, if not over, depending on how light or heavy you built
your plane.
Kip G.
On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
on_nc(at)yahoo.com>
walt,
How big-butted are you talking about here?
Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ics.com
.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
If I may, I believe this is a case of "It's not WHAT you say, it is HOW you
say it." Email is not the best way to comunicate as it were...no tone, no
emotion, body language, etc. It is easy to "read into" and misread what is
being said. My opinion, nothing more.
-
-
-
--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Bill Church wrote:
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 11:02 AM
Ben,
When I read your reply, I thought that maybe the words I wrote were not
clear, and could be taken the wrong way, but I see that a few other listers
have confirmed that what I wrote was not out of line (Thanks Gene and Jack
for the support).
My comments were not intended to "blast" you. Sorry to hear you took
them
that way. They were offered in the spirit of helping. You asked for advice,
and that is what I gave. Based on your comments, it seemed as though you di
d
not grasp the size or complexity of the project. As with any advice, it is
yours to do with as you please.
But, honestly Ben, are you planning to build a Pietenpol with only one page
of the plans, which you find hard to follow? If you are, I suggest that you
really need to find a local experienced mentor to guide you through the
building process on a one-on-one basis. These plans have (almost) all the
information needed to build an airplane, but there are a lot of areas that
are a challenge to decipher. I read and interpret drawings every day as par
t
of my job, and even I find some parts of these plans a bit difficult, so I
can't imagine how hard it would be for someone who finds plans hard to
follow.
If you really intend to build yourself an Air Camper, you will not want to
drop off the list, because this list is a wealth of information, with lots
of members who have tons of experience (lots more than me), which most are
willing and eager to share. On the other hand, if you are going to get
offended by someone's reply to your questions, maybe you need to give your
questions a bit more thought before throwing them out there for a reply.
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Ramler
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
-->
Bill,
--- If you are going to blast me for what I am going to do maybe I sh
ould
consider dropping off the list.
Ben in MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Hey Mike,
Why are you SHOUTING the words "what" and "how"?
(sorry, couldn't resist that one.)
Actually, I always try to take great care in composing my posts, in order to
make sure that what I write is what I really mean to say. Typically, I will
write my question or reply, and then I proofread it (and usually edit it)
and then I proofread it again (and edit again, and so on, until I am
satisfied with my words) before I hit the send button. And, in re-reading my
post to Ben, I fail to see how it could be interpreted as a "blast". All I
did was state a few facts and ask a few important questions. I stand by my
comments, and I stand by my assertion that my posting was intended to help
Ben. I'm not sure how it would be possible to misread what I wrote.
The funny thing is that in today's email and texting world, written
communication is used more than ever before, yet the average person's
writing skills today are poorer than they were thirty years ago. If one
writes with care and forethought, it is possible to impart tone and emotion
(but not body language) into one's writing. The misuse or absence of
punctuation in writing is a big contributor to misinterpretation of what is
written. A properly placed comma can make a world of difference with regards
to the message being conveyed. Listen to me, I sound like a bitter, old
English teacher.
So, anyway Mike, how's your information gathering going? Ready to take the
plunge and join the rest of us "crazies" building and flying Pietenpols?
Bill C.
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
If I may, I believe this is a case of "It's not WHAT you say, it is HOW you
say it." Email is not the best way to comunicate as it were...no tone, no
emotion, body language, etc. It is easy to "read into" and misread what is
being said. My opinion, nothing more.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject:
fuselage weight
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
OK, how come nobody raised the BS flag on me when I posted that my bare
fuselage weighed 33 lbs??? The more I thought about it, I realized that
it could not possibly be right, but I KNEW I weighed it correctly.
Well, my wife just asked me why our bathroom scale was set on kg instead
of lbs . . . DOH!!!!
I don't know how to reset the scale, but somehow I must have. A quick
google converts 33.6 kg into 74.0 lbs, which sounds much more
reasonable.
And there I thought I was losing a lot of weight on my beer and pizza
diet.
Damn.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: fuselage weight
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Gene,
Sounds like you need to keep a scientist handy to think in metric for
you. :)
Actually, I said 'hmmm...." when I saw your post, but I said to
myself, 'this is Gene talking, so that weight MUST be right' - Damn!
you've disappointed me!
My fuse weighs in right at about the same as yours IN POUNDS.
Kip
On Aug 6, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Gene Rambo wrote:
> OK, how come nobody raised the BS flag on me when I posted that my
> bare fuselage weighed 33 lbs??? The more I thought about it, I
> realized that it could not possibly be right, but I KNEW I weighed
> it correctly. Well, my wife just asked me why our bathroom scale
> was set on kg instead of lbs . . DOH!!!!
>
> I don't know how to reset the scale, but somehow I must have. A
> quick google converts 33.6 kg into 74.0 lbs, which sounds much more
> reasonable.
>
> And there I thought I was losing a lot of weight on my beer and
> pizza diet.
>
> Damn.
>
> Gene
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
"ALAN LYSCARS" <alyscars(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Bill, I had to throw my 2cents into it..
Al
"Listen to me: I sound like a bitter, old English teacher".
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Good catch, Al.
I knew there was something wrong there, and I couldn't put my finger on it.
Oh, by the way, you only need one period at the end of a sentence. (Gotcha!)
Bill
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ALAN LYSCARS
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Bill, I had to throw my 2cents into it..
Al
"Listen to me: I sound like a bitter, old English teacher".
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject:
ribs and ailerons
I took the plunge a few weeks ago. I have the 3 sets of plans from the Piet
enpols, I have a plan for the Jenny style gear, I have the 4 book set, (can
't remember authors name at the moment) from the EAA on their way and I hav
e the Riblett plan on its way as well.- I hope to begin construction as s
oon as the Riblett shows up. I have made 64 cap strips to get started. Once
I have the plan, the rib jig and bending jig will be made.
-
Looking ahead, I am trying to get a plan together for making the spars, (ma
terial, method, size...) as well as a list of metals that will need to be p
urchased. As always, the Corvair engine is being tossed around as an option
and all the things I need to find out about that.
-
With the making of the rib jig, the bending jig,-gussets, and building th
e ribs themselves, I will be quite busy once I get the plan. CAN'T WAIT! (s
houting) 8^)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
. . . and the period goes inside the quotations.
gotcha
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church<mailto:eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Good catch, Al.
I knew there was something wrong there, and I couldn't put my finger
on it.
Oh, by the way, you only need one period at the end of a sentence.
(Gotcha!)
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From:
owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
Behalf Of ALAN LYSCARS
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:31 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Bill, I had to throw my 2cents into it..
Al
"Listen to me: I sound like a bitter, old English teacher".
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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Gene,
I stand corrected. As much as I find it conversationally awkward, the
period DOES go inside the quotation marks.
Al
AP Stylebook 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
. . . and the period goes inside the quotations.
gotcha
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Good catch, Al.
I knew there was something wrong there, and I couldn't put my finger
on it.
Oh, by the way, you only need one period at the end of a sentence.
(Gotcha!)
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ALAN
LYSCARS
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:31 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Bill, I had to throw my 2cents into it..
Al
"Listen to me: I sound like a bitter, old English teacher".
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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
I have always thought it was awkward too, that is why I noticed it.
----- Original Message -----
From: ALAN LYSCARS<mailto:alyscars(at)verizon.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Gene,
I stand corrected. As much as I find it conversationally awkward, the
period DOES go inside the quotation marks.
Al
AP Stylebook 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo<mailto:generambo(at)msn.com>
To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
. . . and the period goes inside the quotations.
gotcha
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church<mailto:eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Good catch, Al.
I knew there was something wrong there, and I couldn't put my
finger on it.
Oh, by the way, you only need one period at the end of a sentence.
(Gotcha!)
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
From:
owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
Behalf Of ALAN LYSCARS
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:31 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
Bill, I had to throw my 2cents into it..
Al
"Listen to me: I sound like a bitter, old English teacher".
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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Here's a re-post from an earlier post on this subject by Walt Evans. I haven't
tried it yet. I have a portable intercom, I think it's an older PS Engineering
unit. works OK but it's very easy to open the mic if you turn your head or
lift your head up out of the protection of the windscreen. I have yet to try
my brother's intercom set... he flies a trike, which is completely open, and his
intercoms are integral to the flight helmets. My headsets are Pacific Coast
Avionics with the foam muff on the mic (knockoff of David Clarks) and work great.
Here's Walt's tip:
Got a great idea from somebody, and the cost is free! Get the plastic 35mm
film containers. Cut an "X" in the lid and slide it on the mic arm. Then
wrap some foam around the mic and slide on the 35mm can after you have
drilled a 1/4" hole in the side. Line up the hole with your mouth. Better
than sliced bread. Just keep the hole tight against your mouth to keep out
engine noise.
My engine noise keeps my intercom open, but makes for a pleasant ride with
me as the tour guide.
walt evans
NX140DL
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
"walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: intercom
Hey Oscar,
I'll top that,,,
Look here, and you'll see my 35mm film case on the rear mike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLrIDeDLR48
But if you look at the last few seconds of this vid, you'll see the front
mic.
The plastic container from a prize from the vending machine, at the local
diner.
Hey, if it ain't broke,,,don't fix it.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: intercom
>
>
> Here's a re-post from an earlier post on this subject by Walt Evans. I
> haven't tried it yet. I have a portable intercom, I think it's an older
> PS Engineering unit. works OK but it's very easy to open the mic if you
> turn your head or lift your head up out of the protection of the
> windscreen. I have yet to try my brother's intercom set... he flies a
> trike, which is completely open, and his intercoms are integral to the
> flight helmets. My headsets are Pacific Coast Avionics with the foam muff
> on the mic (knockoff of David Clarks) and work great.
>
> Here's Walt's tip:
>
> Got a great idea from somebody, and the cost is free! Get the plastic 35mm
> film containers. Cut an "X" in the lid and slide it on the mic arm. Then
> wrap some foam around the mic and slide on the 35mm can after you have
> drilled a 1/4" hole in the side. Line up the hole with your mouth. Better
> than sliced bread. Just keep the hole tight against your mouth to keep out
> engine noise.
> My engine noise keeps my intercom open, but makes for a pleasant ride with
> me as the tour guide.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
my progress
Afternoon group,
Well I went down stairs and touched the glue to see if it was hard enough for
me to pull the rib out of this and its still drying but it was good enough for
me to take so that was # 12 for me.
later,
MN Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: fuselage weight
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Gene, I did the same thing with my scales. I found a switch near the
battery that changes it from lb to kg. Don't know how I tripped it but
I did. As you said, it does make a difference.
The other Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:16 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuselage weight
OK, how come nobody raised the BS flag on me when I posted that my
bare fuselage weighed 33 lbs??? The more I thought about it, I realized
that it could not possibly be right, but I KNEW I weighed it correctly.
Well, my wife just asked me why our bathroom scale was set on kg instead
of lbs . . DOH!!!!
I don't know how to reset the scale, but somehow I must have. A quick
google converts 33.6 kg into 74.0 lbs, which sounds much more
reasonable.
And there I thought I was losing a lot of weight on my beer and pizza
diet.
Damn.
Gene
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
7/22/2008 4:05 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: turnbuckles
I have to agree with Mike on this one. I've bought all my turnbuckles
from B&B. I bought 6 at Oshkosh last week for $8 each, ($3 for the
barrel and $2.50 for the ends. They still add up to one of the most
expensive hardware investments in the project, but I didn't think I
could come up with a home-made alternative that would be any cheaper if
you considered the time involved at all. I've enjoyed some of the
ideas for alternatives presented so far. Some of you guys are a lot
more creative than I am. (But I'm a lot more creative than I was 4
years ago when I started)
Ben Charvet
Mims, Fl
Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC] wrote:
>
> *B&B* *Aircraft* Supplies - This is a mom and pop shop with a whole
> warehouse full of new *aircraft* parts. Nice people and great prices.
> Check here before you go elsewhere. No website, so you need to call or
> fax your order. Phone - 913-884-5930. Fax 913-84-6533.
>
>
>
> Many of you on the list know this to be the most cost effective place
> to purchase brass turnbuckles but the point was driven home
>
> again when I visited them at Oshkosh. No frills, no web site, but
> excellent prices on turnbuckles if you want to cut to the chase
>
> and speed up your process.
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
From:
Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Auto Gas in an A-65 (with ethanol)
Well, my last source of ethanol free auto gas seems to have switched
over. Right now I'm switching over to 100 LL in my Baby Ace. Anybody
out there been brave enough to try the gas/ethanol mix in a small
continental in a low and slow airplane?
Ben Charvet
Mims, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Marc Davis <marcs_listreading(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Auto Gas in an A-65 (with ethanol)
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Here in Oregon the car gas has ethanol in it. This ethanol is mixed in as
the truck is loaded with fuel at the distributor. If you have a large tank
(300 gal.) they will deliver ethanol free gas at about the same as the loca
l stations
are charging.
Marc> Date: Wed=2C 6 Aug 2008 21:18:38 -0400> From: bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Auto Gas in an
charvet(at)bellsouth.net>> > Well=2C my last source of ethanol free auto gas s
eems to have switched > over. Right now I'm switching over to 100 LL in my
Baby Ace. Anybody > out there been brave enough to try the gas/ethanol mix
in a small > continental in a low and slow airplane? > > Ben Charvet> Mims
===========> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Get more from your digital life. Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks all for the responses. I'll keep working on it. I need to do
something about the open mike problem. I now have info to start.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
Gene....
-
I thought I was the village idiot......tee-hee-hee (no emotions displayed i
n this post)
Kenneth M. Heide, BA, CPO, FAAOP
-
--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Gene Rambo wrote:
From: Gene Rambo <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuselage weight
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 11:16 AM
OK, how come nobody raised the BS flag on me when I posted that my bare fus
elage weighed 33 lbs???- The more I thought about it, I realized that it
could not possibly be right, but I KNEW I weighed it correctly.- Well, my
wife just asked me why our bathroom scale was set on kg instead of lbs . .
DOH!!!!-
-
I don't know how to reset the scale, but somehow I must have.- A quick go
ogle converts 33.6-kg into 74.0 lbs, which sounds much more reasonable.
-
And there I thought I was losing a lot of weight on-my beer and pizza die
t.
-
Damn.
-
Gene
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Re: ribs and ailerons
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
Try telling that to your wife. :-)
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ribs and ailerons
. . . and the period goes inside the quotations.
gotcha
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Date:
Aug 06, 2008
And put the Pitcairn Mailwing logo on the side.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Abramson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the front
seat
Hello All!
I am building the short fuselage version.... I sat in it and said NO
WAY!!!! (I am 6'2") I then removed the front seat, moved the rudder
bar forward. Now I fit! But it is now a single seat with baggage in
front. Maybe I will make a Mail Plane out of her!!!!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:28 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: How hard is it to get into the
front seat
And the long fuselage version gives you a bit more cockpit length
and you can always widen the fuselage as many have done (widened mine
two inches). Of course that doesn't necessarily increase your gross
weight.
Rick
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner
wrote:
Tom,
There is a saying that you may not have heard since you are fairly
new to the list - "This plane was designed when midgets ruled the
earth!" Bernard, by all accounts, was about 5'4" and weighed maybe 140
lbs. Now that's just about my size, and my wife is about the same, and
our daughter will probably be about equal or less as an adult, so for
us, yes, it's a capable 2-seater. Heck, we could even carry 50-60 lbs
of baggage if there was space for it! For two 200+ lb. guys, add in a
full load of fuel and you're close to gross, if not over, depending on
how light or heavy you built your plane.
Kip G.
On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
walt,
How big-butted are you talking about here?
Furthermore, is the Piet a truly capable 2-seater at all?
--------
Location: Eastern N.C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196707#196707
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8/6/2008 4:55 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
light weight = better climb
Date:
Aug 07, 2008
Simple formula; Walt is right. What you gain with a lighter airframe is not only
more useful load but better climb. Forget top speed; the Piet isn't about
that and a lighter plane won't get you more speed. Lighter weight equals more
available excess thrust, and that equals better climb.
Corky built 41CC about as light as Walt's airplane but it does have a vacuum venturi
and two vacuum gyro instruments (needle/ball and VSI), so it could be a
tad lighter. Empty weight of 41CC is currently 627 lbs., which is about 12 lbs.
more than Walt's plane. I could easily find those 12 lbs. but like Steve Dortch
said, the airplane performs pretty well as it is now with Cont. A65 and
a Hegy 72x42 prop.
I fly it out of San Geronimo Airpark, paved runway length is 3000' and the field
elevation is 1,040 MSL but I have never used more than half the runway to either
takeoff or land, and more often than not I use the grass area on the north
end rather than the paved runway since it allows me to put the nose more nearly
into the wind most days. The day I took Steve up, I estimate the density
altitude to have been about 3200' MSL based on dry bulb temp., wet bulb temp.,
and altimeter setting for that time.
A recent aerial photo of our field is at http://www.flysquirrel.net/8T8.jpg and the shot is taken as if on an extremely high final to the area that I operate off of. From this angle, I could probably still slip it in and land on the grass if I chopped the power completely off and threw the airplane into a full cross-controlled slip. The nice thing is that if I run out of grass, I can keep rolling right on to the paved runway... they keep the grass and asphalt transition very smooth just for that reason.
I love this airplane!
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
GN-1 WING ON A SHORT FUSE PIET?
From:
"TOPGUN" <rmdinfo(at)lakefield.net>
Date:
Aug 07, 2008
I have taken over my late fathers pietenpol project, the fuselage is complete and
is the short wood version from the original 1932 plans. I came across a good
deal on a set of GN-1 Ribs, spars and plans. After researching this i discovered
the spar center to center is 31" instead of 28-3/4, my question is the pick
up points on the fuse are all for the 28-3/4 c to c, can the cabane struts
run inward slightly and the outboard struts would do the same? Anyone ever do
this? i would build the std piet wing if the spar material wasn't so perfect.
Also, i have a complete Model A already converted for a Pietenpol for sale missing
only the carburetor.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197118#197118
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Top,
I have a GN-1 and am building a Piet. I would not put the Grega wing on the
Piet, the Grega center section spar fittings that the cabanes attach to are
going the wrong way to pivot the cabanes. They go side to side on the Grega
and for and aft on the Piet.
You could cut down the front spar to 4.75" and you just have to add .50" to
the aft spar and you have Piet spars. It will probably be more work trying
to adapt the two plans to each other than making new ribs.
Skip
> [Original Message]
> From: TOPGUN <rmdinfo(at)lakefield.net>
> To:
> Date: 8/7/2008 10:34:35 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 WING ON A SHORT FUSE PIET?
>
>
> I have taken over my late fathers pietenpol project, the fuselage is
complete and is the short wood version from the original 1932 plans. I came
across a good deal on a set of GN-1 Ribs, spars and plans. After
researching this i discovered the spar center to center is 31" instead of
28-3/4, my question is the pick up points on the fuse are all for the
28-3/4 c to c, can the cabane struts run inward slightly and the outboard
struts would do the same? Anyone ever do this? i would build the std piet
wing if the spar material wasn't so perfect.
>
> Also, i have a complete Model A already converted for a Pietenpol for
sale missing only the carburetor.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197118#197118
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 07, 2008
From:
"walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: Auto Gas in an A-65 (with ethanol)
No, I saw what auto gas did to my gascolater back when i was building.
It was an approved gascolator.
When the auto gas sat in it over the winter, the gasket was all fat and
squishy.
That's when I swore off auto gas.
Also my needle valve is neoprere.
What the heck will it do to that???
I don't fly enough every year to warrent going to auto gas to save money.
I'm a 100LL guy now
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Charvet" <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Auto Gas in an A-65 (with ethanol)
>
> Well, my last source of ethanol free auto gas seems to have switched over.
> Right now I'm switching over to 100 LL in my Baby Ace. Anybody out there
> been brave enough to try the gas/ethanol mix in a small continental in a
> low and slow airplane?
> Ben Charvet
> Mims, Fl
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 07, 2008
From:
Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject:
Web material for spar
Thinking of making my own spars and am curious as to what would make a better web:
plywood or spruce, or something else. I was thinking 1/2" web with 1/4" "rails"
if you will, to make up the 1" total width.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject:
Web material for spar
Date:
Aug 08, 2008
Michael,
Check out the "Wing Spars" section of my web site. http://www.cpc-world.com
<http://www.cpc-world.com/>
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Friday, 8 August 2008 7:54 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Web material for spar
Thinking of making my own spars and am curious as to what would make a
better web: plywood or spruce, or something else. I was thinking 1/2" web
with 1/4" "rails" if you will, to make up the 1" total width.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: Web material for spar
Date:
Aug 07, 2008
Michael,
Take a look at http://westcoastpiet.com/construction.htm
Chris Tracy put together a nice website with lots of info including a
couple of articles on built-up spars.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Perez
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Web material for spar
Thinking of making my own spars and am curious as to what would
make a better web: plywood or spruce, or something else. I was thinking
1/2" web with 1/4" "rails" if you will, to make up the 1" total width.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Auto Gas in an A-65 (with ethanol)
Date:
Aug 07, 2008
Having destroyed the neoprene needle valve in my old J-3 with car gas back
before they put ethanol in, I can assure you that you don't want to try it.
Most needle valves now are stainless steel (and they leak).
Besides, mogas just stinks. I much prefer the smell of 100 LL. Don't like
the price, though.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of walt
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Gas in an A-65 (with ethanol)
No, I saw what auto gas did to my gascolater back when i was building.
It was an approved gascolator.
When the auto gas sat in it over the winter, the gasket was all fat and
squishy.
That's when I swore off auto gas.
Also my needle valve is neoprere.
What the heck will it do to that???
I don't fly enough every year to warrent going to auto gas to save money.
I'm a 100LL guy now
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Charvet" <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Auto Gas in an A-65 (with ethanol)
>
> Well, my last source of ethanol free auto gas seems to have switched over.
> Right now I'm switching over to 100 LL in my Baby Ace. Anybody out there
> been brave enough to try the gas/ethanol mix in a small continental in a
> low and slow airplane?
> Ben Charvet
> Mims, Fl
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: GN-1 WING ON A SHORT FUSE PIET?
From:
"TOPGUN" <rmdinfo(at)lakefield.net>
Date:
Aug 07, 2008
Skip, thanks for your reply......damn, i just had all of the grega wing fittings
lazer cut from 4130, turned out beautiful.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197246#197246
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 07, 2008
From:
"Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
Subject:
Re: How hard is it to get into the front seat
Hopefully this isn't a redundant response. Found this video of somebody
climbing into the front cockpit. Not easy but where there's a will there's
a way and this guy finally finds his way. I am about 5' 10" and 210 lbs and
after doing a little Mexican hat dance, was able to get into Walt
Evans' front cockpit a couple years ago. Most of the time is spent thinking
about how to get in without damaging your gracious host's pride and joy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exLPpG73BWA&feature=related
Glenn Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey,
Building my third set of wheels for this bugger, and Buchannans wants to
know what width rim I want to use. I am going with 21" modern alloy
motorcycle rims, and sounds like there are a few options. Does anyone
remember the width of theirs?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Mine are 21" x 3.00. Sun alloy rims from Buchanan's.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douwe
Blumberg
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:08 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: rim width
Hey,
Building my third set of wheels for this bugger, and Buchannans wants to
know what width rim I want to use. I am going with 21" modern alloy
motorcycle rims, and sounds like there are a few options. Does anyone
remember the width of theirs?
Douwe
_________________________________________________
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:
"Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject:
Re: rim width
Date:
Aug 08, 2008
I would go wider (like Jack did) if I had it to do over...
My rims are 1.85" wide and the tires are about 3" wide. And with air,
they are almost exactly 26" tall.
Jim in Pryor, OK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 8:08 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: rim width
>
>
> Hey,
>
> Building my third set of wheels for this bugger, and Buchannans wants to
> know what width rim I want to use. I am going with 21" modern alloy
> motorcycle rims, and sounds like there are a few options. Does anyone
> remember the width of theirs?
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
TGSTONE236(at)aol.com
Date:
Aug 08, 2008
Subject:
spoke wheels
I got mine from Airdrome Airplanes. Rims are 3 5/8" wide, 7" wide at axle
made ready for brakes, rims are 20" across. awaiting on tires and tubes that are
to be drop shipped. The ID of the axle bushing is 1 1/4".I am pleased with
the quality.
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
gcardinal(at)comcast.net
Subject:
Re: rim width
Date:
Aug 08, 2008
On NX18235 we used 19" DID rims with a width of 1.85 inches.
Greg
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
>
>
> Hey,
>
> Building my third set of wheels for this bugger, and Buchannans wants to
> know what width rim I want to use. I am going with 21" modern alloy
> motorcycle rims, and sounds like there are a few options. Does anyone
> remember the width of theirs?
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
>
>
On NX18235 we used 19" DID rims with a width of 1.85 inches.
Mine are the same as Jim's and I would have to agree that a little more width would
be nice. I went with the 1.85 because I was concerned about finding a tire
for a 21-inch rim that is wider then the common 1.85 rim. You might want to
drop down to a 19-inch rim like Mike Cuy and Don Emch. I think there are more
tire choices for that size.
Chris, I'm so sick and tired of metal fittings, Tracy
--------
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, CA
WestCoastPiet.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197336#197336
________________________________________________________________________________
Question, is the 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that aircraft spruce the same 1/16
90 deg birch plywood that hobby stores sell.
I received my riblett plans from Roman today and I need to order plywood.
--------
"Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter, and
those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197373#197373
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Skip Gadd" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
rim width
Date:
Aug 08, 2008
Douwe,
Mine are 2.25", tires are 26" OD. Got three rims from motorcycle graveyard,
all the same but had different hubs.
Skip
> [Original Message]
> From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
> To: pietenpolgroup
> Date: 8/8/2008 9:12:40 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: rim width
>
>
> Hey,
>
> Building my third set of wheels for this bugger, and Buchannans wants to
> know what width rim I want to use. I am going with 21" modern alloy
> motorcycle rims, and sounds like there are a few options. Does anyone
> remember the width of theirs?
>
> Douwe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 08, 2008
From:
"G. Robert Stetson" <gr.stetson(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Autogas vs.Avgas
I run an FBO at Marlboro Airport in Massachusetts. I work very hard at
encouraging my customers to get past the emotion of the price
differential between autogas and avgas. When you look at the total cost
of operating an airplane, if the price of avgas were cut substantially,
the difference in the bottom line cost would be trivial. In addition,
many have discovered that autogas, with or without ethanol, has been
known to damage fuel system components. And, it goes bad over time. I
make good money in a side business repairing outdoor power equipment.
Every fall, I get a long line of snowblowers that won't start because
they were stored over the summer with autogas in the system and the carb
is all gummed up. Of course, all Pietenopol owners drain their fuel
system for the winter. For my part, all of my outdoor equipment gets
put away with avgas in the system during the off season. Avgas was
developed for use in airplanes for a reason. Use it, reap the benefits
of using it, and forget the additional cost.
Just my opinion.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Autogas vs.Avgas
Date:
Aug 09, 2008
>Of course, all Pietenpol owners drain their fuel system for the winter.
What is "winter"? Down here, we fly our airplanes year 'round ;o)
PS, I fly avgas in 41CC exclusively. It's an airplane, not a car ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
<catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject:
Re: Plywood
Date:
Aug 09, 2008
It's what I used on my ribs. Lately I have found a lower quality plywood
being sold in my local hobby shop so be careful. I boiled and soaked the
good stuff in water just to check it first and it was just fine.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "mr-fix-all" <jb.spiegel(at)us.schneider-electric.com>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:34 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
>
>
> Question, is the 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that aircraft spruce the same
> 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that hobby stores sell.
>
> I received my riblett plans from Roman today and I need to order plywood.
>
> --------
> "Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter,
> and those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197373#197373
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Oscar, not getting to fly your Piet in the winter is like a pilot never
getting to watch "Waldo Pepper". They just don't know what their missing.
Gene
N502R (an all season bird).
>
> What is "winter"? Down here, we fly our airplanes year 'round ;o)
>
>>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 5:54 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 09, 2008
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Plywood
The plywood of this sort here near Austin, TX, in both the Hobby Lobby (for sure)
and Michael's (as I recall, not so sure) says it is for hobby use only, and
not for aircraft use.
Go to Boulter plywood in greater Boston. They have a website. A 4X8 foot sheet
is $23 plus freight, on a special. and they will cut it into either 4X4 feet
or 2X8 feet. UPS may charge some special rates for either, but they will tell
you. This is good marine plywood, and very suitable for airplane use.
You may want quite a bit, for not only rib gussets, but for wing leading edges.
Add it up and see what you think.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: catdesigns(at)att.net
>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 10:51 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
>
>
>It's what I used on my ribs. Lately I have found a lower quality plywood
>being sold in my local hobby shop so be careful. I boiled and soaked the
>good stuff in water just to check it first and it was just fine.
>
>Chris Tracy
>Sacramento, Ca
>Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "mr-fix-all" <jb.spiegel(at)us.schneider-electric.com>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:34 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
>
>
>>
>>
>> Question, is the 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that aircraft spruce the same
>> 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that hobby stores sell.
>>
>> I received my riblett plans from Roman today and I need to order plywood.
>>
>> --------
>> "Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter,
>> and those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197373#197373
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 09, 2008
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Riblett's Info
Lowell,
Thanks for posting this. Some may not know of your experience with various airfoils.
Of course, you are one of the few (maybe the only one) who has changed
wings on the same plane with the same engine,and changed engines with the same
wing and plane, and then changed both. You can report empirical data on the
effect of each of the changes.
I think, based on talking with you about this earlier this year, and our more recent
discussions at Brodhead, many builders should use either a Riblett GA30U-612
or a GA30U-613.5 instead of BP's airfoil. I believe you agree with that
evaluation as a good decision for all but Piet purists. (Room for all instide
the tent.) And we have discussed the merits of both these Riblett airfoils.
I'd like to lay out some impressions of the 613.5, and see if you will confirm
or change this post, for the benefit of others considering these choices. I'll
ask you to pardon me in advance,if I am misinterpreting any of our discussions,
or if I have crossed them up with similar discussions with Bill Rewey or Roman
Bukolt.
As you know, and as we have discussed, the 613.5 is "fatter" than the other airfoils.
You and I have discussed its comparative merits.
For the benefit of others on the board, the 613.5 has more loft on the Y-axis and
a bigger radius, resulting in more camber. Otherwise it looks much like the
NACA 2412 or 4412 and the Riblett 612, all of them peaking "Y" at 30 percent
of the "X" (chord). All of these have better laminarity than BP's airfoil in
the early part of the airfoil, before the airflow "goes turbulent." (All are
characterized as "turbulent airfoils," but some are more turbulent than others.)
The Riblett GA30U-613.5 seems to me a better choice for a Piet with less powerful
engines, such as most Model A's (not your fuel-injected baby) or Continental
A-65s. I think you have agreed with this opinion, perhaps even postulated it
yourself.
The 613.5 would give the Piet builder a faster climb, better safe payload on hot
days, etc. A wing built with it would weigh a little more than one using a
612 airfoil-- how much more depending upon whether the builder uses filler blocks
at the top of each spar or a full-height built-up ply and wood spar.
Alternatively, the 612 might be better for higher hp Piets. With 100 hp or more
the pilot gets a faster climb in any event, and the 612 would have less drag
and allow a faster cruising speed than the 613.5. And as you and Mr. Riblett
have reported, there are no negatives associated with the 612 when compared to
BP's original "FC-10" airfoil. (We may not know that much about the pitching
moment of the 613.5 as yet.)
Do you agree with this discussion of the 613.5 vs. the 612? And with a 612 foir
higher hp Piets? Is this the right way//a right way to think of the choices?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Pieti Lowell <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 11:38 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpg
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Riblett's Info
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Aug 09, 2008
Tim , as per usual, you are on track, Riblitt's better design even over the 612
is the 613.5, As you know it is easy to see the difference . But you can also
carry a larger fuel tank in the 613.5.
Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197633#197633
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 09, 2008
From:
jeremy bramall <outofthebox50(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Riblett's Info
Alright, so if you had 90hp, not heavy or light, and wanted better stol characteristics,
which would you choose?
Jeremy in Dallas
Tim Willis wrote:
Lowell,
Thanks for posting this. Some may not know of your experience with various airfoils.
Of course, you are one of the few (maybe the only one) who has changed wings
on the same plane with the same engine,and changed engines with the same
wing and plane, and then changed both. You can report empirical data on the effect
of each of the changes.
I think, based on talking with you about this earlier this year, and our more recent
discussions at Brodhead, many builders should use either a Riblett GA30U-612
or a GA30U-613.5 instead of BP's airfoil. I believe you agree with that evaluation
as a good decision for all but Piet purists. (Room for all instide the
tent.) And we have discussed the merits of both these Riblett airfoils.
I'd like to lay out some impressions of the 613.5, and see if you will confirm
or change this post, for the benefit of others considering these choices. I'll
ask you to pardon me in advance,if I am misinterpreting any of our discussions,
or if I have crossed them up with similar discussions with Bill Rewey or Roman
Bukolt.
As you know, and as we have discussed, the 613.5 is "fatter" than the other airfoils.
You and I have discussed its comparative merits.
For the benefit of others on the board, the 613.5 has more loft on the Y-axis and
a bigger radius, resulting in more camber. Otherwise it looks much like the
NACA 2412 or 4412 and the Riblett 612, all of them peaking "Y" at 30 percent
of the "X" (chord). All of these have better laminarity than BP's airfoil in the
early part of the airfoil, before the airflow "goes turbulent." (All are characterized
as "turbulent airfoils," but some are more turbulent than others.)
The Riblett GA30U-613.5 seems to me a better choice for a Piet with less powerful
engines, such as most Model A's (not your fuel-injected baby) or Continental
A-65s. I think you have agreed with this opinion, perhaps even postulated it
yourself.
The 613.5 would give the Piet builder a faster climb, better safe payload on hot
days, etc. A wing built with it would weigh a little more than one using a 612
airfoil-- how much more depending upon whether the builder uses filler blocks
at the top of each spar or a full-height built-up ply and wood spar.
Alternatively, the 612 might be better for higher hp Piets. With 100 hp or more
the pilot gets a faster climb in any event, and the 612 would have less drag
and allow a faster cruising speed than the 613.5. And as you and Mr. Riblett have
reported, there are no negatives associated with the 612 when compared to
BP's original "FC-10" airfoil. (We may not know that much about the pitching moment
of the 613.5 as yet.)
Do you agree with this discussion of the 613.5 vs. the 612? And with a 612 foir
higher hp Piets? Is this the right way//a right way to think of the choices?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Pieti Lowell
>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 11:38 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpg
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 09, 2008
From:
shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Delaware, Ohio Fly-In
Hello Ohio Area-Pieters,- Just wondering if any Ohio Piets planned on a
ttending the Delaware, Ohio fly-in on Aug 16, 17.- If any one plans on go
ing send me an e-mail, and they can stop by Chapman Field in Centerburg Ohi
o for free donuts and coffee before we fly over to Delaware, ( before 9AM).
- Skipp G., Mike C., And Don Emch, let me know if you want to go I will w
ait for you and we can make a group arrival on Saturday Morning.- Dad say
s they are wanting fly-bys, so if you want to we can do some in-trail, or l
oose formation fly-bys low, and slow.
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Aug 10, 2008
From:
Dick Carden <flywrite(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Piet Roster
Is there a roster/list of Piet/GN-1 owners and builders, and if so, (1) can piet
list folks access it, and (2) if (1) is "yes", how can it be accessed. Dick
Carden
From: Pietenpol-List Digest Server <pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>
Date: 2008/08/10 Sun AM 01:57:19 CDT
Subject: Pietenpol-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 08/09/08
*
=================================================
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 08-08-09&Archive=Pietenpol
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08-08-09&Archive=Pietenpol
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Sat 08/09/08: 10
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:01 AM - Autogas vs.Avgas (Oscar Zuniga)
2. 08:51 AM - Re: Plywood ()
3. 09:41 AM - Riblett's Info (Pieti Lowell)
4. 10:45 AM - Riblett's grafts (Pieti Lowell)
5. 01:21 PM - Re: Autogas vs.Avgas (Gene & Tammy)
6. 03:48 PM - Re: Plywood (Tim Willis)
7. 04:42 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Tim Willis)
8. 07:38 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Pieti Lowell)
9. 08:17 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (jeremy bramall)
10. 08:53 PM - Delaware, Ohio Fly-In (shad bell)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Autogas vs.Avgas
>Of course, all Pietenpol owners drain their fuel system for the winter.
What is "winter"? Down here, we fly our airplanes year 'round ;o)
PS, I fly avgas in 41CC exclusively. It's an airplane, not a car ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
From: <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
It's what I used on my ribs. Lately I have found a lower quality plywood
being sold in my local hobby shop so be careful. I boiled and soaked the
good stuff in water just to check it first and it was just fine.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "mr-fix-all" <jb.spiegel(at)us.schneider-electric.com>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:34 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
>
>
> Question, is the 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that aircraft spruce the same
> 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that hobby stores sell.
>
> I received my riblett plans from Roman today and I need to order plywood.
>
> --------
> "Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter,
> and those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197373#197373
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpghttp://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's grafts
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
The lift,stall and cruise of the Piet, 4412 & 612 airfoils are very interesting
to those that need more lift.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197529#197529
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p3_653.jpg
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Autogas vs.Avgas
Oscar, not getting to fly your Piet in the winter is like a pilot never
getting to watch "Waldo Pepper". They just don't know what their missing.
Gene
N502R (an all season bird).
>
> What is "winter"? Down here, we fly our airplanes year 'round ;o)
>
>>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 5:54 AM
>
>
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
The plywood of this sort here near Austin, TX, in both the Hobby Lobby (for sure)
and Michael's (as I recall, not so sure) says it is for hobby use only, and
not for aircraft use.
Go to Boulter plywood in greater Boston. They have a website. A 4X8 foot sheet
is $23 plus freight, on a special. and they will cut it into either 4X4 feet
or 2X8 feet. UPS may charge some special rates for either, but they will tell
you. This is good marine plywood, and very suitable for airplane use.
You may want quite a bit, for not only rib gussets, but for wing leading edges.
Add it up and see what you think.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: catdesigns(at)att.net
>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 10:51 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
>
>
>It's what I used on my ribs. Lately I have found a lower quality plywood
>being sold in my local hobby shop so be careful. I boiled and soaked the
>good stuff in water just to check it first and it was just fine.
>
>Chris Tracy
>Sacramento, Ca
>Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "mr-fix-all" <jb.spiegel(at)us.schneider-electric.com>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:34 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
>
>
>>
>>
>> Question, is the 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that aircraft spruce the same
>> 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that hobby stores sell.
>>
>> I received my riblett plans from Roman today and I need to order plywood.
>>
>> --------
>> "Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter,
>> and those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197373#197373
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
Lowell,
Thanks for posting this. Some may not know of your experience with various airfoils.
Of course, you are one of the few (maybe the only one) who has changed
wings on the same plane with the same engine,and changed engines with the same
wing and plane, and then changed both. You can report empirical data on the
effect of each of the changes.
I think, based on talking with you about this earlier this year, and our more recent
discussions at Brodhead, many builders should use either a Riblett GA30U-612
or a GA30U-613.5 instead of BP's airfoil. I believe you agree with that
evaluation as a good decision for all but Piet purists. (Room for all instide
the tent.) And we have discussed the merits of both these Riblett airfoils.
I'd like to lay out some impressions of the 613.5, and see if you will confirm
or change this post, for the benefit of others considering these choices. I'll
ask you to pardon me in advance,if I am misinterpreting any of our discussions,
or if I have crossed them up with similar discussions with Bill Rewey or Roman
Bukolt.
As you know, and as we have discussed, the 613.5 is "fatter" than the other airfoils.
You and I have discussed its comparative merits.
For the benefit of others on the board, the 613.5 has more loft on the Y-axis and
a bigger radius, resulting in more camber. Otherwise it looks much like the
NACA 2412 or 4412 and the Riblett 612, all of them peaking "Y" at 30 percent
of the "X" (chord). All of these have better laminarity than BP's airfoil in
the early part of the airfoil, before the airflow "goes turbulent." (All are
characterized as "turbulent airfoils," but some are more turbulent than others.)
The Riblett GA30U-613.5 seems to me a better choice for a Piet with less powerful
engines, such as most Model A's (not your fuel-injected baby) or Continental
A-65s. I think you have agreed with this opinion, perhaps even postulated it
yourself.
The 613.5 would give the Piet builder a faster climb, better safe payload on hot
days, etc. A wing built with it would weigh a little more than one using a
612 airfoil-- how much more depending upon whether the builder uses filler blocks
at the top of each spar or a full-height built-up ply and wood spar.
