Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-hr
June 04, 2009 - June 15, 2009
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-hr
June 04, 2009 - June 15, 2009
> Mark,
>
>
> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I=99ll try to
answer
> your questions:
>
>
> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If
> you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop
> you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
> useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols
> tend to weigh in the 600 =93 630 lb range. If your empty weight
is 60
> 0, by the time you add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons)
> you are up to 660. You (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel wi
> ll put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage, no handheld radio (
> unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane will fly we
> ll at that weight.
>
>
> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a
> number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
> comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel =93 they
are eas
> ier for me to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross
> weight so that if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I w
> ould be right at gross. With me by myself and full fuel, I=99m
pretty
> close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies very well.
>
>
> Empty Wt 745
>
> Full Fuel 90
>
> Me 200
>
> Wife 160
>
> Total - 1195
>
>
> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong
> enough to withstand 4.8 G=99s (3.2 G=99s with a 50% safety
factor).
> I feel 1200 is really pushing it for this airplane. I=99ve
flown it a
> t that weight, but it feels very heavy and won=99t climb well.
At Bro
> dhead, I will not carry any passenger that weighs over 175 (runway
=99s
> too short). Fortunately, that tends to limit my passengers to youn
> g attractive females.
>
>
> If you don=99t want to lose some weight (and we=99re not
talking 5
> lbs here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possib
> le. I can give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasib
> le for you:
>
>
> Don=99t make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
requir
> es more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more
> money.
> Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
> with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer
> wing will weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would
> add 20% to the wing area.
> Build the standard fuselage =93 not the =9DLong=9D
fuselage. People
> will tell you you can=99t put a Continental on a short fuselage,
but s
> omehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very w
> ell and looks beautiful
> Build the =9CImproved=9D (don=99t say
=9CCub-Style=9D, since it
> predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight ax
> le wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are
> very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race cars would
> still be running them.
> The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
> Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
> heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller
> to take advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the
> extra weight. Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any
> wood except balsa.
> Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
> Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more
> difficult to use
> Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
> that everyone says you need =93 not only is the fabric lighter,
but it
> requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever
> the Stewart System uses). For Heaven=99s sake, don=99t
use
> polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my plane=99s 745 lbs are in
paint). Wal
> t Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane is the lig
> htest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
> Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters, in-
> flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You
> might suggest your wife fly naked =93 ladies clothes are
notoriously h
> eavy
>
>
> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that
> went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on
> the airframe, so I wasn=99t totally surprised by my high empty
weight.
> However, I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fusel
> age, wings and tail after painting and realized how much that polyur
> ethane with its nice glossy finish cost me. By then it was too late
> , unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint the entire airplane.
>
>
> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
> lbs than to do all these things. I=99ve lost 75 lbs this year
=93
> unfortunately, I=99ve lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>
>
> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Hey All:
>
>
> I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and
> have a couple of questions.
>
>
> I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight
> for the plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the
> gross was at somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that
> lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I
> can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
>
>
> May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy
> tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a
> kit plane :o\
>
>
> Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder
> based on having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the
> builder registers it with the FAA...
>
>
> Thanks for the clairification and help!
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
==============
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
============ y>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip Gadd" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: lift strut sizes
Date: Jun 04, 2009
I belive you are talking about the mild steel streamline tubing. I am using it
for lift and cabane struts, but haven't finished or flown mine yet. Dwane Talba's
silver and black Corvair and Jim Kinsella's A65 Piets both use mild steel
struts and I think Dwane's Piet is over 800 lbs.
I believe they are suitable for a Piet.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Schreiber
Sent: 6/4/2009 5:49:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: lift strut sizes
Over the past couple of years, there has been a few posts talking about using streamline
lift struts with a dimension of 1.78 x 1.06 x .049 from Wag Aero. The
reports were that Bill Rewey stated that this size was perfectly adequate for
a Pietenpol. I was wondering if anyone has used struts in this size range or
would care to offer an opinion on the suitability for use.
Rick Schreiber
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2009
From: Darrel Jones <wd6bor(at)vom.com>
Subject: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
Will
I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
Darrel
Will42 wrote:
>
> Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail.
>
> Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source of info when
I start the tube Piet.
>
> Will
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246841#246841
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2009
From: Darrel Jones <wd6bor(at)vom.com>
Subject: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
John,
I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
Darrel
JohnC wrote:
>
> I got mine, hope you got the cash I sent back!
>
> John Calvert
>
> --------
> I just hope when it's my turn to reach up and touch the face of God, I don't
poke him in the eye on accident.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246801#246801
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Date: Jun 04, 2009
Extra power would be a good thing but bigger engines add weight, too. The
Corvair engine is significantly heavier than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and
far less reliable.
Jack
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not
sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some
searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see
why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That might
make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance at
church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it
would be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP corvair
engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit
planes websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP be
enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
:o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer your
questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If you
want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you. I
believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as a two
seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in the 600 -
630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a useful
amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255) and your
wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage,
no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane
will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a number
of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having comfortable seats,
and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read than the
ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew with full
fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by myself
and full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies
very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full Fuel 90
Me 200
Wife 160
Total - 1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is really
pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it feels
very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs here),
then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can give you
some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more
money.
2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will
weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the
wing area.
3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People will
tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike
Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks
beautiful
4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated the
Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel type.
The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and look cool),
but if they were light race cars would still be running them.
5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
fuselage
6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take
advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more
difficult to use
9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but it
requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever the
Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane paint (60
lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight
fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You might
suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that went on
my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the airframe,
so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I was more
than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail after
painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy finish
cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint
the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs than
to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year - unfortunately, I've
lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: <mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com>
owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a
couple of questions.
I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the
plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at
somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs,
and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb
wife and an over night bag...
May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but
crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on
having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it
with the FAA...
Thanks for the clairification and help!
Mark
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
<http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2009
Subject: Re: gross weight and pilot wt.
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Walt. After years of building Model Airplanes, I know the value of
saving weight and building light...
As far rehashing is concerned, I'm new to the group, so I hope I am not
asking annoying questions. If someone can direct me to any archives that are
searchable, I'll make sure I check there for info first.
Thanks again!
Mark
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM, walt wrote:
> sorry to rehash this,
> But my my Mentor, ( the designer and AP for Leo Leodenschlager) who I'm
> so glad to have ever met, always told me to build light.
> Build light, build light, he would say.
> My Piet, built to plans, execpt for a few little things, came in at 595#.
> I'm so glad cause it climbs like a rocket.
> No more white knuckle climeouts for me
> with an A-65
> I'm 230# at least and can take anyone. Sure climbs a little slower, but no
> problem.
>
> Ain't Life Grand.
>
>
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2009
From: Jim <jimboyer(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Hi Jack and all,
I'm building a Piet with a Corvair and disagree with you analysis of Corvair being
less reliable than the 0-200. William Wynne on his website tested both on
a dyno and weighed them both. The 0-200 weighed (my memory) 240 lbs with accessories
and the Corvair with all accessories including a starter weighed 245 lbs.
On the dyno the 0-200 only pulled around 75 horsepower and the Corvair exceeded
100 hp; however I have also been told that at the rpm Corvairs are cruised at
in Piets they are really making about 85 to 90 hp (still more than the 0-200).
Admittedly mine is not yet running or flying so can only go by what is documented
on Williams web site.
Cheers,
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
On Jun 4, 2009, pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net wrote:
Extra power would be a good thing but
bigger engines add weight, too. The Corvair engine is significantly heavier
than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and far less reliable.
Jack
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13
PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not sure
what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some searching
on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why, as builders
post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance
at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it would
be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit planes
websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
:o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
wrote:
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. Ill try to
answer your questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you
desire. If you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can
stop you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh
in the 600 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you
add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You
(255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with
NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty
weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There
are a number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel they are easier for me
to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that
if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at
gross. With me by myself and full fuel, Im pretty close to that 1050
figure, and the plane flies very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full
Fuel 90
Me
200
Wife
160
Total -
1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 Gs (3.2 Gs with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
really pushing it for this airplane. Ive flown it at that weight, but it
feels very heavy and wont climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runways too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you dont want to lose some weight (and were not talking 5 lbs
here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can
give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
Dont make the fuselage any
wider. Every inch of extra width requires more spruce, more plywood,
more fabric, and more paint. And more money.
Add about 4 to 6 feet to the
wingspan. That would put it on par with a Piper Cub, and would
decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will weigh a bit more but
will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the wing area.
Build the standard fuselage
not the Long fuselage. People will tell you you cant put a
Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and
his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks beautiful
Build the Improved (dont say
Cub-Style, since it predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not
the straight axle wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and
wire wheels are very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race
cars would still be running them.
The steel tube fuselage is
considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
Build with sitka
spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but heavier. If you
use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take advantage of
the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight. Spruce has
the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
Use mahogany instead of birch
plywood.
Use Resorcinol instead of
T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more difficult to use
Use lightweight (uncertified)
dacron fabric, not the medium weight that everyone says you need not
only is the fabric lighter, but it requires less coating material (whether
dope, polybrush or whatever the Stewart System uses). For Heavens
sake, dont use polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my planes 745 lbs are in
paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane
is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
Obviously, avoid adding radios,
electrical systems, starters, in-flight movies, de-icing boots and
retractable landing gear. You might suggest your wife fly naked
ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
that went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
airframe, so I wasnt totally surprised by my high empty weight. However,
I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail
after painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy
finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and
repaint the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
lbs than to do all these things. Ive lost 75 lbs this year
unfortunately, Ive lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been
looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a couple of questions.
I would like to
have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane. I think I
saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere around 1050.
I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I
want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
May be a great
reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna
spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross
weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on having a
corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it with the FAA...
Thanks for the
clairification and help!
Mark
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2009
From: Jim <jimboyer(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Hi again Jack and all,
I forgot to comment on the Corvair as less reliable than the 0-200. I don't have
any information that says that is true. The 0-200 definitely has been around
longer but Corvairs have been used in Piets since 1961 I believe and several
have accumulated 500 to 700 hours of flight time to date. Corvairs now being
used in KR's with one of the new 5th bearings have also now accumulated time of
350 and 400 plus hours. Having been a family member of a Cessna dealership we
don't have any great records for Continentals or Lycomings.
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
PS. I really liked your and Mike's comments about building light.
On Jun 4, 2009, pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net wrote:
Extra power would be a good thing but
bigger engines add weight, too. The Corvair engine is significantly heavier
than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and far less reliable.
Jack
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13
PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not sure
what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some searching
on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why, as builders
post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance
at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it would
be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit planes
websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
:o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
wrote:
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. Ill try to
answer your questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you
desire. If you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can
stop you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh
in the 600 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you
add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You
(255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with
NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty
weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There
are a number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel they are easier for me
to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that
if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at
gross. With me by myself and full fuel, Im pretty close to that 1050
figure, and the plane flies very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full
Fuel 90
Me
200
Wife
160
Total -
1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 Gs (3.2 Gs with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
really pushing it for this airplane. Ive flown it at that weight, but it
feels very heavy and wont climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runways too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you dont want to lose some weight (and were not talking 5 lbs
here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can
give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
Dont make the fuselage any
wider. Every inch of extra width requires more spruce, more plywood,
more fabric, and more paint. And more money.
Add about 4 to 6 feet to the
wingspan. That would put it on par with a Piper Cub, and would
decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will weigh a bit more but
will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the wing area.
Build the standard fuselage
not the Long fuselage. People will tell you you cant put a
Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and
his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks beautiful
Build the Improved (dont say
Cub-Style, since it predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not
the straight axle wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and
wire wheels are very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race
cars would still be running them.
The steel tube fuselage is
considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
Build with sitka
spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but heavier. If you
use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take advantage of
the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight. Spruce has
the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
Use mahogany instead of birch
plywood.
Use Resorcinol instead of
T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more difficult to use
Use lightweight (uncertified)
dacron fabric, not the medium weight that everyone says you need not
only is the fabric lighter, but it requires less coating material (whether
dope, polybrush or whatever the Stewart System uses). For Heavens
sake, dont use polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my planes 745 lbs are in
paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane
is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
Obviously, avoid adding radios,
electrical systems, starters, in-flight movies, de-icing boots and
retractable landing gear. You might suggest your wife fly naked
ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
that went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
airframe, so I wasnt totally surprised by my high empty weight. However,
I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail
after painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy
finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and
repaint the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
lbs than to do all these things. Ive lost 75 lbs this year
unfortunately, Ive lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been
looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a couple of questions.
I would like to
have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane. I think I
saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere around 1050.
I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I
want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
May be a great
reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna
spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross
weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on having a
corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it with the FAA...
Thanks for the
clairification and help!
Mark
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2009
Subject: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
questions...).
I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
think:
Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
the spar's strength?
Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
further out to equalize the load a bit more?
I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
will buy me more gross weight capacity.
However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
Continental that's rebuilt...
Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ALAN LYSCARS" <alyscars(at)myfairpoint.net>
Subject: Re: gross weight and pilot wt.
Date: Jun 04, 2009
Mark..
Please don't worry about "rehashing" on this List. We've all been new
to this at one point in time, and I know you'll find these fellows to be
a most patient lot. And, after all, there's no such thing as stupid
questions.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Roberts
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
Thanks Walt. After years of building Model Airplanes, I know the value
of saving weight and building light...
As far rehashing is concerned, I'm new to the group, so I hope I am
not asking annoying questions.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ray Krause" <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
Date: Jun 04, 2009
Darrel,
I received the Cd and sent you a cash payment, did you get it? Thanks so
much for your generous help. The Cd is a great addition to my "collection".
Thanks,
Ray Krause
N51YX, Waiex, TD, Jab 3300 (1197), AeroCarb, Sensinich 54X62 wood prop,
Dynon D-180, Garmin SL-30, 327, 296, 105 hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrel Jones" <wd6bor(at)vom.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
> Will
>
> I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
>
> Darrel
>
> Will42 wrote:
>>
>> Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail.
>> Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source of info
>> when I start the tube Piet.
>> Will
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246841#246841
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Mark,
Adding length to the wing will definitely change the loading on the spars.
Such a change needs to be analyzed thoroughly before doing it. It would be
prudent to move the lift strut attach point to the center of the wing panel
to keep the loads balanced (and the plane would look a bit odd if the struts
didn't go out to at least the center of the panel).
As for the reliability of Continentals versus Corvairs, I don't recall a
spate of Continentals breaking crankshafts in recent years. Of course, this
gets well into the range of opinions, but I don't much care for auto engine
conversions in aircraft, regardless of Bernard's views. The design mission
is just too different. A comment was made that an O-200 weighs 245 lbs with
accessories. I don't think that is true. Dry weight of the engine is 170
lbs, without accessories, which is within a couple of pounds of what an A65
Continental weighs, and a good 35 lbs less than a Corvair without a starter
or generator (according to William Wynne's website).
This is not to disparage those who choose to put Corvairs into their
Pietenpols. I admire their ambition and drive, in keeping with Experimental
Aircraft. I just live in part of the country that is not very pleasant for
forced landings. If I lived and flew in the midwest, where the biggest
problem in a forced landing is choosing which of a dozen good fields to land
in, my views might be different.
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 Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
questions...).
I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
think:
Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
the spar's strength?
Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
further out to equalize the load a bit more?
I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
will buy me more gross weight capacity.
However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
Continental that's rebuilt...
Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
From: airlion(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: radio install
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Jack, I will see you in brodhead next month. Piet is not ready yet but close.
I lost your paper on the transponder install. I am ready for it now. Do I need
an encoder too? By the way, How much does a 0-200 weigh with starter and alternator.
My corvair is at 240 lbs. My last weight check was 751 lbs. It's probably
a little higher since I had to rebuild the center section gas tank which
hold 19 gallons(aluminium this time). Cheers, Gardiner Mason PS You would'nt
have to fly over all those mountainous trees if you flew down this way and then
to brodhead. I would like for you to see my project and I know the big piet
builders would like to see you too.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> Extra power would be a good thing but bigger engines add weight, too. The
> Corvair engine is significantly heavier than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and
> far less reliable.
>
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
>
> Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
> weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not
> sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some
> searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see
> why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.
>
>
>
> Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That might
> make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance at
> church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
> That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it
> would be worth the try.
>
>
>
> While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP corvair
> engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
> higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit
> planes websites..)...
>
>
>
> So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP be
> enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
> :o/
>
>
>
> Mark Roberts
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
>
>
> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer your
> questions:
>
>
>
> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If you
> want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you. I
> believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as a two
> seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in the 600 -
> 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a useful
> amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255) and your
> wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage,
> no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane
> will fly well at that weight.
>
>
>
> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a number
> of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having comfortable seats,
> and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read than the
> ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew with full
> fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by myself
> and full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies
> very well.
>
>
>
> Empty Wt 745
>
> Full Fuel 90
>
> Me 200
>
> Wife 160
>
> Total - 1195
>
>
>
> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
> withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is really
> pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it feels
> very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
> passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately, that
> tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
>
>
>
> If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs here),
> then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can give you
> some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
>
>
>
> 1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
> requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more
> money.
> 2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
> with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will
> weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the
> wing area.
> 3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People will
> tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike
> Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks
> beautiful
> 4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated the
> Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel type.
> The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and look cool),
> but if they were light race cars would still be running them.
> 5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
> fuselage
> 6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
> heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take
> advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
> Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
> 7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
> 8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more
> difficult to use
> 9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
> that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but it
> requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever the
> Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane paint (60
> lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight
> fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
> 10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
> in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You might
> suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
>
>
>
> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that went on
> my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the airframe,
> so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I was more
> than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail after
> painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy finish
> cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint
> the entire airplane.
>
>
>
> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs than
> to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year - unfortunately, I've
> lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>
>
>
> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: <mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com>
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
>
> Hey All:
>
>
>
> I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a
> couple of questions.
>
>
>
> I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the
> plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at
> somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs,
> and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb
> wife and an over night bag...
>
>
>
> May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but
> crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
>
>
>
> Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on
> having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it
> with the FAA...
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clairification and help!
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2009
From: Jim <jimboyer(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Jack and Mark,
Here is a snip from Williams Flycorvair.com website.
A Corvair motor ready to fly with electric start and alternator weighs about 225
lbs. with oil in it. A hand prop 65 Continental is 35 or 40 lbs. less than this.
A C-85 is about the same, if it is a -8 hand prop engine. The -12 C-85 with
a full electrical system weighs virtually the same as an O-200 or Corvair.
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
On Jun 5, 2009, pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net wrote:
Mark,
Adding length to the wing will definitely change the loading on the spars.
Such a change needs to be analyzed thoroughly before doing it. It would be
prudent to move the lift strut attach point to the center of the wing panel
to keep the loads balanced (and the plane would look a bit odd if the struts
didn't go out to at least the center of the panel).
As for the reliability of Continentals versus Corvairs, I don't recall a
spate of Continentals breaking crankshafts in recent years. Of course, this
gets well into the range of opinions, but I don't much care for auto engine
conversions in aircraft, regardless of Bernard's views. The design mission
is just too different. A comment was made that an O-200 weighs 245 lbs with
accessories. I don't think that is true. Dry weight of the engine is 170
lbs, without accessories, which is within a couple of pounds of what an A65
Continental weighs, and a good 35 lbs less than a Corvair without a starter
or generator (according to William Wynne's website).
This is not to disparage those who choose to put Corvairs into their
Pietenpols. I admire their ambition and drive, in keeping with Experimental
Aircraft. I just live in part of the country that is not very pleasant for
forced landings. If I lived and flew in the midwest, where the biggest
problem in a forced landing is choosing which of a dozen good fields to land
in, my views might be different.
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 Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
questions...).
I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
think:
Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
the spar's strength?
Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
further out to equalize the load a bit more?
I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
will buy me more gross weight capacity.
However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
Continental that's rebuilt...
Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Subject: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Jack. It reinforces my view that building a plane requires
about as many hours in research as it does in construction time...
Mark
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Adding length to the wing will definitely change the loading on the spars.
> Such a change needs to be analyzed thoroughly before doing it. It would be
> prudent to move the lift strut attach point to the center of the wing panel
> to keep the loads balanced (and the plane would look a bit odd if the struts
> didn't go out to at least the center of the panel).
>
> As for the reliability of Continentals versus Corvairs, I don't recall a
> spate of Continentals breaking crankshafts in recent years. Of course, this
> gets well into the range of opinions, but I don't much care for auto engine
> conversions in aircraft, regardless of Bernard's views. The design mission
> is just too different. A comment was made that an O-200 weighs 245 lbs with
> accessories. I don't think that is true. Dry weight of the engine is 170
> lbs, without accessories, which is within a couple of pounds of what an A65
> Continental weighs, and a good 35 lbs less than a Corvair without a starter
> or generator (according to William Wynne's website).
>
> This is not to disparage those who choose to put Corvairs into their
> Pietenpols. I admire their ambition and drive, in keeping with Experimental
> Aircraft. I just live in part of the country that is not very pleasant for
> forced landings. If I lived and flew in the midwest, where the biggest
> problem in a forced landing is choosing which of a dozen good fields to land
> in, my views might be different.
>
> 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 Mark Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:28 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
>
> Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
>
> Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
> what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
> another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
> when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
> when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
> to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
> to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
> questions...).
> I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
> cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
> I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
> the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
> think:
>
> Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
> considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
> all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
> While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
> the spar's strength?
>
> Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
> further out to equalize the load a bit more?
>
> I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
> but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
> in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
> weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
> more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
> will buy me more gross weight capacity.
>
> However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
> saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
> Continental that's rebuilt...
>
>
> Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
> at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
> training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
> in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
> all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
> make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
> frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
> from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
> in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
> a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
> experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
> and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
> have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
> now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
> not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
>
> Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
> anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
> or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
> medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
> changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
>
> At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
> began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
> about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
> wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
>
> Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
>
> Mark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2009
From: Jim <jimboyer(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Jack and Mark,
Here is the URL of 0-200 test by William Wynne. It is under the HP, Torque, Thrust
heading if you go to the Flycorvair.com website.
For me it was very interesting reading (especially at first when not really familiar
with the Corvair) and did dispel some myths about the 0-200.
http://www.flycorvair.com/thrust.html
Thanks,
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
On Jun 4, 2009, pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net wrote:
Extra power would be a good thing but
bigger engines add weight, too. The Corvair engine is significantly heavier
than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and far less reliable.
Jack
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13
PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not sure
what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some searching
on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why, as builders
post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance
at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it would
be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit planes
websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
:o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
wrote:
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. Ill try to
answer your questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you
desire. If you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can
stop you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh
in the 600 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you
add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You
(255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with
NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty
weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There
are a number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel they are easier for me
to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that
if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at
gross. With me by myself and full fuel, Im pretty close to that 1050
figure, and the plane flies very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full
Fuel 90
Me
200
Wife
160
Total -
1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 Gs (3.2 Gs with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
really pushing it for this airplane. Ive flown it at that weight, but it
feels very heavy and wont climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runways too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you dont want to lose some weight (and were not talking 5 lbs
here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can
give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
Dont make the fuselage any
wider. Every inch of extra width requires more spruce, more plywood,
more fabric, and more paint. And more money.
Add about 4 to 6 feet to the
wingspan. That would put it on par with a Piper Cub, and would
decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will weigh a bit more but
will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the wing area.
Build the standard fuselage
not the Long fuselage. People will tell you you cant put a
Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and
his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks beautiful
Build the Improved (dont say
Cub-Style, since it predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not
the straight axle wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and
wire wheels are very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race
cars would still be running them.
The steel tube fuselage is
considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
Build with sitka
spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but heavier. If you
use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take advantage of
the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight. Spruce has
the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
Use mahogany instead of birch
plywood.
Use Resorcinol instead of
T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more difficult to use
Use lightweight (uncertified)
dacron fabric, not the medium weight that everyone says you need not
only is the fabric lighter, but it requires less coating material (whether
dope, polybrush or whatever the Stewart System uses). For Heavens
sake, dont use polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my planes 745 lbs are in
paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane
is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
Obviously, avoid adding radios,
electrical systems, starters, in-flight movies, de-icing boots and
retractable landing gear. You might suggest your wife fly naked
ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
that went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
airframe, so I wasnt totally surprised by my high empty weight. However,
I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail
after painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy
finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and
repaint the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
lbs than to do all these things. Ive lost 75 lbs this year
unfortunately, Ive lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been
looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a couple of questions.
I would like to
have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane. I think I
saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere around 1050.
I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I
want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
May be a great
reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna
spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross
weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on having a
corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it with the FAA...
Thanks for the
clairification and help!
Mark
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tom Winter <twinter1(at)unl.edu>
Subject: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Been away for a while, and have obviously missed something. Pfeifer
Sport plans? What is the Pfeifer sport? Google doesn't know, so I
have to ask.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Corvair Engine Donation
From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Hello all,
I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers) which is
in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and conversion, when I
had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65. Before I list it on Craig's
List (just to get it out of the shop), I would like to donate it to a fellow
Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group building a Pietenpol. I also have
several WW conversion parts and manuals I will throw in. If interested, feel
free to drop me an email off line: chase143(at)aol.com
See you at Brodhead!
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2009
From: <billmz(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Rehasing
Alan Lycars wrote:
From: "ALAN LYSCARS" <alyscars(at)myfairpoint.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
Mark..
Please don't worry about "rehashing" on this List. We've all been new
to this at one point in time, and I know you'll find these fellows to be
a most patient lot. And, after all, there's no such thing as stupid
questions.
Al
-------------------
Al, there IS such a thing as a stupid question. It's the one that you didn't ask
that in hindsight you should have asked. Valuable information not gathered
is another thing that should be on the list of things that are useless to a
pilot...
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
From: "Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Good for you Steve; I don't need the engine but it gives me a good feeling to see
people who aren't greedy for a buck. I'm sure someone will be most grateful
to get the engine.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247002#247002
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Wish I was a little closer, it's a long way to Georgia. The first Corvair I
built runs great and am about ready to build another one.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Will42
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 5:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
Good for you Steve; I don't need the engine but it gives me a good feeling
to see people who aren't greedy for a buck. I'm sure someone will be most
grateful to get the engine.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247002#247002
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walt" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Steve,
Very generous of you.
It shows the type of people on this list.
PS I have a tach I want to give away
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
>
> Hello all,
> I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers)
> which is in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and
> conversion, when I had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65.
> Before I list it on Craig's List (just to get it out of the shop), I would
> like to donate it to a fellow Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group
> building a Pietenpol. I also have several WW conversion parts and manuals
> I will throw in. If interested, feel free to drop me an email off line:
> chase143(at)aol.com
>
> See you at Brodhead!
>
> Steve
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
From: amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 06, 2009
I have a project the needs a each among many other things
John
------Original Message------
From: walt
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Sent: Jun 5, 2009 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
Steve,
Very generous of you.
It shows the type of people on this list.
PS I have a tach I want to give away
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
>
> Hello all,
> I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers)
> which is in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and
> conversion, when I had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65.
> Before I list it on Craig's List (just to get it out of the shop), I would
> like to donate it to a fellow Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group
> building a Pietenpol. I also have several WW conversion parts and manuals
> I will throw in. If interested, feel free to drop me an email off line:
> chase143(at)aol.com
>
> See you at Brodhead!
>
> Steve
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
>
>
>
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
From: amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Hey Steve
That's a great offer I am camping in assateague, just arrived for this weekend.
Where are you?
John
------Original Message------
From: chase143
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Sent: Jun 5, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
Hello all,
I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers) which is
in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and conversion, when I
had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65. Before I list it on Craig's
List (just to get it out of the shop), I would like to donate it to a fellow
Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group building a Pietenpol. I also have
several WW conversion parts and manuals I will throw in. If interested, feel
free to drop me an email off line: chase143(at)aol.com
See you at Brodhead!
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com>
Subject: Flying an Idea
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Fellow Pietephiles:
As Brodhead, that other flyin in Wisconsin and the 80th Celebration
fast approach, I have started to design my T-Shirts which the "Bratmen
of Brodhead" will be sporting this year. I thought I would take a stab
at another design or two for the masses. Let me know if there is any
interest and I will put them up on CafePress and you can order as many
as you want to wear. Also I can customize the photo in the middle
pretty easily if you don't like Mike Cuy. I actually think he is okay
considering he is one of my greatest friends. Let me know what you
think or contact me off list at johnnyskyrocket(at)me.com
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 05, 2009
No, the beer was free today (lol), but now its gone. Thanks all, but a gentleman
in VA (pretty close by), spoke up first. Looks like he is building a Zenith
601 AND a Pietenpol. And I thought I was busy with a Piet and an RV-8. Anyway,
glad to help and donate to the spirit of aircraft building. I could never repay
everyone for the great advice I get on this forum. Everyone keep up the great
work.
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247031#247031
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2009
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Time Sert, Corvair advise
Group, Well today we got the annual done on NX92GB after a month of strung
out work.- It was almost ready 2 weeks ago untill a sparkplug thread stri
pped out.- For all you building Corvair engines, take this warning: Insta
ll Time Sert threaded inserts (google time sert for there web page and info
)-in all your sparkplug holes before installing heads!!!!!!!!- If you b
ought a set of heads from Falcon or Wynne they are probably in there alread
y.- Nothing worse than getting ready for test runs and then having to tak
e the stupid head off to fix threads in- a spark plug hole, order parts e
tc, and other advise is DO NOT USE HELICOILS!- I know helicoils have been
used forever, but we lost a crank in part to a bad helicoil that worked do
wn into the combustion chamber and caused detonation.- As far as my exper
iance with Corvairs in our airplane yes we have had our problems, but I hav
e seen people with "Real" airplane engines have just as many headaches.-
Stay informed with other fellow corvair, or VW or whatever conversion, bui
lders and keep tabs on others problems, and successes, so you will know wha
t to look out for so you prevent failures.- Certified aircraft engine pil
ots have the luxury, (or headache) of faa issued A.D.'s to keep failures fr
om hapening, or cause them- to spend huge $$$$$$$ for something that may
or may not be a problem.- If you build a Corvair, chances are yes you wil
l have to tinker a bit with your engine from time to time, but the parts yo
u will have to buy are far less expensive than there fellow aircraft engine
parts.- Depending on what day of the week it is, my preferance between C
ontinental, Lycoming, or Corvair does change, but since we have worked thro
ugh the big problems, and learned an enormous amount about engines in gener
al, overall I am having fun flying (and maintaining)-the Corvair.
-
Hope to see you all at Brodhead!!
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Time Sert, Corvair advise
Date: Jun 05, 2009
I really think the answer to all this "what's the best engine", is to
decide what engine you will feel the safest behind. After all, that's
what supposed to keep your Piet (and you) in the air. If a rubber
band engine makes you feel safe, go for it. The advice I'd give is
don't believe everything any engine builder tells you. Remember, their
trying to sell you something and history tells us that salesman tend to
lie, or at the very least, exaggerate. When we talk about how expensive
replacement parts are, keep in mind how expensive reconstructive surgery
is, after an airplane accident.
It's best to worry about things while your on the ground, so you don't
have to worry about them while your in the air.
The only thing worse than being on the ground on a nice day, looking up
into the sky and saying "Oh, I wish I was up there", is being up there
and looking down, during an emergency, and saying, "Oh, I wish I was
down there!".
Gene, in Sunny, Beautiful Tennessee
----- Original Message -----
From: shad bell
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Time Sert, Corvair advise
Group, Well today we got the annual done on NX92GB after a month
of strung out work. It was almost ready 2 weeks ago untill a sparkplug
thread stripped out. For all you building Corvair engines, take this
warning: Install Time Sert threaded inserts (google time sert for there
web page and info) in all your sparkplug holes before installing
heads!!!!!!!! If you bought a set of heads from Falcon or Wynne they
are probably in there already. Nothing worse than getting ready for
test runs and then having to take the stupid head off to fix threads in
a spark plug hole, order parts etc, and other advise is DO NOT USE
HELICOILS! I know helicoils have been used forever, but we lost a crank
in part to a bad helicoil that worked down into the combustion chamber
and caused detonation. As far as my experiance with Corvairs in our
airplane yes we have had our problems, but I have seen people with
"Real" airplane engines have just as many headaches. Stay informed with
other fellow corvair, or VW or whatever conversion, builders and keep
tabs on others problems, and successes, so you will know what to look
out for so you prevent failures. Certified aircraft engine pilots have
the luxury, (or headache) of faa issued A.D.'s to keep failures from
hapening, or cause them to spend huge $$$$$$$ for something that may or
may not be a problem. If you build a Corvair, chances are yes you will
have to tinker a bit with your engine from time to time, but the parts
you will have to buy are far less expensive than there fellow aircraft
engine parts. Depending on what day of the week it is, my preferance
between Continental, Lycoming, or Corvair does change, but since we have
worked through the big problems, and learned an enormous amount about
engines in general, overall I am having fun flying (and maintaining) the
Corvair.
Hope to see you all at Brodhead!!
Shad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06/05/09 17:55:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 05, 2009
Way cool.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247044#247044
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 05, 2009
John,
Forgot to mention. We've camped at assateague before, beautiful. Just make sure
your food is secure or the wild horse will get into it, seriously. If you have
time, we are on the "mainland", 25 miles south of Annapolis. Feel free to stop
by and provide feedback on my fuselage progress. We will be at the antique
boat show in Rock Hall sometime over the weekend. Give us a try. cell 240-678-8371
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247051#247051
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Flying an Idea
Beautiful artwork! I'd definitely like one, so be sure to post ordering
information.
Ben Charvet
NX866BC registration complete!
John Hofmann wrote:
> Fellow Pietephiles:
>
> As Brodhead, that other flyin in Wisconsin and the 80th Celebration
> fast approach, I have started to design my T-Shirts which the "Bratmen
> of Brodhead" will be sporting this year. I thought I would take a stab
> at another design or two for the masses. Let me know if there is any
> interest and I will put them up on CafePress and you can order as many
> as you want to wear. Also I can customize the photo in the middle
> pretty easily if you don't like Mike Cuy. I actually think he is okay
> considering he is one of my greatest friends. Let me know what you
> think or contact me off list at johnnyskyrocket(at)me.com
>
>
> -john-
>
> John Hofmann
> Vice-President, Information Technology
> The Rees Group, Inc.
> 2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
> Madison, WI 53718
> Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
> Fax: 608.443.2474
> Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick N." <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Great post Jack. I like your suggestions, but wonder a bit about the
effects of adding 6 ft. to the span. On my radial Piet,I made the center
section 1 ft wider and the wing panels to plan which increased the span
by 1 ft. Having said that, in my flight tests, I found a huge
difference in flying at 1250 lbs and 1310 lbs. Even with 110 hp it
struggled a bit. I haven't tried it again with my new prop, built for
climb, but I don't expect that much of a change.
At 1250 lb
empty 810
me 200
pass 170
fuel 70 2/3 tank 108 full
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:15 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer
your questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If
you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you.
I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as
a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in
the 600 - 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you
add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660.
You (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and
that is with NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in
your empty weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a
number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel - they are easier
for me to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight
so that if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be
right at gross. With me by myself and full fuel, I'm pretty close to
that 1050 figure, and the plane flies very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full Fuel 90
Me 200
Wife 160
Total - 1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough
to withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
really pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but
it feels very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry
any passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately,
that tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs
here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I
can give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
1.. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And
more money.
2.. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing
will weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20%
to the wing area.
3.. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People
will tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but
somehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well
and looks beautiful
4.. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated
the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel
type. The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and
look cool), but if they were light race cars would still be running
them.
5.. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
fuselage
6.. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to
take advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra
weight. Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except
balsa.
7.. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
8.. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much
more difficult to use
9.. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium
weight that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but
it requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever
the Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane
paint (60 lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the
lightweight fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of
(595 lbs).
10.. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You
might suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that
went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
airframe, so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight.
However, I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage,
wings and tail after painting and realized how much that polyurethane
with its nice glossy finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I
wanted to re-cover and repaint the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs
than to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year -
unfortunately, I've lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and
have a couple of questions.
I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight
for the plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross
was at somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the
Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this
bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy
tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit
plane :o\
Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder
based on having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder
registers it with the FAA...
Thanks for the clairification and help!
Mark
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
From: amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 06, 2009
You re not gonna believe this one. A good friend of mine invited me to stay at
his place last night. Where??? In Rockhall naturally. You know hang out go on
the boat, drink eat and enjoy. Among his boats is a 21 foot Chriscraft runabout.
I love it also did some engine work on it for him 2 summers ago. Good friend
great house and kool toys.
John
------Original Message------
From: chase143
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Sent: Jun 5, 2009 11:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
John,
Forgot to mention. We've camped at assateague before, beautiful. Just make sure
your food is secure or the wild horse will get into it, seriously. If you have
time, we are on the "mainland", 25 miles south of Annapolis. Feel free to stop
by and provide feedback on my fuselage progress. We will be at the antique
boat show in Rock Hall sometime over the weekend. Give us a try. cell 240-678-8371
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247051#247051
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: great info Bill Church--- 0-200 powered Piets
From: "jordanlcarr" <jordan.carr.17(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Hi all,
My name is Jordan Carr and I am Bill Emo's grandson. However, he unfortunately
passed on Feb. 6 of 2009. I just wanted to let everyone know. I am a pilot
myself and was taught mostly in part by Papa. He was a great teacher and sparked
my passion for aviation when I was a young child. I was able to assist him
in some of the building process of his Piet and have flown many hours in good
ole 58TL. If you have any questions I can do my best to try and answer them.
-Jordan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247113#247113
________________________________________________________________________________
From: airlion(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: great info Bill Church--- 0-200 powered Piets
Date: Jun 06, 2009
tell us more about your piet
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "jordanlcarr" <jordan.carr.17(at)gmail.com>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
My name is Jordan Carr and I am Bill Emo's grandson. However, he
unfortunately passed on Feb. 6 of 2009. I just wanted to let everyone know. I am
a pilot myself and was taught mostly in part by Papa. He was a great teacher and
sparked my passion for aviation when I was a young child. I was able to assist
him in some of the building process of his Piet and have flown many hours in
good ole 58TL. If you have any questions I can do my best to try and answer
> them.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Jordan
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247113#247113
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
From: John Egan <johnegan99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Bill Emo photo attached
Attached, is a photo of Bill Emo at Brodhead-2008. He shared his enthusia
sm, knowledge-and gave rides.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_____________________________
___=0AFrom: jordanlcarr <jordan.carr.17(at)gmail.com>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@mat
ronics.com=0ASent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 4:09:00 PM=0ASubject: Pietenpol-L
ist: Re: great info Bill Church--- 0-200 powered Piets=0A=0A--> Pietenpol-L
ist message posted by: "jordanlcarr" =0A=0AHi all
, =0A=0A- - My name is Jordan Carr and I am Bill Emo's grandson. Howeve
r, he unfortunately passed on Feb. 6 of 2009. I just wanted to let everyone
know. I am a pilot myself and was taught mostly in part by Papa. He was a
great teacher and sparked my passion for aviation when I was a young child.
I was able to assist him in some of the building process of his Piet and h
ave flown many hours in good ole 58TL. If you have any questions I can do m
y best to try and answer them.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A-Jordan=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead
this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=
====0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 06/05/09
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Mark,
I have a C-85 Piet and have been hauling anyone that can get in the
front seat. I weigh 170 and fly regularly with a friend that goes
about 230 in the front seat. I wouldn't do that on a short runway,
but the piet seems to do fine and I am comfortable off 1500 or 1800ft
as long as it's not real hot out. Last weekend this guy and I flew
off a 1600ft strip when it was about 78. There are some wires at the
end of the runway at 15ft or so and I had another 50ft or so
clearance. I don't think it is possible to get anyone any bigger in.
We just about have to grease Jeff up to get him out. According to the
engineering work I saw somewhere years ago, with jury struts the Piet
is good for 6g's positive and 3 negative. I don't think I'm worried
about breaking it. I did get rid of a Sensenisch prop and am using a
74-37 Culver from Valley Engineering that is a lot more efficient.
Craig Lawler
NX899CL
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 06/05/09
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Mark,
I have a C-85 Piet and have been hauling anyone that can get in the
front seat. I weigh 170 and fly regularly with a friend that goes
about 230 in the front seat. I wouldn't do that on a short runway,
but the piet seems to do fine and I am comfortable off 1500 or 1800ft
as long as it's not real hot out. Last weekend this guy and I flew
off a 1600ft strip when it was about 78. There are some wires at the
end of the runway at 15ft or so and I had another 50ft or so
clearance. I don't think it is possible to get anyone any bigger in.
We just about have to grease Jeff up to get him out. According to the
engineering work I saw somewhere years ago, with jury struts the Piet
is good for 6g's positive and 3 negative. I don't think I'm worried
about breaking it. I did get rid of a Sensenisch prop and am using a
74-37 Culver from Valley Engineering that is a lot more efficient.
Craig Lawler
NX899CL
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: group osh arrival plans?
Hello guys,- Have we reached any decision on where the mass arrival stagi
ng airport will be?- I bought my charts today and had to start drawing co
urse lines on them out of excitment.- I will want to make at least 1 fuel
stop enroute from C37 to OSH,- I only have about 1.5 hr range with a res
erve, and don't want to have to fly out of the way to refuel should we get
stuck holding over the lakes.- Dodge County Airport looked like a decent
place for a final fuel stop.- Any of you Cheese Heads have any advise on
this?- I recall someone on here mentioned Steve Krogg's airport as a fina
l stop enroute.- Where is Krogg's, Waupun?- Also wondering what most of
you OSH bound guys were going to do for lodging/camping.- Dad is most li
kely going to drive his truck up from Brodhead on sun morning, and we might
be able to help carry some cargo up, let me know if this is needed.- We
might also want to assign, voulenteer to bring some cooking gear, ie grill,
cooler,-plates plasticware etc, so we can hang out and eat something che
aper than a 25 dollar slice of pizza, or a 18 dollar hotdog.- Anyone with
any other ideas let's here them so we can plan ahead of time.-
-
Shad
P.S.- Don, or Mike C., did you go to the Barber fly-in today?- I was at
work
-=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Subject: Re: Flying an Idea
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Beautiful work John, I am interested.
rick
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:51 PM, John Hofmann wrote:
> Fellow Pietephiles:
> As Brodhead, that other flyin in Wisconsin and the 80th Celebration fast
> approach, I have started to design my T-Shirts which the "Bratmen of
> Brodhead" will be sporting this year. I thought I would take a stab at
> another design or two for the masses. Let me know if there is any interest
> and I will put them up on CafePress and you can order as many as you want to
> wear. Also I can customize the photo in the middle pretty easily if you
> don't like Mike Cuy. I actually think he is okay considering he is one of my
> greatest friends. Let me know what you think or contact me off list at
> johnnyskyrocket(at)me.com
>
> -john-
>
> John Hofmann
> Vice-President, Information Technology
> The Rees Group, Inc.
> 2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
> Madison, WI 53718
> Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
> Fax: 608.443.2474
> Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 06/05/09
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Craig...
I have been losing and finding the same 20 or so pounds for years and
if I have to get serious about keeping it off. I have motivation to
lose it with this project!
Thanks for the advice. I live in a hot area (Fresno CA) where avg
temperatures in the summer are in the high 90's. Fortunately we have a
big runway and I have a while to lose the pounds :oD
Thanks for the info. I do wish there was about 100 pounds left over
for me to find a bit of 'wiggle' room...
Mark
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Craig Lawler wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> I have a C-85 Piet and have been hauling anyone that can get in the front
> seat. I weigh 170 and fly regularly with a friend that goes about 230 in the
> front seat. I wouldn't do that on a short runway, but the piet seems to do
> fine and I am comfortable off 1500 or 1800ft as long as it's not real hot
> out. Last weekend this guy and I flew off a 1600ft strip when it was about
> 78. There are some wires at the end of the runway at 15ft or so and I had
> another 50ft or so clearance. I don't think it is possible to get anyone any
> bigger in. We just about have to grease Jeff up to get him out. According to
> the engineering work I saw somewhere years ago, with jury struts the Piet is
> good for 6g's positive and 3 negative. I don't think I'm worried about
> breaking it. I did get rid of a Sensenisch prop and am using a 74-37 Culver
> from Valley Engineering that is a lot more efficient.
>
> Craig Lawler
> NX899CL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Subject: Front fuselage covering
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
I am covering my firewall with a .016 stainless (as shown in the attached
pictures), can the front of the fueslage be covered with the stainless sheet
attached? Or must the fabric be wrapped and glued to the wood firewall and
then the stainless reattached?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: group osh arrival plans?
Date: Jun 06, 2009
The staging airport is Waupun. More details will be in the July
newsletter.
I will post more info here over the next few days.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: shad bell
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: group osh arrival plans?
Hello guys, Have we reached any decision on where the mass
arrival staging airport will be? I bought my charts today and had to
start drawing course lines on them out of excitment. I will want to
make at least 1 fuel stop enroute from C37 to OSH, I only have about
1.5 hr range with a reserve, and don't want to have to fly out of the
way to refuel should we get stuck holding over the lakes. Dodge County
Airport looked like a decent place for a final fuel stop. Any of you
Cheese Heads have any advise on this? I recall someone on here
mentioned Steve Krogg's airport as a final stop enroute. Where is
Krogg's, Waupun? Also wondering what most of you OSH bound guys were
going to do for lodging/camping. Dad is most likely going to drive his
truck up from Brodhead on sun morning, and we might be able to help
carry some cargo up, let me know if this is needed. We might also want
to assign, voulenteer to bring some cooking gear, ie grill, cooler,
plates plasticware etc, so we can hang out and eat something cheaper
than a 25 dollar slice of pizza, or a 18 dollar hotdog. Anyone with any
other ideas let's here them so we can plan ahead of time.
Shad
P.S. Don, or Mike C., did you go to the Barber fly-in today? I
was at work
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: group osh arrival plans?
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Brodhead to Oshkosh - 2009
Flying -
Those with radios may elect to fly direct to OSH as individual flights.
For the rest of us we'll depart Brodhead early Sunday morning and fly to
our staging area at Waupun, WI. Waupun (WI07) is a private airstrip 2
miles SE of the town of Waupun with an E - W grass strip and a N - S
paved strip located 67 miles on a course of 23 degrees from Brodhead.
GPS coordinates are 43 37 19.96N 88 46 0.39W Elevation 940' with right
traffic for rwy 09.
We will depart Waupun in 3 - 4 ship gaggles per OSH tower instructions.
Gaggle assignments will be discussed further at Brodhead.
Nordo phone calls to the tower need to be made between 7:00 - 10:00 am
and within 45 minutes of your arrival in the OSH pattern. These calls
will need to be made from our staging airport so plan to leave Brodhead
accordingly.
The NOTAM for Airventure can be found on the EAA website.
At Oshkosh -
EAA has arranged parking for us by the Homebuilder's Headquarters. We
will be able to camp just west of our airplanes in the campground.
Bill Rewey may also have camping room in the wooded area.
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: group osh arrival plans?
The staging airport is Waupun. More details will be in the July
newsletter.
I will post more info here over the next few days.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: shad bell
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: group osh arrival plans?
Hello guys, Have we reached any decision on where the mass
arrival staging airport will be? I bought my charts today and had to
start drawing course lines on them out of excitment. I will want to
make at least 1 fuel stop enroute from C37 to OSH, I only have about
1.5 hr range with a reserve, and don't want to have to fly out of the
way to refuel should we get stuck holding over the lakes. Dodge County
Airport looked like a decent place for a final fuel stop. Any of you
Cheese Heads have any advise on this? I recall someone on here
mentioned Steve Krogg's airport as a final stop enroute. Where is
Krogg's, Waupun? Also wondering what most of you OSH bound guys were
going to do for lodging/camping. Dad is most likely going to drive his
truck up from Brodhead on sun morning, and we might be able to help
carry some cargo up, let me know if this is needed. We might also want
to assign, voulenteer to bring some cooking gear, ie grill, cooler,
plates plasticware etc, so we can hang out and eat something cheaper
than a 25 dollar slice of pizza, or a 18 dollar hotdog. Anyone with any
other ideas let's here them so we can plan ahead of time.
Shad
P.S. Don, or Mike C., did you go to the Barber fly-in today?
I was at work
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Barber Fly-in
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Hey Shad,
Yeah, I made it to the Barber Fly-in. I went over last night (Friday) with my
oldest daughter and we tented it by the plane. Beautiful night for camping!
We had breakfast, hung out for a while, hopped a couple rides, then headed for
home in the early afternoon. They had a pretty nice turn out. Dozens of airplanes
and lots of Corvairs (the ground bound kind). Frank Pavliga had both of
his Piets flying too. Almost had a Piet Fly-in!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247147#247147
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Subject: Corvair vs. O-200 weight comparision
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Concerning the discussion a couple days ago about the weight of an O-200
compared to a Corvair, in the new June Sport Aviation is a Teledyne
Continental ad (page 73) for their new O200D (lighter weight model) which
they say weights 199 lbs and goes on to say that that is 25 lbs lighter than
the O200. That puts the O200 at 224 lbs. which I assume does not include
exhaust (and oil). When doing a preliminary W&B to figure out how long to
make the motor mount for my Corvair WW told me to figure 240 lbs. for my
engine ready to run including exhaust, starter, magneto, oil, and wood prop.
And concerning the crankshaft breakage problems interestingly enough in the
same magazine is an Ercoupe article with a picture of an Ercoupe in a bean
field the victim of a C-85 with a broken crank (page 57). Reading articles
like this in addition to articles concerning the Lycoming crankshaft class
action lawsuits:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/leadnews/lycoming_crankshaft_lawsuit_193160-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/Lycoming_Crankshaft_Lawsuit_193841-1.html
(give me a break, 5000 defective crankshafts in new engines people are
paying $25,000 to $40,000 for?), I am no more concerned about breaking a
nitrided Corvair crank with a 5th bearing than I am breaking the crank on an
O200 that I bought used and hope never had a prop strike.
Rick
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Bill Emo photo attached
Bill sure did share his enthusiasm. Thanks for the photo John.
Jordan, I'm sorry for you loss.
>Attached, is a photo of Bill Emo at Brodhead 2008. He shared his
>enthusiasm, knowledge and gave rides.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: group osh arrival plans?
Is the turf runway useable?
>The staging airport is Waupun. More details will be in the July newsletter.
>
>I will post more info here over the next few days.
>
>Greg C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Subject: Re: Corvair vs. O-200 weight comparision
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Opps, sorry I meant to say "dynamo" not "magneto" in that last sentence in
the first paragraph.
rick
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Rick Holland wrote:
> Concerning the discussion a couple days ago about the weight of an O-200
> compared to a Corvair, in the new June Sport Aviation is a Teledyne
> Continental ad (page 73) for their new O200D (lighter weight model) which
> they say weights 199 lbs and goes on to say that that is 25 lbs lighter than
> the O200. That puts the O200 at 224 lbs. which I assume does not include
> exhaust (and oil). When doing a preliminary W&B to figure out how long to
> make the motor mount for my Corvair WW told me to figure 240 lbs. for my
> engine ready to run including exhaust, starter, magneto, oil, and wood prop.
>
> And concerning the crankshaft breakage problems interestingly enough in the
> same magazine is an Ercoupe article with a picture of an Ercoupe in a bean
> field the victim of a C-85 with a broken crank (page 57). Reading articles
> like this in addition to articles concerning the Lycoming crankshaft class
> action lawsuits:
>
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/leadnews/lycoming_crankshaft_lawsuit_193160-1.html
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/Lycoming_Crankshaft_Lawsuit_193841-1.html
>
> (give me a break, 5000 defective crankshafts in new engines people are
> paying $25,000 to $40,000 for?), I am no more concerned about breaking a
> nitrided Corvair crank with a 5th bearing than I am breaking the crank on an
> O200 that I bought used and hope never had a prop strike.
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: great info Bill Church--- 0-200 powered Piets
From: "jordanlcarr" <jordan.carr.17(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Well 58TL took 7 years to build and received its airworthiness certificate in 2002.
My Papa, Bill Emo, and Tim Mickle built two nearly identical planes. However,
it was not my Papa's original to build a pietenpol. He had fallen in love
with the British SE-5A and had always wanted to build one. There were two problems
with the design that deterred him. One would be the difficulty of build.
We spent alot of time talking about them and the other reason was because it
had only one seat. He was all about sharing aviation so he knew this would just
simply not work. It wasnt until Tim asked my Papa to help him with some wing
ribs on a new project of his. The rest is history. So it took them 7 years but
they are by far the nicest pietenpols I have seen. And some of the most practical
I might add. 58TL and 57TL are both equipped with O-200's with a full electric
system. Landing lights, radios, cockpit lights,etc.. The power of supplied
by the O-200 is great. Cruise is around 90-95 mph. Climb is probably 700-800
fpm with passenger and nearing 1000fpm solo. However these are merely guesstimates
as there is no VSI.
It has a cub cowling and the bungee style gear with 8.00x6.00 tires and toe breaks
in both pits. Front panel is sparse. Only slip/skip and gps. It flies like
a dream and is ery light on the controls. You think it and its there. A very
docile machine I'd say.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247164#247164
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: group osh arrival plans?
Date: Jun 06, 2009
Re: Pietenpol-List: group osh arrival plans?Yes, the turf runway is
usable.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Boatright
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: group osh arrival plans?
Is the turf runway useable?
The staging airport is Waupun. More details will be in the July
newsletter.
I will post more info here over the next few days.
Greg C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bill Emo photo attached
From: "jordanlcarr" <jordan.carr.17(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 06, 2009
John thanks so much for the picture. I have never seen this one before and its
really great. Could you send this to my email address it would be greatly appreciated.
jordan.carr.17(at)gmail.com
Thank you for the kind words everyone.
-Jordan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247167#247167
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
From: "rameses32" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 07, 2009
Hey, ya don't know if ya don't ask. I was thinking about using layers of maranti
and Oak to make my propeller.
Charley
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247177#247177
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
Date: Jun 07, 2009
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
Charley,
I don't think you would have any problems with maranti and oak. I have no idea
what maranti is, but even if it's a little soft I would suspect the oak would
make up the strength. When I observed Jerry Thornhill carve his prop (for the
EAA replica Bleriot) at Oshkosh '07 he told me you can use just about anything
within reason. I used ash for mine. He used mahogony for the Bleriot, and Hickory
for the Camel replica he built.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: rameses32 <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 5:11 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
Hey, ya don't know if ya don't ask. I was thinking about using layers of maranti
and Oak to make my propeller.
Charley
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247177#247177
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
From: "rameses32" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 07, 2009
Meranti is a semi hard wood from Malaysia , also called Lauan, or Malaysain Mohogony.
Class 4 strength, what ever that means. The grain in usually interlocking
and straight. Just wondering if it has ever been used in Aircraft construction.
Every lumber yard here in Austrralia has this timber and the availability
of clear, straight grained lumber is in abundance. I am confident in it's ability
to be used in a propeller, but I am wondering if it has been used in any
structral applications.
Charley
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247182#247182
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@experimental-aviation.com>
Subject: Flight to Dixon?
Date: Jun 07, 2009
Hey gang,
My airline reservations have been made to again this year include Brodhead
before OSH. I REALLY enjoyed myself last year.
http://www.contactmagazine.com/Images/Brodhead-2008-b.jpg
Be sure and view the image at full size.
As coincidence would have it, I've found a project that I'm very interested
in reporting on in a future issue of CONTACT! Magazine and it's located in
Dixon, about 60 miles directly south of the Brodhead Airport. The plan thus
far is to spend all day Saturday at the Pietenpol gathering, and very early
on Sunday, drive to Dixon, conduct the interview and get the photos, then
drive to OSH and set up my booth in time to be ready for Monday's opening of
AirVenture.
So... I'm wondering if anyone who might be flying in, would be willing to
ferry me both ways, from Brodhead to Dixon and back, early on Sunday
morning, and save me about two hours of driving.
I'm absolutely willing to pay expenses, give a receipt for the donation of
your time and plane- CONTACT! Magazine is a 501c3 nonprofit corporation- and
of course you'll get to see, in person, the 1/3 scale B-17 replica in
question.
I'm in the process of putting together a brief "What our members are
building" article on this plane, for the next issue of EAA's EXPERIMENTER,
but the article in CONTACT! will be rather exhaustive as our articles
usually tend to be.
Additionally, I'm planning to cover the Pietenpol event for both
publications as well, CONTACT! and EXPERIMENTER, so I'm really looking
forward to the event even if I can't score the ride I need. :)
Thanks!!!
Pat
Editor(at)ContactMagazine.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Oldsmobile engine Piet
From: "Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date: Jun 07, 2009
I seem to remember a Pietenpol with an aluminum Olds V6 engine; direct drive as
I recall. Anybody else seen such?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247212#247212
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 07, 2009
From: Darrel Jones <wd6bor(at)vom.com>
Subject: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
Tom Winter wrote:
>
> Been away for a while, and have obviously missed something. Pfeifer
> Sport plans? What is the Pfeifer sport? Google doesn't know, so I
> have to ask.
>
>
Tom,
The Pfeifer Sport is a steel tube variant of the Pietenpol. I had my
plans scanned to .pdfs and offered them to the list for $5 to cover the
cost of mailing.
Reply with your mailing address if you would like a copy.
Darrel Jones
Sonoma, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Canvas seat sling
From: "Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date: Jun 07, 2009
In the mid 80's I built a Heath Super Parasol and fabricated a canvas seat sling.
At the time, I got the material from AC Spruce but they don't have it listed
now. It's the same canvas used in the J3 and Taylorcraft seat slings. This makes
a very comfortable seat and super light too. Does anyone know of a source?
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247217#247217
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Flying an Idea
Date: Jun 07, 2009
I'll take a couple, John. Seems like I've seen that picture somewhere
before.
Any chance of getting T-Shirts with pockets for us old folks that need a
place to carryour reading glasses?
Jack Phillips
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hofmann
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Flying an Idea
Fellow Pietephiles:
As Brodhead, that other flyin in Wisconsin and the 80th Celebration fast
approach, I have started to design my T-Shirts which the "Bratmen of
Brodhead" will be sporting this year. I thought I would take a stab at
another design or two for the masses. Let me know if there is any interest
and I will put them up on CafePress and you can order as many as you want to
wear. Also I can customize the photo in the middle pretty easily if you
don't like Mike Cuy. I actually think he is okay considering he is one of my
greatest friends. Let me know what you think or contact me off list at
johnnyskyrocket(at)me.com
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Date: Jun 07, 2009
Subject: Flying an Idea
That's a great logo for a t-shirt John Hofmann and in all fairness I must tell
the group that the photo was taken by Jack Phillips from his beautiful
Pietenpol Air Camper while we were in loose formation over western Ohio in 2005
enroute to Brathead.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Date: Jun 07, 2009
Subject: Front fuselage covering
Rick-- nice looking work ! I chose to cover my fuselage and then affix the stainless
firewall (with several small phillips-head wood screws) Worked out well.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 07, 2009
Subject: Re: Flying an Idea
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
We will definitely buy a couple. We've been gazing at that picture for at
least a year as the desktop on my home computer. We were without it for a
short time recently when I upgraded to a big honkin' widescreen LCD;
stretching the image to the 16:9 aspect ratio make it look a bit off.
Thankfully I remembered where I found the original (WestCoastPiet...thanks
Chris!), and now I get to look at in super hi-res. I can almost make out
Mike's grin. :) Thanks John.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM, John Hofmann wrote:
> Fellow Pietephiles:
> As Brodhead, that other flyin in Wisconsin and the 80th Celebration fast
> approach, I have started to design my T-Shirts which the "Bratmen of
> Brodhead" will be sporting this year. I thought I would take a stab at
> another design or two for the masses. Let me know if there is any interest
> and I will put them up on CafePress and you can order as many as you want to
> wear. Also I can customize the photo in the middle pretty easily if you
> don't like Mike Cuy. I actually think he is okay considering he is one of my
> greatest friends. Let me know what you think or contact me off list at
> johnnyskyrocket(at)me.com
>
> -john-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 07, 2009
From: <r.r.hall(at)cox.net>
Subject: Air Camper and Sky Scout specs?
I am new to this list and about to begin building my first airplane. Right now
I have a VW type 4 engine being converted for flywheel drive. It should put out
between 60 and 70hp when complete.
Two of the designs I have been looking at are the Air Camper and Sky Scout. One
problem I have with the design is I am a bit "stout" and 6" tall so I am worried
about fitting in the cockpit and airplane performance with 60-70hp and around
400lbs onboard. Anyone have any experience with widening the fuselage 6-10
inches and performance with that kind of horsepower and load?
Thanks
Rodney Hall
Really like the T-shirt design for Brodhead.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 07, 2009
Subject: Re: Air Camper and Sky Scout specs?
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Rodney,
Well, people have widened the fuse. Usually it's an inch or 2. 6 to 10
inches would be a bit excessive.
You say you are 6 foot tall. That's not too bad to fit into a Piet. But
about the "stout"....you question the performance with 400lbs on board. Are
you referring to just yourself there, yourself and a pax, the total
payload....?
Ryan
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:50 PM, wrote:
>
> I am new to this list and about to begin building my first airplane. Right
> now I have a VW type 4 engine being converted for flywheel drive. It should
> put out between 60 and 70hp when complete.
>
> Two of the designs I have been looking at are the Air Camper and Sky Scout.
> One problem I have with the design is I am a bit "stout" and 6" tall so I am
> worried about fitting in the cockpit and airplane performance with 60-70hp
> and around 400lbs onboard. Anyone have any experience with widening the
> fuselage 6-10 inches and performance with that kind of horsepower and load?
>
> Thanks
> Rodney Hall
>
> Really like the T-shirt design for Brodhead.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
Date: Jun 08, 2009
http://www.timber.net.au/index.php/species-revised/dark-red-meranti.html
Some of you may remember this stuff as "Philipine Mahogany"
I've used quite a bit of it for various things in the past.
I wouldn't use it for a prop myself. I still have two pieces of
1" X 6" X 8', BOTH of which are warped to unusability.
Now you know why I still have them. :-)
If you do plan on using it better get it now. It is estimated
that it will be logged out by 2012.
White Oak( not Red ), Ash, Birch, Maple, Walnut would be
decent choices.
Clif
Lady, you want me to answer you if this old airplane
is safe to fly? Just how in the world do you think it
got to be this old?
Jim Tavenner
>
> Meranti is a semi hard wood from Malaysia , also called Lauan, or
> Malaysain Mohogony. Class 4 strength, what ever that means. The grain in
> usually interlocking and straight. Just wondering if it has ever been used
> in Aircraft construction. Every lumber yard here in Austrralia has this
> timber and the availability of clear, straight grained lumber is in
> abundance. I am confident in it's ability to be used in a propeller, but I
> am wondering if it has been used in any structral applications.
>
> Charley
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247182#247182
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
17:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: Rod Wooller <rmwo(at)CLEAR.NET.NZ>
Subject: Re: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
I have used Meranti in furniture and it appears to consist of short
fibers rather than the long continuos grain found in Spruce or
Douglas Fir (Oregon). Eric Clutton, in his book "Propellor Making For
The Amateur", advises against using Meranti (Pg. 19) although he
doesn't give a reason. I made my prop from Tasmanian Oak and found it
very suitable and easy to work.
Cheers,
Rod Wooller
Wellsford N.Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Corvair vs. O-200 weight comparision
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Not to keep fanning the flames here, but this is from the Continental
Overhaul manual for the O-200:
Weight of basic engine 170.18 lbs
Marvel-Schebler Carburetor 2.62 lbs
Two Bendix Magnetos (Slick's are lighter) 12.12 lbs
Eight shielded spark plugs 1.75 lbs
Shielded ignition harness (unshielded is lighter) 3.81 lbs
Carburetor air intake and filter assembly 3.12 lbs
Total Weight 193.60 lbs
This does not include exhaust, engine oil, starter or generator/alternator.
Starter and Generator, if using the old Delco Remy stuff that came with the
engine weighs 15.50 lbs for the starter and 10.12 for the generator, which
would bring the total weight to 219.22 lbs, but who needs all that stuff on
a Pietenpol? The new Sky-Tec stuff is considerably lighter. Their starter
for an O-200 is only 9.2 lbs, and a Plane Power gear driven alternator is
only 6.8 lbs, so the total weight of the engine with modern starter and
alternator would be 209.60 lbs.
Just wanted to set the record straight on weights here. We can talk about
reliability later.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. O-200 weight comparision
Concerning the discussion a couple days ago about the weight of an O-200
compared to a Corvair, in the new June Sport Aviation is a Teledyne
Continental ad (page 73) for their new O200D (lighter weight model) which
they say weights 199 lbs and goes on to say that that is 25 lbs lighter than
the O200. That puts the O200 at 224 lbs. which I assume does not include
exhaust (and oil). When doing a preliminary W&B to figure out how long to
make the motor mount for my Corvair WW told me to figure 240 lbs. for my
engine ready to run including exhaust, starter, magneto, oil, and wood prop.
And concerning the crankshaft breakage problems interestingly enough in the
same magazine is an Ercoupe article with a picture of an Ercoupe in a bean
field the victim of a C-85 with a broken crank (page 57). Reading articles
like this in addition to articles concerning the Lycoming crankshaft class
action lawsuits:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/leadnews/lycoming_crankshaft_lawsuit_193160-
1.html
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/Lycoming_Crankshaft_Lawsuit_193841-1.
html
(give me a break, 5000 defective crankshafts in new engines people are
paying $25,000 to $40,000 for?), I am no more concerned about breaking a
nitrided Corvair crank with a 5th bearing than I am breaking the crank on an
O200 that I bought used and hope never had a prop strike.
Rick
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
Rod,
How 'bout a picture of your tasmanian oak prop?
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Wooller <rmwo(at)CLEAR.NET.NZ>
Sent: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 5:12 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
?
I have used Meranti in furniture and it appears to consist of short fibers rather
than the long continuos grain found in Spruce or Douglas Fir (Oregon). Eric
Clutton, in his book "Propellor Making For The Amateur", advises against using
Meranti (Pg. 19) although he doesn't give a reason. I made my prop from Tasmanian
Oak and found it very suitable and easy to work.?
Cheers,?
Rod Wooller?
Wellsford N.Z.?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com
Subject: Flying an Idea
Date: Jun 08, 2009
I would be interested in several of the T-shirts too. How about some in
kids sizes??
Brian
SLC, UT
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan
Mueller
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Flying an Idea
We will definitely buy a couple. We've been gazing at that picture for
at least a year as the desktop on my home computer. We were without it
for a short time recently when I upgraded to a big honkin' widescreen
LCD; stretching the image to the 16:9 aspect ratio make it look a bit
off. Thankfully I remembered where I found the original
(WestCoastPiet...thanks Chris!), and now I get to look at in super
hi-res. I can almost make out Mike's grin. :) Thanks John.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM, John Hofmann
wrote:
Fellow Pietephiles:
As Brodhead, that other flyin in Wisconsin and the 80th Celebration fast
approach, I have started to design my T-Shirts which the "Bratmen of
Brodhead" will be sporting this year. I thought I would take a stab at
another design or two for the masses. Let me know if there is any
interest and I will put them up on CafePress and you can order as many
as you want to wear. Also I can customize the photo in the middle pretty
easily if you don't like Mike Cuy. I actually think he is okay
considering he is one of my greatest friends. Let me know what you think
or contact me off list at johnnyskyrocket(at)me.com
-john-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Olds engine
Date: Jun 08, 2009
I have seen photos in my back issues of the old BPA newsletter of a couple
of piets using the Olds engine direct drive. I remember one was in
Australia where they call it a Rover engine, but can't remember where the
other one was.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Something other then cables
Has anyone used the airfoil shaped "wires" for the various cables on the wings
and tail? I see Aircraft Spruce sells such a thing. I have seen these streamlined
cables on some home-builts and wonder what the group thinks. I would imagine
they weigh more then cables, but I wonder if they are better for drag. I am
sure they cost big money. Any experience with these?
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Something other then cable *LINK*
Here is the manufacturer website:
-
http://www.steenaero.com/Products/flying_wires.cfm
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Something other than cables
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
Michael,
That is a great idea. You should be able to pick up at least 15 or?20 knots. :O)?
But I am afraid with that change, I would have to place you into that dreaded
"dubious" category of pietenpol "like" airplanes.
Dan Heslper
Poplar Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 8:58 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Something other then cables
Has anyone used the airfoil shaped "wires" for the various cables on the wings
and tail? I see Aircraft Spruce sells such a thing. I have seen these streamlined
cables on some home-builts and wonder what the group thinks. I would imagine
they weigh more then cables, but I wonder if they are better for drag. I am
sure they cost big money. Any experience with these?
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Something other than cables
-
HAA! I am open to be placed in any catagory anyone wishes, as long as I can
get this thing built and in the air!-
-
Those pieces are big money, but I wonder if an equivelent be be made from s
ome of the smaller steel streamlined stuff.
-
-
Michael,
That is a great idea. You should be able to pick up at least 15 or-20 kno
ts. :O)- But I am afraid with that change, I would have to place you into
that dreaded "dubious" category of pietenpol "like" airplanes.
Dan Heslper
Poplar Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 8:58 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Something other then cables
Has anyone used the airfoil shaped "wires" for the various cables on the wi
ngs and tail? I see Aircraft Spruce sells such a thing. I have seen these s
treamlined cables on some home-builts and wonder what the group thinks. I w
ould imagine they weigh more then cables, but I wonder if they are better f
or drag. I am sure they cost big money. Any experience with these?
Wanna slim down for summer? Go to America Takes it Off to learn how.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Something other than cables
You are taking a chance on coming close to the edge of space with these typ
es of cables on your Piet.You may not be able to gain re-entry;-)=0A=0A=0Ad
o not archive=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Michae
l Perez =0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASen
t: Monday, June 8, 2009 11:30:20 AM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Somethin
g other than cables=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AHAA! I am open to be placed in any catago
ry anyone wishes, as long as I can get this thing built and in the air!-
=0A=0AThose pieces are big money, but I wonder if an equivelent be be made
from some of the smaller steel streamlined stuff.=0A=0A=0A-=0AMichael,=0A
=0AThat is a great idea. You should be able to pick up at least 15 or-20
knots. :O)- But I am afraid with that change, I would have to place you i
nto that dreaded "dubious" category of pietenpol "like" airplanes.=0A=0ADan
Heslper=0APoplar Grove, IL=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: Mich
ael Perez =0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0AS
ent: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 8:58 am=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: Something other the
n cables=0A=0A=0AHas anyone used the airfoil shaped "wires" for the various
cables on the wings and tail? I see Aircraft Spruce sells such a thing. I
have seen these streamlined cables on some home-builts and wonder what the
group thinks. I would imagine they weigh more then cables, but I wonder if
they are better for drag. I am sure they cost big money. Any experience wit
h these? =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AWanna slim do
wn for summer? Go to America Takes it Off to learn how. =0A=0A=0A" target
=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
=0A=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com=0Ablank rel=nofollow>http://ww
=========================0A
======
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Subject: Re: Something other then cables
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
A Piet decked out in streamlined flying wires would be an interesting sight.
Kind of like putting 20" chromed wheels on a Model T. :P
I would doubt the high cost of flying wires would justify the negligible
decrease in drag. If you were serious about decreasing drag there are most
cost effective steps you could take: for example, use the split axle gear,
cover the vees in fabric, and fabricate fairings for the fuselage to vee
intersection. Then wheel pants of course, and streamlined fairings for the
bungees/springs. You should probably fabricate fairings for the horizontal
stab/vertical stab intersections as well. Might want to add vortex
generators. You could always drop the seat bottoms and inch or two to reduce
the amount you stick out into the slipstream, and go with lo-profile
windscreens.
But in the end, it's a Piet.....whether you're cruising at a draggy 65mph or
an aerodynamically slippery 75mph, the world's going by pretty slowly. :P
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Michael Perez wrote:
> Has anyone used the airfoil shaped "wires" for the various cables on the
> wings and tail? I see Aircraft Spruce sells such a thing. I have seen these
> streamlined cables on some home-builts and wonder what the group thinks. I
> would imagine they weigh more then cables, but I wonder if they are better
> for drag. I am sure they cost big money. Any experience with these?
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: seat slings
Will,
A friend here with a Heath told me that he got his "canvas" from a local upholstery
shop. You don't really want canvas or nylon, like a lawn chair. You want
the stuff they put in couches and easy chairs-- the stuff that is rubbery and
stretches. That is what I would use if I had room for a frame and such webbing.
Instead, as I metioned in my last note, I am going for some ply contour
and some contoured stiffer foam.
Tim in central TX
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Something other then cables
Date: Jun 08, 2009
I used to work for Steen Aero, the sole North American importer from whom
all these streamlined flying wires come into this country before going to
AS&S, Wicks, etc. While these things have impressive virtues and are vitally
important when used in the proper application, I wouldn't dream of using
them on a Pietenpol, or in fact on any plane where I didn't actually have to
use them!
First off, these wires are all custom-made in Scotland by Brunton's, with a
12+ week lead time because they are all essentially hand-crafted. If you
change something on your plane and a wire length changes beyond the ability
of the fittings to compensate, you have to buy a new piece, and they're NOT
returnable or refundable, unless the factory actually screwed up their
manufacture (that's rare). A set of wires and fittings for a typical 2-place
homebuilt biplane generally costs WELL north of $12,000, depending upon
exchange rates (which are much worse nowadays). Even just the tail wires for
a Piet would probably cost as much as most of the rest of the plane!
Also, there have been crashes caused by improper substitution of solid
streamlined flying wires in an aircraft that was originally designed for
regular round cables. Solid wires are much stiffer than cable, and when
improperly used, a steady vibration mode can occur. Where the cable will
just vibrate with no discernable effect, a solid wire will flex and focus
the shaking at "nodes" dependent upon the length of the wire, the loading,
and the frequency and waveform of the vibration. They then get metal fatigue
and eventually the wire fractures clean in half... usually at the worst time
possible!
Sometimes, these wires are necessary and vitally important, but in the case
of the Pietenpol, it just doesn't make much sense either cost-wise or
strength-wise or IMHO risk-wise. If I had a Skybolt, I'd certainly not
consider using anything but these, but then it was designed that way from
the start.
As for drag, well... if you really wanna clean up a Piet to go significantly
faster, you might try making it out of molded carbon fiber to get the weight
down, put a full canopy on it, switch to a cantilever wing with a new
airfoil, stuff 250 hp into it, and add retracts. You *might* break 100 mph!
-Mike
Mike Whaley
MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perez" <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:58 AM
Subject: [piet] Pietenpol-List: Something other then cables
> Has anyone used the airfoil shaped "wires" for the various cables on the
wings and tail? I see Aircraft Spruce sells such a thing. I have seen these
streamlined cables on some home-builts and wonder what the group thinks. I
would imagine they weigh more then cables, but I wonder if they are better
for drag. I am sure they cost big money. Any experience with these?
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Something other then cables
They do look nice and they would be different on a Pietenpol, but WOW! The cost!
Completely agree, not worth it! I had no idea these were THAT costly. Spend
as much on those as the rest of the plane! Still, they were new to me so I thought
I would try to gather some intell. on them. Thanks group.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Something other then cables
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Anyone thinking about using streamline flying wires on the Piet should
maybe take a look at this webpage:
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/hinton.htm
It has to do with a Flybaby that crashed, that also happened to use
streamline flying wires (as opposed to the cables called for in the
Flybaby plans). Gotta be careful whenever straying from the tried and
true.
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: seat slings
From: "Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Hey Tim; I'm in central Texas also. Where are you? Not sure about your e-mail address
but here is mine.
will(at)cctc.net
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247343#247343
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Subject: streamlined flying wires, McWhyte's
I am friends with Delmar Benjamin's girlfriend (prior to this one) Anne Byers (and
a free-lance EAA videographer) and she told me that after some air show seasons
on the circuit with his Gee Bee R2 that they had the flying wires x-rayed to see
if it was okay to fly the next season. Kermit
Weeks now has the airplane at his Fantasy of Flight museum in Florida and after
1500 flying hours on those streamlined
struts I would think he probably would have already invested in a brand new set.
(totally an assumption though)
Lowell Bayles died in a Gee Bee Z in 1931 trying to break a speed record and though
it sounds like aileron flutter/spar failure, when those flying wires
setup a nasty harmonic going that fast they can self-destruct pretty quickly too.
Yikes !!!!!!!!!!
>From Wikipedia:
On December 5 1931 , Bayles tried again, diving into the course from 1,000 feet
(305 m) and leveling off at 150 feet (46 m) as rules allowed. Travelling over
300 miles per hour (483 km/h), 75 feet (23 m) from the ground, the Model Z suddenly
pitched up, the right wing folded beyond the flying wire attachment point,
most likely due to aileron flutter stressing the wing spar and causing it
to fail. The plane crashed alongside of a railroad track in a huge ball of flame
and smoke. Lowell Bayles body was thrown 300 feet (91 m) from the disintegrated
plane.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: <r.r.hall(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Air Camper and Sky Scout specs?
Ryan,
That would be Me, My daughter and fuel.
I would have to do a mock up to be sure how much I would need to widen it but I
am pretty sure the standard 20 inches wouldn't cut it. I was wondering if you
couldn't just basically add a few inches in the middle of the wing and fuse without
affecting the strength. What is the max someone has successfully widened
a Piet?
Rodney
---- Ryan Mueller wrote:
> Rodney,
>
> Well, people have widened the fuse. Usually it's an inch or 2. 6 to 10
> inches would be a bit excessive.
>
> You say you are 6 foot tall. That's not too bad to fit into a Piet. But
> about the "stout"....you question the performance with 400lbs on board. Are
> you referring to just yourself there, yourself and a pax, the total
> payload....?
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:50 PM, wrote:
>
> >
> > I am new to this list and about to begin building my first airplane. Right
> > now I have a VW type 4 engine being converted for flywheel drive. It should
> > put out between 60 and 70hp when complete.
> >
> > Two of the designs I have been looking at are the Air Camper and Sky Scout.
> > One problem I have with the design is I am a bit "stout" and 6" tall so I am
> > worried about fitting in the cockpit and airplane performance with 60-70hp
> > and around 400lbs onboard. Anyone have any experience with widening the
> > fuselage 6-10 inches and performance with that kind of horsepower and load?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Rodney Hall
> >
> > Really like the T-shirt design for Brodhead.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: Jim <jimboyer(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Clearance for aileron cables
Jack and group,
I have a question though about the space between the instrument panel and the back
headrest of the front cockpit. I have slanted my instrument panel so it is
1 inch forward at its top and I was looking at leaning back the headrest of the
front cockpit. That would leave only a 5 inch space between instrument panel
and frnt cockpit headrest at the top; will this clear the aileron cables as
they run up to the center section of the wing?
I don't have my center section ready to mount yet and don't want to lock myself
into a problem. I would appreciate any comments.
Thanks,
Jim
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Something other then cables
I never thought about the rigid flying wire directly transferring shock loads to
the fitting when not in tension. At least the cable gives, saving the fitting.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Clearance for aileron cables
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Jim,
You will probably have to figure out how much tilt-back you are going to
have on the cabanes, first. I think I am a little heavier than some, and am
planning on 4" tilt, with plans length cabanes. Some 1x2 pine and some
plywood to simulate the center section should work for a mock up to figure
out where those cables are coming thru.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(13 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 2:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Clearance for aileron cables
Jack and group,
I have a question though about the space between the instrument panel and
the back headrest of the front cockpit. I have slanted my instrument panel
so it is 1 inch forward at its top and I was looking at leaning back the
headrest of the front cockpit. That would leave only a 5 inch space between
instrument panel and frnt cockpit headrest at the top; will this clear the
aileron cables as they run up to the center section of the wing?
I don't have my center section ready to mount yet and don't want to lock
myself into a problem. I would appreciate any comments.
Thanks,
Jim
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flying an Idea
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Better print up a bunch of 'em. :-)
Nice work.
- Pat
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247375#247375
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Plywood
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Pieters, a question on plywood.
Would anyone mind providing some idea on how much plywood is necessary? I know
it kind of depends on fuselage type, wing construction, length, width, etc.
I've looked over the plans and believe that I've figured it properly, but since
I am hoping to get all the big stuff on my next order I would like to know how
much ply others have required. I'm planning to build the long fuse, and if
anything I may widen it a couple of inches. Not sure that is necessary at this
point. I've read some discussion recently on a longer wing, but I think I'll
probably just stick to the plans.
The way I figure it, I'm going to need...
1 sheet 1/16" x 4' x 8' mahogany for LE sheeting (should have some extra here)
2 sheets 1/8" x 4' x 8' mahogany for sides, wing center, turtle deck, gussets,
seats
2 sheets 1/4" x 4' x 4' birch for the floor
I think this ought to be close. I may perhaps need a bit more 1/8" ply, but I
think I can pull it off if I utilize the proper dimensions. Maybe I'm way off?
Looking for confirmation... comments or suggestions.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247388#247388
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plywood
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Mark,
Sounds about right. But I think you're going to need another 4' x 4' sheet of 1/16"
ply for your wing rib gussets.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247389#247389
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plywood
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Right Bill, I forgot to mention that I've already built my wing ribs.
Thanks for the reply.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247392#247392
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: no Brodhead '09 for 41CC
Date: Jun 08, 2009
Well, maybe you could buy a whole bunch of those emergency
tire inflation cans. You know, the ones with liquid rubber
in them. Let fly inside the wings with them covering everything
in there with sticky sealant thus waterproofing them. No need
for ping pong balls! :-)
Clif
Seneca: "There is no great genius without a tincture of madness."
> Let's see... I could fill the fuselage and wings of 41CC with empty
> milk jugs and ping-pong balls, fly it down through Mexico and Central
> America to the Honduras mainland, then it's just a short 40 mile hop
> overwater to Roatan...
>
> Oscar Zuniga
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2009
From: Mike Tunnicliffe <zk-owl(at)CLEAR.NET.NZ>
Subject: Re: Olds engine
Hi, I would also be interested to find out more as the Rover engine is what
I intend to fit to my machine.
Regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:26 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Olds engine
>
>
> I have seen photos in my back issues of the old BPA newsletter of a couple
> of piets using the Olds engine direct drive. I remember one was in
> Australia where they call it a Rover engine, but can't remember where the
> other one was.
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2009
From: Lawrence Williams <lnawms(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Fly-in
One last blast for our fly-in this week-end.
-
For some reason my last try didn't make it onto the list.....hope this one
does!
-
This Friday evening we'll be having a RRQ, Saturday morning will be a $5 pa
ncake breakfast.
-
Lots of taildraggers and a few biplanes are expected.
-
Pietenpol guys will be treated especially well!
-
We are located just to the east of Little Rock, AR at 1AR9. Details are on
the Country Air Estates website.
-
I know there are some Pietenpol enthusiasts in the AR, TN, MO, OK, TX area
that are within striking distance so please come and support us. This will
be an annual affair and we are hoping to attract some of the Bartlesville c
rowd now that their biplane fly-in is defunct.
-
Larry W.
-
(859)855-5124=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Clearance for aileron cables
Date: Jun 09, 2009
Jim;
You can get some idea of how the cabane brace wires and aileron cables
fit my Piet by looking at the pictures of my front cockpit shoulder
harness attach, here: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/harness.html
Also, on this page: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/piets3.html
there is a picture taken looking up under the instrument panel of Ernie
Moreno's Piet that may also help you see how the cables end up.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2009
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: aileron cable leads
Jim,
I think several of the Piets have fairleads under the instrument panel to route
the aileron cables. Some are just to clear a particular instrument or the like,
but some accommodate your considerations. I recall someone, maybe more than
one fellow, telling me that there was a little interference sound and drag
while parked on the ground, but once fired up and underway, there was no apparent
drag on the controls.
Pitch in here guys, and tell him what you have done. Delrin?
Tim in central TX
Jack and group,
I have a question though about the space between the instrument panel and
the back headrest of the front cockpit. I have slanted my instrument panel
so it is 1 inch forward at its top and I was looking at leaning back the
headrest of the front cockpit. That would leave only a 5 inch space between
instrument panel and frnt cockpit headrest at the top; will this clear the
aileron cables as they run up to the center section of the wing?
I don't have my center section ready to mount yet and don't want to lock
myself into a problem. I would appreciate any comments.
Thanks,
Jim
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Clearance for aileron cables
Date: Jun 09, 2009
Oscar, interesting way to attach a shoulder harness for the front cockpit.
What happens in a crash and the wing is torn off or even twisted around?
I'm really interested in finding a safe way to install a shoulder harness in
my piet.
Thanks
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:02 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Clearance for aileron cables
>
>
> Jim;
>
> You can get some idea of how the cabane brace wires and aileron cables
> fit my Piet by looking at the pictures of my front cockpit shoulder
> harness attach, here: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/harness.html
>
> Also, on this page: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/piets3.html
> there is a picture taken looking up under the instrument panel of Ernie
> Moreno's Piet that may also help you see how the cables end up.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2009
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Clearance for aileron cables-- passenger harness
Gene & Tammy in beautiful Tennessee,
Noted builder Bill Rewey uses something similar for the passenger shoulder harness.
I have seen Oscar's Piet and also Bill's, and think I recall a few others
with somewhat similar arrangements. Last year I discussed your points with
some builders. There is an excellent solution in the UK design (have you seen
that?) but it requires some clearances between the backs of the instruments,
the passenger seatback, and the pilot's windshield. As much as I would like it,
it doesn't look like it would fit in my Piet.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
>Sent: Jun 9, 2009 5:58 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Clearance for aileron cables
>
>
>Oscar, interesting way to attach a shoulder harness for the front cockpit.
>What happens in a crash and the wing is torn off or even twisted around?
>I'm really interested in finding a safe way to install a shoulder harness in
>my piet.
>Thanks
>Gene
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>To: "Pietenpol List"
>Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:02 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Clearance for aileron cables
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jim;
>>
>> You can get some idea of how the cabane brace wires and aileron cables
>> fit my Piet by looking at the pictures of my front cockpit shoulder
>> harness attach, here: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/harness.html
>>
>> Also, on this page: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/piets3.html
>> there is a picture taken looking up under the instrument panel of Ernie
>> Moreno's Piet that may also help you see how the cables end up.
>>
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> Air Camper NX41CC
>> San Antonio, TX
>> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>05:53:00
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 09, 2009
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
Here is one way of doing it.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2009
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Clearance for aileron cables-- passenger harness
Gene & Tammy,
Attached is a pic of the passenger shoulder harness of builder Dan Helsper, based
I believe on the UK assy. His pic is clearer than the UK pix I've seen, and
his fab looks a bit more robust. Kudos to him and the British builders as well.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
>Sent: Jun 9, 2009 5:58 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Clearance for aileron cables
>
>
>Oscar, interesting way to attach a shoulder harness for the front cockpit.
>What happens in a crash and the wing is torn off or even twisted around?
>I'm really interested in finding a safe way to install a shoulder harness in
>my piet.
>Thanks
>Gene
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>To: "Pietenpol List"
>Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:02 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Clearance for aileron cables
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jim;
>>
>> You can get some idea of how the cabane brace wires and aileron cables
>> fit my Piet by looking at the pictures of my front cockpit shoulder
>> harness attach, here: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/harness.html
>>
>> Also, on this page: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/piets3.html
>> there is a picture taken looking up under the instrument panel of Ernie
>> Moreno's Piet that may also help you see how the cables end up.
>>
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> Air Camper NX41CC
>> San Antonio, TX
>> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>05:53:00
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2009
From: Ameet Savant <ameetsavant(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
Dan,
Novice question- In a sudden forward motion (as imparted in a crash) what is keeping
this entire assembly from pivoting forward? The member shown in photo 18
and 24 seems to take on the job, but it is anchored to the fuselage using one
bolt. Could that fitting pivot around the bolt inward?
Regards
Ameet
--- On Tue, 6/9/09, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:
> From: helspersew(at)aol.com <helspersew(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 8:26 PM
>
> Here is one way of doing it.
>
>
>
> Dan Helsper
>
> Poplar Grove, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
Ameet,
I see what you mean about the possibility of that longeron fitting rotating on
impact.? I wanted to get the attach point of that rod as far forward as possible
for a better and more advantageous angle.
The way I see it, if it did rotate the total movement would be max. 1" (unless
the bolt pulled out of the longeron). After the first 20 degrees of turning, it
would come in contact with the rod end fitting?which would take some energy
to twist. All in all I believe it would go a long way on holding back the shoulders
of the front seat passenger in a crash. Then I guess there is always a weak
link somewhere in every system. Most times (thank God) we never get to see
what that is.?What stage are you at with your build?
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
P.S.? Now I remember why I did that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ameet Savant <ameetsavant(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
Dan,
Novice question- In a sudden forward motion (as imparted in a crash) what is
keeping this entire assembly from pivoting forward? The member shown in photo 18
and 24 seems to take on the job, but it is anchored to the fuselage using one
bolt. Could that fitting pivot around the bolt inward?
Regards
Ameet
--- On Tue, 6/9/09, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:
> From: helspersew(at)aol.com <helspersew(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 8:26 PM
>
> Here is one way of doing it.
>
>
>
> Dan Helsper
>
> Poplar Grove, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Clearance for aileron cables-- passenger harness
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Thanks Tim. The photo didn't come thru but I see that Dan has sent one. It
looks like what I'm looking for.
Thanks
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Willis" <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Clearance for aileron cables-- passenger
harness
> Gene & Tammy,
>
> Attached is a pic of the passenger shoulder harness of builder Dan
> Helsper, based I believe on the UK assy. His pic is clearer than the UK
> pix I've seen, and his fab looks a bit more robust. Kudos to him and the
> British builders as well.
>
> Tim in central TX
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Clearance for aileron cables-- passenger harness
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Tim, I spoke too soon. The photo did come thru, I just didn't scroll down
far enough. Again, thank you.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Willis" <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Clearance for aileron cables-- passenger
harness
> Gene & Tammy,
>
> Attached is a pic of the passenger shoulder harness of builder Dan
> Helsper, based I believe on the UK assy. His pic is clearer than the UK
> pix I've seen, and his fab looks a bit more robust. Kudos to him and the
> British builders as well.
>
> Tim in central TX
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Dan, Just what I was looking for! Very well done.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:26 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
Here is one way of doing it.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Wanna slim down for summer? Go to America Takes it Off to learn how.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06/09/09 18:08:00
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: routing tailwheel cables
Date: Jun 10, 2009
How did everybody who didn't attach to the rudder route their tailwheel
cables forward? I am planning on tying them into the rudder cables under or
just behind the seat, but I am concerned because they seem to join the
rudder cable at an appreciable down angle. Seems like it'll pull down on
the rudder cable when encountering resistance turning the tailwheel.
Should I route them through a fairlead to get a lesser angle or is it not a
problem?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: Ameet Savant <ameetsavant(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
Dan,
That makes sense. It does have only limited movement.
I am not building yet but I did buy my first airplane part and it is being delivered
in just minutes from now. It is a corvair engine I bought on ebay. I don't
know yet if it is the right serial numbers to convert, but if not, I got a
really good deal on an engine that was running just a year ago and shouldn't have
trouble selling it to the car folks. It seems to be right one at 110hp 1965,
but you never know what mods have been made on it.
I am so excited about that!
Ameet
Omaha, NE
--- On Wed, 6/10/09, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:
> From: helspersew(at)aol.com <helspersew(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 6:21 AM
> Ameet,
>
> The way I see it, if it did rotate the total movement would
> be max. 1" (unless the bolt pulled out of the
> longeron). After the first 20 degrees of turning, it would
> come in contact with the rod end fittingwhich would
> take some energy to twist. All in all I believe it would go
> a long way on holding back the shoulders of the front seat
> passenger in a crash.
>
> What stage are you at
> with your build?
>
>
>
> Dan Helsper
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Gene asked-
>What happens in a crash and the wing is torn off or even twisted
>around?
Probably someone gets hurt.
>I'm really interested in finding a safe way to install a shoulder
>harness in my piet.
We put men on the moon using only sliderules, pencils, and paper.
Somebody should be able to figure out a simple and secure way to attach
shoulder harnesses to a Piet, but in the meantime- the method used
on 41CC is better than nothing and "nothing" is what all the early
Piets had.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lagowski Morrow" <jimdeb(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: routing tailwheel cables
Date: Jun 10, 2009
I did mine just like Bill Rewey did, with the cable to the tail wheel
clamped to the rudder cable, just behind the rear seat. See his info
package.--Jim Lagowski, NX221PT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:12 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: routing tailwheel cables
>
>
> How did everybody who didn't attach to the rudder route their tailwheel
> cables forward? I am planning on tying them into the rudder cables under
> or
> just behind the seat, but I am concerned because they seem to join the
> rudder cable at an appreciable down angle. Seems like it'll pull down on
> the rudder cable when encountering resistance turning the tailwheel.
> Should I route them through a fairlead to get a lesser angle or is it not
> a
> problem?
>
> Douwe
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
18:08:00
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Thanks for the info Oscar. Not sure the method used on 41CC is "better than
nothing", but that's why they call our airplanes "Experimental". If you and
your passenger are happy with it, thats all that matters. We all get to
build them the way we want. I really like Dan's idea. No since reinventing
the wheel when someone has already came up with a safe way to install a
shoulder harness.
Gene
PS Not sure what "we put men on the moon using only sliderules, pencils and
paper" has to do with it, but remember, we also blew up a lot of rockets
(and some people) with dumb mistakes. We need to learn from our errors.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:33 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: shoulder harness attach
>
>
> Gene asked-
>
>>What happens in a crash and the wing is torn off or even twisted
>>around?
>
> Probably someone gets hurt.
>
>>I'm really interested in finding a safe way to install a shoulder
>>harness in my piet.
>
> We put men on the moon using only sliderules, pencils, and paper.
> Somebody should be able to figure out a simple and secure way to attach
> shoulder harnesses to a Piet, but in the meantime- the method used
> on 41CC is better than nothing and "nothing" is what all the early
> Piets had.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
18:08:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: ATV tundra tires
From: "Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Does anyone have pictures of an ATV tundra tire set-up on a Piet? Also any ideas
or suggestions along this line. I want tires/wheels simliar to the Allen Rudolph
Piet. of the early thirties. Do they make slick ATV tires or does one need
to shave the knobs? And what wheel? Thanks.........
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247570#247570
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: routing tailwheel cables
NX92GB has the cables nicopressed to the rudder cables behind the seat.-
We put a couple of fairleads in the aft fuselage and a pair of external fai
rleads on a bracket on the bottem of the fuselage.- The reason for the ex
ternal bracket is because we put the steerable tailwheel on after the airpl
ane was compleated and flown for two years, and it was all done through 2 i
nspection holes, what a pain in the keester.- Taxing on pavement with a f
ixed tailwheel was interesting, and people always looked at me like, "What
in the hell is that guy doing?"- Full down elevator, full rudder and a bi
g blast of power to get a sharp turn, and 9 times out of 10, I made the tur
n, the other time it was, shut down, get out pick up the tail, turn the air
plane back on the pavement, tell every one running out that all was well, a
nd get in strap in and go, and hurry and get out of there to avoid further
embarrassment.- On pavement I STRONGLY recomend a steerable tailwheel,
and halfway decent brakes.- Sorry to get a little off subject.
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Plywood
I think I only used one sheet of 1/4 inch, and needed a little more than
2 sheets of 1/8 for the standard long fuselage.
Ben
K5YAC wrote:
>
> Pieters, a question on plywood.
>
> Would anyone mind providing some idea on how much plywood is necessary? I know
it kind of depends on fuselage type, wing construction, length, width, etc.
I've looked over the plans and believe that I've figured it properly, but since
I am hoping to get all the big stuff on my next order I would like to know
how much ply others have required. I'm planning to build the long fuse, and
if anything I may widen it a couple of inches. Not sure that is necessary at
this point. I've read some discussion recently on a longer wing, but I think
I'll probably just stick to the plans.
>
> The way I figure it, I'm going to need...
>
> 1 sheet 1/16" x 4' x 8' mahogany for LE sheeting (should have some extra here)
> 2 sheets 1/8" x 4' x 8' mahogany for sides, wing center, turtle deck, gussets,
seats
> 2 sheets 1/4" x 4' x 4' birch for the floor
>
> I think this ought to be close. I may perhaps need a bit more 1/8" ply, but
I think I can pull it off if I utilize the proper dimensions. Maybe I'm way off?
>
> Looking for confirmation... comments or suggestions.
>
> --------
> Mark - working on wings
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247388#247388
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
Here is my modification of the UK plans. I added an ash cross-member
under the instrument panel with plywood gussets to anchor the rear of
the bracket. I'm using drilled head bolts to secure the forward attachments
Ben Charvet
NX866BC
In final assembly, still chipping away
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: <r.r.hall(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: shoulder harness attach
Apollo 1 comes to mind. Grissom, Chafee and White died in part because the door
opened inward toward a pressurized cabin.
Sometimes you really can't tell how something will work until you
try it. It appears to me that it would be adequate for everything up to a full
blown crash that was twisting the wings and breaking the fuselage. Question is
in that scenario would it really matter if it twisted or moved a bit as the greater
hazard might be the engine being pushed into your lap or broken pieces
of fuselage poking into you. Without a computer simulation or engineering analysis
its hard to tell exactly what the results would be.
---- Gene & Tammy wrote:
>
> Thanks for the info Oscar. Not sure the method used on 41CC is "better than
> nothing", but that's why they call our airplanes "Experimental". If you and
> your passenger are happy with it, thats all that matters. We all get to
> build them the way we want. I really like Dan's idea. No since reinventing
> the wheel when someone has already came up with a safe way to install a
> shoulder harness.
> Gene
> PS Not sure what "we put men on the moon using only sliderules, pencils and
> paper" has to do with it, but remember, we also blew up a lot of rockets
> (and some people) with dumb mistakes. We need to learn from our errors.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
> To: "Pietenpol List"
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:33 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: shoulder harness attach
>
>
> >
> >
> > Gene asked-
> >
> >>What happens in a crash and the wing is torn off or even twisted
> >>around?
> >
> > Probably someone gets hurt.
> >
> >>I'm really interested in finding a safe way to install a shoulder
> >>harness in my piet.
> >
> > We put men on the moon using only sliderules, pencils, and paper.
> > Somebody should be able to figure out a simple and secure way to attach
> > shoulder harnesses to a Piet, but in the meantime- the method used
> > on 41CC is better than nothing and "nothing" is what all the early
> > Piets had.
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > Air Camper NX41CC
> > San Antonio, TX
> > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 18:08:00
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: front seat shoulder harness attach
My version.
Saludos
-
Santiago=0A=0A=0A Yahoo! Cocina=0ARecetas pr=E1cticas y comida saludab
le=0Ahttp://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Subject: Re: shoulder harness attach
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
That would be a good use of a mock cockpit that you were going to cut up for
firewood, make it into a mock cockpit crash simulator. Add mock cabanes and
and a mock center section, buy a couple mannequins (crash test dummies) at
Salvation Army, strap em in, run a cable from a tall tree to the ground at
45 degree angle, borrow a high speed digital video camera and let er rip.
(Please post the results on UTube for the rest of us to see).
Rick
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM, wrote:
>
> Apollo 1 comes to mind. Grissom, Chafee and White died in part because the
> door opened inward toward a pressurized cabin.
>
> Sometimes you really can't tell how something will work until you
> try it. It appears to me that it would be adequate for everything up to a
> full blown crash that was twisting the wings and breaking the fuselage.
> Question is in that scenario would it really matter if it twisted or moved a
> bit as the greater hazard might be the engine being pushed into your lap or
> broken pieces of fuselage poking into you. Without a computer simulation or
> engineering analysis its hard to tell exactly what the results would be.
>
> ---- Gene & Tammy wrote:
> zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
> >
> > Thanks for the info Oscar. Not sure the method used on 41CC is "better
> than
> > nothing", but that's why they call our airplanes "Experimental". If you
> and
> > your passenger are happy with it, thats all that matters. We all get to
> > build them the way we want. I really like Dan's idea. No since
> reinventing
> > the wheel when someone has already came up with a safe way to install a
> > shoulder harness.
> > Gene
> > PS Not sure what "we put men on the moon using only sliderules, pencils
> and
> > paper" has to do with it, but remember, we also blew up a lot of rockets
> > (and some people) with dumb mistakes. We need to learn from our errors.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
> > To: "Pietenpol List"
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:33 AM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: shoulder harness attach
> >
> >
> taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Gene asked-
> > >
> > >>What happens in a crash and the wing is torn off or even twisted
> > >>around?
> > >
> > > Probably someone gets hurt.
> > >
> > >>I'm really interested in finding a safe way to install a shoulder
> > >>harness in my piet.
> > >
> > > We put men on the moon using only sliderules, pencils, and paper.
> > > Somebody should be able to figure out a simple and secure way to attach
> > > shoulder harnesses to a Piet, but in the meantime- the method used
> > > on 41CC is better than nothing and "nothing" is what all the early
> > > Piets had.
> > >
> > > Oscar Zuniga
> > > Air Camper NX41CC
> > > San Antonio, TX
> > > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > 18:08:00
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
I've seen photos and drawings of the UK design (see
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/seatbelts.htm ), and I have not been able
to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they need to have
those turnbuckle-type fittings in there. I can't see why a builder would
not be able to determine a fixed position and build the shoulderstrap
support rigidly, just like Ben Charvet has done. Perhaps it's because
the UK is much more restrictive towards homebuilt aircraft - EVERYTHING
has to be approved, so the drawings would allow for adjustment to suit
each particular aircraft. Ben's approach makes sense to me.
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 10, 2009
That sounds cool. What a neat vision your comment just put in my head.
I plan to color mine up in OD Green with Allied Forces invasion stripes on the
wing. Big fat ATV tires would look kind of cool... and I would think that with
ATV racing, there should be some strong and lightweight wheels out there with
decent braking systems.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247600#247600
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Has anyone ever used Maranti timber in their Pietenpol?
From: "rameses32" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Thank you, that is exactly the information I was looking for.
Charley
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247616#247616
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: front seat shoulder harness attach
Both the UK design (and Dan H.'s implementation, each featuring large turnbuckles
or threaded mounts) and Santiago's design (with boltable straps) allow the
builder to weld only part, if any, of the pieces, and otherwise slip in components
under the plywood and cowling pieces, and around the instruments, then assemble
in place.
This can be an advantage. If you weld and bolt up the harness assy. first, and
then build all the rest, you can make it all one piece as welded. But then the
harness assy. a) is either in in your way as you run tubing, wires, cables,
and mount instruments, put the ply pieces up, etc., or b) requires you to keep
putting the mount in an out to see if things clear, and to get it out of the
way.
I am not saying this as artfully as I might, but perhaps you get what I mean.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
>Sent: Jun 10, 2009 2:38 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
>
>
>I've seen photos and drawings of the UK design (see
>http://www.westcoastpiet.com/seatbelts.htm ), and I have not been able
>to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they need to have
>those turnbuckle-type fittings in there. I can't see why a builder would
>not be able to determine a fixed position and build the shoulderstrap
>support rigidly, just like Ben Charvet has done. Perhaps it's because
>the UK is much more restrictive towards homebuilt aircraft - EVERYTHING
>has to be approved, so the drawings would allow for adjustment to suit
>each particular aircraft. Ben's approach makes sense to me.
>
>Bill C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: front seat shoulder harness attach
Mine can be slid into place with all the instruments in the instrument pane
l, and I have-strip in place connecting the instrument panel mount with t
he passenger seat-back.- It is a tight fit, and maybe I was just lucky.
- I couldn't see the need for a turnbuckle there, or maybe I was just in
a thrifty, frugal, (cheap!) mood that week.
-
Ben
--- On Wed, 6/10/09, Tim Willis wrote:
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 8:10 PM
et>
Both the UK design (and Dan H.'s implementation, each featuring large turnb
uckles or threaded mounts) and Santiago's design (with boltable straps) all
ow the builder to weld only part, if any, of the pieces, and otherwise slip
in components under the plywood and cowling pieces, and around the instrum
ents, then assemble in place.
This can be an advantage.- If you weld and bolt up the harness assy. firs
t, and then build all the rest, you can make it all one piece as welded.-
But then the harness assy. a) is either in in your way as you run tubing,
wires, cables, and mount instruments, put the ply pieces up, etc., or b) re
quires you to keep putting the mount in an out to see if things clear, and
to get it out of the way.
I am not saying this as artfully as I might, but perhaps you get what I mea
n.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
>Sent: Jun 10, 2009 2:38 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
>
>
>I've seen photos and drawings of the UK design (see
>http://www.westcoastpiet.com/seatbelts.htm ), and I have not been able
>to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they need to have
>those turnbuckle-type fittings in there. I can't see why a builder would
>not be able to determine a fixed position and build the shoulderstrap
>support rigidly, just like Ben Charvet has done. Perhaps it's because
>the UK is much more restrictive towards homebuilt aircraft - EVERYTHING
>has to be approved, so the drawings would allow for adjustment to suit
>each particular aircraft. Ben's approach makes sense to me.
>
>Bill C.-
>
le, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2009
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: front seat shoulder harness attach
Ben, cheap and light work for me, too. I am still looking into what will fit.
Up to now, I have come close, but no cigar. Some variant will work, I think,
and now I am inspired to look for tiny little changes. For instance, I now think
I can make the bottom element, the X-tube, in 3 pieces-- a right and left
tube that would slip inside a larger shorter middle tube. I can telescope it
into place and then bolt through after extension. Working out all the Vees and
details may follow. Time for a cheap wood mockup here-- a "mockassy"? BTW,
I was given a couple of very large brass turnbuckles that I won't use elsewhere--
overkill for other apps. Hummmm.
Thanks to all for your good designs and tinkering.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Jun 10, 2009 8:50 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
>
>Mine can be slid into place with all the instruments in the instrument panel,
and I havestrip in place connecting the instrument panel mount with the passenger
seat-back. It is a tight fit, and maybe I was just lucky. I couldn't see the
need for a turnbuckle there, or maybe I was just in a thrifty, frugal, (cheap!)
mood that week. // Ben
>
>--- On Wed, 6/10/09, Tim Willis wrote:
>From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 8:10 PM
>
>
>Both the UK design (and Dan H.'s implementation, each featuring large turnbuckles
or threaded mounts) and Santiago's design (with boltable straps) allow the
builder to weld only part, if any, of the pieces, and otherwise slip in components
under the plywood and cowling pieces, and around the instruments, then assemble
in place. This can be an advantage. If you weld and bolt up the harness
assy. first, and then build all the rest, you can make it all one piece as
welded. But then the harness assy. a) is either in in your way as you run tubing,
wires, cables, and mount instruments, put the ply pieces up, etc., or b) requires
you to keep putting the mount in an out to see if things clear, and to
get it out of the way. I am not saying this as artfully as I might, but perhaps
you get what I mean.// Tim in central TX
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
>>Sent: Jun 10, 2009 2:38 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
>>
>>
>>I've seen photos and drawings of the UK design (see http://www.westcoastpiet.com/seatbelts.htm ), and I have not been able
>>to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they need to have those turnbuckle-type
fittings in there. I can't see why a builder would not be able to
determine a fixed position and build the shoulderstrap support rigidly, just
like Ben Charvet has done. Perhaps it's because the UK is much more restrictive
towards homebuilt aircraft - EVERYTHING has to be approved, so the drawings
would allow for adjustment to suit each particular aircraft. Ben's approach makes
sense to me. // Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
I'm flying around in a cub yellow Baby Ace right now, and frequently fly
over woods, etc. Having the aircraft in a brighter color than olive
drab could make it easier for someone to find you in an off-airport
emergency. I also carry one of the new Spot GPS transmitters that is
quite comforting. Depending on the terrain you will be flying over, you
might want to think twice about camouflaging your Piet. Just a
thought. It would look pretty nice painted up as an observer and I
entertained the same thoughts earlier in my build before I started
flying again.
Ben
*
*
K5YAC wrote:
>
> That sounds cool. What a neat vision your comment just put in my head.
>
> I plan to color mine up in OD Green with Allied Forces invasion stripes on the
wing. Big fat ATV tires would look kind of cool... and I would think that with
ATV racing, there should be some strong and lightweight wheels out there with
decent braking systems.
>
> --------
> Mark - working on wings
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247600#247600
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Yep, good idea.
I edited my post prior to your reply because I'm really not 100% sure on the finish,
but... I am an 82nd Airborne Division veteran and to me, everything looks
better in OD Green. Besides, how can I strafe trains and supply routes with
an observer paint scheme? Ok, ok... just kidding.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247679#247679
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip Gadd" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Bill & Santiago,
The UK design takes the cross brace cables off the top of the shoulder harness
attach, the turnbuckle-type fittings are how they adjust the cross brace cables.
I made mine almost the same as Ben. After seeing Santiago's design, I wish I had
done it that way, very cool Santiago.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
Sent: 6/10/2009 3:43:52 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
I've seen photos and drawings of the UK design (see http://www.westcoastpiet.com/seatbelts.htm ), and I have not been able to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they need to have those turnbuckle-type fittings in there. I can't see why a builder would not be able to determine a fixed position and build the shoulderstrap support rigidly, just like Ben Charvet has done. Perhaps it's because the UK is much more restrictive towards homebuilt aircraft - EVERYTHING has to be approved, so the drawings would allow for adjustment to suit each particular aircraft. Ben's approach makes sense to me.
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
From: "Catdesigns" <Catdesigns(at)att.net>
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Take a look at Ty Daniels wheels on his Pietenpol. I believe he used ATV tires
and rims. Typically, the knobs are cut off and the tire sanded smooth. Sounds
like a lot of work but looks really good.
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/new_page_54.htm
I think there was a drawing of an adapter plate for ATV rims in one of the old
BPA newsletters. I will try to dig it out tonight and scan it.
Chris
--------
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, CA
WestCoastPiet.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247683#247683
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kirk Huizenga <kirkh1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Also check photos for Leon Stephan's Piet at
http://mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=282
On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Catdesigns wrote:
>
>
> Take a look at Ty Daniels wheels on his Pietenpol. I believe he used
> ATV tires and rims. Typically, the knobs are cut off and the tire
> sanded smooth. Sounds like a lot of work but looks really good.
>
> http://www.westcoastpiet.com/new_page_54.htm
>
> I think there was a drawing of an adapter plate for ATV rims in one
> of the old BPA newsletters. I will try to dig it out tonight and
> scan it.
>
> Chris
>
> --------
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, CA
> WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247683#247683
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 11, 2009
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Okay, I think I see now.
After reading Skip's comment, and then taking another look at the UK
drawing of Hal Danby's design, I discovered the note that says "Adjust
tie-rods for neutral load after final adjustment of CofG and cabane
roll-wires". I see now that the tie-rods are there to allow for
adjusting the angle to compensate for the movement of the wing (usually
aft) for weight and balance. Since the cross-brace wire attachment
points have been moved to the top of this support, the support would
need to be adjustable to avoid putting unnecessary loads on the fuselage
(through the support bracket).
It now makes sense to me, but I still think Ben's approach is simpler
and more logical.
Thanks Skip.
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 11, 2009
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
Yes I agree, Santiago's design is the best I have seen, and I wish I had done it
that way. Very simple, strong?and complete.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Skip Gadd <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 9:47 am
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
Bill & Santiago,
?The UK design takes the cross brace cables off the top of the shoulder harness
attach, the turnbuckle-type fittings are how they adjust the cross brace cables.
I made mine almost the same as Ben. After seeing Santiago's design, I wish I had
done it that way, very cool Santiago.
Skip
?
?
?
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
Sent: 6/10/2009 3:43:52 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
I've seen photos and drawings of the UK design (see? http://www.westcoastpiet.com/seatbelts.htm ), and I have not been able to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they need to have those turnbuckle-type fittings in there. I can't see why a builder would not be able to determine a fixed position and build the shoulderstrap support rigidly, just like Ben Charvet has done. Perhaps it's because the UK is much more restrictive towards homebuilt aircraft - EVERYTHING has to be approved, so the drawings would allow for adjustment to suit each particular aircraft. Ben's approach makes sense to me.
Bill C.?
[Image Removed]
[Image Removed]
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Alright, point taken... but if someone can't see invasion stripes floating over
tree tops, they need to work on their scan.
Crap, someone turned of the "img" feature... gotta do it the old way I guess.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247707#247707
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/245565125_a478e12cfb_775.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kirk Huizenga <kirkh1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: ATV Tires
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Also check photos for Leon Stephan's Piet at
http://mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=282
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Subject: ATV Tires
From: Kirk H <kirkh1(at)gmail.com>
Also check photos for Leon Stephan's Piet at
http://mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=282
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Hate to bring up the mock fuselage thing again but I have a rather extream
solution to your front shoulder harness problem. How do they solve this
problem with Wacos and Stearmans?
Welded tube fuselages!
So here is my solution, just declare your current wood fuselage to be your
mock fuselage (you can even use it for the mock fuselage crash testing as
mentioned y
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Tim Willis wrote:
> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>
> Ben, cheap and light work for me, too. I am still looking into what will
> fit. Up to now, I have come close, but no cigar. Some variant will work, I
> think, and now I am inspired to look for tiny little changes. For instance,
> I now think I can make the bottom element, the X-tube, in 3 pieces-- a right
> and left tube that would slip inside a larger shorter middle tube. I can
> telescope it into place and then bolt through after extension. Working out
> all the Vees and details may follow. Time for a cheap wood mockup here-- a
> "mockassy"? BTW, I was given a couple of very large brass turnbuckles that
> I won't use elsewhere-- overkill for other apps. Hummmm.
>
> Thanks to all for your good designs and tinkering.
> Tim in central TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
> >Sent: Jun 10, 2009 8:50 PM
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
> >
> >Mine can be slid into place with all the instruments in the instrument
> panel, and I have strip in place connecting the instrument panel mount with
> the passenger seat-back. It is a tight fit, and maybe I was just lucky. I
> couldn't see the need for a turnbuckle there, or maybe I was just in a
> thrifty, frugal, (cheap!) mood that week. // Ben
> >
> >--- On Wed, 6/10/09, Tim Willis wrote:
> >From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
> >Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 8:10 PM
> >
> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
> >
> >Both the UK design (and Dan H.'s implementation, each featuring large
> turnbuckles or threaded mounts) and Santiago's design (with boltable straps)
> allow the builder to weld only part, if any, of the pieces, and otherwise
> slip in components under the plywood and cowling pieces, and around the
> instruments, then assemble in place. This can be an advantage. If you weld
> and bolt up the harness assy. first, and then build all the rest, you can
> make it all one piece as welded. But then the harness assy. a) is either in
> in your way as you run tubing, wires, cables, and mount instruments, put the
> ply pieces up, etc., or b) requires you to keep putting the mount in an out
> to see if things clear, and to get it out of the way. I am not saying this
> as artfully as I might, but perhaps you get what I mean.// Tim in central
> TX
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
> >>Sent: Jun 10, 2009 2:38 PM
> >>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
> >>
> >>
> >>I've seen photos and drawings of the UK design (see
> http://www.westcoastpiet.com/seatbelts.htm ), and I have not been able
> >>to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they need to have
> those turnbuckle-type fittings in there. I can't see why a builder would not
> be able to determine a fixed position and build the shoulderstrap support
> rigidly, just like Ben Charvet has done. Perhaps it's because the UK is much
> more restrictive towards homebuilt aircraft - EVERYTHING has to be approved,
> so the drawings would allow for adjustment to suit each particular aircraft.
> Ben's approach makes sense to me. // Bill C.
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
Date: Jun 11, 2009
REAL Wacos don't have shoulder harnesses. Stearman shoulder harnesses
do not attach to the welded steel fuselage, the aluminum (or wood) seat
is the attach point for the shoulder harness. The same thing for later
Wacos. Because some Stearmans had wooden seats, you are back at square
one.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland<mailto:at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
Hate to bring up the mock fuselage thing again but I have a rather
extream solution to your front shoulder harness problem. How do they
solve this problem with Wacos and Stearmans?
Welded tube fuselages!
So here is my solution, just declare your current wood fuselage to be
your mock fuselage (you can even use it for the mock fuselage crash
testing as mentioned y
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Tim Willis
> wrote:
>
Ben, cheap and light work for me, too. I am still looking into what
will fit. Up to now, I have come close, but no cigar. Some variant
will work, I think, and now I am inspired to look for tiny little
changes. For instance, I now think I can make the bottom element, the
X-tube, in 3 pieces-- a right and left tube that would slip inside a
larger shorter middle tube. I can telescope it into place and then bolt
through after extension. Working out all the Vees and details may
follow. Time for a cheap wood mockup here-- a "mockassy"? BTW, I was
given a couple of very large brass turnbuckles that I won't use
elsewhere-- overkill for other apps. Hummmm.
Thanks to all for your good designs and tinkering.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Charvet
>
>Sent: Jun 10, 2009 8:50 PM
>To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
>
>Mine can be slid into place with all the instruments in the
instrument panel, and I have strip in place connecting the instrument
panel mount with the passenger seat-back. It is a tight fit, and maybe
I was just lucky. I couldn't see the need for a turnbuckle there, or
maybe I was just in a thrifty, frugal, (cheap!) mood that week. // Ben
>
>--- On Wed, 6/10/09, Tim Willis
> wrote:
>From: Tim Willis
>
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
>To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 8:10 PM
>
>
>
>Both the UK design (and Dan H.'s implementation, each featuring
large turnbuckles or threaded mounts) and Santiago's design (with
boltable straps) allow the builder to weld only part, if any, of the
pieces, and otherwise slip in components under the plywood and cowling
pieces, and around the instruments, then assemble in place. This can be
an advantage. If you weld and bolt up the harness assy. first, and then
build all the rest, you can make it all one piece as welded. But then
the harness assy. a) is either in in your way as you run tubing, wires,
cables, and mount instruments, put the ply pieces up, etc., or b)
requires you to keep putting the mount in an out to see if things clear,
and to get it out of the way. I am not saying this as artfully as I
might, but perhaps you get what I mean.// Tim in central TX
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Church
>
>>Sent: Jun 10, 2009 2:38 PM
>>To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: front seat shoulder harness attach
>>
>>
>>I've seen photos and drawings of the UK design (see
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/seatbelts.htm
eatbelts.htm> ), and I have not been able
>>to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they need to
have those turnbuckle-type fittings in there. I can't see why a builder
would not be able to determine a fixed position and build the
shoulderstrap support rigidly, just like Ben Charvet has done. Perhaps
it's because the UK is much more restrictive towards homebuilt aircraft
- EVERYTHING has to be approved, so the drawings would allow for
adjustment to suit each particular aircraft. Ben's approach makes sense
to me. // Bill C.
==========
st"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Ben. I also fly with the SPOT transmitter and it is comforting. Well worth
the price.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Charvet" <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: ATV tundra tires
>
> I'm flying around in a cub yellow Baby Ace right now, and frequently fly
> over woods, etc. Having the aircraft in a brighter color than olive
> drab could make it easier for someone to find you in an off-airport
> emergency. I also carry one of the new Spot GPS transmitters that is
> quite comforting. Depending on the terrain you will be flying over, you
> might want to think twice about camouflaging your Piet. Just a
> thought. It would look pretty nice painted up as an observer and I
> entertained the same thoughts earlier in my build before I started
> flying again.
>
> Ben
> *
> *
> K5YAC wrote:
>>
>> That sounds cool. What a neat vision your comment just put in my head.
>>
>> I plan to color mine up in OD Green with Allied Forces invasion stripes
>> on the wing. Big fat ATV tires would look kind of cool... and I would
>> think that with ATV racing, there should be some strong and lightweight
>> wheels out there with decent braking systems.
>>
>> --------
>> Mark - working on wings
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247600#247600
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Subject: Re: front seat shoulder harness attach
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
REAL Wacos don't have shoulder harnesses. Stearman shoulder harnesses do
> not attach to the welded steel fuselage, the aluminum (or wood) seat is the
> attach point for the shoulder harness. The same thing for later Wacos.
> Because some Stearmans had wooden seats, you are back at square one.
>
>
Yea, I guess real men don't need no stinkin shoulder harnesses.
rick
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: aileron cable leads
Date: Jun 11, 2009
Don't forget, 3 maximum for fairleads.
Clif
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> Thanks Tim; Depending on how severe the turn in the cables has to be
> I will either use a couple of extra pulleys or just fiarleads if the
> change in direction is fairly small.
> Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: "Share a Ride" from Madison to Brodhead?
I had originally planned on staying in Rockford during Brodhead buy my plans have
now changed.
I will (hopefully!) be needing a ride from/to Madison on Saturday.
If everything works out, I could use a ride from one of the Hilton Hotels (Hampton
Inn maybe) first thing Saturday morning then returning as late as possible
Saturday night.
Does that align with anyone's schedule? If anyone is passing through Madison I
would be glad to take a taxi to any area in Madison to make it as convenient
as possible. And I will insist on pitching in for fuel.
Please let me know offline: jim_markle(at)mindspring.com
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Subject: Re: "Share a Ride" from Madison to Brodhead?
Jim,
We are staying at the Hampton Rockford and can providee transportation to
and from Rockford on Saturday of that works for you.
Please advise
John
**************Shop Dell=99s full line of Laptops now starting at $34
9!
=http:%2F%2
Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215218036%3B37264217%3Bz)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: what is a spot transmitter?
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Please educate me, what is a spot transmitter and how does it work?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Subject: Re: what is a spot transmitter?
In a message dated 6/12/2009 8:38:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net writes:
spot transmitter
_SPOT Satellite Personal Tracker - MyPilotStore.com_
(http://www.mypilotstore.com/mypilotstore/sep/5036?qryrmv=1&ppcs=googl
e&ppcg=4-62keyword=spot%20tr
ansmitter&gclid=CISxlafihJsCFcxM5QodOGIdpQ) Here is a link, and for
the
price looks really good and answers some of the issues of having multiple
devices on hand
By the time I am ready they will probably cost much less
John
**************Shop Dell=99s full line of Laptops now starting at $34
9!
=http:%2F%2
Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215218036%3B37264217%3Bz)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: what is a spot transmitter?
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Douwe, SPOT is a handheld satellite personal tracker. For complete info go
to www.findmespot.com
The way I use it (it can be used in different ways) it sends out my location
(anywhere in the world) to my computer, every 10 minutes. There's also an
emergency button, that when used, will start a search for you if you need
help. Also a button that sends out a "I'm ok" message to whom ever you
choose. SPOT may not be for everyone, but works for me.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: what is a spot transmitter?
>
>
> Please educate me, what is a spot transmitter and how does it work?
>
> Douwe
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
17:59:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: "Share a Ride" from Madison to Brodhead?
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Is this about the dirty scoundrel comments? LOL!
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247802#247802
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
From: santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: Piet progress
Yesterday, my brother and I have assembled our Piet for the first time.
Saludos
-
Santiago=0A=0A=0A ____________________________________________________
________________________________=0A=A1Viv=ED la mejor experiencia en la web
!=0ADescarg=E1 gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8=0Ahttp://downloads.yahoo
.com/ieak8/?l=ar
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Piet progress
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Neato! Cant wait until I get that far along.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247839#247839
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Piet progress
very nice!=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: santiago
morete =0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0AS
ent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:45:37 AM=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: Piet prog
ress=0A=0A=0AYesterday, my brother and I have assembled our Piet for the fi
rst time.=0ASaludos=0A=0ASantiago =0A________________________________=0A=0A
Yahoo! Cocina=0ARecetas pr=E1cticas y comida saludable=0AVisit=E1 http://ar
.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Subject: Re: Piet progress
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Beautiful Santiago, do you have your Model A built yet?
Rick
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:45 AM, santiago morete <
moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> Yesterday, my brother and I have assembled our Piet for the first time.
> Saludos
>
> Santiago
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Cocina
> Recetas pr=E1cticas y comida saludable
> Visit=E1 http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:
>From John??? Nah!
Actually, this is about the way my manager always seems to mess up my Brodhead
trips...
Hopefully not this year!
-----Original Message-----
>From: K5YAC <hangar10(at)cox.net>
>Sent: Jun 12, 2009 10:02 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: "Share a Ride" from Madison to Brodhead?
>
>
>Is this about the dirty scoundrel comments? LOL!
>
>--------
>Mark - working on wings
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247802#247802
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack" <jack(at)textors.com>
Subject: Piet progress
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Santiago, what an accomplishment, congratulations!
Jack Textor
29 SW 58th Drive
Des Moines, IA 50312
www.textors.com
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of santiago
morete
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:46 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet progress
Yesterday, my brother and I have assembled our Piet for the first time.
Saludos
Santiago
_____
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas pr=E1cticas y comida saludable
Visit=E1 http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06/11/09
05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Piet progress
Date: Jun 12, 2009
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
Santiago,
Congratulations on a fine job- beautiful thing to see!!=C2- What a miles
tone!!!=C2- You must feel mighty goooooood!
Dan H
-----Original Message-----
From: santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar>
Sent: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:45 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet progress
Yesterday, my brother and I have assembled our Piet for the first time.
Saludos
=C2-
Santiago
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas pr=C3=A1cticas y comida saludable
Visit=C3=A1 http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
[Image Removed]
[Image Removed]
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Piet progress
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Looks great, Santiago!
You=92re getting close to the90% done, 90% to go stage
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of santiago
morete
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:46 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet progress
Yesterday, my brother and I have assembled our Piet for the first time.
Saludos
Santiago
_____
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas pr=E1cticas y comida saludable
Visit=E1 http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Subject: Re: Piet progress
Santiago
Great job thanks for sharing. I printed it out as more inspiration and an
example of what all us lesser builders are hoping to achieve.
Congratulations
John Recine
**************Shop Dell=99s full line of Laptops now starting at $34
9!
=http:%2F%2
Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215218036%3B37264217%3Bz)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: what is a spot transmitter?
They were giving them away if you subscribed, at Oshkosh last year. I
use the "I'm OK" button, which sends an e-mail message to anyone you
choose. Mine sends a message "still having fun". It just lets my wife
know that I've gone flying, and sends your GPS location with each
message. The personal site you get will show a map with all your
way-points for the last week. I'll attach a link to mine:
http://share.findmespot.com/shared/faces/viewspots.jsp?glId=0bFDdkG2A6t4ZqdDU2Tx1bz1jNSI6iJ3O
Ben
Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
> Please educate me, what is a spot transmitter and how does it work?
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: "Share a Ride" from Madison to Brodhead?
From: amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 13, 2009
Typical Markle always looking for ways to duck out of his commitments. He's in
grave danger of loosing his man card.
He's a Scoundrel flim flamming forflusher who just wants to work his ways with
us. And those are his good points.
John
------Original Message------
From: Jim Markle email info
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Sent: Jun 12, 2009 8:10 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: "Share a Ride" from Madison to Brodhead?
I had originally planned on staying in Rockford during Brodhead buy my plans have
now changed.
I will (hopefully!) be needing a ride from/to Madison on Saturday.
If everything works out, I could use a ride from one of the Hilton Hotels (Hampton
Inn maybe) first thing Saturday morning then returning as late as possible
Saturday night.
Does that align with anyone's schedule? If anyone is passing through Madison I
would be glad to take a taxi to any area in Madison to make it as convenient
as possible. And I will insist on pitching in for fuel.
Please let me know offline: jim_markle(at)mindspring.com
Thanks!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Piet progress
Santiago
Great looking Piet!- Now one of these days you need to fly it to Brodhead
.- That might be a 2 week journey one way.- But seriously if you ever m
ake it up I would love a ride.- Keep going you're almost there.
-
Shad Bell
NX92GB=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2009
From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: what is a spot transmitter?
Good luck dealing with Spot. I've been waiting for my $50 rebate from them since
Christmas, as have others. I've been in contact with them lots of times, and
I'm supposed to get the rebate, but that's been the same story for the last 4
months. Unbelievable!
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:34:04 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: what is a spot transmitter?
Douwe, SPOT is a handheld satellite personal tracker. For complete info go
to www.findmespot.com
The way I use it (it can be used in different ways) it sends out my location
(anywhere in the world) to my computer, every 10 minutes. There's also an
emergency button, that when used, will start a search for you if you need
help. Also a button that sends out a "I'm ok" message to whom ever you
choose. SPOT may not be for everyone, but works for me.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: what is a spot transmitter?
>
>
> Please educate me, what is a spot transmitter and how does it work?
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
17:59:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Subject: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse versions
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Hi All:
I am looking for a way to increase my useable load for the Piet. Last
wee I finally discovered (thanks to you nice folks) that the Piet's
Gross weight is around 1050 lbs, with a useful load after fuel of
somewhere around 400 or so pounds depending on engine, accessories,
and whether you got rid of all the diet coke you drank before you took
off :o)
As I am 250 and 6'4", and my wife is a good looking 145 or so (it's
true she's good looking to me, but I also figured it's the only way I
think I'd live through the night if she found out I told her weight to
the world at large...). I am looking to make sure that the plane will
be as light as possible so I could CONSIDER taking some form of over
night bag or a tent to attend Brodhead sometime.
So, I am looking at the steel verse wood option, even though I prefer
to work with wood, not steel. I don't look forward to cutting or
welding steel, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do if he
refuses to exercise (joking here...).
I have no idea what the weight diference really is over all, and if it
is indeed significant, I have some people ready to help weld that have
quite a bit of experience. But, hanging my butt in the seat of
something I welded as my first project is not a reassuring message for
my wife.
Any thoughts from you bunch would be very much appreciated. Also, what
are your various empty weights so I have some realistic idea of the
final over all weights in the real world...
Thanks guys!!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2009
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Flying the piet today
Guys, I got to fly the Piet again today for a few hrs, and WOW! that's good
for the cabin fever, and the blood pressure.- The old Corvair is humming
right along, I flew over to DLZ to see a mechanic buddy of mine I used to
work with, and he was getting ready to start an annual on a Emurade (all wo
od homebuilt, CAP 21 looking airplane), and just finnished a RV-8 annual.
- It was good to see some other homebuilts are still being flown, and mai
ntained by the "Mainstream" A+P mechs, who normally don't want anything to
do with us amature built cowboys.- To all of you in Pietenpol range feel
free to come to our "Props and Plows" fly-in on July 5th at OH71 in Centerb
urg Ohio, starting at 12:00.- If I don't see ya there I hope to see ya'll
at Brodhead/ Oshkosh, God and weather permitting.
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
Date: Jun 12, 2009
I scanned the drawing for the adapter plates that was in the old BPA
newsletter. It is for wheel rims that came on the Kitfox not ATV rims. I
tried looking up the company in the article and they don't seem to be in
business anymore. I bet you could figure something out like this for ATV
wheels or other rims. The other interesting par of the article is the
weight of his landing gear, 17.6 pounds. That is the finished weight for
one side including the V's. Wow! Just one of my wheels weigh 18 pounds and
that does not include the wood or axel. If you want to save weight go with
the steel gear.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestCoastPiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesigns" <Catdesigns(at)att.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:08 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ATV tundra tires
>
> Take a look at Ty Daniels wheels on his Pietenpol. I believe he used ATV
> tires and rims. Typically, the knobs are cut off and the tire sanded
> smooth. Sounds like a lot of work but looks really good.
>
> http://www.westcoastpiet.com/new_page_54.htm
>
> I think there was a drawing of an adapter plate for ATV rims in one of the
> old BPA newsletters. I will try to dig it out tonight and scan it.
>
> Chris
>
> --------
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, CA
> WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247683#247683
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: spot... again...
Date: Jun 13, 2009
Couldn't load the spot site with my old dial up. Am I correct in
understanding that once you have the device, you pay a monthly or yearly
subscription for it to work? What does this cost?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ATV tundra tires
From: "rameses32" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2009
That picture brings tears to my eyes, in 1992 I had a chance to buy a C47 in flying
condition for $50,000. I didn't have the money then, and there is now way
of picking one up that cheap ever again.(Sniff, sniff)
Charley
K5YAC wrote:
> Alright, point taken... but if someone can't see invasion stripes floating over
tree tops, they need to work on their scan.
>
> Crap, someone turned of the "img" feature... gotta do it the old way I guess.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247939#247939
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Can I use the Scout landing gear on my Pietenpol?
From: "rameses32" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2009
I am wanting to build the steel fuselage, Holden 186 inline six engine, scout landing
gear, 17" wheels. I'm just wondering if the scout landing gear is a good
option, I just like the look of it.
Charley
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247940#247940
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick N." <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse versions
Date: Jun 13, 2009
Mark
Other than to make comments about diet is to add Horsepower. Some of us fly
very well at 1250 lb or more. You will need a 100 hp+ engine for that.
Consider a Corvair, O-200 or similar.
You can build a basic short fuse Piet at 630 lb, that is without brakes or
tail wheel. Add 395lb for pilot and pass and 100 lb fuel and you are still
at 1175 lb.
I had flight tested my A-65 Piet to 1150 lb and it flies fine but not on a
90+ degree day. My 110 hp Piet flies at 1310 lb. but it doesn't like it
much. A better weight is 1250 lb.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
versions
>
> Hi All:
>
> I am looking for a way to increase my useable load for the Piet. Last
> wee I finally discovered (thanks to you nice folks) that the Piet's
> Gross weight is around 1050 lbs, with a useful load after fuel of
> somewhere around 400 or so pounds depending on engine, accessories,
> and whether you got rid of all the diet coke you drank before you took
> off :o)
>
> As I am 250 and 6'4", and my wife is a good looking 145 or so (it's
> true she's good looking to me, but I also figured it's the only way I
> think I'd live through the night if she found out I told her weight to
> the world at large...). I am looking to make sure that the plane will
> be as light as possible so I could CONSIDER taking some form of over
> night bag or a tent to attend Brodhead sometime.
>
> So, I am looking at the steel verse wood option, even though I prefer
> to work with wood, not steel. I don't look forward to cutting or
> welding steel, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do if he
> refuses to exercise (joking here...).
>
> I have no idea what the weight diference really is over all, and if it
> is indeed significant, I have some people ready to help weld that have
> quite a bit of experience. But, hanging my butt in the seat of
> something I welded as my first project is not a reassuring message for
> my wife.
>
> Any thoughts from you bunch would be very much appreciated. Also, what
> are your various empty weights so I have some realistic idea of the
> final over all weights in the real world...
>
> Thanks guys!!
>
> Mark
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2009
Subject: Re: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse versions
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Dick. I am looking at Corvair power unless I hit the lottery, I
knew I had read that 1200 or so would be possible, but wasn't sure
about the weight rating and safty concerns with the added weight.
I live in Fresno California where our average summer temps are well
into the 90's and low 100's for most of the summer months, the best
flying time. I plan to build the long fuse, and use the corvair at a
truer 100 hp (if I am to believe what I read on Wynne's site which I
do). So, looking at what you just said makes every ounce an important
consideration.
Did you build a steel or wooden fuse? Is there much weight savings in
the steel to make the effort really worth it?
Mark
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Dick N. wrote:
>
> Mark
> Other than to make comments about diet is to add Horsepower. Some of us fly
> very well at 1250 lb or more. You will need a 100 hp+ engine for that.
> Consider a Corvair, O-200 or similar.
> You can build a basic short fuse Piet at 630 lb, that is without brakes or
> tail wheel. Add 395lb for pilot and pass and 100 lb fuel and you are still
> at 1175 lb.
> I had flight tested my A-65 Piet to 1150 lb and it flies fine but not on a
> 90+ degree day. My 110 hp Piet flies at 1310 lb. but it doesn't like it
> much. A better weight is 1250 lb.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:18 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
> versions
>
>
>>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> I am looking for a way to increase my useable load for the Piet. Last
>> wee I finally discovered (thanks to you nice folks) that the Piet's
>> Gross weight is around 1050 lbs, with a useful load after fuel of
>> somewhere around 400 or so pounds depending on engine, accessories,
>> and whether you got rid of all the diet coke you drank before you took
>> off :o)
>>
>> As I am 250 and 6'4", and my wife is a good looking 145 or so (it's
>> true she's good looking to me, but I also figured it's the only way I
>> think I'd live through the night if she found out I told her weight to
>> the world at large...). I am looking to make sure that the plane will
>> be as light as possible so I could CONSIDER taking some form of over
>> night bag or a tent to attend Brodhead sometime.
>>
>> So, I am looking at the steel verse wood option, even though I prefer
>> to work with wood, not steel. I don't look forward to cutting or
>> welding steel, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do if he
>> refuses to exercise (joking here...).
>>
>> I have no idea what the weight diference really is over all, and if it
>> is indeed significant, I have some people ready to help weld that have
>> quite a bit of experience. But, hanging my butt in the seat of
>> something I welded as my first project is not a reassuring message for
>> my wife.
>>
>> Any thoughts from you bunch would be very much appreciated. Also, what
>> are your various empty weights so I have some realistic idea of the
>> final over all weights in the real world...
>>
>> Thanks guys!!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: spot... again...
I paid $149 for the year, and that includes tracking mode.- I think witho
ut tracking it is $99/yr.- When I renew I probably won't do the tracking
mode.
Ben-
-- On Sat, 6/13/09, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: spot... again...
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 7:19 AM
link.net>
Couldn't load the spot site with my old dial up.- Am I correct in
understanding that once you have the device, you pay a monthly or yearly
subscription for it to work?- What does this cost?
Douwe
le, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2009
From: santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: Piet progress
Thanks everyone for the kind words and encouragement!
-
Rick, the model A is not finished yet, but progressing very good.- We hop
e to have it finished soon.
Shad,-that would-be great but-sadly, almost impossible, anyway, -I
-owe you a ride!- If for some reason,-you or someone on this list com
es-down here-when our Piet is finished, will be very welcome for a ride
.
Thanks again!!
Saludos
-
Santiago=0A=0A=0A Yahoo! Cocina=0ARecetas pr=E1cticas y comida saludab
le=0Ahttp://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2009
From: Michael Groah <dskogrover(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Interesting sight at airshow
Well, this is not directly Pietenpol related but just the same.....
I was at an airshow today at one of my local airports (Porterville CA) and
watched one of the performers end up with his plane on it's back.- He is
Dr. Frank Donnelly of www.drds-oldtime-aerobatics.com
He was in the middle of his performance when he aborted and flew a large pa
ttern and came into land.- It turns out he broke a rudder cable near the
pedal.- He landed long to stay away from spectators ( I happened to be at
the end of the runway he landed at)- and did his best to put the taildra
gger down. (He did a fabulous job) - He ended up off the pavement and ove
r onto his back.- He was ok and the plane was not too badly damaged. The
FAA decided it was an incident.- He had the engine shut down by that poin
t and broke one blade of the prop in the rollover, a little damage to the t
op of the vertical and to the tip of one wing.- Very minimal considering.
- The important part was that he was ok, but he'll have some work to do t
o get the '46 clipwing Taylorcraft flying again.
Anyways.... Just a note to say what I saw and to make sure your rudder cabl
es along with all others are in good shape.- Now I'll go for a ride on my
Cushman scooter tonight and work on my Piet all day tomorrow.-
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick N." <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse versions
Date: Jun 13, 2009
I built the fuse of wood, Douglas fir. One short and one long. With more
than 100 hp on a 90 deg day at 1200 lb and Fresno being at about 300 msl you
are probably fine but there are variables. How long of Rwy is available?
What type prop will you use? On that hot day when you give a ride, how much
fuel is on board.
Given those things, I have also had to tell people that there won't be any
rides today when I am not comfortable with the temp or the cross wind.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
versions
Thanks Dick. I am looking at Corvair power unless I hit the lottery, I
knew I had read that 1200 or so would be possible, but wasn't sure
about the weight rating and safty concerns with the added weight.
I live in Fresno California where our average summer temps are well
into the 90's and low 100's for most of the summer months, the best
flying time. I plan to build the long fuse, and use the corvair at a
truer 100 hp (if I am to believe what I read on Wynne's site which I
do). So, looking at what you just said makes every ounce an important
consideration.
Did you build a steel or wooden fuse? Is there much weight savings in
the steel to make the effort really worth it?
Mark
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Dick N. wrote:
>
> Mark
> Other than to make comments about diet is to add Horsepower. Some of us
> fly
> very well at 1250 lb or more. You will need a 100 hp+ engine for that.
> Consider a Corvair, O-200 or similar.
> You can build a basic short fuse Piet at 630 lb, that is without brakes or
> tail wheel. Add 395lb for pilot and pass and 100 lb fuel and you are still
> at 1175 lb.
> I had flight tested my A-65 Piet to 1150 lb and it flies fine but not on a
> 90+ degree day. My 110 hp Piet flies at 1310 lb. but it doesn't like it
> much. A better weight is 1250 lb.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:18 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
> versions
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> I am looking for a way to increase my useable load for the Piet. Last
>> wee I finally discovered (thanks to you nice folks) that the Piet's
>> Gross weight is around 1050 lbs, with a useful load after fuel of
>> somewhere around 400 or so pounds depending on engine, accessories,
>> and whether you got rid of all the diet coke you drank before you took
>> off :o)
>>
>> As I am 250 and 6'4", and my wife is a good looking 145 or so (it's
>> true she's good looking to me, but I also figured it's the only way I
>> think I'd live through the night if she found out I told her weight to
>> the world at large...). I am looking to make sure that the plane will
>> be as light as possible so I could CONSIDER taking some form of over
>> night bag or a tent to attend Brodhead sometime.
>>
>> So, I am looking at the steel verse wood option, even though I prefer
>> to work with wood, not steel. I don't look forward to cutting or
>> welding steel, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do if he
>> refuses to exercise (joking here...).
>>
>> I have no idea what the weight diference really is over all, and if it
>> is indeed significant, I have some people ready to help weld that have
>> quite a bit of experience. But, hanging my butt in the seat of
>> something I welded as my first project is not a reassuring message for
>> my wife.
>>
>> Any thoughts from you bunch would be very much appreciated. Also, what
>> are your various empty weights so I have some realistic idea of the
>> final over all weights in the real world...
>>
>> Thanks guys!!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2009
Subject: Airfoil question
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
What airfoil does the Piet have? Was it an 'original'?
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airfoil question
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
Mark,
Bernard (he pronounced it?"Bernerd"), experimented with different airfoils and
settled on the one he outlines in the plans. Here is a quote from the words of?B.
H. Pietenpol himself......."I'm sticking to our home brew wing section and
I will until I can find something better--so far I haven't found one."
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 13, 2009 11:08 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil question
What airfoil does the Piet have? Was it an 'original'?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: airlion(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: radioi
Date: Jun 14, 2009
hey pieters: does anyone know what the radio requirements are? do we have to
have a transponder/encoder if you have an electrical system? If so, where is it
written down? Gardiner
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Dick N." <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
>
>
> Mark
> Other than to make comments about diet is to add Horsepower. Some of us fly
> very well at 1250 lb or more. You will need a 100 hp+ engine for that.
> Consider a Corvair, O-200 or similar.
> You can build a basic short fuse Piet at 630 lb, that is without brakes or
> tail wheel. Add 395lb for pilot and pass and 100 lb fuel and you are still
> at 1175 lb.
> I had flight tested my A-65 Piet to 1150 lb and it flies fine but not on a
> 90+ degree day. My 110 hp Piet flies at 1310 lb. but it doesn't like it
> much. A better weight is 1250 lb.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:18 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
> versions
>
>
> >
> > Hi All:
> >
> > I am looking for a way to increase my useable load for the Piet. Last
> > wee I finally discovered (thanks to you nice folks) that the Piet's
> > Gross weight is around 1050 lbs, with a useful load after fuel of
> > somewhere around 400 or so pounds depending on engine, accessories,
> > and whether you got rid of all the diet coke you drank before you took
> > off :o)
> >
> > As I am 250 and 6'4", and my wife is a good looking 145 or so (it's
> > true she's good looking to me, but I also figured it's the only way I
> > think I'd live through the night if she found out I told her weight to
> > the world at large...). I am looking to make sure that the plane will
> > be as light as possible so I could CONSIDER taking some form of over
> > night bag or a tent to attend Brodhead sometime.
> >
> > So, I am looking at the steel verse wood option, even though I prefer
> > to work with wood, not steel. I don't look forward to cutting or
> > welding steel, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do if he
> > refuses to exercise (joking here...).
> >
> > I have no idea what the weight diference really is over all, and if it
> > is indeed significant, I have some people ready to help weld that have
> > quite a bit of experience. But, hanging my butt in the seat of
> > something I welded as my first project is not a reassuring message for
> > my wife.
> >
> > Any thoughts from you bunch would be very much appreciated. Also, what
> > are your various empty weights so I have some realistic idea of the
> > final over all weights in the real world...
> >
> > Thanks guys!!
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Date: Jun 14, 2009
I'm not an expert, but since nobody else has jumped in, I'll give it my best
shot.
Firstly, my knowledge is not based on first-hand, empirical data, but on
talking to people and over 20 years of Pietenpol newsletter backissues.
I think I can say catagorically that a steel tube fuselage IS lighter, the
question is by how much. This is one of those facts that is like nailing
jelly to the wall, it is really hard to get comparable, real-world weights.
The largest number I have seen is 30 lbs, which seems a bit high (but
certainly possible), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was around 20.
As to "the extra effort" of building a steel tube, if you can weld, it
would actually be easier and faster than building in wood. The standard
solution for people building steel who dont weld is to get a little rig and
learn to tack weld (very simple) and fabricate the whole thing then bring it
to a good welder to finish the welds for you.
If I were building again, I would seriously consider a steel fuse simply
because it IS faster and an easy way to save a chunk of weight.
The Scout gear is a fine gear. I've not seen it adapted to an Aircamper,
though I've heard lots of people talk about it. The vertial shock strut
interferes with one of the lift struts, though I see no reason why this
can't be avoided. Also, be sure the area on the fuse where you attach the
shock strut is up to those compression forces, might have to beef something
up there. I think the scout gear with big wire wheels is the prettiest gear
going, and you do save some weight over the jenny gear by not having that
big axle hanging down there.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: spot... again...
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Douwe, try to Google "SPOT".
Once you have the device (they do offer it on line for free, every so often)
you need to pay a yearly fee. It will be up to you what features you want
and you'll only pay for the ones you choose. The basic cost is $100 a year.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: spot... again...
>
>
> Couldn't load the spot site with my old dial up. Am I correct in
> understanding that once you have the device, you pay a monthly or yearly
> subscription for it to work? What does this cost?
>
> Douwe
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
17:56:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: spot... again...
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date: Jun 14, 2009
While I do not have ANY personal experience with the Spot system, I did run across
a first-hand account of one user's disappointment with the system. It can
be found here (about two thirds down the page):
http://www.ocis.net/tvsac/0906news.html
Just in case the link doesn't work, I've cut and pasted the relevant part:
Spot! Bad Spot!
Not Spot the Dog, but Spot the Satellite Tracker... Could that tracker be a real
dog? We bought one last month, and I have a few bones to pick!
Anyone who read the ads will be familiar with the claims that it will report your location every ten minutes, and send it to your computer. Yeah, right... The ads also show the different activities where you could use a Spot: Hiking, flying, climbing, hunting, etc... But if you have problems with the unit not working as promised they ask you to look at the fine print at http://www.spotwarranty.com/
Notice the part where they say: Buildings, inside cars or planes, dense wet tree
cover, mountains, caves, canyons, etccan reduce message delivery success.
Who are those people?!.... We had expected that it would work anywhere a GPS works.
Nobody I know would expect it to work inside a cave; but a car or an aircraft?
My GPS works there fine... And we bought the Spot to use in our aircrafts...
We found out that reliability can sometimes be as low as 50%. And you don't need
to be under "dense wet tree cover" for it to fail. Even the proximity of trees
or buildings seems to affect the performance. Their Customer Service Department
told me that even using it within 12 inches to a GPS or other electronics
might also screw it up.
The small size of the unit makes you believe that it would be ideal for hiking,
but don't count on it! You would have to keep it clipped to the top of your hat
so the logo always points up, and stay away from trees and cliffs.
>From what I have seen so far, it does not have the power needed to perform as
advertized. I would not mind if the unit was twice its size, if at least it was
reliable in my aircraft.
It might be better than nothing, but if you ever have to use it in an emergency,
be ready to drag yourself with broken legs out of the bush and to the top of
a hill with an "unobstructed view of the sky" if you want any chance of rescue.
If you are lucky it will already have tracked a few of your last positions
and transmitted them to your contacts.[/quote]
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248035#248035
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Piet progress
Man, I can't wait until I get to that point! I have taken a little break fr
om building the plane to work again on furniture for the living room. I wil
l wrap this current project up and get back to building the plane. Posts an
d pictures like this help keep me motivated- to build/fly.
-
Very cool, very nice picture and I thank you for the encouragement!
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Great day at Columbia airport
I broke out one of my summer cars and dropped in on Mike Cuy at the Columbi
a airport unannounced. Like myself, I know he is not a big fan of people dr
opping by and yapin' and distracting him from what he has planned to get do
ne during the day. My plan was to say hello and leave. I ended up being the
re for about 4 hours! I helped when I could with his work and the big event
for me was doing an engine run up from the pilot seat! I got to see him ta
ke a test flight, complete with induced smoke for effect. He was pleased wi
th the apparent increase in horsepower, I was pleased to still be allowed a
t the hangar!- Thanks Mike for allowing me the opportunity to hang out an
d be around the type of plane I will some day fly.
-
With people on this list posting in-work pictures, progress pictures and st
ories, stories of great flights, word about upcoming fly-ins and events and
periodic trips to the hangar, I will stay motivated to see this endeavor t
hrough to the end. Thanks guys.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airfoil question
From: "Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date: Jun 14, 2009
mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com wrote:
> What airfoil does the Piet have? Was it an 'original'?
The airfoil was probably original however, it is very close to the USA 27 as used
on the Lincoln Sport biplane and some Waco's. BPH liked the underside reflex
which seems to have been favored in the era.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248041#248041
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: spot... again...
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Bill, Yes there are some folks that have found the SPOT not to be the magic
pill they are looking for. All I can tell you from personal experience is
that it works most of the time for me. I purchased the 10 min. update and
use it while I'm flying. I don't keep it in the best of locations and it
reports most of the time. It is located in the cockpit of my Piet on the
side wall, by my knee. I believe if I moved it to somewhere outside the
cockpit or even just behind the windscreen, it would work better. The
reason I use it is, I fly over heavily wooded areas and even if it hadn't
updated itself in the past 10 minutes it would give searchers a good idea
where to start to look (The Piet doesn't go very far in 10 minutes).
I have experienced the same results with ELTs that others you refer to have
reported with the SPOT but I still think an ELT is a good idea.
I'm in no way trying to talk anyone into using SPOT, just recording my
experience with it. Sure, I wish it always worked perfectly but in my book
it's an imporvement over anything else out there that I can afford.
Gene in Stormy Tennessee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:13 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: spot... again...
>
>
> While I do not have ANY personal experience with the Spot system, I did
> run across a first-hand account of one user's disappointment with the
> system. It can be found here (about two thirds down the page):
>
> http://www.ocis.net/tvsac/0906news.html
>
> Just in case the link doesn't work, I've cut and pasted the relevant part:
>
> Spot! Bad Spot!
>
> Not Spot the Dog, but Spot the Satellite Tracker... Could that tracker be
> a real dog? We bought one last month, and I have a few bones to pick!
>
> Anyone who read the ads will be familiar with the claims that it will
> report your location every ten minutes, and send it to your computer.
> Yeah, right... The ads also show the different activities where you could
> use a Spot: Hiking, flying, climbing, hunting, etc... But if you have
> problems with the unit not working as promised they ask you to look at the
> fine print at http://www.spotwarranty.com/
>
> Notice the part where they say: Buildings, inside cars or planes, dense
> wet tree cover, mountains, caves, canyons, etc?can reduce message
> delivery success.
>
> Who are those people?!.... We had expected that it would work anywhere a
> GPS works. Nobody I know would expect it to work inside a cave; but a car
> or an aircraft? My GPS works there fine... And we bought the Spot to use
> in our aircrafts...
>
> We found out that reliability can sometimes be as low as 50%. And you
> don't need to be under "dense wet tree cover" for it to fail. Even the
> proximity of trees or buildings seems to affect the performance. Their
> Customer Service Department told me that even using it within 12 inches to
> a GPS or other electronics might also screw it up.
>
> The small size of the unit makes you believe that it would be ideal for
> hiking, but don't count on it! You would have to keep it clipped to the
> top of your hat so the logo always points up, and stay away from trees and
> cliffs.
>
>>From what I have seen so far, it does not have the power needed to perform
>>as advertized. I would not mind if the unit was twice its size, if at
>>least it was reliable in my aircraft.
>
> It might be better than nothing, but if you ever have to use it in an
> emergency, be ready to drag yourself with broken legs out of the bush and
> to the top of a hill with an "unobstructed view of the sky" if you want
> any chance of rescue. If you are lucky it will already have tracked a few
> of your last positions and transmitted them to your contacts.[/quote]
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248035#248035
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thank you , thank you.
That is what I was wondering: by what factor is the steel version
lighter than the wood. It was an absolute unknow. I thought if it was
80-100 pounds that might be worth it. But for 30 pounds, the diet is a
much better and healthier option :o)
As to welding, I might just go that route. I can tack weld, and I know
a guy at Church that has been welding his whole life, so he offered to
help.
However, it is a different skill set to learn to bend and create the
parts with tubing, and that will take some learning too...
But ain't that what makes this fun!? I didn't know that the steel
would be faster, but now that you mention it, there are no gussets to
cut and glue, and a few steel straps to weld into place on the stress
areas, so that is less time consuming....
Thanks again. Any one else out there with info on tis, please educate
the student here... I'm eager to learn.
Mark
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Douwe
Blumberg wrote:
>
> I'm not an expert, but since nobody else has jumped in, I'll give it my best
> shot.
>
> Firstly, my knowledge is not based on first-hand, empirical data, but on
> talking to people and over 20 years of Pietenpol newsletter backissues.
>
> I think I can say catagorically that a steel tube fuselage IS lighter, the
> question is by how much. This is one of those facts that is like nailing
> jelly to the wall, it is really hard to get comparable, real-world weights.
> The largest number I have seen is 30 lbs, which seems a bit high (but
> certainly possible), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was around 20.
>
> As to "the extra effort" of building a steel tube, if you can weld, it
> would actually be easier and faster than building in wood. The standard
> solution for people building steel who dont weld is to get a little rig and
> learn to tack weld (very simple) and fabricate the whole thing then bring it
> to a good welder to finish the welds for you.
>
> If I were building again, I would seriously consider a steel fuse simply
> because it IS faster and an easy way to save a chunk of weight.
>
> The Scout gear is a fine gear. I've not seen it adapted to an Aircamper,
> though I've heard lots of people talk about it. The vertial shock strut
> interferes with one of the lift struts, though I see no reason why this
> can't be avoided. Also, be sure the area on the fuse where you attach the
> shock strut is up to those compression forces, might have to beef something
> up there. I think the scout gear with big wire wheels is the prettiest gear
> going, and you do save some weight over the jenny gear by not having that
> big axle hanging down there.
>
> Douwe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Airfoil question
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks! I didn't recognize the little dimple in the underside of the
airfoil, so I wondered if it induced more drag and thus less lift. I
am not looking to change anything aerodynamically, as I want to trust
what I build. But, I am just curious as to the design elements like
that little 'dimple'.
Also, thanks for the 'Bernerd' pronunciation heads up. I always prefer
to know the real pronunciation of names and that was one I didn't
know.
Mark
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:18 AM, wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Bernard (he pronounced it"Bernerd"), experimented with different airfoils
> and settled on the one he outlines in the plans. Here is a quote from the
> words ofB. H. Pietenpol himself......."I'm sticking to our home brew wing
> section and I will until I can find something better--so far I haven't found
> one."
>
> Dan Helsper
> Poplar Grove, IL
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, Jun 13, 2009 11:08 pm
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil question
>
>
> What airfoil does the Piet have? Was it an 'original'?
>
>
> ________________________________
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: "rameses32" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Just a reference for you pertaining to time that it takes to build a steel fuselage.
I built a Georgias Special fuselage, on gear, with controls, seat, and empanage,
it took me a total of 100 hours. No turtle deck or fairings, wing mounts
or any other details, but still, only 100 hrs. I'm looking forward to building
the Pietenpol in steel.
Charley
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248076#248076
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Air Camper performance
Date: Jun 14, 2009
I've changed the subject line to more closely align with the comments
that are being exchanged lately. NX41CC is a very typical Air Camper
with A65 power. Empty weight and gross weight are right there with
most of the others, low 600s empty and around 1050-1100 gross. The
airplane performs beautifully on 65 HP solo. Example: yesterday it
was close to, or at, 100F when I took the airplane over and topped it
with fuel (16 gal.). It always lifts off in a short distance and
climbs out well, but I usually fly below 2000' so time to climb is not
a big factor. I would characterize the performance as "very satisfactory"
when flying solo. When temps are cool and load is light, performance
is almost exhilarating (to me, anyway).
With a passenger, it's another story. I would have had no hesitancy
taking either of my daughters up with me yesterday (about 110 lbs.
each), but I've flown in similar conditions with a 165 lb. pax and
with another who was closer to 190 lbs. and climb was not stellar.
Neither was the feel of the airplane with that loading condition. As
others have said, I would decline to offer rides under those condx.
I have no experience flying anything other than 65 HP so I'll leave
comments on Ford A, Corvair, O-200, Rotec, or other combinations to
those who have experience. However, after flying 41CC yesterday I
took it out of service for an engine upgrade. Everything has been
disconnected and the 65 is ready to hoist off. In a crate in my
hangar is a zero-timed and overhauled A75 and in a box is a new
Culver 72x36 prop that should let it turn the 2600 RPM needed for it
to develop full rated power. This combination should give me a bit
of extra margin when operating high/hot/gross. I will probably put
the A65 up for sale, complete and flying, with Stromberg carb and
Hegy prop.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
You know, I did not realize the difference in building speed with
steel over wood. That is interesting. That definately makes a bit of
difference in the decision making process.
So, what do you guys recommend?: Gas or MIG/TIG. I know of a guy that
built a Legal Egal with TIG welding and said it required more skill
than Gas welding, and the MIG was niot suitable for aircraft
construction.
I have 3 books on welding from EAA/Aircraft sources, and I also have 2
tapes on welding for aircraft construction (I once thought of building
a Pober Jr. Ace, and one day might). I planned to build the Jr. Ace,
but sold the Oxy-Acetylene rig I bought to pay for my practical flight
review for my license (I passed thank God!).
So I gotta get a new welding rig, or better yet, tack weld and let a
pro finish. That is more likely the route I'll take.
Thus, if I am to tack weld the fuse, can I tack weld with something
other than Gas and have it be compatible with the final welding system
(TIG or Gas). Does tack welding with one method interfere with another
method (or is melted metal simply melted metal...)
Thanks for the advice guys!
Mark
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:10 PM, rameses32 wrote:
>
> Just a reference for you pertaining to time that it takes to build a steel fuselage.
I built a Georgias Special fuselage, on gear, with controls, seat, and
empanage, it took me a total of 100 hours. No turtle deck or fairings, wing mounts
or any other details, but still, only 100 hrs. I'm looking forward to building
the Pietenpol in steel.
> Charley
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248076#248076
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Air Camper performance
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Oscar, keep us posted on your upgrade to the A 75. Those of us with A 65's
will be very interested.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Air Camper performance
>
>
> I've changed the subject line to more closely align with the comments
> that are being exchanged lately. NX41CC is a very typical Air Camper
> with A65 power. Empty weight and gross weight are right there with
> most of the others, low 600s empty and around 1050-1100 gross. The
> airplane performs beautifully on 65 HP solo. Example: yesterday it
> was close to, or at, 100F when I took the airplane over and topped it
> with fuel (16 gal.). It always lifts off in a short distance and
> climbs out well, but I usually fly below 2000' so time to climb is not
> a big factor. I would characterize the performance as "very satisfactory"
> when flying solo. When temps are cool and load is light, performance
> is almost exhilarating (to me, anyway).
>
> With a passenger, it's another story. I would have had no hesitancy
> taking either of my daughters up with me yesterday (about 110 lbs.
> each), but I've flown in similar conditions with a 165 lb. pax and
> with another who was closer to 190 lbs. and climb was not stellar.
> Neither was the feel of the airplane with that loading condition. As
> others have said, I would decline to offer rides under those condx.
>
> I have no experience flying anything other than 65 HP so I'll leave
> comments on Ford A, Corvair, O-200, Rotec, or other combinations to
> those who have experience. However, after flying 41CC yesterday I
> took it out of service for an engine upgrade. Everything has been
> disconnected and the 65 is ready to hoist off. In a crate in my
> hangar is a zero-timed and overhauled A75 and in a box is a new
> Culver 72x36 prop that should let it turn the 2600 RPM needed for it
> to develop full rated power. This combination should give me a bit
> of extra margin when operating high/hot/gross. I will probably put
> the A65 up for sale, complete and flying, with Stromberg carb and
> Hegy prop.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: Ameet Savant <ameetsavant(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Corvair buy
Well, this has been a great week!
I was excited to learn about the Corvair donation that Steve so graciously offered
to this group. I emailed him back, but he has already promised the engine
to someone else. I've been looking for good engine deals for many years but never
really found anything close to home. Having lost on Steve's engine coaxed
me into taking a look on ebay again... and there it was. A 1965 corvair engine
less than 50 miles away with no bid on it! It looked good, but with only a few
hours left for the auction to end, I had no time to ask the seller the questions
about the case number and crank number etc... so, I bid
and I won! I got it for $102.50. The seller even dropped it off at my house. (Bless
his heart)
Then I checked the numbers and found out this is a 1964 110HP engine with the correct
case and the correct heads and the correct crank for aircraft conversion!
I just can't believe how lucky I am to get this deal!
If it sounds like I am bragging... I am... This sort of thing never happens to
me. I usually pay more for everything! Wait till you see the pictures of this
thing.
Click link for pictures:
http://www.eaa80.org/show/show.php?tab=t5&title=Ameet%20Savant's%20Corvair buy&path=../projects/ameet_corvair/&back=/projects/index.php
Thank you Steve- your generosity made more than one person happy. If we all are
good toward furthering experimental aviation, only good things will come by,
even if they take unforeseen paths.
Ameet Savant
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
I did all the welding for my split cub style landing gear and A-65 motor mo
unt.- I don't see how cutting and fish-mouthing all that tubing and getti
ng the clusters to fit just right could possibly be faster than working wit
h wood.- If I hadn't milled all my own douglas fir, I believe I could tur
n out basic wood fuselage much faster than one made of 4130.
-
Of course it all depends on what you would rather work with.- I find work
ing with wood very comforting, and gas welding a little stressful.-
-
Ben Charvet
All covered and painted, nearly 1/2 way finished
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Mark Roberts wrote:
But ain't that what makes this fun!?- I didn't know that the steel
would be faster, but now that you mention it, there are no gussets to
cut and glue, and a few steel straps to weld into place on the stress
areas, so that is less time consuming....
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 14, 2009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________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
I have spent nearly as much time cutting/grinding/welding steel and aluminum
on my "wood" Piet as I have cutting/sanding/gluing wood. If I built another
Piet I would also do a steel fuselage.
Rick
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
> douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
>
> I'm not an expert, but since nobody else has jumped in, I'll give it my
> best
> shot.
>
> Firstly, my knowledge is not based on first-hand, empirical data, but on
> talking to people and over 20 years of Pietenpol newsletter backissues.
>
> I think I can say catagorically that a steel tube fuselage IS lighter, the
> question is by how much. This is one of those facts that is like nailing
> jelly to the wall, it is really hard to get comparable, real-world weights.
> The largest number I have seen is 30 lbs, which seems a bit high (but
> certainly possible), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was around
> 20.
>
> As to "the extra effort" of building a steel tube, if you can weld, it
> would actually be easier and faster than building in wood. The standard
> solution for people building steel who dont weld is to get a little rig and
> learn to tack weld (very simple) and fabricate the whole thing then bring
> it
> to a good welder to finish the welds for you.
>
> If I were building again, I would seriously consider a steel fuse simply
> because it IS faster and an easy way to save a chunk of weight.
>
> The Scout gear is a fine gear. I've not seen it adapted to an Aircamper,
> though I've heard lots of people talk about it. The vertial shock strut
> interferes with one of the lift struts, though I see no reason why this
> can't be avoided. Also, be sure the area on the fuse where you attach the
> shock strut is up to those compression forces, might have to beef something
> up there. I think the scout gear with big wire wheels is the prettiest
> gear
> going, and you do save some weight over the jenny gear by not having that
> big axle hanging down there.
>
> Douwe
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: Owen Davies <owen5819(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Mark Roberts wrote:
> So, what do you guys recommend?: Gas or MIG/TIG. I know of a guy that
> built a Legal Egal with TIG welding and said it required more skill
> than Gas welding, and the MIG was niot suitable for aircraft
> construction.
> ...
> Thus, if I am to tack weld the fuse, can I tack weld with something
> other than Gas and have it be compatible with the final welding system
> (TIG or Gas).
Think of MIG as a glue gun. It's great for tack welding. You can weld
over it with TIG or gas without any problem.
Do remember we are talking about real MIG here, not flux-core, which
will leave slag to contaminate the final weld.
Owen
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: "rameses32" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 14, 2009
I am a fabricator, I've been welding and working with steel since I was 12, I love
doing it, some people enjoy working with wood and prefer using that, each
has it's benefits. I have better luck using wood in the stove in the winter time
to keep me warm while I weld, hehe. Buzz Bear on the other hand, made the most
beautiful Pietenpol from wood, you just didn't want to cover it and hide all
that fantastic craftsmanship. But that aircraft is still not in the air, and
unfortunately Buzz passed away before he could see it fly. That wonderful aircraft
has been in the building process for over 20 years. I'm using steel for
that reason.
Now if you are going to tack weld, Don't use Gasless mig, EVER! or Ark welding
either. You could use mig, but it's not the best idea. Use either tig or Oxy to
tack the fuselage, Oxy is easier to than Tig, but not alot. If you weld with
oxy, there is less chance for perosity in the welds and you don't have to normalize
when your finished. With tig there is less heat saturation and less chance
of warpage. If I were just tacking, I would use TIG, but if I was welding,
I would use Oxy.
Just my opinion
Charley
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248117#248117
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks guys (you too Charlie...)
I have worked with wood all my life, so the idea of learning to weld
scared me a bit. 5 years ago I thought I was going to build a Jr. Ace
and got all of the books and how to tapes and have been reading them
lately as I consider welding up a fuse. I just might have a whack at
it.
I will need to get another welding set up but that's not a problem. I
am just needing to practice a bit to get the hang of it, and make sure
I have an advisor around for the first few formal joints. I think I
could learn to tack weld the parts in place fairly quickly, but a true
honest to goodness final weld should be under supervision :o)
Mark
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Owen Davies wrote:
>
> Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> So, what do you guys recommend?: Gas or MIG/TIG. I know of a guy that
>> built a Legal Egal with TIG welding and said it required more skill
>> than Gas welding, and the MIG was niot suitable for aircraft
>> construction.
>> ...
>> Thus, if I am to tack weld the fuse, can I tack weld with something
>> other than Gas and have it be compatible with the final welding system
>> (TIG or Gas).
>
> Think of MIG as a glue gun. It's great for tack welding. You can weld over
> it with TIG or gas without any problem.
>
> Do remember we are talking about real MIG here, not flux-core, which will
> leave slag to contaminate the final weld.
>
> Owen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Corvair buy
Procceed Cautiously!- Follow Wynne's mannual, and make sure to have the c
rank magnafluxed, nitrided, and make sure the journals are properly, and-
generously, radioused.- Corvairs do work good, but only if built Well.-
Feel free to contact me off list for info, or advise.- I am no expert, b
ut have learned a few cold had facts about corvairs, and will let you know
my experiances with failures, and succeseses.- I flew our piet/ vair for
about 3 hrs today and had a blast!
-
Shad
aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: Michael Groah <dskogrover(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Mark, I think I'd pick whatever method you prefer.- Either method will ta
ke lots of time as there are many, many parts to make.-- I am building
with wood because I like wood, have the tools and like the end product.-
It took very little time to build the basic fuselage with wood, it's the de
tail stuff that takes time. - I was amazed at how quickly it went togethe
r. I know it would have taken me twice as long to do it in metal with all t
he fishmouthing and fitting.- But that's just me.- As I've said before,
you're welcome to come down to Tulare and see my project.- You can see h
ow it's constructed and you can sit in it to try on the plans built cockpit
(or just to make airplane noises if you'd rather).
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
559-360-4089 (Cell)-
-
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: "Weed whacker comment"
Pieters, I flew the piet today about 3 hrs,-because i was-was basically
bored, with my wife and son out of town, and an unexpected day off of work
.- One airport I stopped at (because I never landed there before) a guy c
ame in the office and asked if that was my "Weed Whacker out there".- Wit
h out knowing what he flew in (a Cessna 150),-I proudly said "Yes it is,
doesn't go anywhere fast but it's fun".- Then he dramatically said "be ca
refull out there".- Had I known he flew in , in- a Cessna 150, and his
teenage son were not with him,-my comment would have been less polite, du
e to his sarcasim.- Maybe something like, "Well when you get done learnin
g how to fly-that trainer with training wheels, you can learn how to fly
a weed whacker like mine, and you will learn what those little rudder pedal
thingies are for".- But I just walked out started her up and flew off in
to the horizon.- Piets are great, the old timers love them, the real pilo
ts
admire them and the Cessna "Pilots" are scared of them.- What has happen
ed to all the real (tail dragger) pilots in this crazy world? -Seems like
the pilots with all the skill don't have the money, and the "pilots" with
all the money don't have any skill, and think- just because there airplan
e goes fast with a training wheel, that they are great pilots.- I think i
t's time for a test, us go slow, no gps, sectional readers, against the "Wh
ere in the hell am I at, my GPS failed" pilots".- You know where my money
is!
-
Sorry to get on my soap box,
Shad=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Mark,
That's good advice from Mike, as I understand he's quite an accomplished
welder. FYI - I have a brand new set of oxy/acetylene regulators that I will
sell to you for $100 (acetylene - Harris, oxygen - off brand) for both
(that's about 50% off).
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(13 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Groah
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Mark, I think I'd pick whatever method you prefer. Either method will take
lots of time as there are many, many parts to make. I am building with
wood because I like wood, have the tools and like the end product. It took
very little time to build the basic fuselage with wood, it's the detail
stuff that takes time. I was amazed at how quickly it went together. I
know it would have taken me twice as long to do it in metal with all the
fishmouthing and fitting. But that's just me. As I've said before, you're
welcome to come down to Tulare and see my project. You can see how it's
constructed and you can sit in it to try on the plans built cockpit (or just
to make airplane noises if you'd rather).
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
559-360-4089 (Cell)
-
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
You know Mike, with all the thinkin' and contemplating over this, I
forgot about just that very thing: Go have a peek at yours!!
I remembered you were down there and yet it didn't dawn on my thick
scull to call and have a look... Man, my head's in the clouds.
I will call to see when I could come by and see your project. I see
your cell number there, so I will call sometime this week. Mine's
559-917-5904.
Thanks for the reminder!
Mark
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Michael Groah wrote:
> Mark, I think I'd pick whatever method you prefer. Either method will take
> lots of time as there are many, many parts to make. I am building with
> wood because I like wood, have the tools and like the end product. It took
> very little time to build the basic fuselage with wood, it's the detail
> stuff that takes time. I was amazed at how quickly it went together. I
> know it would have taken me twice as long to do it in metal with all the
> fishmouthing and fitting. But that's just me. As I've said before, you're
> welcome to come down to Tulare and see my project. You can see how it's
> constructed and you can sit in it to try on the plans built cockpit (or just
> to make airplane noises if you'd rather).
>
> Mike Groah
> Tulare CA
> 559-360-4089 (Cell)
>
> -
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
From: Michael Groah <dskogrover(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Well, thanks Gary, but I'm really not much of a welder but I can fuse metal
together with heat most of the time.=C2- I weld well enough to get by wi
th what's required in the Piet.
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Gary Boothe wrote:
From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 8:29 PM
=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AMark, =0A=0A =C2
- =0A=0AThat=99s good advice from Mike, as I understand=0Ahe
=99s quite an accomplished welder. FYI =93 I have a brand new set of
=0Aoxy/acetylene regulators that I will sell to you for $100 (acetylene
=93=0AHarris, oxygen =93 off brand) for both (that=99s about
50% off). =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A=0A=0AGary Boothe =0A=0ACool, Ca. =0A=0APiet
enpol =0A=0AWW Corvair Conversion =0A=0ATail=0Adone,=C2-Fuselage=C2-on
gear =0A=0A(13 ribs down) =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AFrom
:=0Aowner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Groah
=0ASent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:09=0APM
=0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re:=0Asteel fuselage vs wood/scout gear =0A
=0A=0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A=0A =0A =0A Mark, I think I'd pick whatever method
you=0A prefer.=C2- Either method will take lots of time as there are ma
ny, many=0A parts to make.=C2-=C2- I am building with wood because I l
ike wood, have=0A the tools and like the end product.=C2- It took very l
ittle time to build=0A the basic fuselage with wood, it's the detail stuff
that takes time. =C2- I=0A was amazed at how quickly it went together.
I know it would have taken me=0A twice as long to do it in metal with all
the fishmouthing and fitting.=C2-=0A But that's just me.=C2- As I've s
aid before, you're welcome to come down to=0A Tulare and=0A see my projec
t.=C2- You can see how it's constructed and you can sit in it=0A to try
on the plans built cockpit (or just to make airplane noises if you'd=0A ra
ther).
=0A
=0A Mike Groah
=0A Tulare CA
=0A 559-360-4089 (Cell)=C2-
=0A
=0A - =0A =0A =C2- =0A =0A =0A =0A=0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =C2
-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics
.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution =C2- =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bike.mike(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: "Weed whacker comment"
Date: Jun 14, 2009
I heard that exact same question when I was learning to fly...42 years
ago.
----- Original Message ----- From: shad bell
[snip]
What has happened to all the real (tail dragger) pilots in this
crazy world? Seems like the pilots with all the skill don't have the
money, and the "pilots" with all the money don't have any skill, and
think just because there airplane goes fast with a training wheel, that
they are great pilots.
[more snippage]
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Gary!
I might take you up on that as I decide what I'm going to do. I don't
want to over think it, but I am going back and forth with what to do
as I plan the build...
Thanks again!
Mark
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Gary Boothe wrote:
> Mark,
>
>
> Thats good advice from Mike, as I understand hes quite an accomplished
> welder. FYI I have a brand new set of oxy/acetylene regulators that I will
> sell to you for $100 (acetylene Harris, oxygen off brand) for both
> (thats about 50% off).
>
>
> Gary Boothe
>
> Cool, Ca.
>
> Pietenpol
>
> WW Corvair Conversion
>
> Tail done,Fuselageon gear
>
> (13 ribs down)
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Groah
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:09 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
>
>
> Mark, I think I'd pick whatever method you prefer. Either method will take
> lots of time as there are many, many parts to make. I am building with
> wood because I like wood, have the tools and like the end product. It took
> very little time to build the basic fuselage with wood, it's the detail
> stuff that takes time. I was amazed at how quickly it went together. I
> know it would have taken me twice as long to do it in metal with all the
> fishmouthing and fitting. But that's just me. As I've said before, you're
> welcome to come down to Tulare and see my project. You can see how it's
> constructed and you can sit in it to try on the plans built cockpit (or just
> to make airplane noises if you'd rather).
>
> Mike Groah
> Tulare CA
> 559-360-4089 (Cell)
>
> -
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Date: Jun 15, 2009
I have gone back through my building log and found
that from laying out the fuselage plan full size on my
building table to having a completed basic wood
fuselage with seats, ready for turtledeck, combings
etc came to 64 hours.
The controls on the Georgias are quite a bit simpler
than the Piet. First of all there's only one stick. The
aileron horn is a simple vertical post unlike our
complicated horn assembly. The original wasn't like
that but was more difficult to get your feet around
and the cable and pulleys were out in the air. I have
twenty hours logged for controls including dual
rudder bars and cables.
Clif
>
time that it takes to build a steel fuselage. I built a Georgias Special
fuselage, on gear, with controls, seat, and empanage, it took me a total of
100 hours..
> Charley
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Anyone building a Pietenpol should just go ahead and learn to weld. I
started building my Pietenpol because it was made of wood and I didn't know
how to weld. It never ocurred to me how many welded parts there would be on
a"wooden" airplane. I bought an oxy-acetylene rig and had an accomplished
welder come give me about 30 minutesof instruction. Then I worked on a box
of steel scraps making practive weld beads and became a decent welder. I
ended up doing all the welding on mine except for the aluminum fuel tank,
which my neighbor welded with his TIG welder. By the time I finished the
airplane, the welding was my favorite fabrication activity, outside of
fabric covering.
Get the EAA Aircraft Welding book and start practicing. This whole process
is about Recreation and Education.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Mark,
That's good advice from Mike, as I understand he's quite an accomplished
welder. FYI - I have a brand new set of oxy/acetylene regulators that I will
sell to you for $100 (acetylene - Harris, oxygen - off brand) for both
(that's about 50% off).
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(13 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Groah
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Mark, I think I'd pick whatever method you prefer. Either method will take
lots of time as there are many, many parts to make. I am building with
wood because I like wood, have the tools and like the end product. It took
very little time to build the basic fuselage with wood, it's the detail
stuff that takes time. I was amazed at how quickly it went together. I
know it would have taken me twice as long to do it in metal with all the
fishmouthing and fitting. But that's just me. As I've said before, you're
welcome to come down to Tulare and see my project. You can see how it's
constructed and you can sit in it to try on the plans built cockpit (or just
to make airplane noises if you'd rather).
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
559-360-4089 (Cell)
-
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
From: "rameses32" <rameses32(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Thats great time, I know it would take me alot longer than that to do in wood,
I figure the wing is going to be a big enough challenge in wood for me. Well that
and I will be making a prop first, well, second, I'm starting on the wheels
next week and then a prop and engine mount for the Holden 186. I'm mounting
the 186 to the Georgias Special Fuselage for testing. The Georgias will never
fly, but it is going to growl, at least it will taste life for a short time. For
some reason I feel like Dr Frankenstien.
CHaRlEy
CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca wrote:
> I have gone back through my building log and found
> that from laying out the fuselage plan full size on my
> building table to having a completed basic wood
> fuselage with seats, ready for turtledeck, combings
> etc came to 64 hours.
> The controls on the Georgias are quite a bit simpler
> than the Piet. First of all there's only one stick. The
> aileron horn is a simple vertical post unlike our
> complicated horn assembly. The original wasn't like
> that but was more difficult to get your feet around
> and the cable and pulleys were out in the air. I have
> twenty hours logged for controls including dual
> rudder bars and cables.
>
> Clif
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > time that it takes to build a steel fuselage. I built a Georgias Special
> >
>
> fuselage, on gear, with controls, seat, and empanage, it took me a total of
> 100 hours..
>
> > Charley
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248184#248184
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair buy
From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Ameet,
Well done, congrats! A win for one builder, is a win for all builders!
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248191#248191
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wayne Bressler <wayne(at)taildraggersinc.com>
Subject: Re: "Weed whacker comment"
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Shad,
It has never made any sense to me why more pilots don't learn the
skills to fly tailwheel. It was the first thing I did when I started
my pilot training. It's not hard to learn, but there are often
several obstacles for the would-be tailwheel pilot.
I think the two biggest problems are that tailwheel airplanes are not
always readily available for rental or instruction, and the insurance
requirements for many flight schools that do have them prevent solo
rentals without an expensively prohibitive number of hours in type
(25+ at my local school, which is an hour away).
It looks like the only way left to fly taildraggers is to own one, and
that's a scary proposition for someone with zero tailwheel time. This
is where being involved at your local airport can really pay off.
Being in the social clique with other pilots opens up a lot of doors
to try new airplanes, but sharing goes both ways!
I only hope we can get more tailwheel pilots into the air soon, or all
these old airplanes are going to be relegated to musuems and barns.
Wayne Bressler Jr.
Taildraggers, Inc.
taildraggersinc.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:14 PM, shad bell wrote:
> Pieters, I flew the piet today about 3 hrs, because i was was
> basically bored, with my wife and son out of town, and an unexpected
> day off of work. One airport I stopped at (because I never landed
> there before) a guy came in the office and asked if that was my
> "Weed Whacker out there". With out knowing what he flew in (a
> Cessna 150), I proudly said "Yes it is, doesn't go anywhere fast but
> it's fun". Then he dramatically said "be carefull out there". Had
> I known he flew in , in a Cessna 150, and his teenage son were not
> with him, my comment would have been less polite, due to his
> sarcasim. Maybe something like, "Well when you get done learning
> how to fly that trainer with training wheels, you can learn how to
> fly a weed whacker like mine, and you will learn what those little
> rudder pedal thingies are for". But I just walked out started her
> up and flew off into the horizon. Piets are great, the old timers
> love them, the real pilots admire them and the Cessna "Pilots" are
> scared of them. What has happened to all the real (tail dragger)
> pilots in this crazy world? Seems like the pilots with all the skill
> don't have the money, and the "pilots" with all the money don't have
> any skill, and think just because there airplane goes fast with a
> training wheel, that they are great pilots. I think it's time for a
> test, us go slow, no gps, sectional readers, against the "Where in
> the hell am I at, my GPS failed" pilots". You know where my money is!
>
> Sorry to get on my soap box,
> Shad
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2009
From: Michael Groah <dskogrover(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Straight Axle gear questions
Ok , I have been working on my straight axle gear, but I have a couple of q
uestions. First how much room should I allow between the gear legs and the
brakes for the bungees?- If I remember correctly Jack Phillips said he le
ft 6".--- Also how much travel should I allow for the axle.- What I
'm asking about is the axle locator tube system like Mike Cuy has that keep
s the axle from rotating or sliding from side to side.- How much length s
hould I have?
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jared Yates" <junk(at)jaredyates.com>
Subject: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse versions
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Mark,
If you are considering the steel option and would like to give it a try, see
if you can make it to Oshkosh or Sun-N-fun. You can receive lots of
hands-on welding instruction and practice for just the cost of admission to
the show. They say that the airplane welding techniques can be slightly
different from the way that most non-airplane people weld these days, so be
careful about the instruction that you get from non-airplane people, since
it may or may not be the best way to deal with the 4130 tubes.
In the process of learning about welding, I've found that the term "welding"
is a lot like the term "painting." Some people roll latex paint on a wall
and say that they can paint, but you wouldn't want them to show you how to
paint a car. Both terms apply to a very field of processes, each with
different requirements and outcomes. The EAA has several other great
resources on the members-only website, including a multi-part series of
articles that would be great information for the wood-steel decision
process.
If you are going to decide not to use steel, that's fine, but hopefully your
decision wouldn't be based on a fear of learning to weld! Even if you
aren't comfortable with it now, it will only take a little bit of practice
to change your mind. Several of the people that I've spoken with who are
comfortable with welding say that it is one of the most enjoyable tasks in
the workshop. It challenges your brain just enough to make everything else
disappear. And just think, you'll also be able to weld all of those
fittings, and who knows what else! Just the other day I assembled 3 little
hooks from the dollar tree so that my wife could hang her little butterfly
ornaments in the garden.
Lastly, I would recommend http://www.tinmantech.com/. Kent is a great
resource to the homebuilding community, and he often does forums at Oshkosh
about metalwork. He also sells a very small torch and hose especially for
close-quarters airplane welding. I have one and though I haven't done a
whole fuselage yet, I like it a lot. He also has several videos including a
2-disk volume just about oxy-acetylene welding 4130. I've also read the EAA
welding book and found it to be a great value.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick N.
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
versions
Mark
Other than to make comments about diet is to add Horsepower. Some of us fly
very well at 1250 lb or more. You will need a 100 hp+ engine for that.
Consider a Corvair, O-200 or similar.
You can build a basic short fuse Piet at 630 lb, that is without brakes or
tail wheel. Add 395lb for pilot and pass and 100 lb fuel and you are still
at 1175 lb.
I had flight tested my A-65 Piet to 1150 lb and it flies fine but not on a
90+ degree day. My 110 hp Piet flies at 1310 lb. but it doesn't like it
much. A better weight is 1250 lb.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
versions
>
> Hi All:
>
> I am looking for a way to increase my useable load for the Piet. Last
> wee I finally discovered (thanks to you nice folks) that the Piet's
> Gross weight is around 1050 lbs, with a useful load after fuel of
> somewhere around 400 or so pounds depending on engine, accessories,
> and whether you got rid of all the diet coke you drank before you took
> off :o)
>
> As I am 250 and 6'4", and my wife is a good looking 145 or so (it's
> true she's good looking to me, but I also figured it's the only way I
> think I'd live through the night if she found out I told her weight to
> the world at large...). I am looking to make sure that the plane will
> be as light as possible so I could CONSIDER taking some form of over
> night bag or a tent to attend Brodhead sometime.
>
> So, I am looking at the steel verse wood option, even though I prefer
> to work with wood, not steel. I don't look forward to cutting or
> welding steel, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do if he
> refuses to exercise (joking here...).
>
> I have no idea what the weight diference really is over all, and if it
> is indeed significant, I have some people ready to help weld that have
> quite a bit of experience. But, hanging my butt in the seat of
> something I welded as my first project is not a reassuring message for
> my wife.
>
> Any thoughts from you bunch would be very much appreciated. Also, what
> are your various empty weights so I have some realistic idea of the
> final over all weights in the real world...
>
> Thanks guys!!
>
> Mark
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Abramson" <davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com>
Subject: Tail wheel flying......
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Hey Wayne!
I agree with you... I wanted to build and fly a WW1 fighter type.... so, I
decided to build a Pietenpol first! knew I had to learn tail wheel, so I
bought a Cessna 140 to learn to fly in! (and learn tail wheel at the same
time!) I have a pilot friend that flys with me(Fed-Ex pilot & 20+ years
tail wheel exp. (non-instructor)) He has taught me alot so, when I start
taking lessons I should be better off.
When my Piet is finished I will sell the 140. then start on my WW1
Fighter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Wayne
Bressler
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 6:25 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: "Weed whacker comment"
Shad,
It has never made any sense to me why more pilots don't learn the skills
to fly tailwheel. It was the first thing I did when I started my pilot
training. It's not hard to learn, but there are often several obstacles for
the would-be tailwheel pilot.
I think the two biggest problems are that tailwheel airplanes are not
always readily available for rental or instruction, and the insurance
requirements for many flight schools that do have them prevent solo rentals
without an expensively prohibitive number of hours in type (25+ at my local
school, which is an hour away).
It looks like the only way left to fly taildraggers is to own one, and
that's a scary proposition for someone with zero tailwheel time. This is
where being involved at your local airport can really pay off. Being in the
social clique with other pilots opens up a lot of doors to try new
airplanes, but sharing goes both ways!
I only hope we can get more tailwheel pilots into the air soon, or all
these old airplanes are going to be relegated to musuems and barns.
Wayne Bressler Jr.
Taildraggers, Inc.
taildraggersinc.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:14 PM, shad bell wrote:
Pieters, I flew the piet today about 3 hrs, because i was was
basically bored, with my wife and son out of town, and an unexpected day off
of work. One airport I stopped at (because I never landed there before) a
guy came in the office and asked if that was my "Weed Whacker out there".
With out knowing what he flew in (a Cessna 150), I proudly said "Yes it is,
doesn't go anywhere fast but it's fun". Then he dramatically said "be
carefull out there". Had I known he flew in , in a Cessna 150, and his
teenage son were not with him, my comment would have been less polite, due
to his sarcasim. Maybe something like, "Well when you get done learning how
to fly that trainer with training wheels, you can learn how to fly a weed
whacker like mine, and you will learn what those little rudder pedal
thingies are for". But I just walked out started her up and flew off into
the horizon. Piets are great, the old timers love them, the real pilots
admire them and the Cessna "Pilots" are scared of them. What has happened
to all the real (tail dragger) pilots in this crazy world? Seems like the
pilots with all the skill don't have the money, and the "pilots" with all
the money don't have any skill, and think just because there airplane goes
fast with a training wheel, that they are great pilots. I think it's time
for a test, us go slow, no gps, sectional readers, against the "Where in the
hell am I at, my GPS failed" pilots". You know where my money is!
Sorry to get on my soap box,
Shad
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/contri
bution
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Abramson" <davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Hi Charley,
Well, there goes my idea..... I was going to Tack with a small mig welder
then go over the whole fuse with oxy.... seemed the easiest way for me to
fab my fuselage. (without burning up my wood table!)
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of rameses32
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:31 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
I am a fabricator, I've been welding and working with steel since I was 12,
I love doing it, some people enjoy working with wood and prefer using that,
each has it's benefits. I have better luck using wood in the stove in the
winter time to keep me warm while I weld, hehe. Buzz Bear on the other hand,
made the most beautiful Pietenpol from wood, you just didn't want to cover
it and hide all that fantastic craftsmanship. But that aircraft is still not
in the air, and unfortunately Buzz passed away before he could see it fly.
That wonderful aircraft has been in the building process for over 20 years.
I'm using steel for that reason.
Now if you are going to tack weld, Don't use Gasless mig, EVER! or Ark
welding either. You could use mig, but it's not the best idea. Use either
tig or Oxy to tack the fuselage, Oxy is easier to than Tig, but not alot. If
you weld with oxy, there is less chance for perosity in the welds and you
don't have to normalize when your finished. With tig there is less heat
saturation and less chance of warpage. If I were just tacking, I would use
TIG, but if I was welding, I would use Oxy.
Just my opinion
Charley
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248117#248117
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: "Weed whacker comment"
Shad,
A far more covert response would have been to smile, nod, and then
quietly whistle or hum the spam song from Monty Python's Spam sketch.
He'd never have got it (spam-can flyer that he is), but you'd have felt
better. :-)
If you've got 3 minutes 19 seconds to waste - the sketch is on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE
In other news, I had the pre-purchase inspection completed on N8031 this
past week by a super A&P out in San Luis Obispo (Cody Thompson at
Thompson Air if anyone is looking for someone out there). With the
exception of a few minor items he gave the plane a clean bill of health
and I'm about to call the owner to set up the sale. Then I'll have my
own "weed whacker" to cut the grass with! Color me excited! Maybe
he'll even make it to Brodhead in time if the weather cooperates.
Cheers,
Dan
shad bell wrote:
> Pieters, I flew the piet today about 3 hrs, because i was was basically
> bored, with my wife and son out of town, and an unexpected day off of
> work. One airport I stopped at (because I never landed there before) a
> guy came in the office and asked if that was my "Weed Whacker out
> there". With out knowing what he flew in (a Cessna 150), I proudly said
> "Yes it is, doesn't go anywhere fast but it's fun". Then he
> dramatically said "be carefull out there". Had I known he flew in , in
> a Cessna 150, and his teenage son were not with him, my comment would
> have been less polite, due to his sarcasim. Maybe something like, "Well
> when you get done learning how to fly that trainer with training wheels,
> you can learn how to fly a weed whacker like mine, and you will learn
> what those little rudder pedal thingies are for". But I just walked out
> started her up and flew off into the horizon. Piets are great, the old
> timers love them, the real pilots admire them and the Cessna "Pilots"
> are scared of them. What has happened to all the real (tail dragger)
> pilots in this crazy world? Seems like the pilots with all the skill
> don't have the money, and the "pilots" with all the money don't have any
> skill, and think just because there airplane goes fast with a training
> wheel, that they are great pilots. I think it's time for a test, us go
> slow, no gps, sectional readers, against the "Where in the hell am I at,
> my GPS failed" pilots". You know where my money is!
>
> Sorry to get on my soap box,
> Shad
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse versions
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Jared.
I actually watched the Tin Man's 1st tape (I bought the set of 2
about 4 years ago thinking I was going to start a Pober Jr Ace
project) over the weekend! I feel like some kind of jurist, deciding
the fate of the universe trying to determine if I am going to take the
plunge making a wooden or a steel fuse. Good thing I don't have the
money to start the project or I would have, on 2 different occasions,
ordered materials for both types!
I did spend some time watching a guy weld a fuse for a Legal Eagle,
and he gave me a torch one day and said "Here's how to do it" . I made
a 't' joint and thought it wasn't 'that' tough. However, 'Fear of the
Unknown' is always a deterrent. I'm a pretty good learner, adn fairly
crafty, so I should be able to make a safe fuse. If it was that tough,
I am sure the FAA would have already outlawed it :o)
I wish I could afford both the time and the money to go to Brodhead
this year. We are booked for the summer, as I just had twin daughters
graduate from High School this week, and we are off to a promised trip
to Disneyland during Brodhead. I am promised by my children that I can
ride the Dumbo Elephants for a consolation (they will NEVER ride in MY
airplane for that comment!!).
I am looking at the price for the steel tube needed, and I am thinking
it will be more expensive to build the steel version up front, but the
weight savings might be worth it.
Thanks for the advice! This group is great for pitching in and helping others.
Mark
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Jared Yates wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> If you are considering the steel option and would like to give it a try, see
> if you can make it to Oshkosh or Sun-N-fun. You can receive lots of
> hands-on welding instruction and practice for just the cost of admission to
> the show. They say that the airplane welding techniques can be slightly
> different from the way that most non-airplane people weld these days, so be
> careful about the instruction that you get from non-airplane people, since
> it may or may not be the best way to deal with the 4130 tubes.
>
> In the process of learning about welding, I've found that the term "welding"
> is a lot like the term "painting." Some people roll latex paint on a wall
> and say that they can paint, but you wouldn't want them to show you how to
> paint a car. Both terms apply to a very field of processes, each with
> different requirements and outcomes. The EAA has several other great
> resources on the members-only website, including a multi-part series of
> articles that would be great information for the wood-steel decision
> process.
>
> If you are going to decide not to use steel, that's fine, but hopefully your
> decision wouldn't be based on a fear of learning to weld! Even if you
> aren't comfortable with it now, it will only take a little bit of practice
> to change your mind. Several of the people that I've spoken with who are
> comfortable with welding say that it is one of the most enjoyable tasks in
> the workshop. It challenges your brain just enough to make everything else
> disappear. And just think, you'll also be able to weld all of those
> fittings, and who knows what else! Just the other day I assembled 3 little
> hooks from the dollar tree so that my wife could hang her little butterfly
> ornaments in the garden.
>
> Lastly, I would recommend http://www.tinmantech.com/. Kent is a great
> resource to the homebuilding community, and he often does forums at Oshkosh
> about metalwork. He also sells a very small torch and hose especially for
> close-quarters airplane welding. I have one and though I haven't done a
> whole fuselage yet, I like it a lot. He also has several videos including a
> 2-disk volume just about oxy-acetylene welding 4130. I've also read the EAA
> welding book and found it to be a great value.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick N.
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:37 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
> versions
>
>
> Mark
> Other than to make comments about diet is to add Horsepower. Some of us fly
>
> very well at 1250 lb or more. You will need a 100 hp+ engine for that.
> Consider a Corvair, O-200 or similar.
> You can build a basic short fuse Piet at 630 lb, that is without brakes or
> tail wheel. Add 395lb for pilot and pass and 100 lb fuel and you are still
> at 1175 lb.
> I had flight tested my A-65 Piet to 1150 lb and it flies fine but not on a
> 90+ degree day. My 110 hp Piet flies at 1310 lb. but it doesn't like it
> much. A better weight is 1250 lb.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:18 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse
> versions
>
>
>>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> I am looking for a way to increase my useable load for the Piet. Last
>> wee I finally discovered (thanks to you nice folks) that the Piet's
>> Gross weight is around 1050 lbs, with a useful load after fuel of
>> somewhere around 400 or so pounds depending on engine, accessories,
>> and whether you got rid of all the diet coke you drank before you took
>> off :o)
>>
>> As I am 250 and 6'4", and my wife is a good looking 145 or so (it's
>> true she's good looking to me, but I also figured it's the only way I
>> think I'd live through the night if she found out I told her weight to
>> the world at large...). I am looking to make sure that the plane will
>> be as light as possible so I could CONSIDER taking some form of over
>> night bag or a tent to attend Brodhead sometime.
>>
>> So, I am looking at the steel verse wood option, even though I prefer
>> to work with wood, not steel. I don't look forward to cutting or
>> welding steel, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do if he
>> refuses to exercise (joking here...).
>>
>> I have no idea what the weight diference really is over all, and if it
>> is indeed significant, I have some people ready to help weld that have
>> quite a bit of experience. But, hanging my butt in the seat of
>> something I welded as my first project is not a reassuring message for
>> my wife.
>>
>> Any thoughts from you bunch would be very much appreciated. Also, what
>> are your various empty weights so I have some realistic idea of the
>> final over all weights in the real world...
>>
>> Thanks guys!!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
Date: Jun 15, 2009
I do that all the time with my small Lincoln mig welder with .030" wire and
argon sheilding gas. Little bitty tack welds to hold the pieces in place
=2C then gas weld right over them. Please explain what the problem is with
that. Ed G.
> From: davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
> Date: Mon=2C 15 Jun 2009 08:10:51 -0700
>
lays.com>
>
> Hi Charley=2C
>
> Well=2C there goes my idea..... I was going to Tack with a small mig weld
er
> then go over the whole fuse with oxy.... seemed the easiest way for me to
> fab my fuselage. (without burning up my wood table!)
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of rameses32
> Sent: Sunday=2C June 14=2C 2009 5:31 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: steel fuselage vs wood/scout gear
>
>
>
> I am a fabricator=2C I've been welding and working with steel since I was
12=2C
> I love doing it=2C some people enjoy working with wood and prefer using t
hat=2C
> each has it's benefits. I have better luck using wood in the stove in the
> winter time to keep me warm while I weld=2C hehe. Buzz Bear on the other
hand=2C
> made the most beautiful Pietenpol from wood=2C you just didn't want to co
ver
> it and hide all that fantastic craftsmanship. But that aircraft is still
not
> in the air=2C and unfortunately Buzz passed away before he could see it f
ly.
> That wonderful aircraft has been in the building process for over 20 year
s.
> I'm using steel for that reason.
>
> Now if you are going to tack weld=2C Don't use Gasless mig=2C EVER! or Ar
k
> welding either. You could use mig=2C but it's not the best idea. Use eith
er
> tig or Oxy to tack the fuselage=2C Oxy is easier to than Tig=2C but not a
lot. If
> you weld with oxy=2C there is less chance for perosity in the welds and y
ou
> don't have to normalize when your finished. With tig there is less heat
> saturation and less chance of warpage. If I were just tacking=2C I would
use
> TIG=2C but if I was welding=2C I would use Oxy.
>
> Just my opinion
>
> Charley
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248117#248117
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: anybody have contact info for Bill Rewey?
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Anybody have a phone number for Bill Rewey? I think I remember he doesn't
do email, but if I'm wrong, an email address would be great too.
Thanks
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Subject: Re: anybody have contact info for Bill Rewey?
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Douwe,
Bill's number should be: 608-833-5839. I think you are right; I don't
believe Bill does email....
Ryan
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Douwe Blumberg <
douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
> douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
>
> Anybody have a phone number for Bill Rewey? I think I remember he doesn't
> do email, but if I'm wrong, an email address would be great too.
>
> Thanks
>
> Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2009
From: Owen Davies <owen5819(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse versions
Among other comments, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Good thing I don't have the
> money to start the project or I would have, on 2 different occasions,
> ordered materials for both types!
>
> ...
>
> I am looking at the price for the steel tube needed, and I am thinking
> it will be more expensive to build the steel version up front, but the
> weight savings might be worth it.
Remember, the steel-tube Piet was not designed for 4130, but for 1020,
1025, or most likely whatever was available at the local hardware store.
And according to the engineer Mr. Pietenpol had check out his design, it
was way overbuilt for the purpose. Which means that today's structural
ERW is plenty good enough for the purpose. (You can find specs online.
You probably will be surprised at how close the yield strength comes to
4130.) You can get enough of it to weld up a perfectly safe Pietenpol
fuselage for very short money. The only thing I can think of that ERW
would not be suitable for is the axle on the traditional gear. Scrape up
a minimum of cash, and go for it!
Owen
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Weight differences between Wood and steel fuse versions
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Owen.... But what is ERW? I am not familiar with the term.
Mark
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Owen Davies wrote:
>
> Among other comments, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Good thing I don't have the
>> money to start the project or I would have, on 2 different occasions,
>> ordered materials for both types!
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I am looking at the price for the steel tube needed, and I am thinking
>> it will be more expensive to build the steel version up front, but the
>> weight savings might be worth it.
>
> Remember, the steel-tube Piet was not designed for 4130, but for 1020, 1025,
> or most likely whatever was available at the local hardware store. And
> according to the engineer Mr. Pietenpol had check out his design, it was way
> overbuilt for the purpose. Which means that today's structural ERW is plenty
> good enough for the purpose. (You can find specs online. You probably will
> be surprised at how close the yield strength comes to 4130.) You can get
> enough of it to weld up a perfectly safe Pietenpol fuselage for very short
> money. The only thing I can think of that ERW would not be suitable for is
> the axle on the traditional gear. Scrape up a minimum of cash, and go for
> it!
>
> Owen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2009
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Creve Coeur Airport
I'm in St Louis this week and stopped by the Creve Coeur Airport yesterday.
WOW!! If you ever find yourself in the St Louis area...be sure to stop by!
A lot of antique aircraft and just wonderful atmosphere.
It's always a treat to find a place like this to visit.
JM
________________________________________________________________________________
From: CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Creve Coeur Airport
Dear Jim,
We're just down the street from there. Creve Coeur Airport is like a living
museum, I do hope you went through the three huge hangers that have the
museum collection, many unique and one of a kind antiques there, they also
take them out and fly them.
Regards, Chrissi & Randi
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 6/15/2009 12:39:56 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
jim_markle(at)mindspring.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Markle
I'm in St Louis this week and stopped by the Creve Coeur Airport yesterday.
WOW!! If you ever find yourself in the St Louis area...be sure to stop by!
A lot of antique aircraft and just wonderful atmosphere.
It's always a treat to find a place like this to visit.
JM
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Creve Coeur Airport
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Hey Chrissi-
Are you and Randi coming to Brodhead again this year?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Creve Coeur Airport
Dear Jim,
We're just down the street from there. Creve Coeur Airport is like a living
museum, I do hope you went through the three huge hangers that have the
museum collection, many unique and one of a kind antiques there, they also
take them out and fly them.
Regards, Chrissi & Randi
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 6/15/2009 12:39:56 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
jim_markle(at)mindspring.com writes:
I'm in St Louis this week and stopped by the Creve Coeur Airport yesterday.
WOW!! If you ever find yourself in the St Louis area...be sure to stop by!
A lot of antique aircraft and just wonderful atmosphere.
It's always a treat to find a place like this to
===============================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 15, 2009