Pietenpol-List Archive Browser

Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-in
November 03, 2009 - November 18, 2009

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Non Pietenpol Related
Great experience and great video. Thanks for sharing. -- Jeff Boatright "Now let's think about this..." ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Ed's Piet
Hm. I don't have any type of trim. Of course, ALL of my landings are kind of exciting... >...And then 2 weekends ago while slipping the washer up the stick, >the grip popped off in my hand on downwind and I was left with no >trim at all during landing. That was kind of exciting. > >Cheers! >Dan > -- Jeff Boatright "Now let's think about this..." ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Non Pietenpol Related
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 03, 2009
Yeah, I do have a "just got my ticket" grin. I know... it's almost an unbelievable story (I can hardly believe it myself), but it happened... I know because I was there. LOL! I'll be happy to let you see my log book entry next time you are in town John, but don't drool on it. Oh, don't drool on my new Aluminum Overcast pilot jacket either. ;-) I know, I'm still bragging. Can hardly help myself. You know what else? This was my first tail wheel flight too. Hey, I know that's a pretty thin claim, but I'll tell about this one forever! Ha! Sitting around the pilot lounge with the young whipper snappers, many years from now... "I remember back in ot 9 when I flew my first tail wheel airplane... a B-17 I believe, or one of those famous big bombers from the century before..." -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270895#270895 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2009
Subject: Dillsburg Aero price list
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
All, I had the occasion to digitize the Dillsburg Aero price list for a few friends this evening, so I thought I would offer it up to the list as well. It's in PDF format, and is relatively current. I received it at the end of August, and it is dated the 7th of August. Hopefully it will be of some use. The link is good for 30 days; if for some reason you need to download it after that time has elapsed just let me know, and I can send you a fresh link. http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2314248/Dillsburg%20Aero%20Aug%2009.pdf Ryan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Subject: Re: Dillsburg Aero price list
From: Robert Ray <rray032003(at)gmail.com>
Thanks, Russell On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote: > All, > > I had the occasion to digitize the Dillsburg Aero price list for a few > friends this evening, so I thought I would offer it up to the list as well. > It's in PDF format, and is relatively current. I received it at the end of > August, and it is dated the 7th of August. Hopefully it will be of some use. > The link is good for 30 days; if for some reason you need to download it > after that time has elapsed just let me know, and I can send you a fresh > link. > > http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2314248/Dillsburg%20Aero%20Aug%2009.pdf > > Ryan > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2009
From: John Franklin <jbfjr(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject: Edge Trim
Does anyone know of a supplier for edge trim that will fit onto thin sheet metal? It's actually for a metal building but I might also use it on my Aircamper. I looked at McMaster but didn't see any that would work. Thanks, John F. ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 100 Years Ago
Date: Nov 04, 2009
From: tbyh(at)aol.com
And 100 years ago today, Mr. A.P. Warner made the first airplane flight in Wisconsin at Beloit in a Curtiss that he had purchased from Curtiss himse lf...Warner was only the 11th American to fly and it was the first airpla ne flight west of the Wright Brother's field near Dayton, OH. For more inf o, go to the Wisconsin Aviation Hall of Fame Web site. And, by the way, Ro se Dorcey, the President of the WAHF, and her husband are building a.... Pietenpol Air Camper! Fred B. La Crosse, WI ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Ed's Piet
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Dan, like Jeff, I don't have any type of trim nor do I find a need for it. Have you checked your W & B carefully? Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Ed's Piet > > Hm. I don't have any type of trim. Of course, ALL of my landings are > kind of exciting... > > >>...And then 2 weekends ago while slipping the washer up the stick, >>the grip popped off in my hand on downwind and I was left with no >>trim at all during landing. That was kind of exciting. >> >>Cheers! >>Dan >> > > > -- > > Jeff Boatright > "Now let's think about this..." > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 19:38:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Edge Trim
Date: Nov 04, 2009
If you are talking about rubber edge trim, look for Brown Aircraft Supplies in Jacksonville, Fla. They make hundreds if not thousands of different rubber/neoprene/etc items such as seals, firewall material, insulation, gaskets, and prices are great. I don't have info, but Google should turn them up. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: John Franklin<mailto:jbfjr(at)peoplepc.com> To: Piet_List Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:40 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Edge Trim > Does anyone know of a supplier for edge trim that will fit onto thin sheet metal? It's actually for a metal building but I might also use it on my Aircamper. I looked at McMaster but didn't see any that would work. Thanks, John F. ________________________________________ www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/> www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/> www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Edge Trim
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Not sure it's what your looking for, but, auto supply stores usually sell a self sticking edge trim. Usually in black or crome that might work. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: Gene Rambo To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:04 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Edge Trim If you are talking about rubber edge trim, look for Brown Aircraft Supplies in Jacksonville, Fla. They make hundreds if not thousands of different rubber/neoprene/etc items such as seals, firewall material, insulation, gaskets, and prices are great. I don't have info, but Google should turn them up. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: John Franklin To: Piet_List Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:40 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Edge Trim Does anyone know of a supplier for edge trim that will fit onto thin sheet metal? It's actually for a metal building but I might also use it on my Aircamper. I looked at McMaster but didn't see any that would work. Thanks, John p; -- Please Support Your Lists This Month (And Get the Annual link Free * AeroElectric http://www.matronics.com/c Thank you for your generous ; -Matt Dralle, List nbsp; Features Chat, http://www.matnbsp; via the Web title=http://forums.matronics.com/ href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com _============= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 11/03/09 19:38:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Non Pietenpol Related
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Ken is exactly right. I have only been a member of our chapter since March of this year, but since joining I have volunteered for everything. I show up to cook pancakes, sausage, make coffee, or just set up tables every month at our pancake breakfast, and also show up for any other event where we need help. I honestly didn't do all that stuff expecting anything in return, and I really didn't even consider that I might have a chance to get on the B-17 this weekend, but I guess the other guys had me in mind. I honestly just like being around these fellas... our chapter has a bunch of great people. A bunch of us have dinner at a local mexican restaurant on Friday evenings, we have coffee every Saturday morning, the meetings are packed with 50-60 people every month, etc. It is a lot of fun. Can't wait for the tri-motor to come back to town ;-) -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270954#270954 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Howe <ken@cooper-mtn.com>
Subject: Re: Non Pietenpol Related
Date: Nov 04, 2009
The tri-motor would be fun! Unfortunately we get that one out here on the left coast. --Ken On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:15 AM, "K5YAC" wrote: > > Ken is exactly right. I have only been a member of our chapter > since March of this year, but since joining I have volunteered for > everything. I show up to cook pancakes, sausage, make coffee, or > just set up tables every month at our pancake breakfast, and also > show up for any other event where we need help. I honestly didn't > do all that stuff expecting anything in return, and I really didn't > even consider that I might have a chance to get on the B-17 this > weekend, but I guess the other guys had me in mind. I honestly just > like being around these fellas... our chapter has a bunch of great > people. A bunch of us have dinner at a local mexican restaurant on > Friday evenings, we have coffee every Saturday morning, the meetings > are packed with 50-60 people every month, etc. It is a lot of fun. > > Can't wait for the tri-motor to come back to town ;-) > > -------- > Mark - working on wings > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270954#270954 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
From: "tkreiner" <tkreiner(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Some weeks ago, someone on the list mentioned that they had seen an extrusion that could be used on the 3 pce wing to seal the gap. If you'll take a look at the info on this link, you'll see a product that might work. They have a couple of these available. Here's the link: http://www.hitechglazing.com/product/41258/40204 -------- Tom Kreiner Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270956#270956 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/large_gap_seal_191.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/small_gap_seal_167.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2009
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Looks like a good solution. Alternatively, a number of guys cover this gap instead of sealing it. Many use a thin strip (2-4 inches) of Aluminum, running from the trailing edge, around the leading edge, and back to the TE again. Of course, if you have a flop, you need to hinge this piece or make the flop narrower than the center wing rear, etc. Cheap, soft, thin Al. flashing material (Home Depot) would serve for this. More elegantly, one Pieter-- I think the Bells-- use a piece of aluminum soffit material that already has two long rolled beads built in. They bought it at a roofing or siding supply house. Gary/Shad, pls correct if I am wrong on this. Tim in central TX -----Original Message----- >From: tkreiner <tkreiner(at)gmail.com> >Sent: Nov 4, 2009 10:28 AM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing > > >Some weeks ago, someone on the list mentioned that they had seen an extrusion that could be used on the 3 pce wing to seal the gap. > >If you'll take a look at the info on this link, you'll see a product that might work. They have a couple of these available. Here's the link: > >http://www.hitechglazing.com/product/41258/40204 > >-------- >Tom Kreiner > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270956#270956 > > >Attachments: > >http://forums.matronics.com//files/large_gap_seal_191.jpg >http://forums.matronics.com//files/small_gap_seal_167.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil>
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Subject: Re: Non Pietenpol Related
I have been in in 2 EAA chapters. Loved both. One did a lot of hands on projects (fly in's, work on a project for a museum. The other did not but they supported young eagles and did lots of "lets go fly to...". One cooked for flyin type events the other had someone do it. One attitude I do have is "don't ask me to sell hotdogs at an airshow to raise money! Just ask me for $20." I will make Hot dog for the EAA members, people who flyin or to support a Young Eagles day but I don't like to do fund raisers. I will mow around the EAA building, I will help lay carpet etc. Some guys like fund raising, others don't. BTW I also hate having my kids sell candy (overpriced popcorn and so on) for a fund raiser. When I was an ROTC Instructor, our cadets found tasks that were short term and labor/body intensive and got paid for them. IE Putting flags out on patriotic holidays for the VFW. Or being ushers at Football games. worked great. Good amount of money, everyone worked and it was over quickly. Blue Skies, Steve D. ----- Original Message ----- From: K5YAC <hangar10(at)cox.net> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 10:34 Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Non Pietenpol Related > > Ken is exactly right. I have only been a member of our chapter since March of this year, but since joining I have volunteered for > everything. I show up to cook pancakes, sausage, make coffee, or > just set up tables every month at our pancake breakfast, and also > show up for any other event where we need help. I honestly didn't > do all that stuff expecting anything in return, and I really > didn't even consider that I might have a chance to get on the B-17 > this weekend, but I guess the other guys had me in mind. I > honestly just like being around these fellas... our chapter has a > bunch of great people. A bunch of us have dinner at a local > mexican restaurant on Friday evenings, we have coffee every > Saturday morning, the meetings are packed with 50-60 people every > month, etc. It is a lot of fun. > > Can't wait for the tri-motor to come back to town ;-) > > -------- > Mark - working on wings > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270954#270954 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Ed's Piet
Jeff Boatright wrote: > > Hm. I don't have any type of trim. Of course, ALL of my landings are > kind of exciting... Well, the landing wasn't all that bad, actually. But, it's never a fun moment to have your hand inadvertently leave the stick while in the pattern: Whoops! What THE ...! OK, I'm holding onto the grip, but it's not attached to the stick. I still have a stick - at least THAT didn't fall off - it's just not in my hand - grab it, let's get this plane on the ground in one piece and worry about everything else, later. whew! Dan -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Ed's Piet
Hi Gene, Gene & Tammy wrote: > > > Dan, like Jeff, I don't have any type of trim nor do I find a need for > it. Have you checked your W & B carefully? I've only been flying it since mid-September and I've been too busy flying it to do a W&B myself. It's not bad, and it depends greatly on RPM and load - with a passenger and 10-12 gallons at 2000-2050RPM it flies with very little down elevator trim, almost hands off. Low power in the pattern I like to have the washer pulled all the way up the stick to keep the plane at about 62mph, hands off. Dan -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2009
From: airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Ed's Piet
----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov> Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 12:43:57 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Ed's Piet Jeff Boatright wrote: > > Hm. I don't have any type of trim. Of course, ALL of my landings are kind of exciting... Well, the landing wasn't all that bad, actually. But, it's never a fun moment to have your hand inadvertently leave the stick while in the pattern: Whoops! What THE ...! OK, I'm holding onto the grip, but it's not attached to the stick. I still have a stick - at least THAT didn't fall off - it's just not in my hand - grab it, let's get this plane on the ground in one piece and worry about everything else, later. whew! Dan -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: A couple of videos
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 04, 2009
I took a buddy flying on Sunday and took some video. Here's a couple of links; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9Sc1-_Cr4&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waui6n1Uj4A&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohRqjIaGmog&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMm_m6axsk&feature=channel Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271007#271007 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A couple of videos
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Alright Bill! Ya figured out my secret! I owe you one now! Ha! Don Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271031#271031 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Not sure if it will work with standard wing fitting setup. The gap on 41CC is considerably wider than the nominal 1/4" that the vinyl seal will fit into because there has to be enough of a gap to insert the wing attach bolts into the wing attach fittings and still get a wrench on the bolt head and nut to tighten. The picture here: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/P3230004.JPG will give you an idea of the size of gap that exists unless you make a special effort to make the gap much narrower. Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Kerri Ann Price has drawings for attach fittings that eliminate the need fo r anything. (1/16 or so gap). For those that haven't cut or drilled fittin gs or spars. Since Geocities was closed down I don't have any website info =2C but someone may have her info. I may go this route. Doug Dever In beautiful Stow Ohio > From: taildrags(at)hotmail.com > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing > Date: Wed=2C 4 Nov 2009 16:40:02 -0600 > > > > > Not sure if it will work with standard wing fitting setup. > The gap on 41CC is considerably wider than the nominal 1/4" > that the vinyl seal will fit into because there has to be > enough of a gap to insert the wing attach bolts into the > wing attach fittings and still get a wrench on the bolt > head and nut to tighten. The picture here: > http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/P3230004.JPG > will give you an idea of the size of gap that exists > unless you make a special effort to make the gap much > narrower. > > Oscar Zuniga > Air Camper NX41CC > San Antonio=2C TX > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > _________________________________________________________________ Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/pc-scout/laptop-set-criteria.aspx?cbid=w l&filt 0=2C2400=2C10=2C19=2C1=2C3=2C1=2C7=2C50=2C650=2C2=2C12=2C0=2C100 0&cat=1=2C2=2C3=2C4=2C5=2C6&brands=5=2C6=2C7=2C8=2C9=2C10=2C11=2C12=2C1 3=2C14=2C15=2C16&addf=4=2C5=2C9&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WW L_WIN_evergreen2:112009 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A couple of videos
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Now that's just downright funny Ryan! My wife makes fun of me all the time, she says I stick my tongue out when I'm really concentrating on something. Well I least I was buckling down and really concentrating on propping! Don Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271054#271054 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 04, 2009
That was me. That's great! Thanks Tom. Clif Yard by yard, it's mighty hard, but inch by inch, it's a cinch. > > Some weeks ago, someone on the list mentioned that they had seen an > extrusion that could be used on the 3 pce wing to seal the gap. > http://www.hitechglazing.com/product/41258/40204 > > -------- > Tom Kreiner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jack <jack(at)textors.com>
Subject: Re: A couple of videos
Date: Nov 04, 2009
Great Don, love the fall colors... Jack DSM Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2009, at 2:43 PM, "Don Emch" wrote: > > I took a buddy flying on Sunday and took some video. > Here's a couple of links; > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9Sc1-_Cr4&feature=channel > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waui6n1Uj4A&feature=channel > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohRqjIaGmog&feature=channel > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMm_m6axsk&feature=channel > > Don Emch > NX899DE > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271007#271007 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 04, 2009
This is what I'm doing. The gap will be maybe 1/8". The small cutout around the fitting will be on the wing panel also. My flop goes right to the edge and will not have the seal. The open areas will be covered in lexan. Clif > Not sure if it will work with standard wing fitting setup. > The gap on 41CC is considerably wider than the nominal 1/4" > that the vinyl seal will fit into because there has to be > enough of a gap to insert the wing attach bolts into the > wing attach fittings and still get a wrench on the bolt > head and nut to tighten. > > Oscar Zuniga ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Reminder
Dear Listers, Just a quick reminder that November is the annual List Fund Raiser. The Matronics Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are provided for my your Contributions during this time of the year. Your personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free. Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Clif; VERY nice detail where your wing panels meet the center section! The wing gap covers on 41CC are simple enough, but each of them is in several pieces and each piece has multiple PK screws holding it in place, so a tight gap with just a push-in seal makes for a cleaner and simpler installation. Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Edge Trim
Date: Nov 05, 2009
John; I'm not sure what sort of edge trim you're looking for, but Corky used a very simple, effective, and affordable (and flexible, to follow curves) edge trim on the various cowling openings on 41CC. It's from JC Whitney and comes in a 20 ft. roll for $23.99 and is item no. 1JA890791 if you do a search on their website. It is available in black and white and will fit tightly over the edges of metal that is .030-.060" thick (they have more of this same stuff for thicker material, too). Like I say, it is flexible and can follow curves nicely. On 41CC it is on all the cowling openings where the cabanes poke through, where the engine pokes through, where the oil drain comes out the bottom, etc. Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
I think what's REALLY interesting about these pictures is Clif's "workshop". I have a wonderful 32X40 heated workshop. In contrast, when I went to visit Clif one winter....he had just spent the night before knocking the snow off the "roof" of his "shop". He works on his project right there under that tarp. I think that's pretty neat. You're my hero Clif. -----Original Message----- >From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> >Sent: Nov 4, 2009 8:49 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing > >This is what I'm doing. The gap will be maybe 1/8". >The small cutout around the fitting will be on the >wing panel also. My flop goes right to the edge >and will not have the seal. The open areas will be >covered in lexan. > >Clif > >> Not sure if it will work with standard wing fitting setup. >> The gap on 41CC is considerably wider than the nominal 1/4" >> that the vinyl seal will fit into because there has to be >> enough of a gap to insert the wing attach bolts into the >> wing attach fittings and still get a wrench on the bolt >> head and nut to tighten. > >> Oscar Zuniga ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Charlie Rubeck's ribs
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Does anyone remember how much Charlie was selling his sets of Piet ribs for when he was still alive? Was it $300 for the set of 31 ribs? Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Scott Knowlton " <flyingscott_k(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Subject: Re: Charlie Rubeck's ribs
Yes. I went to one of his rib forums in 03 and bought one for ten bucks to build my jig with. At the time he had a set and the fellow next to me at the forum bought them for 300. Scott K -----Original Message----- From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:12:38 Subject: Pietenpol-List: Charlie Rubeck's ribs Does anyone remember how much Charlie was selling his sets of Piet ribs for when he was still alive? Was it $300 for the set of 31 ribs? Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bending plywood
From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Working on my turtle back and looking ahead to attaching a 4-5" piece of 1/8" plywood over the stingers behind the cockpit, and at the rear where they meet. Do these need to be steamed, or does ply (Finnish Birch or Okoume) bend well enough not to require steaming? Just curious, not having cut the pieces yet. Thanks, Steve Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271192#271192 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
From: John Franklin <jbfjr(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: Edge Trim
Oscar, That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks! John F. -----Original Message----- >From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> >Sent: Nov 5, 2009 7:08 AM >To: Pietenpol List >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Edge Trim > > >John; > >I'm not sure what sort of edge trim you're looking for, >but Corky used a very simple, effective, and affordable >(and flexible, to follow curves) edge trim on the various >cowling openings on 41CC. It's from JC Whitney and comes >in a 20 ft. roll for $23.99 and is item no. 1JA890791 if >you do a search on their website. It is available in >black and white and will fit tightly over the edges of >metal that is .030-.060" thick (they have more of this >same stuff for thicker material, too). Like I say, it >is flexible and can follow curves nicely. On 41CC it is >on all the cowling openings where the cabanes poke through, >where the engine pokes through, where the oil drain comes >out the bottom, etc. > >Oscar Zuniga >Air Camper NX41CC >San Antonio, TX >mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com >website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
From: <dknoll(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Bending Plywood
Steve, You might want to consider using 1/16" plywood. It's easier to bend and weighs less. Lynn Knoll Wichita Corvair/Piet in the works ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip Gadd" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ed's Piet
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Dan, Yeah, the report from the 200 hour Cub pilot who flew the plane for the 1 hour was that it was sensitive in pitch. We didn't know if there was something wrong with the rigging or maybe he had no experience with antique designs. It turned out they had so much tension (turnbuckles way too tight) in the elevator system that you had to put allot of pressure on the stick to move it fore and aft. Ed changed several things he didn't like, one was a lift strut that looked like it had been bent and made straight! He went over the plane very thoroughly, which is fine with me since I wound up flying it. Skip > Sounds like there was a > lot of work done to get it in a stable flying state, and I just don't > have the time to tinker... > Cheers! > Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Schreiber" <lmforge(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Bending plywood
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Steve: I made mine out of 2 sheets of 1/16" plywood. Bent the first one cold and epoxied it in place. I let it cure overnight then laminated a second piece to the first. Worked well. Here are a couple of photos. Rick Schreiber > [Original Message] > From: chase143 <chase143(at)aol.com> > To: > Date: 11/5/2009 9:29:27 AM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending plywood > > > Working on my turtle back and looking ahead to attaching a 4-5" piece of 1/8" plywood over the stingers behind the cockpit, and at the rear where they meet. Do these need to be steamed, or does ply (Finnish Birch or Okoume) bend well enough not to require steaming? Just curious, not having cut the pieces yet. > Thanks, > Steve > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271192#271192 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
From: gboothe5(at)comcast.net
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Steve, All my turtle decks are 1/8" mahogany marine plywood. They are also 1 1/2" taller than plans, meaning that the radius is actually smaller. No steaming...just fit, glue, clamp and nail. You may see some pics at West Coast Pets, or I can send some tonight. Gary ------Original Message------ From: chase143 Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com ReplyTo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending plywood Sent: Nov 5, 2009 7:26 AM Working on my turtle back and looking ahead to attaching a 4-5" piece of 1/8" plywood over the stingers behind the cockpit, and at the rear where they meet. Do these need to be steamed, or does ply (Finnish Birch or Okoume) bend well enough not to require steaming? Just curious, not having cut the pieces yet. Thanks, Steve Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271192#271192 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lagowski Morrow" <jimdeb(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
Date: Nov 05, 2009
I used 1/16" and it bent just fine. no steaming, a few clamps and T-88--Jim Lagowski ----- Original Message ----- From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:26 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending plywood > > Working on my turtle back and looking ahead to attaching a 4-5" piece of > 1/8" plywood over the stingers behind the cockpit, and at the rear where > they meet. Do these need to be steamed, or does ply (Finnish Birch or > Okoume) bend well enough not to require steaming? Just curious, not having > cut the pieces yet. > Thanks, > Steve > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271192#271192 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
From: "chase143" <chase143(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Outstanding! Thanks guys. Great pictures and ideas. I'll check out WC Piet as well. But sounds like no steaming and maybe 1/16 is the way to go, hopefully this weekend. Thanks again, Steve Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271236#271236 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
Timely post as I am also gluing in my turtle deck stringers and planning my plywood overlay at both ends. My stringers, as viewed from the ends, are b ullet shaped. The "pointed" edge is what the fabric will rest on. I hope th is will give a nicer look then the wide look of each piece had I left them all flat. Because of a planning error, mine are all 1/2" wide. So, I routed them to a bullet shape on the fabric side.- I can supply pictures if any one has an interest. - I plan on using 2 sheets of laminated 1/16" okume as posted by someone else . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "G & R Hewitt" <grhewitt(at)globaldial.com>
Subject: Re Static port
Date: Nov 06, 2009
Any info on position of Pitot Static ports please. Is just using a drilled plug on the back of the ASI/Altimeter OK for an open cockpit? Regards Graham ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Re Static port
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Should be... it's also ok for use in a closed non-pressurized cockpit. At least that is where backup static pressure is located. Right? -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271266#271266 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Steve, Here a couple pics of turtle decks made out of 1/8" Plywood.no steaming! Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down.) -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chase143 Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:33 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood Outstanding! Thanks guys. Great pictures and ideas. I'll check out WC Piet as well. But sounds like no steaming and maybe 1/16 is the way to go, hopefully this weekend. Thanks again, Steve Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271236#271236 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Abramson" <davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com>
Subject: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Hey Cliff! (Dawson) Do you have any pictures of your wing tank before install? You read my mind perfectly!!! Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clif Dawson Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:49 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing This is what I'm doing. The gap will be maybe 1/8". The small cutout around the fitting will be on the wing panel also. My flop goes right to the edge and will not have the seal. The open areas will be covered in lexan. Clif > Not sure if it will work with standard wing fitting setup. > The gap on 41CC is considerably wider than the nominal 1/4" > that the vinyl seal will fit into because there has to be > enough of a gap to insert the wing attach bolts into the > wing attach fittings and still get a wrench on the bolt > head and nut to tighten. > > Oscar Zuniga ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lagowski Morrow" <jimdeb(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Re Static port
Date: Nov 05, 2009
My plug with a hole works fine--Jim Lagowski ----- Original Message ----- From: G & R Hewitt To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:17 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re Static port Any info on position of Pitot Static ports please. Is just using a drilled plug on the back of the ASI/Altimeter OK for an open cockpit? Regards Graham ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Prop choices for Corvair
From: "jerome bush" <dutchman77(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2009
I have a never used Hegy 66X30 prop that I no longer can use and is for sale. If you are interested in it, contact me off list at jjbush(at)gmail.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271283#271283 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
From: John Franklin <jbfjr(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
Piet Builders, I haven't tried this, but years ago I read about how wooden model ship builders would bend the planks that had to fit the curve of the bows of their model ships; they would soak them in a solution of one part ammonia to two parts of water. As I said, I have never tried this method but it supposedly made the wood very easy to bend. John F. Richmond, TX -----Original Message----- >From: gboothe5(at)comcast.net >Sent: Nov 5, 2009 11:38 AM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bending plywood > > >Steve, > >All my turtle decks are 1/8" mahogany marine plywood. They are also 1 1/2" taller than plans, meaning that the radius is actually smaller. No steaming...just fit, glue, clamp and nail. You may see some pics at West Coast Pets, or I can send some tonight. > >Gary >------Original Message------ >From: chase143 >Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >ReplyTo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending plywood >Sent: Nov 5, 2009 7:26 AM > > >Working on my turtle back and looking ahead to attaching a 4-5" piece of 1/8" plywood over the stingers behind the cockpit, and at the rear where they meet. Do these need to be steamed, or does ply (Finnish Birch or Okoume) bend well enough not to require steaming? Just curious, not having cut the pieces yet. >Thanks, >Steve > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271192#271192 > > >Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Prop choices for Corvair
From: "jerome bush" <dutchman77(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Sorry, but I gave the wrong email address in the previous message regarding the Hegy prop for sale. My correct address is dutchman77(at)gmail.com Contact me at the corrected address if you are interested in buying the Hegy 66X30 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271297#271297 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
From: Robert Ray <rray032003(at)gmail.com>
You can bend it dry or bend it more if wet, boiling water works good on Okume and birch, I have also heard of adding ammonia when bending birch however I never found a need to add it. It bends easier with outside grain perpendicular to the bend radius. Another trick on leading edge of wing is heat up a metal pipe lay the wet plywood across and bend using weights clamped to hold the edges of the ply down. The plywood will dry out and you can't tell it's been wet other than a slight raise of the grain which you just sand out. Also to avoid oil canning and starved horse look is to dampen the sides of the fuselage ply before glue and clamping, this relaxes the outside and when it drys it will pull it tight. I have bent 4 mm Okume but I think thats about the limit with out kerfs. Russell Russell On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, John Franklin wrote: > > Piet Builders, > > I haven't tried this, but years ago I read about how wooden model ship > builders would bend the planks that had to fit the curve of the bows of > their model ships; they would soak them in a solution of one part ammonia to > two parts of water. As I said, I have never tried this method but it > supposedly made the wood very easy to bend. > > John F. > Richmond, TX > > -----Original Message----- > >From: gboothe5(at)comcast.net > >Sent: Nov 5, 2009 11:38 AM > >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bending plywood > > > > > >Steve, > > > >All my turtle decks are 1/8" mahogany marine plywood. They are also 1 1/2" > taller than plans, meaning that the radius is actually smaller. No > steaming...just fit, glue, clamp and nail. You may see some pics at West > Coast Pets, or I can send some tonight. > > > >Gary > >------Original Message------ > >From: chase143 > >Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > >ReplyTo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending plywood > >Sent: Nov 5, 2009 7:26 AM > > > > > >Working on my turtle back and looking ahead to attaching a 4-5" piece of > 1/8" plywood over the stingers behind the cockpit, and at the rear where > they meet. Do these need to be steamed, or does ply (Finnish Birch or > Okoume) bend well enough not to require steaming? Just curious, not having > cut the pieces yet. > >Thanks, > >Steve > > > > > > > > > >Read this topic online here: > > > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271192#271192 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2009
From: jorge lizarraga <flightwood(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood exelent
that is bery good Idea Gary tanks I take and put in my plane too=C2- look bery nice to my seyou nex jorge from hanford, todays work in welding think s --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Gary Boothe wrote: From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 3:21 PM =0A=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ASteve, =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0AHer e a couple pics of turtle decks made out of 1/8=9D Plywoodno =0Asteaming! =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A Gary Boothe =0A=0ACool, Ca. =0A=0APietenpol =0A=0AWW Corvair Conversion, mo unted =0A=0ATail done, Fuselage on gear =0A=0A(15 ribs down) =0A =0A-----Original Message----- =0AFrom: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-pietenpo l-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chase143 =0ASent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:33 AM =0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com =0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood=0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A--> Piet enpol-List message posted by: "chase143"=0A =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0AOutstanding! Thanks guys. Great pictures and ideas. I'll check out W C=0APiet as well. But sounds like no steaming and maybe 1/16 is the way to go,=0Ahopefully this weekend. =0A=0AThanks again, =0A=0ASteve =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0ARead this topic online her e: =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271236 #271236 =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2 - =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2 - =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 05, 2009
Well, thank you Jim. That is a compliment indeed coming from someone who has been of so much help to so many of us. Clif > > I think what's REALLY interesting about these pictures is Clif's > "workshop". I have a wonderful 32X40 heated workshop. In contrast, when > I went to visit Clif one winter....he had just spent the night before > knocking the snow off the "roof" of his "shop". He works on his project > right there under that tarp. > > I think that's pretty neat. > > You're my hero Clif. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 06, 2009
OK, here's a few. First the plug ready to fiberglass the bottom. I positioned the basic plug in the wing where I wanted it, surounded it with a single piece of matt board and glued that to the plug with spray foam insulation. That cap I got at Arlington for ten bucks. It's $335 in AS+S! I made the fitting for it. The last pic shows the final layout. The fuel line is just sitting there. I need a couple of nut inserts before flairing and bending it to fit. Clif > > Hey Cliff! (Dawson) > > Do you have any pictures of your wing tank before install? > You read my mind perfectly!!! > > Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing
Date: Nov 06, 2009
They say necessity is the mother of invention. When I checked the 37 flair tools at a hundred bucks I just couldn't justify that for two lousy ends! So I simply made a head to fit over my standard plumbing one. Seems to work fine. This combo lathe-mill I agonized over buying on sale for $1000 ( regular $1800! ) has paid for itself at least once already! I walk in looking for 3/8" X 23 gauge pins and walk out with this thing. Damn good thing I'm no longer married! Clif > Hey Cliff! (Dawson) > > Do you have any pictures of your wing tank before install? > You read my mind perfectly!!! > > Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
Date: Nov 06, 2009
Here's what I did. First I filled in and contoured the area with really light and thick balsa then, using water based contact cement, glued on 1/32 ply for a hard surface. My thinking was that I was going to be putting weight on that area every time I got in or out so I wanted the solidity of bulk but I also wanted the thinness where the ply overlay the stringers so there wouldn't be a significant bump in the fabric. Yes I know, there's a certain amount of anal involved! I just can't help it. :-) Clif ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Boothe To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 3:21 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood Steve, Here a couple pics of turtle decks made out of 1/8" Plywood.no steaming! Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down.) -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chase143 Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:33 AM To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood Outstanding! Thanks guys. Great pictures and ideas. I'll check out WC Piet as well. But sounds like no steaming and maybe 1/16 is the way to go, hopefully this weekend. Thanks again, Steve Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271236#271236 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 11/05/09 19:52:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: wing gap seals
Just read the kudos for Cliff's center section gap seal idea, but I can't find what he did. Cliff, can you explain your method, or tell me where I can see some pics. I'm getting ready to make mine. Thanks Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rubeck Ribs
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: tbyh(at)aol.com
Yes, Charlie Rubeck sold sets of ribs for $300...considering the hours and materials, he was working for way less than minimum wage! I would advise anyone who has an opportunity to buy a set of completed ribs (assuming th ey are well built), should buy 'em poste haste! Meanwhile, we all miss Charlie and remember him... Fred B. La Crosse, WI ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
-The first picture shows the stringers with the flat 1/2" wide tops...ugl y under the fabric in my opinion. The second is the new shaped profile. The third is the stringers with the new profile.-These pictures were taken w ith the stringers just laid in place...nothing is attached or glued. I am n ow working on that...should have them all in tomorrow. - - ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Just a useless comment here... but, doesn't your wife get annoyed when you build your airplane in the kitchen? Then again, based on the tire marks, if she's okay with you working on the car in the kitchen, then a little woodworking should be no problem... Seriously, though... Is that your workshop? I can see the reflection of the cabinets in the floor! A little more luxurious than Clif's "workshop". ________________________________ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Perez Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:54 AM Subject: Fw: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bending plywood The first picture shows the stringers with the flat 1/2" wide tops...ugly under the fabric in my opinion. The second is the new shaped profile. The third is the stringers with the new profile. These pictures were taken with the stringers just laid in place...nothing is attached or glued. I am now working on that...should have them all in tomorrow. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
Yes Bill, my workshop. I used kitchen cabinets because they are cheap and a ll ready to go in. The counter tops are smooth and flat. The outer surfaces of all of these are a breeze to clean.- It was a win-win for me. - I had one of my cars in the shop for two winters, then decided to put it ba ck out in the garage with the others...It took up usable space and I was le ery about hitting it with something, so I moved it. - Had I not had the shop the Piet. may have very well been built in the kitch en! - (I wax the floor about every 3-5 years...8^)--- ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Date: Nov 06, 2009
Subject: Mike Perez's workshop
I've visited Mike's workshop at his house last winter guys and you may as well imagine that you're actually entering a surgical area of a hospital with one notable exception. There is way more clutter in an operating room. Mike just showed me his torque tube aileron control horn that he TIG welded up (the airfoil shaped / two-halves job) and it looked like it came out of a CNC machine---no distortions or warping anywhere on the edge welds and perfectly drilled and placed holes. My best control horns still had some slight distortion and warpage but Mike's look like a robotic welder welded them. Mike's also the world's luckiest man as he has the full blessings of his wi fe on this project and the stunning 1960's GTO he restored from the frame up. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Yet another reason to hate me...
How cool is that!? The wife is out in the shop, on her birthday, (or maybe it was one of the kids birthdays...) working with power tools making plane parts...that sound about right? - "Happy birthday dear, now get back to work!" - Why do I feel now we will see a flood of funny shop pics? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Re Static port
Graham, There's a slight vacuum created in the cockpit, so while the reading will be "close" it will be off. If you're ok with "close" then that should be fine. I just bought a non-heated strut mount pitot/static port from AS&S for $20 and change. I still haven't mounted it yet, though. Cheers, Dan -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Re Static port
Date: Nov 06, 2009
Or.......If you want to see how fast (or slow) your going you can..... look down and see how fast things are going past, or, hold your hand out into the slip stream and judge your speed by the force of the wind. Not sure why 5 or even 10 mph makes any difference in a Piet. Fly the plane, fly the plane, fly the plane. Enjoy the plane, enjoy the plane, enjoy the plane. Just my 2 cents worth Gene N502R ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 4:31 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re Static port > > Graham, > > There's a slight vacuum created in the cockpit, so while the reading > will be "close" it will be off. If you're ok with "close" then that > should be fine. > > I just bought a non-heated strut mount pitot/static port from AS&S for > $20 and change. I still haven't mounted it yet, though. > > Cheers, > Dan > > -- > Dan Yocum > Fermilab 630.840.6509 > yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov > Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 07:38:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Yet another reason to hate me...
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 06, 2009
We are lucky Ryan. Theresa will be helping me make sawdust this weekend too. In fact, I didn't even have to ask... just about 20 minutes ago she said, "I'll help you rip that plywood on Sunday if you want." She knows that I have a couple of large pieces that I need to make into not-so-large pieces. Gotta love it. -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271442#271442 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: jorge lizarraga <flightwood(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing.ok
thats is bery good one tank were you found the gauge and like to now how you make the tank what cain of resine you used and congratulation is perfect seyou jorge from hanford --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Clif Dawson wrote: From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vinyl gap seal for 3 pce. wing Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 12:31 AM OK, here's a few. First the plug ready to fiberglass the bottom. I positioned the basic plug in the wing where I wanted it, surounded it with a single piece of matt board and glued that to the plug with spray foam insulation. That cap I got at Arlington for ten bucks. It's $335 in AS+S! I made the fitting for it. The last pic shows the final layout. The fuel line is just sitting there. I need a couple of nut inserts before flairing and bending it to fit. Clif > > Hey Cliff! (Dawson) > > Do you have any pictures of your wing tank before install? > You read my mind perfectly!!! > > Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2009
From: jorge lizarraga <flightwood(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood.exelent
that is beautyfull touch congrat.. --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Clif Dawson wrote: From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 12:05 AM =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AHere's what I did. First I filled in and contoure d =0Athe area=0Awith really light and thick balsa then, using water =0Abase d=0Acontact cement, glued on 1/32 ply for a hard =0Asurface.=0A=C2-My thi nking was that I was going to be =0Aputting weight=0Aon that area every tim e I got in or out so I wanted =0Athe=0Asolidity of bulk but I also wanted t he thinness =0Awhere the=0Aply overlay the stringers so there wouldn't be a =0Asignificant=0Abump in the fabric. Yes I know, there's a certain =0Aamou nt=0Aof anal involved! I just can't help it.=C2- =0A:-)=0A=C2-=0AClif =0A=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: =0A Gary =0A Boothe =0A 9 3:21 =0A PM=0A Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending =0A plywood=0A =0A =0A Steve, =0A =C2- =0A Here a couple pics of turtle decks made out of 1/8=9D =0A Plywoodno steaming! =0A =C2- =0A =0A =C2- =0A =0A =C2- =0A Gary Boothe =0A Cool, Ca. =0A Pieten pol =0A WW Corvair Conversion, =0A mounted =0A Tail done, Fuselage on =0A gear =0A (15 ribs down) =0A -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com =0A [mailto:owner-pietenpo l-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of =0A chase143 Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:33 AM To:=0A pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Subject: =0A Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood=0A =C2- =0A --> Piet enpol-List message posted by: "chase143" =0A =0A =C2 - =0A Outstanding! Thanks guys. Great pictures and ideas. =0A I'll chec k out WC Piet as well. But sounds like no steaming and maybe 1/16 is =0A t he way to go, hopefully this weekend. =0A Thanks again, =0A Steve =0A =C2- =0A =C2- =0A =C2- =0A =C2- =0A Read this topic online =0A here: =0A =C2- =0A http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p= 271236#271236 =0A =C2- =0A =C2- =0A =C2- =0A =C2- =0A =C2 - =0A =C2- =0A =C2- =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =C2- =0A =C2- =0A =0A =0A=0A- =0ARelease =0A Date: 11/05/09 =0A19:52:00 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood.exelent
Date: Nov 06, 2009
Thanks Jorge. So the tank is vinyl ester resin. Apparently the only one that is fuel proof. The guage is a very uniquely designed oil tank one. The dial and the float assembly have no physical connection whatsoever, The dial pointer and the floatshaft are magnetic. The hand follows the float arm magneticaly through the dividing wall. Oh, I forgot to mention before and didn't take pics but the tank has four baffles in it, two fore and aft and two across. They are glassed into the bottom but not the top. Clif ----- Original Message ----- From: jorge lizarraga To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:11 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood.exelent that is beautyfull touch congrat.. --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Clif Dawson wrote: From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 12:05 AM Here's what I did. First I filled in and contoured the area with really light and thick balsa then, using water based contact cement, glued on 1/32 ply for a hard surface. My thinking was that I was going to be putting weight on that area every time I got in or out so I wanted the solidity of bulk but I also wanted the thinness where the ply overlay the stringers so there wouldn't be a significant bump in the fabric. Yes I know, there's a certain amount of anal involved! I just can't help it. :-) Clif ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Boothe To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 3:21 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood Steve, Here a couple pics of turtle decks made out of 1/8=9D Plywoodno steaming! Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down) -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chase143 Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:33 AM To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood Outstanding! Thanks guys. Great pictures and ideas. I'll check out WC Piet as well. But sounds like no steaming and maybe 1/16 is the way to go, hopefully this weekend. Thanks again, Steve Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271236#271236 -------------------------------------------------------------------- - Release Date: 11/05/09 19:52:00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 11/06/09 19:39:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
Dear Listers, There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums. The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November Fund Raiser. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution too! You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551-0347 Thank you in advance for your generous support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Mike Perez's workshop
Wow, thanks for the kind wors Mike...I don't know what else to say, sir. --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation] wrote: From: Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation] <michael.d.cuy @nasa.gov> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mike Perez's workshop Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 12:14 PM I=99ve visited Mike=99s workshop at his house last winter =C2 -guys and you may as well imagine that you=99re actually entering a surgical area of a hospital with one notable exception. =C2-=C2-There is way more clutter in an operating room.=C2-=C2- =C2- Mike just showed me his torque tube aileron control horn that he TIG welded up (the airfoil shaped / two-halves job) and it looked like it came out of a CNC machine---no distortions or warping anywhere on the edge welds and perfectly drilled and placed holes.=C2-=C2-=C2- My best control horns still had some slight distortion and warpage but Mike=99s look like a robotic welder welded them.=C2-=C2- =C2- Mike=99s also the world=99s luckiest man as he has the full ble ssings of his wife on this project and the stunning 1960=99s GTO he restored from the frame up.=C2- =C2- Mike C. =C2- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: My second Pietenpol flight
I took my first Pietenpol flight last October in Mike Cuy's plane. Last nig ht, Friday, I got my second flight in a Pietenpol...Mike's again!- This t ime we had head sets on and did not have to worry about hand signals only a s we did the first flight. This allowed me to do a little more flying. - My plan was to take note of how the controls felt, how much throw each cont rol surface had, how the plane responded, etc. I did that for about 4 min. but just could not help taking in the scenery and the fact that I was up fl ying again.- It was quite cold, but I didn't care. Once Mike turned the p lane over to my control, I could have stayed up there until we ran out of f uel. - We flew around for about 40 min or so, then landed; at that point he allowe d me to taxi the plane up and down the runway...just as he did after the fi rst flight.- I have as much fun taxing as I do flying....to do so in a ta il dragger is all new to me. - Since I did not take the time to make those mental notes on the controls, r udder/ slipping inputs, throttle settings/sensitivity, etc. I will have to up again...and again...the sooner the better! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels(at)tds.net>
Subject: Scales
Date: Nov 07, 2009
Question for all those who have finished and are flying your Piets. What did you use for scales in determining your weight and balance? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Perry Rhoads" <prhoads61(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Scales
Date: Nov 07, 2009
After recently acquiring Vi Kapler's Piet, I used Ruggles Scales to weight it. They are used by sports car racers for set up. Nothing more than bath scales with mechanical advantage ramps to allow double the weight per scale. Any auto race guy in your area will have these or the much better electronic scales. Perry Rhoads N12939 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roman Bukolt" <conceptmodels(at)tds.net> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:15 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Scales > > Question for all those who have finished and are flying your Piets. > What did you use for scales in determining your weight and balance? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Scales
Date: Nov 07, 2009
Three calibrated, electronic scales. After doing an initial weighing, rotate the scales to a different location on the plane and see if the weights are the same. This will give you an idea of the scales accuracy. Greg Cardinal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roman Bukolt" <conceptmodels(at)tds.net> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:15 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Scales > > Question for all those who have finished and are flying your Piets. > What did you use for scales in determining your weight and balance? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Paule" <dpaule(at)frii.com>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood.exelent
Date: Nov 07, 2009
How far away will the compass be from that thing? Reason I ask is that I learned that Duracell alkaline batteries in my glove box in my Cessna 180 have a profound effect on the compass reading. David Paule The guage is a very uniquely designed oil tank one. The dial and the float assembly have no physical connection whatsoever, The dial pointer and the floatshaft are magnetic. The hand follows the float arm magneticaly through the dividing wall. ------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2009
From: Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Vi Kapler Hinges
Are the Vi Kapler hinges still available? Does anybody have contact info / pricing info? Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Perry Rhoads" <prhoads61(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Vi Kapler Hinges
Date: Nov 07, 2009
Vitalis Kapler 507-288-3322 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave and Connie" <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 9:55 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Vi Kapler Hinges > > > Are the Vi Kapler hinges still available? Does anybody have contact info > / pricing info? > > Dave > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
Date: Nov 07, 2009
I was fabricating the flying strut fittings last night and discovered AFTER I welded them that the width as shown on the plans appears to be incorrect. Here is my reasoning. The small drawing of the Flying Strut Fitting, shown at the bottom of sheet Drawing NO. 5 (the sheet with the wing plans on it), shows the top plate to be 1-inch by 1-inch. On the wing spar drawing there are 1/8-inch plywood plates called for on both sides of the spar at the location of the fitting. These are also shown on the detail drawing near the upper right corner of these sheet. As I interpret these drawings the 1/8-inch plates should be UNDER the fitting to reinforce the spar at this location. This would add 1/4-inch (1/8 +1/8 = 1/4) to the thickness of the spar making 1 1/4-inch needed for the top plate not the 1-inch shown on the plans. Or the plans can be interpreted differently. The Flying Strut fitting drawing does not show the plywood under the fitting. It could be assumed that a 1-inch wide strip of 1/8-inch plywood goes on the SIDE of the fitting as shown on spar drawing. This would make the 1-inch dimension correct. I don't know what is the right interpretation but I think the plywood under the fitting is the best interpretation and will be remaking the fittings. Looking at what others have done would suggest this is the typical way to do it. http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Jack%20Textor/9-02-09_002_800x600.jpg http://westcoastpiet.com/images/kinsella/kin_23.jpg http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Bob%20Siebert/Siebert2003_0107_172105AA.J PG http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Doug%20Hunt/doughunt-strut2.jpg Something I also discovered was several had decided to not weld the two straps together at all. http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Santiago%20Morete/Toma_montantes.jpg http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Jim%20Markle/strut_attach.jpg http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Doug%20Hunt/doughunt-strut2.jpg Chris Tracy Sacramento, CA WestCoastPiet.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 07, 2009
Chris, I believe some will interpret it as no plywood under the fitting, just on the sides. That may have been what Mr. Pietenpol intended too. In working with wood spars and wood wings in general, I've found that it is common practice to place plywood under the fitting. I made that piece an 1 1/4" and welded them together then slid it over the plywood. Made for a 1 1/4" wide gap in the fitting. I'm sure they are both ways, but that makes the most sense to me. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271569#271569 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date: Nov 07, 2009
Chris, Funny that this hasn't been noticed before (at least I don't recall it being discussed). At first glance I thought that maybe the plywood plates were just mounted alongside the strut fittings, even though it didn't seem to make sense. The cross-section detail thru the spar down at the bottom of the drawing shows the fitting directly against the 1" thick spar, so it would appear that the plywood would not be under the fitting. But that doesn't seem to make sense, because a plywood reinforcement like that would likely be there to help spread out the concentrated load that the fitting would put on the spar. And then I noticed the assembly sketch in the upper right quadrant of the drawing, which fairly clearly shows the fitting ON TOP of the plywood (see attached clip). This just makes more sense in terms of building practice, so my conclusion would be that the 1" dimension was an oversight, and should have been 1 1/4" to incorporate the two plywood plates. Probably since most builders today (I think) use the solid 3/4" spar, as opposed to the routed 1" spar, the "error" is not an issue, since 3/4" + 1/8" + 1/8" = 1", so it would work fine with the solid 3/4" spar. Having said all that, it would probably work either way, but the preferred method would be with the plywood under the fitting. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271571#271571 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/strut_detail_114.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Schreiber" <lmforge(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Brake recommendations
Date: Nov 07, 2009
Good People: I'm starting to work on my brakes and I need some honest opinions. I have built a wooden straight axle gear for my Piet and am having trouble deciding on what to use for brakes. My original preference, strictly for appearance, would be to use band brakes. Next in line would be mechanical drum brakes and finally mechanical disk brakes. I am currently flying a TriPacer with hydraulic drum brakes, but they are not independently operated. The brakes are marginal on the TriPacer so they barely hold on runup. Most of my flying is off of paved strips, though my preference is to use grass. Those of you that have band brakes, what diameter is the drum and how satisfied are you with the performance, especially on pavement. Those of you that have drum brakes, again what size is the drum and how well are they performing on pavement. Walt Evans and Don Emch I know that both of you are using 4-1/2 inch Azusa drums and are happy with them, but how well do they work on paved strips? I was thinking about going with 6 inch bands or 6 inch Azusa drums, but if the 4-1/2 inch work OK I don't want to spend the extra money. Plus I want to keep the brakes as unobtrusive as possible. Richard Schreiber Valparaiso, Indiana ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
Here is my take on it...I don't have the plans in front of me to reference directly, so I'm going from memory.- - The "original" wing strut fitting...the one that gets welded over the top o f the spar, is at a different angle then the "newer" wing strut fitting fou nd on the supplemental plans. The original wing strut fitting does not line up (does not form a straight line) with the wing strut itself when in plac e. I assumed that the plywood for these fittings are on the sides of the fi tting to help take the side load that would be imposed from the wing strut itself pulling and pushing the fitting at an angle. (not directly down the center of the fitting)-I believe that is also why they are welded across the top...to help prevent the rotation or side sliding of the fitting. - The new wing strut fitting on the supplemental plans, if you make note of t he angle cut on one end, lines the fitting up in line with the wing strut i tself. There are no side or sliding forces on it...(I don't know how to des cribe it...) the forces are down the center line of the fitting. There is n o need for the plywood sides or the top welded piece.- However, it is ver y wise to use plywood under any holes drilled through spruce to help tie th e grain layers together and keep them from "peeling"- or de-laminating... so to speak. - That's my take anyway. I will be using the supplemental plan version. These are also longer and gives you more clearance between the underside of the wing with it's fabric, paint etc. and the wing strut mounting hole on it. S o, you can get tools on that nut/bolt easier. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Paule" <dpaule(at)frii.com>
Subject: Re: Brake recommendations
Date: Nov 07, 2009
I had mechanical band brakes on another homebuilt, a Kolb Firestar, and while they worked, they often needed adjustment. I much prefer the hydraulic disk brakes on the Skywagon. They are reliable, don't need adjustment, and are very easy to maintain. Toe/heel/hand, that's up to you. I do prefer having the capability of differential braking just for the increased control authority that provides. David Paule ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Schreiber To: pietenpol-list Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 4:00 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brake recommendations Good People: I'm starting to work on my brakes and I need some honest opinions. I have built a wooden straight axle gear for my Piet and am having trouble deciding on what to use for brakes. My original preference, strictly for appearance, would be to use band brakes. Next in line would be mechanical drum brakes and finally mechanical disk brakes. I am currently flying a TriPacer with hydraulic drum brakes, but they are not independently operated. The brakes are marginal on the TriPacer so they barely hold on runup. Most of my flying is off of paved strips, though my preference is to use grass. Those of you that have band brakes, what diameter is the drum and how satisfied are you with the performance, especially on pavement. Those of you that have drum brakes, again what size is the drum and how well are they performing on pavement. Walt Evans and Don Emch I know that both of you are using 4-1/2 inch Azusa drums and are happy with them, but how well do they work on paved strips? I was thinking about going with 6 inch bands or 6 inch Azusa drums, but if the 4-1/2 inch work OK I don't want to spend the extra money. Plus I want to keep the brakes as unobtrusive as possible. Richard Schreiber Valparaiso, Indiana ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Scales
Date: Nov 07, 2009
I first used my bathroom scales, then after moving it to the airport I used the FBO's aircraft scales, and suddenly my plane gained almost 100 lbs. 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 Roman Bukolt Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 9:16 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Scales Question for all those who have finished and are flying your Piets. What did you use for scales in determining your weight and balance? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
Date: Nov 07, 2009
All the loading on the spars comes through the bolts bearing in shear (side loading) on the wood. Adding the plywood is prudent. Not only does it increase the shear area, it also adds harder wood than the spruce of the spar (at least it does if you use birch plywood - I don't know if mahogany or any of the non-aircraft grade plywoods are harder than spruce) to help prevent the bolts elongating the holes. The strap across the top, on the other hand, does nothing to add anything but weight and difficulty. If the bolts have sheared through the spar, that little strap will not keep the spar from failing. 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 Don Emch Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:41 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error Chris, I believe some will interpret it as no plywood under the fitting, just on the sides. That may have been what Mr. Pietenpol intended too. In working with wood spars and wood wings in general, I've found that it is common practice to place plywood under the fitting. I made that piece an 1 1/4" and welded them together then slid it over the plywood. Made for a 1 1/4" wide gap in the fitting. I'm sure they are both ways, but that makes the most sense to me. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271569#271569 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Scales
Date: Nov 07, 2009
From: hvandervoo(at)aol.com
Used 3 mechanical bathroom scales, with 400 Lbs capacity, One for each whe el. Eliminate calibration errors by measure three times with each scale in und er a different wheel. Hans -----Original Message----- From: Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels(at)tds.net> Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 8:15 am Subject: Pietenpol-List: Scales Question for all those who have finished and are flying your Piets. What did you use for scales in determining your weight and balance? ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick N." <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: formation flying
Date: Nov 07, 2009
I got a chance yesterday to go out formation flying with a friend in his T-6. Surprisingly quiet in the rear seat compared to that sharp prop sound on the ground. We are all going to have to work on tightening up our formations for Brodhead (just kidding, of course). Those guys practice formations weekly and are very good. That plane is quite simple. If you take away the Manifold Press gauge and the landing gear indicators there's not much different than a Piet panel. Dick N. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 07, 2009
I'm not even planning to utilize the top strap. I agree with Jack that it just complicates things. I have seen others that just round off that end of the fitting and bolt it on. That's my plan. -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271636#271636 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Bending plywood.exelent
Date: Nov 07, 2009
Three feet. And the magnet system is only enough to move a dial weighing a hundredth of an ounce, maybe. So we'll see. Clif How far away will the compass be from that thing? Reason I ask is that I learned that Duracell alkaline batteries in my glove box in my Cessna 180 have a profound effect on the compass reading. David Paule ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2009
From: jorge lizarraga <flightwood(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: fiber glass tank
tanks for these inform bery helpfull formy proyect slow but continues now I m welding all my cuting parts storage for long time I wish finished sooner seyou tanks again for you help jorge from hanford --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Clif Dawson wrote: From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood.exelent Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 11:17 PM =EF=BB=0A=0A =0AThanks Jorge. So the tank is vinyl ester resin. =0AAppar ently the only one=0Athat is fuel proof. The guage is a very uniquely =0Ade signed oil tank one.=0AThe dial and the float assembly have no physical =0A connection whatsoever,=0AThe dial pointer and the floatshaft are magnetic. =0AThe hand follows the=0Afloat arm magneticaly=C2-through the dividing =0Awall.=0A=C2-=0AOh, I forgot to mention before and didn't take pics =0A but the tank has four=0Abaffles in it, two fore and aft and two across. =0A They are glassed into the=0Abottom but not the top.=0A=C2-=0AClif=0A=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: =0A jorge =0A lizarraga =0A To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com =0A =0A Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:11 =0A PM=0A Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending =0A plywood.exelent =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A that is beautyfull touch congrat.. --- On Fri, =0A 11/6/09, Clif Dawson =0A wrote: =0A From: =0A Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> Subject: =0A Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending plywood Date: =0A Friday, November 6, 2009, 12:05 AM =0A =0A #yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 #yiv1905632668 P.Mso Normal {=0AMARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt; }=0A#yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 LI.MsoNormal {=0AMARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-F AMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}=0A#yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 DIV .MsoNormal {=0AMARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:1 2pt;}=0A#yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 A:link {=0ACOLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION: underline;}=0A#yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 SPAN.MsoHyperlink {=0ACOLOR:blue ;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}=0A#yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 A:visited {=0AC OLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}=0A#yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 SPAN .MsoHyperlinkFollowed {=0ACOLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}=0A#yiv15 1057301 #yiv1905632668 P.MsoPlainText {=0AMARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"C ourier New";FONT-SIZE:10pt;}=0A#yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 LI.MsoPlainText {=0AMARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Courier New";FONT-SIZE:10pt;}=0A#yiv15 1057301 #yiv1905632668 DIV.MsoPlainText {=0AMARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New";FONT-SIZE:10pt;}=0A#yiv151057301 UNKNOWN {=0AMARGIN:1in 77.95 pt;}=0A#yiv151057301 #yiv1905632668 DIV.Section1 {=0A=0A}=0A=0A=0A Here's what I did. First I filled in and =0A contoured the area =0A with really light and thick balsa then, =0A using wat er based=0A contact cement, glued on 1/32 ply for a =0A h ard surface.=0A =C2-My thinking was that I was going to =0A be putting weight=0A on that area every time I got in or out =0A so I wanted the=0A solidity of bulk but I also wanted the =0A thinness where the=0A ply overlay the stringers so there =0A wouldn't be a significant=0A bump in the fab ric. Yes I know, there's a =0A certain amount=0A of anal involved! I just can't help =0A it.=C2- :-)=0A =C2- =0A Clif=0A =0A ----- =0A Original Message ----- =0A From: =0A Gary Boothe =0A =0A To: =0A pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com =0A =0A Sent: =0A Thursday, November 05, 2009 3:21 P M=0A Subject: =0A RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending ply wood=0A =0A =0A Steve,=0A =C2-=0A Her e a couple pics of turtle decks made out =0A of 1/8=9D Ply woodno steaming!=0A =C2-=0A =0A =C2-=0A =0A =C2-=0A Gary Boothe=0A Cool, Ca.=0A Pietenpol=0A WW Corvair Convers ion, =0A mounted=0A Tail done, Fuselage on =0Agear=0A (15 ribs down)=0A -----Original Message---- - From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com =0A [mailto:owne r-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of =0A chase143 Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:33 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending =0A plywood=0A chase143" =0A =C2-=0A Outstanding ! Thanks guys. Great pictures and =0A ideas. I'll check out WC P iet as well. But sounds like no steaming =0A and maybe 1/16 is t he way to go, hopefully this =0A weekend.=0A Thanks a gain,=0A Steve=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A Read this topic online =0A here:=0A =C2-=0A http://forums.matronic s.com/viewtopic.php?p=271236#271236=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =0A =0A - Release Date: =0A 11/05/09 =0A 19:5 2:00 =0A =0A =0A=0A- =0ARelease =0A Date: 11/06/09 19:39:00 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Sky Scout First Flight
From: "bill55" <bliimatainen(at)antennaplus.com>
Date: Nov 08, 2009
The Sky Scout has finally flown over Brodhead yesterday. Thirty minute flight was flawless and Ted Davis gave the airplane the thumbs up approval! Takeoff speed is 60 mph, stall is 30-35 mph and cruise is 70 to 75 mph. Overall weight is 619 pounds with oil and water. Model A engine started first flip and idled at 540 rpm. Full throttle is around 2100 rpm. I will attach a photo of Ted taking off on the East-West runway at Brodhead. Bill Liimatainen Monroe, Wisconsin Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271666#271666 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/sky_scout_first_flight_197.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Piet. CFI needed.
From: "Tim" <twilliams(at)mailmt.com>
Date: Nov 08, 2009
Anyone out there known of a CFI in the Sarasota Fl. area who would give me some dual time in my Piet. Tim Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271681#271681 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Riblett GA30U-613.5 airfoil
From: "ivan.todorovic" <tosha(at)sezampro.rs>
Date: Nov 08, 2009
Someone may find this files to be of interest. Regards, Ivan Todorovic Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271714#271714 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/ga30u_6135_calc_145.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/ga30u_6135_129.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/ga30u_6135_173.dxf http://forums.matronics.com//files/ga30u_6135_163.dat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wayne Bressler <wayne(at)taildraggersinc.com>
Subject: Re: Sky Scout First Flight
Date: Nov 08, 2009
Now that looks like fun!!! Wayne Bressler Jr. Taildraggers, Inc. taildraggersinc.com Sent from the phone that made the Blackberry obsolete. On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:32 AM, "bill55" wrote: > > > > The Sky Scout has finally flown over Brodhead yesterday. Thirty > minute flight was flawless and Ted Davis gave the airplane the > thumbs up approval! Takeoff speed is 60 mph, stall is 30-35 mph and > cruise is 70 to 75 mph. Overall weight is 619 pounds with oil and > water. Model A engine started first flip and idled at 540 rpm. > Full throttle is around 2100 rpm. I will attach a photo of Ted > taking off on the East-West runway at Brodhead. > > Bill Liimatainen > Monroe, Wisconsin > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271666#271666 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/sky_scout_first_flight_197.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip Gadd" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Sky Scout First Flight
Date: Nov 08, 2009
Bill, Congratulations! The Scout looks great, can't wait to see it in person next summer. Skip > [Original Message] > > > The Sky Scout has finally flown over Brodhead yesterday. Thirty minute flight was flawless and Ted Davis gave the airplane the thumbs up approval! Takeoff speed is 60 mph, stall is 30-35 mph and cruise is 70 to 75 mph. Overall weight is 619 pounds with oil and water. Model A engine started first flip and idled at 540 rpm. Full throttle is around 2100 rpm. I will attach a photo of Ted taking off on the East-West runway at Brodhead. > > Bill Liimatainen > Monroe, Wisconsin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Rubeck Ribs
I was fortunate to meet Charlie at Sun N Fun about 4 years ago, after I had built my ribs. It took me 2 months. I believe he did it as a hobby and built 2 ribs a day. He was making ribs in the woodworking tent at the time. I'm glad I got to meet him. I'm glad I built my own ribs, and would do so again, but agree that $300 was a bargain. Ben Charvet tbyh(at)aol.com wrote: > Yes, Charlie Rubeck sold sets of ribs for $300...considering the hours > and materials, he was working for way less than minimum wage! I would > advise anyone who has an opportunity to buy a set of completed ribs > (assuming they are well built), should buy 'em poste haste! > > Meanwhile, we all miss Charlie and remember him... > > Fred B. > La Crosse, WI > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2009
Subject: Re: Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
From: Robert Ray <rray032003(at)gmail.com>
What is customery contribution? Russell Ray On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Matt Dralle wrote: > > Dear Listers, > > There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and > Forums. The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions > during the November Fund > Raiser. > > Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and > upgrade of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making > your Contribution too! > > You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site > here: > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > or, you can send a personal check to the following address: > > Matronics / Matt Dralle > PO Box 347 > Livermore, CA 94551-0347 > > Thank you in advance for your generous support! > > Matt Dralle > Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Please make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
Date: Nov 08, 2009
Russell asked: >What is customary contribution? It's anything you want, or nothing. I always try to contribute $25 or $30 annually because I get a great deal out of this list. I figure at $26 annually, I'm paying fifty cents a week to enjoy everything that I hear and learn on this list. Fifty cents a week! Seven cents a day! The posts are screened for viruses, archived in a really nifty searchable database, available in instant postings or in a daily digest, and are supported by a very high-tech server that *somebody* has to maintain and keep updated. I'm probably low-balling the list admin by not contributing $50 or more, but I think there's a mental break point somewhere around $25 or $30 that people are willing to pay for an annual subscription. That's my take on it, anyhow. Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2009
Subject: Re: Please make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
From: Robert Ray <rray032003(at)gmail.com>
It's done, and a pretty good deal I might add. Russell On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Oscar Zuniga wrote: > > > Russell asked: > > >What is customary contribution? > > It's anything you want, or nothing. I always try to > contribute $25 or $30 annually because I get a great > deal out of this list. I figure at $26 annually, I'm > paying fifty cents a week to enjoy everything that I > hear and learn on this list. Fifty cents a week! > Seven cents a day! The posts are screened for viruses, > archived in a really nifty searchable database, available > in instant postings or in a daily digest, and are > supported by a very high-tech server that *somebody* has > to maintain and keep updated. I'm probably low-balling > the list admin by not contributing $50 or more, but I > think there's a mental break point somewhere around $25 > or $30 that people are willing to pay for an annual > subscription. > > That's my take on it, anyhow. > > Oscar Zuniga > Air Camper NX41CC > San Antonio, TX > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Fund Raiser List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution
Today! Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2009
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: scout
Congratulations Bill on your Scout!! Never met you, but my hat is off to you for finishing and bringing to life another beautiful plane. I absolutely love the Scout, and doubt there are half a dozen flying in the country. VERY COOL!! Funny how most people who build a Scout use a Ford, and most people who build an Aircamper use a Continental (though this trend seems to be shifting to the Corvair) Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Piet. CFI needed.
Tim, Check out the NAFI database for flight instructors near you: http://www.nafinet.org/directory/florida_1.html That's how I found the guy who gave me the dual in my Piet. Some CFIs will list 'tailwheel' as one of their specialities, but some who are TW endorsed forget to put it down. The guy I found prefers to do tailwheel instruction, but forgot to list it in his database entry. Good luck! Dan Tim wrote: > > Anyone out there known of a CFI in the Sarasota Fl. area who would give me some dual time in my Piet. > Tim > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271681#271681 > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Piet. CFI needed.
From: "Tim" <twilliams(at)mailmt.com>
Date: Nov 09, 2009
Dan, Thanks a lot for that link. Tim Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271978#271978 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2009
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: Robert Ray <rray032003(at)gmail.com>
Also I think I see extra stress caused by the strap acting as a lever, I'm not an engineer but the strap is pulled in toward the plane and would result in a twisting motion in the out direction of the wing top. Does any one else see this or is this a figment of my imagination? It's probably strong enough that it doesn't matter but please if any one else See's this let me know, or if you don't see it let me know. It looks like having the bolt holes in alignment with the strut would stop this? I know we have some very talented engineers out there and I want to hear from you? Russell On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, K5YAC wrote: > > I'm not even planning to utilize the top strap. I agree with Jack that it > just complicates things. I have seen others that just round off that end of > the fitting and bolt it on. That's my plan. > > -------- > Mark - working on wings > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271636#271636 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Got a new camera
I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel landings at 2GA9 this weekend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0 A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0 -- Jeff Boatright "Now let's think about this..." ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
Date: Nov 09, 2009
Russell On the supplemental plans that show the long fuselage there is a redesigned upper strut fitting that put the fitting in line with the pull of the struts. So you are correct in not liking the original fitting geometry. However they both seem to work fine on a Pietenpol. Chris Sacramento, CA WestCoastPiet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Ray To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:28 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error Also I think I see extra stress caused by the strap acting as a lever, I'm not an engineer but the strap is pulled in toward the plane and would result in a twisting motion in the out direction of the wing top. Does any one else see this or is this a figment of my imagination? It's probably strong enough that it doesn't matter but please if any one else See's this let me know, or if you don't see it let me know. It looks like having the bolt holes in alignment with the strut would stop this? I know we have some very talented engineers out there and I want to hear from you? Russell On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, K5YAC wrote: I'm not even planning to utilize the top strap. I agree with Jack that it just complicates things. I have seen others that just round off that end of the fitting and bolt it on. That's my plan. -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271636#271636 ber is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on -= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com omebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com http:/r generous support! Matronics List Features Navigator to browse s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com ============= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Piet info
From: "womenfly2" <keriannprice(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Hi Everyone, GeoCite closed down and so did my web site. I am working on a new one which will have 3D drawings/plans for download. If anyone needs to reach me for plan info, I am at keriannprice(at)hotmail.com. Drop me a line. Thanks for all the support. Keep the dream. Keri-Ann Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272064#272064 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Jeff, I take it you fixed your mixture problem - what did it turn out to be? Dan Jeff Boatright wrote: > > I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel > landings at 2GA9 this weekend: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0 > > A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0 -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RAMPEYBOY(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
excellent videos! I love seeing you come in between the house and trees! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Oh, and the girls just hopped up on my lap and watched your videos (I work from home on Tuesdays...). They thought your landings were just fine. ;-) Cheers, Dan Jeff Boatright wrote: > > I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel > landings at 2GA9 this weekend: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0 > > A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0 -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
After looking at the video again I see that your take offs are somewhat ste ep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other end of the field but you could do that with a much more conservative take off than what you are doing.I have been guilty in the past of doing this with my GN-1 Aircamper a nd the old guys at the field just shake their heads and say no,no,no.What w ould happen if you had an engine failure?There is a possiblility of a wing over and a steep dive or a stall which you will not have the altitude to re cover from.Just passing some friendly advice along from the old guys.If the engine does quit then you can pick out a spot forward of you to put her do wn.Even if it wrecks the plane somewhat ,at least you'll be alive to rebuil d it.I'm not going to say do not-archive this because it is very importan t.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Jeff Boatright <j boatri(at)emory.edu>=0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, November 9, 2009 10:35:01 PM=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0A--> Pi etenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright =0A=0AI - got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel landing s at 2GA9 this weekend:=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0 =0A=0AA good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that even ing:=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0=0A-- =0AJeff Boatrig =========================0A ==== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Abramson" <davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com>
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
Date: Nov 10, 2009
My take is that the Plywood is under the fitting... This protects the spar from being deformed by the fittings when tightened. Also, spreads the load to the spar. Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Church Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 9:56 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error Chris, Funny that this hasn't been noticed before (at least I don't recall it being discussed). At first glance I thought that maybe the plywood plates were just mounted alongside the strut fittings, even though it didn't seem to make sense. The cross-section detail thru the spar down at the bottom of the drawing shows the fitting directly against the 1" thick spar, so it would appear that the plywood would not be under the fitting. But that doesn't seem to make sense, because a plywood reinforcement like that would likely be there to help spread out the concentrated load that the fitting would put on the spar. And then I noticed the assembly sketch in the upper right quadrant of the drawing, which fairly clearly shows the fitting ON TOP of the plywood (see attached clip). This just makes more sense in terms of building practice, so my conclusion would be that the 1" dimension was an oversight, and should have been 1 1/4" to incorporate the two plywood plates. Probably since most builders today (I think) use the solid 3/4" spar, as opposed to the routed 1" spar, the "error" is not an issue, since 3/4" + 1/8" + 1/8" = 1", so it would work fine with the solid 3/4" spar. Having said all that, it would probably work either way, but the preferred method would be with the plywood under the fitting. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271571#271571 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/strut_detail_114.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Yeah, one of these days I'll get good enough with the control stick and video camera enough to film what's going on the other side of those second story windows. Would it be wrong of me to support my flying addiction through blackmail? >:-} >excellent videos! I love seeing you come in between the house and trees! -- Jeff Boatright "Now let's think about this..." ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Ah the optimism and naivety of youth... <:-| > >Oh, and the girls just hopped up on my lap and watched your videos >(I work from home on Tuesdays...). They thought your landings were >just fine. > >;-) > >Cheers, >Dan > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Well, we never did figure it out. As covered in the archives, we tried just about every strategy to fix the stumble. Oddly enough, the last couple of weeks it seems to occur less often. In fact, this weekend I could not replicate the problem at any rpm setting. Change in weather? Change in fuel? Loss of sanity? Who knows? Eventually I want to replace the Stromberg with a Marvel Schebler, so I'm saving my pennies. Until then, I'll just do as the Doc prescribed: "Doc, it hurts when I do this. What should I do?" "Well then, son, don't do that!" > >Jeff, > >I take it you fixed your mixture problem - what did it turn out to be? > >Dan > >Jeff Boatright wrote: >> >>I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel >>landings at 2GA9 this weekend: >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0 >> >>A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening: >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0 > >-- >Dan Yocum >Fermilab 630.840.6509 >yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov >Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend! The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best glide speed, period. If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180 degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500', you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right). With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly some runway in front of you which you can land on. Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them. Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land. So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as many holes in my logic. Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir? Cheers, Dan H RULE wrote: > After looking at the video again I see that your take offs are somewhat > steep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other end of the > field but you could do that with a much more conservative take off than > what you are doing.I have been guilty in the past of doing this with my > GN-1 Aircamper and the old guys at the field just shake their heads and > say no,no,no.What would happen if you had an engine failure?There is a > possiblility of a wing over and a steep dive or a stall which you will > not have the altitude to recover from.Just passing some friendly advice > along from the old guys.If the engine does quit then you can pick out a > spot forward of you to put her down.Even if it wrecks the plane somewhat > ,at least you'll be alive to rebuild it.I'm not going to say do > not archive this because it is very important. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Jeff Boatright > *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Mon, November 9, 2009 10:35:01 PM > *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > > > > I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel > landings at 2GA9 this weekend: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0 > > A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0 > -- --> hsp; -Matr?Pietenpol-List" > target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pieten; --> > <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > > > <http://forums.matronics.com/> > > * > > > * -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Jeff Boatright wrote: > > Well, we never did figure it out. As covered in the archives, we tried > just about every strategy to fix the stumble. Oddly enough, the last > couple of weeks it seems to occur less often. In fact, this weekend I > could not replicate the problem at any rpm setting. Change in weather? > Change in fuel? Loss of sanity? Who knows? Strange... maybe you got a spider in the gas system and it finally worked its way out... ;-) > > Eventually I want to replace the Stromberg with a Marvel Schebler, so > I'm saving my pennies. Until then, I'll just do as the Doc prescribed: Next time I'm out at the airport I'll dig out the receipt for the Marvel Schebler I've got and send you the seller info, if you're interested. I did notice that seller issued a "core" refund for the Stromberg to the tune of about $400, bringing the actual cost to something like $700 for the MA-3. Cheers, Dan > > "Doc, it hurts when I do this. What should I do?" > > "Well then, son, don't do that!" > > >> >> Jeff, >> >> I take it you fixed your mixture problem - what did it turn out to be? >> >> Dan >> >> Jeff Boatright wrote: >>> >>> I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel >>> landings at 2GA9 this weekend: >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0 >>> >>> A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that >>> evening: >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0 >> >> -- >> Dan Yocum >> Fermilab 630.840.6509 >> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov >> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. > > > > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Dan, up to a point I agree with you. I think what Harvey is trying to say is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to push your nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground. It's all quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet. I've had two friends die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground. One only killed himself but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself. It went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law. He was flying a super cub (as was the other), had thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game pilot and was showing off. As I say, very different than a 200' release with a glider. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend! > > The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best > glide speed, period. > > If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit > that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180 > degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500', > you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your > forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right). > > With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end > of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly > some runway in front of you which you can land on. > > Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of > hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them. > Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the > stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually > happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at > 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land. > > So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as > many holes in my logic. > > Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir? > > Cheers, > Dan > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Jeff's take off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take off. He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop the nose and keep flying speed. Just my 2 cents worth Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: H RULE To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much speed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't know about getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too steep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still around.I can't argue with that. I have watched jet liners pull out at an unbelievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But then again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwise. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Scott Knowlton " <flyingscott_k(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
I'm with Gene on this assessment. Departure stalls happen with an engine failure because the instant loss of thrust is accompanied by a dramatic increase in angle of attack. Remember the old pictures of the relative airflow in a full power climb as compared to a power off nose high attitude. That relative airflow changes very quickly with a power loss to the point that the wing will reach its critical angle of attack before the pilot can react to it. Try it at 2000 feet. With full power, briskly pull the nose up until you reach your departure climb speed, then retard the throttle to idle and see the result. I'd suggest after you try that your climb angle on departure will become a little more conservative. As an aside, the climb angle of a transport category airliner on departure is necessary to meet the stages of minimum net flight path altitudes on departure and are designed to be sustainable in the event of a thrust loss in one engine (one... Because they have more than one...) Scott Knowlton (slow builder in Burlington) -----Original Message----- From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:28:14 Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera Dan, up to a point I agree with you. I think what Harvey is trying to say is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to push your nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground. It's all quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet. I've had two friends die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground. One only killed himself but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself. It went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law. He was flying a super cub (as was the other), had thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game pilot and was showing off. As I say, very different than a 200' release with a glider. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend! > > The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best > glide speed, period. > > If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit > that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180 > degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500', > you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your > forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right). > > With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end > of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly > some runway in front of you which you can land on. > > Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of > hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them. > Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the > stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually > happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at > 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land. > > So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as > many holes in my logic. > > Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir? > > Cheers, > Dan > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my f ield feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these gu ys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain speed.T hey feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will come as you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I thought I wa s doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too steep.-=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@ bentoncountycable.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, Nove mber 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A =0A=0AHarvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Je ff's take off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take o ff.- He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop the nose and keep flying speed.=0AJust my 2 cents worth=0AGene=0A----- Orig inal Message ----- =0A>From: H RULE =0A>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com =0A>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-Lis t: Got a new camera=0A>=0A>=0A>If you tried that turn in a Piet you would b e toast.It would not make it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much speed as possible by keeping her level longer a nd a slow climb out.I don't know about getting that stick forward.You may n ot if your climb angle is too steep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it 's been hard for me to kick the habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still around.I can't argue with that.-I have watched jet liners pull out at an unbelievable angle of attack and it just makes m e wonder who is right.But then again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who i s right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys men ===== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
There was aguy at our field one day thought it was a good idea to do a stee p climb out in a Cessna.The seat wasn't locked and it slid back on him and he couldn't shove the yoke forward.I don't need to tell you what happened t o him.Now I know the seat in the Piet is not one that moves backwards and f orwards or at least mine don't so this story doesn't apply.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_ _______________________________=0AFrom: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountyc able.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 12:28:14 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0A--> Piete npol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" =0A=0ADan, up to a point I agree with you.- I think what Harvey is trying to say is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to pu sh your nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground.- I t's all quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet.- I've had t wo friends die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground.- One only k illed himself but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself.- It went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law.- He was flying a super cub (as was the other), had- thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game pilot and was showing off.- As I say, very differen t than a 200' release with a glider.=0AGene=0A=0A----- Original Message --- -- From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov>=0ATo: <pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> =0ASent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: =0A> =0A> I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend!=0A> =0A> The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best=0A> glide speed, period.=0A> =0A> If you los e an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit=0A> that speed .- If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180=0A> degree tu rn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500',=0A> you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your=0A> forward fie ld of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right).=0A> =0A> With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end=0A> of the run way, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly=0A> some runway in front of you which you can land on.=0A> =0A> Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of=0A> hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them.=0A> Every year we do at least one 2 00' rope break.- Step one is push the=0A> stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually=0A> happens with step one, is turn ar ound (a glider *can* execute a 180 at=0A> 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land.=0A> =0A> So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as=0A> many holes in my logic.=0A> =0A> Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir?=0A> =0A> Cheer -=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Drall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Butsch" <rbutsch(at)comcast.net>
Subject: New organization
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Hey guys & gals: I couldn't help but pass this info on since it has a great and very real connection to the Pietenpol Air Camper. Take a look at this web site for info on a new organization. The fellow who started this, Don Abbott, is an old friend of mine from here in Indiana. I was talking with him last winter when we were in Florida (he lives on Sanibel Island), and he told me of his idea to start a aircraft/camping organization. He has finally made it's presence known via the attached site. I didn't know at the time that the name would be the American Air Campers Association. I think it's a great idea and he is looking for 6 regional directors and a wing leader in each state. This is a perfect tie-in with our chosen aircraft. Watch the video and then drop him a line with your interest and ideas. This would be a great way to further promote the aircraft that really started the idea of camping from your plane in the first place. Go to www.americanaircampers.com What do you guys think of the idea? Bob Robert Butsch 7360 Steinmeier Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-2567 PH 317-841-3786 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Paule" <dpaule(at)frii.com>
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Yep, in engineering terms, what's happening is that the fitting and the strut don't line up, so when you resolve the load in the fitting into parallel and perpendicular components, the perpendicular load creates a bending moment about the centroid of the spar bolts. It's really there. And it really does increase the forces in those bolts. About all we can say is that it's proven to work anyway, and that the plane has, even with that, a reputation for being robust. David Paule ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Ray To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 8:28 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error Also I think I see extra stress caused by the strap acting as a lever, I'm not an engineer but the strap is pulled in toward the plane and would result in a twisting motion in the out direction of the wing top. Does any one else see this or is this a figment of my imagination? It's probably strong enough that it doesn't matter but please if any one else See's this let me know, or if you don't see it let me know. It looks like having the bolt holes in alignment with the strut would stop this? I know we have some very talented engineers out there and I want to hear from you? Russell On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, K5YAC wrote: I'm not even planning to utilize the top strap. I agree with Jack that it just complicates things. I have seen others that just round off that end of the fitting and bolt it on. That's my plan. -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271636#271636 ber is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on -= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com omebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com http:/r generous support! Matronics List Features Navigator to browse s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com ============= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Well it certainly sounds like you have done some home work and it sounds li ke you know what you are doing.I don't have VG's on my plane so I don't kno w how it would react.I have an 80 hp Franklin and I usually climb out at 60 but these old guys are saying no ,you should be climbing out at max speed ( around 85)so since my plane is nothing like yours ,I'm going to stick wit h the old guys.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Jeff Boatright =0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: T ue, November 10, 2009 2:41:16 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new c amera=0A=0A=0AHarvey and Dan and Gene & Tammy,=0A=0AThanks for the discussi on, and Harvey, thanks for the concern that led to the initial email.=0A=0A I agree with with you all.=0A=0AHow can that be? Is I just letting my inner middle-child syndrome out again?=0A=0ANope. I think that there is a real i ssue here and that there should be a balance between the maximum climb-out performance (with accompanying crazy climb-out angle) Icould achieve in thi s particular Piet- versus the effects of the high-drag, control limitatio ns, and lift characteristics of the design. The Piet is a high drag airfram e with (relative to other designs) low mass and thus low inertia. Mine has a weird airfoil. It will dissipate speed along the axis of flight really qu ickly once power is off, so in climb-out the nose will drop rapidly. And, w ith minimal or no dihedral, it WILL drop a wing and recover slower under ci rcumstances in which that would not occur with other aircraft. At least, th at's been my experience.=0A=0AIt's important (to me) to know how the plane handles in such critical situations. It's also important to me to know howI handle such critical situations. I have practiced engine-out responses (bo th mine and the Piet's) in emulated climb-out AT ALTITUDE. I have not done all the testing that I intend to do. I have gradually pulled power, and the n pulled power more and more aggressively. I have NOT worked up to absolute maximal climb and deck angle and chopped power.- If you have any concern s, you couldcautiously test at altitude, but that is up to you. You might b e unpleasantly surprised, or you might find that it's a non-event. I think it will depend on the individual airplane and pilot. Alternatively, if you have concerns, you could just keep to shallow climb angles. I certainly wou ld if I hadn't done any testing. I doubt that I would do even what I have w ith the odd-ball leading edge our Piet has without first having installed t he vortex generators that tame it's slow flight characteristics (cue requests for VG discussion ).=0A=0AAs to the video that brought on this discussion, those take-offs su re looks steep, and watching them makes me want to complete my climb-out te st program, but I think there's a bit of an optical illusion here. The clim bs in the video were made at 60-70 mph. This particular Piet- stalls powe r-off at 35-40 mph and 30 mph or below (can't measure it with our ASI) with power and will climb easily at less than 50 mph. The climb-outs you see ar e being done way above stall speeds and at deck angles (as viewed in the co ckpit) that are nowhere near those at the power-on stall. Catastrophic powe r loss, in terms of the plane snapping over or stalling and dropping a wing , is less of a concern tome inthis plane atthose speeds (60-70 mph) because of my limited testing at altitude. The nose drop even at those speeds and angles, though, is NOT like a Cessna. It is dramatic.=0A=0AIf further testi ng shows that, to me, I am not balancing the climb performance with the nee d to maintain control, I will change behavior. Other parameters beyond just chopping power in max climb might include coordinated and uncoordinated tu rn while climbing, different weights (who wants to volunteer for the front cockpit?), or gusty air.=0A=0AJeff=0A=0APS: Another factor to toss in here is that a higher deck angle makes it more difficult to see traffic. Not muc h of a concern at 2GA9, a little country airport, but could be the deciding factor in other circumstances.=0A=0A=0AAfter looking at the video again I see that your take offs are somewhat steep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other end of the field but you could do that with a much more conservative take off than what you are doing.I have been guilty in the pas t of doing this with my GN-1 Aircamper and the old guys at the field just s hake their heads and say no,no,no.What would happen if you had an engine fa ilure?There is a possiblility of a wing over and a steep dive or a stall wh ich you will not have the altitude to recover from.Just passing some friend ly advice along from the old guys.If the engine does quit then you can pick out a spot forward of you to put her down.Even if it wrecks the plane some what ,at least you'll be alive to rebuild it.I'm not going to say do not- ======= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Could you categorize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow airspeed climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still 20-30mph above stall. I would rather have some altitude underneath me and flying at 60-70mph if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy airplan e like the Piet is not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'upward zoom'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude in tha t situation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place? Ryan On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE wrote: > There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my > field feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these > guys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain > speed.They feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will > come as you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I > thought I was doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too > steep. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Gene & Tammy > *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM > > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Jeff's > take off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take off. > He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop the n ose > and keep flying speed. > Just my 2 cents worth > Gene > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* H RULE > *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make > it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as m uch > speed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don' t > know about getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too > steep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I w as > taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick t he > habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still > around.I can't argue with that. I have watched jet liners pull out at an > unbelievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But > then again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole > aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is > wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I k now > otherwise. > > > * > AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>www.hom ebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.c om/contribution" rel=nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/N avigator?Pietenpol-List" rel=nofollow targe==== > * > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Got a new camera
It has the original Piet airfoil, but the leading edge is very lumpy. Instead of plywood, it is aluminum sheet. The fabric shrinking pulled the aluminum non-uniformly, such that some parts of the leading edge are pretty sharp and other parts approximate the airfoil per plans. Engine is a Continental C-85, less than 200 hrs since rebuild. Possibly running a little rich as I think our fuel burn rate is a little high. Last annual showed compressions of 80/80/80/79. The previous annual, using same gauge, was something like 80/79/78/79. The same gauge does show lower numbers on some of the older engines around the field, so we know it's not stuck at 80! Prop is a Cloudcars 76x38 semi-scimitar. Definitely a climb prop. Empty weight is 723 lbs. I am 185 dressed for the cold and there was about 10 gals of fuel on board. Temps over the course of the video were mid 60s to mid 70s (video is from two days of flying). A couple of things about the video. First, the take-off run is pretty seriously downhill, so maybe gravity adds to the acceleration a bit. That may not be apparent in the videos. Second, the climb angle when viewed in-person, for whatever reason, just doesn't look that bad. I agree that it looks pretty steep in the video, certainly enough to give me pause now that the list has got me looking at it again, but I don't think I'm climbing any differently than Wayne is (in fact, he does a better job of holding right at 60 mph in the climb). I mention that because Wayne flying solo is the only time I'm on the ground watching the Piet's climb-out (that is, "viewed in-person"). Sounds like I have another excuse -- I mean mission -- to go flying. Gotta replicate the experiment! Honest, honey, it's all in the name of science! :) >Jeff, > >What airfoil does your Piet have? What engine? What prop? What is >your empty weight? > >Not only does it seem to be able to climb at an alarming angle, it >really accelerates quickly. > >Jack Phillips >NX899JP >Raleigh, NC > > >From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff >Boatright >Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:41 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > >Harvey and Dan and Gene & Tammy, > >Thanks for the discussion, and Harvey, thanks for the concern that >led to the initial email. > >I agree with with you all. > >How can that be? Is I just letting my inner middle-child syndrome out again? > >Nope. I think that there is a real issue here and that there should >be a balance between the maximum climb-out performance (with >accompanying crazy climb-out angle) I could achieve in this >particular Piet versus the effects of the high-drag, control >limitations, and lift characteristics of the design. The Piet is a >high drag airframe with (relative to other designs) low mass and >thus low inertia. Mine has a weird airfoil. It will dissipate speed >along the axis of flight really quickly once power is off, so in >climb-out the nose will drop rapidly. And, with minimal or no >dihedral, it WILL drop a wing and recover slower under circumstances >in which that would not occur with other aircraft. At least, that's >been my experience. > >It's important (to me) to know how the plane handles in such >critical situations. It's also important to me to know how I handle >such critical situations. I have practiced engine-out responses >(both mine and the Piet's) in emulated climb-out AT ALTITUDE. I have >not done all the testing that I intend to do. I have gradually >pulled power, and then pulled power more and more aggressively. I >have NOT worked up to absolute maximal climb and deck angle and >chopped power. If you have any concerns, you could cautiously test >at altitude, but that is up to you. You might be unpleasantly >surprised, or you might find that it's a non-event. I think it will >depend on the individual airplane and pilot. Alternatively, if you >have concerns, you could just keep to shallow climb angles. I >certainly would if I hadn't done any testing. I doubt that I would >do even what I have with the odd-ball leading edge our Piet has >without first having installed the vortex generators that tame it's >slow flight characteristics (cue requests for VG discussion). > >As to the video that brought on this discussion, those take-offs >sure looks steep, and watching them makes me want to complete my >climb-out test program, but I think there's a bit of an optical >illusion here. The climbs in the video were made at 60-70 mph. This >particular Piet stalls power-off at 35-40 mph and 30 mph or below >(can't measure it with our ASI) with power and will climb easily at >less than 50 mph. The climb-outs you see are being done way above >stall speeds and at deck angles (as viewed in the cockpit) that are >nowhere near those at the power-on stall. Catastrophic power loss, >in terms of the plane snapping over or stalling and dropping a wing, >is less of a concern to me in this plane at those speeds (60-70 mph) >because of my limited testing at altitude. The nose drop even at >those speeds and angles, though, is NOT like a Cessna. It is >dramatic. > >If further testing shows that, to me, I am not balancing the climb >performance with the need to maintain control, I will change >behavior. Other parameters beyond just chopping power in max climb >might include coordinated and uncoordinated turn while climbing, >different weights (who wants to volunteer for the front cockpit?), >or gusty air. > >Jeff > >PS: Another factor to toss in here is that a higher deck angle makes >it more difficult to see traffic. Not much of a concern at 2GA9, a >little country airport, but could be the deciding factor in other >circumstances. > > >>After looking at the video again I see that your take offs are >>somewhat steep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other >>end of the field but you could do that with a much more >>conservative take off than what you are doing.I have been guilty in >>the past of doing this with my GN-1 Aircamper and the old guys at >>the field just shake their heads and say no,no,no.What would happen >>if you had an engine failure?There is a possiblility of a wing over >>and a steep dive or a stall which you will not have the altitude to >>recover from.Just passing some friendly advice along from the old >>guys.If the engine does quit then you can pick out a spot forward >>of you to put her down.Even if it wrecks the plane somewhat ,at >>least you'll be alive to rebuild it.I'm not going to say do >>not archive this because it is very important. >> >> >> > > >www.aeroelectric.com >www.homebuilthelp.com >http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > ><http://www.buildersbooks.com>www.buildersbooks.com ><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List -- --- Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine Editor-in-Chief Molecular Vision ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
As I said before,I was trained by ultralight pilots and they climb at high attack angles and get up as fast as you can.We used 2 stroke engines in eve ry case.The old guys are telling me that it's not a good idea with 4 stroke engines to climb at such attack angles.They do not even agree with the pil ots who fly the 2 strokes that it's a good idea to fly like that.They just shake their heads and walk away and say good luck fella cause in their mind you may be OK today but one day that's going to kill you.- =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A________________________________=0AFrom: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail. com>=0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:35 :16 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0ACould you categ orize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow airspeed climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still 20-30mph above s tall. I would rather have some altitude underneath me and flying at 60-70mp h if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy airplane like the Piet i s not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'upward zoom'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude in that situation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place?=0A=0ARyan=0A=0A=0AOn Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE wrote:=0A=0AThere was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my field feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these guys ar e telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain speed.They f eel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will come as you g ain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I thought I was doi ng it right a few times and they told me I was still too steep.-=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A>=0A________________________________=0A=0A>From: Gene & Tammy <zharv ey(at)bentoncountycable.net>=0A>=0A>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0A>Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM =0A>=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Jeff's take off and I personally don't see a problem wi th his angle of take off.- He wasn't at such an acute angle that he would n't have time to drop the nose and keep flying speed.=0A>Just my 2 cents wo rth=0A>Gene=0A>----- Original Message ----- =0A>>From: H RULE =0A>>To: piet enpol-list(at)matronics.com =0A>>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM=0A> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>If you tried t hat turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much speed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't know about gettin g that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too steep.Some of t hese ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the habit.I'm jus t tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still around.I can't arg ue with that.-I have watched jet liners pull out at an unbelievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But then again a jet li ner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is different tha n a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwise.=0A>>=0A>>=0A>> -=0A>=0A> AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/" rel=nofollow target=_blan k>www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" rel =nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L ist" rel=nofollow targe======0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>_blank">www.aer oelectric.com=0A>.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>="_blan k">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution =0A>" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List == ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Got a new camera
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Geez! I feel bad for Jeff!!! All he wanted to do was share some wheel landing videos and he gets attacked!! I gotta say, looking at the first 15 seconds, it looks like the prop has a high speed wabble.I'm surprised that someone hasn't asked him why he flies with a wobbly prop. My point is: How can any of us make a critique of his climb out based on this kind of footage? It looks to me like Jeff handles his Piet just fine. Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down.) _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera As I said before,I was trained by ultralight pilots and they climb at high attack angles and get up as fast as you can.We used 2 stroke engines in every case.The old guys are telling me that it's not a good idea with 4 stroke engines to climb at such attack angles.They do not even agree with the pilots who fly the 2 strokes that it's a good idea to fly like that.They just shake their heads and walk away and say good luck fella cause in their mind you may be OK today but one day that's going to kill you. _____ From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:35:16 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera Could you categorize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow airspeed climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still 20-30mph above stall. I would rather have some altitude underneath me and flying at 60-70mph if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy airplane like the Piet is not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'upward zoom'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude in that situation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place? Ryan On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE wrote: There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my field feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these guys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain speed.They feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will come as you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I thought I was doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too steep. _____ From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net> Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Jeff's take off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take off. He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop the nose and keep flying speed. Just my 2 cents worth Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: H RULE <mailto:harvey.rule(at)rogers.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much speed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't know about getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too steep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still around.I can't argue with that. I have watched jet liners pull out at an unbelievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But then again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwise. AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/ <http://www.aeroelectric.com/> " rel=nofollow target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contributi on" rel=nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" rel=nofollow targe==== _blank">www.aeroelectric.com .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List tp://forums.matronics.com www.homebuilthel-> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ======= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Got a new camera
As I wrote previously, I greatly appreciate the concern that prompted Harvey to comment on the climb-out angle. I also greatly appreciate all the follow-on commentary. I apologize if any of my responses seemed defensive - I certainly didn't mean them to be as I don't think anyone was criticizing me personally - and I certainly didn't take it that way. I am very, very used to open discussion - it's what I do for a living. Further, I know that everyone on this list is only interested in open and frank discussion to obtain facts, to make helpful suggestions, and to work towards safe enjoyment of our affliction. In no way is the discussion to be taken as personal dings against an individual. This level of discourse one of the many reasons that this the best list on the internet! So, please do continue to discuss. Like I wrote earlier, this gives me even more enthusiasm for further tests! Jeff ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Got a new camera
I feel for Jeff as well Gary...believe me... --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Gary Boothe wrote: From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 6:32 PM Geez! I feel bad for Jeff!!! All he wanted to do was share some wheel landi ng videos and he gets attacked!! I gotta say, looking at the first 15 secon ds, it looks like the prop has a high speed wabbleI=99m surp rised that someone hasn=99t asked him why he flies with a wobbly prop . My point is:=C2- How can any of us make a critique of his climb out bas ed on this kind of footage? It looks to me like Jeff handles his Piet just fine. =C2- Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done,=C2-Fuselage=C2-on gear (15 ribs down) From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera =C2- As I said before,I was trained by ultralight pilots and they climb at high attack angles and get up as fast as you can.We used 2 stroke engines in eve ry case.The old guys are telling me that it's not a good idea with 4 stroke engines to climb at such attack angles.They do not even agree with the pil ots who fly the 2 strokes that it's a good idea to fly like that.They just shake their heads and walk away and say good luck fella cause in their mind you may be OK today but one day that's going to kill you.=C2- =C2- From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:35:16 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera Could you categorize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow airspeed climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still 2 0-30mph above stall. I would rather have some altitude underneath me and fl ying at 60-70mph if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy airplane like the Piet is not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'upward zoo m'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude in that s ituation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place? Ryan On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE wrote: There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my f ield feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these gu ys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain speed.T hey feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will come as you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I thought I wa s doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too steep.=C2- =C2- From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net> Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera =C2- Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Jeff's t ake off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take off.=C2 - He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop the nose and keep flying speed. Just my 2 cents worth Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: H RULE Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera =C2- If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Gl ider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much spe ed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't kno w about getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too s teep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still arou nd.I can't argue with that.=C2-I have watched jet liners pull out at an u nbelievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But th en again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwis e. =C2- =C2- AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/" rel=nofollow target=_bl ank>www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" rel =nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L ist" rel=nofollow targe===== =C2- =C2- =C2-_blank">www.aeroelectric.com.com" target="_blank">www.build ersbooks.com="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com_blank">http://www.matronics.c om/contribution" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piete npol-Listtp://forums.matronics.com =C2- =C2-www.homebuilthel-> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ======== =C2- href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matroni cs.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Scott, Scott Knowlton wrote: > > I'm with Gene on this assessment. Departure stalls happen with an engine failure because the instant loss of thrust is accompanied by a dramatic increase in angle of attack. Remember the old pictures of the relative airflow in a full power climb as compared to a power off nose high attitude. That relative airflow changes very quickly with a power loss to the point that the wing will reach its critical angle of attack before the pilot can react to it. Try it at 2000 feet. With full power, briskly pull the nose up until you reach your departure climb speed, then retard the throttle to idle and see the result. I'd suggest after you try that your climb angle on departure will become a little more conservative. Even more reason to get that stick forward and find that max L/D speed, right now! So, "the book" recommends 2 speeds: one for normal take-offs and one for short field. In ye olde spam can, a C-152, the former is 65-75KIAS, for the latter it's 54KIAS. In my Piet, the former (Vy) is 63mph, the latter (Vx) is 59mph. I would never fly any slower than the Vx speed - there's no point. As happy circumstance would have it, max L/D is also 59mph, so on power failure during climb out, push, push, push the stick forward. It's completely anti-intuitive; your brain says "pull back, pull back, pull back," which is exactly the wrong thing to do! I am going to try Scott's experiment at altitude - I seem to recall doing the maneuver when I got my licence almost 20 years ago, but I don't remember the results. > As an aside, the climb angle of a transport category airliner on departure is necessary to meet the stages of minimum net flight path altitudes on departure and are designed to be sustainable in the event of a thrust loss in one engine (one... Because they have more than one...) > Scott Knowlton > (slow builder in Burlington) Burlington... which state? Cheers, Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:28:14 > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > > Dan, up to a point I agree with you. I think what Harvey is trying to say > is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low > and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to push your > nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground. It's all > quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet. I've had two friends > die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground. One only killed himself > but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself. It > went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law. He was flying a super > cub (as was the other), had thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game > pilot and was showing off. As I say, very different than a 200' release > with a glider. > Gene > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > > > > > I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend! > > > > The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best > > glide speed, period. > > > > If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit > > that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180 > > degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500', > > you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your > > forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right). > > > > With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end > > of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly > > some runway in front of you which you can land on. > > > > Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of > > hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them. > > Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the > > stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually > > happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at > > 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land. > > > > So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as > > many holes in my logic. > > > > Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir? > > > > Cheers, > > Dan > > > > > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "John Recine" <amsafetyc(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Tm93IGluIGVuZ2xpc2gNCg0KVGhhbmtzDQoNCkpvaG4NCg0KRG8gbm90IGFyY2hpdmUgDQpTZW50 IGZyb20gbXkgVmVyaXpvbiBXaXJlbGVzcyBCbGFja0JlcnJ5DQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVz c2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiAiRGF2aWQgUGF1bGUiIDxkcGF1bGVAZnJpaS5jb20+DQpEYXRlOiBU dWUsIDEwIE5vdiAyMDA5IDEzOjU3OjU1IA0KVG86IDxwaWV0ZW5wb2wtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3Mu Y29tPg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFBpZXRlbnBvbC1MaXN0OiBSZTogVXBwZXIgRmx5aW5nIFN0cnV0 IEZpdHRpbmcsIFBvc3NpYmUgUGxhbnMgIAlFcnJvcg0KDQpZZXAsIGluIGVuZ2luZWVyaW5nIHRl cm1zLCB3aGF0J3MgaGFwcGVuaW5nIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGZpdHRpbmcgYW5kIHRoZSBzdHJ1dCBk b24ndCBsaW5lIHVwLCBzbyB3aGVuIHlvdSByZXNvbHZlIHRoZSBsb2FkIGluIHRoZSBmaXR0aW5n IGludG8gcGFyYWxsZWwgYW5kIHBlcnBlbmRpY3VsYXIgY29tcG9uZW50cywgdGhlIHBlcnBlbmRp Y3VsYXIgbG9hZCBjcmVhdGVzIGEgYmVuZGluZyBtb21lbnQgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGNlbnRyb2lkIG9m IHRoZSBzcGFyIGJvbHRzLg0KDQpJdCdzIHJlYWxseSB0aGVyZS4gQW5kIGl0IHJlYWxseSBkb2Vz IGluY3JlYXNlIHRoZSBmb3JjZXMgaW4gdGhvc2UgYm9sdHMuDQoNCkFib3V0IGFsbCB3ZSBjYW4g c2F5IGlzIHRoYXQgaXQncyBwcm92ZW4gdG8gd29yayBhbnl3YXksIGFuZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBwbGFu ZSBoYXMsIGV2ZW4gd2l0aCB0aGF0LCBhIHJlcHV0YXRpb24gZm9yIGJlaW5nIHJvYnVzdC4NCg0K RGF2aWQgUGF1bGUNCg0KDQoNCiAgLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSANCiAgRnJv bTogUm9iZXJ0IFJheSANCiAgVG86IHBpZXRlbnBvbC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20gDQogIFNl bnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgTm92ZW1iZXIgMDksIDIwMDkgODoyOCBQTQ0KICBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUGll dGVucG9sLUxpc3Q6IFJlOiBVcHBlciBGbHlpbmcgU3RydXQgRml0dGluZywgUG9zc2liZSBQbGFu cyBFcnJvcg0KDQoNCiAgQWxzbyBJIHRoaW5rIEkgc2VlIGV4dHJhIHN0cmVzcyBjYXVzZWQgYnkg dGhlIHN0cmFwIGFjdGluZyBhcyBhIGxldmVyLA0KICBJJ20gbm90IGFuIGVuZ2luZWVyIGJ1dCB0 aGUgc3RyYXAgaXMgcHVsbGVkIGluIHRvd2FyZCB0aGUgcGxhbmUgYW5kIHdvdWxkDQogIHJlc3Vs dCBpbiBhIHR3aXN0aW5nIG1vdGlvbiBpbiB0aGUgb3V0IGRpcmVjdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgd2luZyB0 b3AuDQogIERvZXMgYW55IG9uZSBlbHNlIHNlZSB0aGlzIG9yIGlzIHRoaXMgYSBmaWdtZW50IG9m IG15IGltYWdpbmF0aW9uPw0KICBJdCdzIHByb2JhYmx5IHN0cm9uZyBlbm91Z2ggdGhhdCBpdCBk b2Vzbid0IG1hdHRlciBidXQgcGxlYXNlIGlmDQogIGFueSBvbmUgZWxzZSBTZWUncyB0aGlzIGxl dCBtZSBrbm93LCBvciBpZiB5b3UgZG9uJ3Qgc2VlIGl0IGxldCBtZSANCiAga25vdy4gSXQgbG9v a3MgbGlrZSBoYXZpbmcgdGhlIGJvbHQgaG9sZXMgaW4gYWxpZ25tZW50IHdpdGggdGhlIHN0cnV0 IA0KICB3b3VsZCBzdG9wIHRoaXM/DQogIEkga25vdyB3ZSBoYXZlIHNvbWUgdmVyeSB0YWxlbnRl ZCBlbmdpbmVlcnMgb3V0IHRoZXJlIGFuZCBJIHdhbnQNCiAgdG8gaGVhciBmcm9tIHlvdT8NCg0K ICBSdXNzZWxsDQoNCg0KICAgDQogIE9uIFNhdCwgTm92IDcsIDIwMDkgYXQgMTA6MDUgUE0sIEs1 WUFDIDxoYW5nYXIxMEBjb3gubmV0PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KICAgIC0tPiBQaWV0ZW5wb2wtTGlzdCBt ZXNzYWdlIHBvc3RlZCBieTogIks1WUFDIiA8aGFuZ2FyMTBAY294Lm5ldD4NCg0KICAgIEknbSBu b3QgZXZlbiBwbGFubmluZyB0byB1dGlsaXplIHRoZSB0b3Agc3RyYXAuICBJIGFncmVlIHdpdGgg SmFjayB0aGF0IGl0IGp1c3QgY29tcGxpY2F0ZXMgdGhpbmdzLiAgSSBoYXZlIHNlZW4gb3RoZXJz IHRoYXQganVzdCByb3VuZCBvZmYgdGhhdCBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIGZpdHRpbmcgYW5kIGJvbHQgaXQg b24uICBUaGF0J3MgbXkgcGxhbi4NCg0KICAgIC0tLS0tLS0tDQogICAgTWFyayAtIHdvcmtpbmcg b24gd2luZ3MNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQogICAgUmVhZCB0aGlzIHRvcGljIG9ubGluZSBoZXJlOg0KDQog ICAgaHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL3ZpZXd0b3BpYy5waHA/cD0yNzE2MzYjMjcx NjM2DQogICAgYmVyIGlzIHRoZSBBbm51YWwgTGlzdCBGdW5kIFJhaXNlci4gIENsaWNrIG9uDQog ICAgLT0gICAgICogQWVyb0VsZWN0cmljIHd3dy5hZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMuY29tDQogICAgb21lYnVp bHRIRUxQIHd3dy5ob21lYnVpbHRoZWxwLmNvbQ0KICAgIGh0dHA6L3IgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9y dCENCiAgICBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBGZWF0dXJlcyBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgdG8gYnJvd3NlDQogICAg cy5jb20vTmF2aWdhdG9yP1BpZXRlbnBvbC1MaXN0IiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cDovL3d3 dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9QaWV0ZW5wb2wtTGlzdA0KICAgIHJvbmljcy5jb20v IiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQogICAgPT09PT09 PT09PT09PT0NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New organization
From: "John Recine" <amsafetyc(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2009
SSBsaWtlIGNhbXBpbmcsbG92ZSBmbHlpbmcgYW5kIHNvb24gYXMgSSBnZXQgbXkgcGlldCBidWls dCBJIGFtIGdvbm5hIHRha2UgaGVyIGNhbXBpbmcuICBNZSAgdGhpbmtzIGl0cyBhIGdyZWF0IGlk ZWEhDQoNCkNvdW50IG1lIGluDQoNCg0KSm9obg0KDQpEbyBub3QgYXJjaGl2ZQ0KU2VudCBmcm9t IG15IFZlcml6b24gV2lyZWxlc3MgQmxhY2tCZXJyeQ0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2Ut LS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogIlJvYmVydCBCdXRzY2giIDxyYnV0c2NoQGNvbWNhc3QubmV0Pg0KRGF0ZTog VHVlLCAxMCBOb3YgMjAwOSAxNToyMToyOSANClRvOiA8cGlldGVucG9sLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNz LmNvbT4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFBpZXRlbnBvbC1MaXN0OiBOZXcgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uDQoNCkhleSBn dXlzICYgZ2FsczoNCg0KSSBjb3VsZG4ndCBoZWxwIGJ1dCBwYXNzIHRoaXMgaW5mbyBvbiBzaW5j ZSBpdCBoYXMgYSBncmVhdCBhbmQgdmVyeSByZWFsIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gdG8gdGhlIFBpZXRlbnBv bCBBaXIgQ2FtcGVyLg0KVGFrZSBhIGxvb2sgYXQgdGhpcyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBmb3IgaW5mbyBvbiBh IG5ldyBvcmdhbml6YXRpb24uICBUaGUgZmVsbG93IHdobyBzdGFydGVkIHRoaXMsIERvbiBBYmJv dHQsIGlzIGFuIG9sZCBmcmllbmQgb2YgbWluZSBmcm9tIGhlcmUgaW4gSW5kaWFuYS4gIEkgd2Fz IHRhbGtpbmcgd2l0aCBoaW0gbGFzdCB3aW50ZXIgd2hlbiB3ZSB3ZXJlIGluIEZsb3JpZGEgKGhl IGxpdmVzIG9uIFNhbmliZWwgSXNsYW5kKSwgYW5kIGhlIHRvbGQgbWUgb2YgaGlzIGlkZWEgdG8g c3RhcnQgYSBhaXJjcmFmdC9jYW1waW5nIG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbi4gIEhlIGhhcyBmaW5hbGx5IG1h ZGUgaXQncyBwcmVzZW5jZSBrbm93biB2aWEgdGhlIGF0dGFjaGVkIHNpdGUuICBJIGRpZG4ndCBr bm93IGF0IHRoZSB0aW1lIHRoYXQgdGhlIG5hbWUgd291bGQgYmUgdGhlIEFtZXJpY2FuIEFpciBD YW1wZXJzIEFzc29jaWF0aW9uLg0KSSB0aGluayBpdCdzIGEgZ3JlYXQgaWRlYSBhbmQgaGUgaXMg bG9va2luZyBmb3IgNiByZWdpb25hbCBkaXJlY3RvcnMgYW5kIGEgd2luZyBsZWFkZXIgaW4gZWFj aCBzdGF0ZS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgYSBwZXJmZWN0IHRpZS1pbiB3aXRoIG91ciBjaG9zZW4gYWlyY3Jh ZnQuIFdhdGNoIHRoZSB2aWRlbyBhbmQgdGhlbiBkcm9wIGhpbSBhIGxpbmUgd2l0aCB5b3VyIGlu dGVyZXN0IGFuZCBpZGVhcy4gVGhpcyB3b3VsZCBiZSBhIGdyZWF0IHdheSB0byBmdXJ0aGVyIHBy b21vdGUgdGhlIGFpcmNyYWZ0IHRoYXQgcmVhbGx5IHN0YXJ0ZWQgdGhlIGlkZWEgb2YgY2FtcGlu ZyBmcm9tIHlvdXIgcGxhbmUgaW4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IHBsYWNlLiBHbyB0byAgd3d3LmFtZXJpY2Fu YWlyY2FtcGVycy5jb20NCldoYXQgZG8geW91IGd1eXMgdGhpbmsgb2YgdGhlIGlkZWE/DQpCb2Ig DQoNClJvYmVydCBCdXRzY2gNCjczNjAgU3RlaW5tZWllciBEcml2ZQ0KSW5kaWFuYXBvbGlzLCBJ bmRpYW5hDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgNDYyNTAtMjU2Nw0KDQpQSCAzMTctODQxLTM3ODYNCg0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Scott Knowlton " <flyingscott_k(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
The state of Ontario!! -----Original Message----- From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:21:03 Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera Scott, Scott Knowlton wrote: > > I'm with Gene on this assessment. Departure stalls happen with an engine failure because the instant loss of thrust is accompanied by a dramatic increase in angle of attack. Remember the old pictures of the relative airflow in a full power climb as compared to a power off nose high attitude. That relative airflow changes very quickly with a power loss to the point that the wing will reach its critical angle of attack before the pilot can react to it. Try it at 2000 feet. With full power, briskly pull the nose up until you reach your departure climb speed, then retard the throttle to idle and see the result. I'd suggest after you try that your climb angle on departure will become a little more conservative. Even more reason to get that stick forward and find that max L/D speed, right now! So, "the book" recommends 2 speeds: one for normal take-offs and one for short field. In ye olde spam can, a C-152, the former is 65-75KIAS, for the latter it's 54KIAS. In my Piet, the former (Vy) is 63mph, the latter (Vx) is 59mph. I would never fly any slower than the Vx speed - there's no point. As happy circumstance would have it, max L/D is also 59mph, so on power failure during climb out, push, push, push the stick forward. It's completely anti-intuitive; your brain says "pull back, pull back, pull back," which is exactly the wrong thing to do! I am going to try Scott's experiment at altitude - I seem to recall doing the maneuver when I got my licence almost 20 years ago, but I don't remember the results. > As an aside, the climb angle of a transport category airliner on departure is necessary to meet the stages of minimum net flight path altitudes on departure and are designed to be sustainable in the event of a thrust loss in one engine (one... Because they have more than one...) > Scott Knowlton > (slow builder in Burlington) Burlington... which state? Cheers, Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:28:14 > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > > Dan, up to a point I agree with you. I think what Harvey is trying to say > is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low > and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to push your > nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground. It's all > quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet. I've had two friends > die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground. One only killed himself > but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself. It > went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law. He was flying a super > cub (as was the other), had thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game > pilot and was showing off. As I say, very different than a 200' release > with a glider. > Gene > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera > > > > > > I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend! > > > > The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best > > glide speed, period. > > > > If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit > > that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180 > > degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500', > > you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your > > forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right). > > > > With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end > > of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly > > some runway in front of you which you can land on. > > > > Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of > > hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them. > > Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the > > stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually > > happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at > > 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land. > > > > So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as > > many holes in my logic. > > > > Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir? > > > > Cheers, > > Dan > > > > > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2009
From: H RULE <harvey.rule(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Actually I wasn't attacking him.I am concerned for his safety just as the o ld guys I fly with are concerned about my safety.I thought his landings wer e perfect compared to what I do and I told him that and he thanked me for t hat.Jeff knows what he is doing and that's OK too.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________ ______________________=0AFrom: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>=0AT o: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 7:22:01 PM =0ASubject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0A=0AI feel for Jeff as well Gary...believe me...=0A=0A--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Gary Boothe To: pietenpol-list@matronic s.com=0A>Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 6:32 PM=0A>=0A>=0A>Geez! I feel bad for Jeff!!! All he wanted to do was share some wheel landing videos and he gets attacked!! I gotta say, looking at the first 15 seconds, it looks like the prop has a high speed wabbleI=99m surprised that so meone hasn=99t asked him why he flies with a wobbly prop. My point is :=C2- How can any of us make a critique of his climb out based on this ki nd of footage? It looks to me like Jeff handles his Piet just fine.=0A>=C2 -=0A>Gary Boothe=0A>Cool, Ca. =0A>Pietenpol =0A>WW Corvair Conversion, mo unted =0A>Tail done,=C2-Fuselage=C2-on gear =0A>(15 ribs down) =0A>=0A________________________________=0A=0A>From:owner-pietenpol-list-se rver(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Be half Of H RULE=0A>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:21 PM=0A>To: pietenpol -list(at)matronics.com=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A>=C2 - =0A>As I said before,I was trained by ultralight pilots and they climb at high attack angles and get up as fast as you can.We used 2 stroke engine s in every case.The old guys are telling me that it's not a good idea with 4 stroke engines to climb at such attack angles.They do not even agree with the pilots who fly the 2 strokes that it's a good idea to fly like that.Th ey just shake their heads and walk away and say good luck fella cause in th eir mind you may be OK today but one day that's going to kill you.=C2- =0A>=C2-=0A>=0A________________________________=0A=0A>From:Ryan Mueller < rmueller23(at)gmail.com>=0A>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0A>Sent: Tue, Nov ember 10, 2009 3:35:16 PM=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera =0A>=0A>Could you categorize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow a irspeed climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still 20-30mph above stall. I would rather have some altitude underneath m e and flying at 60-70mph if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy a irplane like the Piet is not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'up ward zoom'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude i n that situation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place?=0A >=0A>Ryan=0A>On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE wrote:=0A>There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my field feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these guys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain speed.They feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will come as you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I thought I was doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too steep.=C2-=0A>=C2-=0A>=0A________________________________=0A=0A>From:Ge ne & Tammy =0A>To:pietenpol-list(at)matronics.c om=0A>Sent:Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM =0A>=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol -List: Got a new camera=0A>=C2-=0A>Harvey, just got my puter to work prop erly and I was able to watch Jeff's take off and I personally don't see a p roblem with his angle of take off.=C2- He wasn't at such an acute angle t hat he wouldn't have time to drop the nose and keep flying speed.=0A>Just m y 2 cents worth=0A>Gene=0A>----- Original Message ----- =0A>>From:H RULE =0A>>To:pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com =0A>>Sent:Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1 1:25 AM=0A>>Subject:Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A>>=C2-=0A>>If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Glide r ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much speed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't know a bout getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too stee p.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was tau ght as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the ha bit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still around. I can't argue with that.=C2-I have watched jet liners pull out at an unbe lievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But then again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwise. =0A>>=0A>>=C2-=0A> =C2-=0A> AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/" rel=nof ollow target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com /contribution" rel=nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/Nav igator?Pietenpol-List" rel=nofollow targe======0A> =C2-=0A> =C2-=0A> =C2-=0A>_blank">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>.com" target="_blank ">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>_blank">htt p://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>"=0A> target="_blank">http://www.ma tronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>tp://forums.matronics.com=0A> =C2 -=0A>=C2-=0A>www.homebuilthel-> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet enpol-List=0A>=========0A> =C2-=0A>=0A>=0A>href="http:/ /www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>href="http://www.buildersb ooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">ww w.homebuilthelp.com=0A>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http: //www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L ist">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>href="http://fo rums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>ollow ta rget=_blank>www.aeroelectric.com=0A>/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>www .buildersbooks.com=0A>ofollow target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>et=_ === ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Got a new camera
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Jeff, I like the new camera and your landings. Keep it up. I sold my Piet in July this year so I could continue building and finish my Zodiac 601XL. A series of Mods are now available for the 601 and they will keep me out of the air for a while longer. I am seriously considering building another Piet after this 601 and am thoroughly enjoying your videos. The weather in Aussie at the moment is beautiful for Piet flying and I DON=99T HAVE ONE .. Thanks for the views. Cheers Peter Wonthaggi Australia <http://www.cpc-world.com> http://www.cpc-world.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: New organization
Date: Nov 10, 2009
One of my main reasons for haste is my 8 yr old grandson, Zachary. He tells everyone that we are going camping in the Aircamper! Zach even picked out the instruments he wants in the front cockpit, but the first instrument he picked was a clock. He says he, ".needs to know when it's time to turn around and go home." How can I resist? I hope this site gets up and running.. Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down.) _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Butsch Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:21 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: New organization Hey guys & gals: I couldn't help but pass this info on since it has a great and very real connection to the Pietenpol Air Camper. Take a look at this web site for info on a new organization. The fellow who started this, Don Abbott, is an old friend of mine from here in Indiana. I was talking with him last winter when we were in Florida (he lives on Sanibel Island), and he told me of his idea to start a aircraft/camping organization. He has finally made it's presence known via the attached site. I didn't know at the time that the name would be the American Air Campers Association. I think it's a great idea and he is looking for 6 regional directors and a wing leader in each state. This is a perfect tie-in with our chosen aircraft. Watch the video and then drop him a line with your interest and ideas. This would be a great way to further promote the aircraft that really started the idea of camping from your plane in the first place. Go to www.americanaircampers.com What do you guys think of the idea? Bob Robert Butsch 7360 Steinmeier Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-2567 PH 317-841-3786 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "dwilson" <marwilson(at)charter.net>
Date: Nov 10, 2009
We re-covered the Aircamper at Pioneer Airport a few years ago during Oshkosh. This plane was built by Bernard in 1966. I have a few photo's of the construction of the wing. Here is how the designer put it together. Note the laminated spar. Plywood was glued on both sides of the spar ( under the fitting ). The spar was signed Bernard Pietenpol - 1966. Dan Wilson Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272203#272203 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan1_209.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2009
Hi Jeff:, Looks perfect to me, I'm glad that I never have shown the rate of climb when I had the Werner 145, 500 cu in. on my Piet, It was very capable of a loop on take-off and still have 200 feet under me at the bottom of the loop. God help me if the engine sneezed once. I tested that item at 2000Ft. Jeff, fly as you feel comfortable with, And you sure look good to me. Pieti Lowell Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272204#272204 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2009
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
I have a video of you and that Werner taking off at Brodhead in (I think) 2002...it WAS incredible! -----Original Message----- >From: Pieti Lowell <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com> >Sent: Nov 10, 2009 10:55 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Got a new camera > > >Hi Jeff:, >Looks perfect to me, I'm glad that I never have shown the rate of climb when I had the Werner 145, 500 cu in. on my Piet, It was very capable of a loop on take-off and still have 200 feet under me at the bottom of the loop. God help me if the engine sneezed once. I tested that item at 2000Ft. >Jeff, fly as you feel comfortable with, And you sure look good to me. >Pieti Lowell > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272204#272204 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Fund Raiser
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month. There are some very nice incentive gifts to choose from as well! Please make your Contribution today: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "ivan.todorovic" <tosha(at)sezampro.rs>
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Dan, Can we get some more photos of that spar? Thanks, Ivan dwilson wrote: > We re-covered the Aircamper at Pioneer Airport a few years ago during Oshkosh. This plane was built by Bernard in 1966. I have a few photo's of the construction of the wing. Here is how the designer put it together. Note the laminated spar. Plywood was glued on both sides of the spar ( under the fitting ). The spar was signed Bernard Pietenpol - 1966. > > Dan Wilson Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272294#272294 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Yeah, how about a close up of that lift strut attachment area if you have it. That is installed totally unlike any other I have seen. -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272323#272323 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "G & R Hewitt" <grhewitt(at)globaldial.com>
Subject: Re Have a new camera
Date: Nov 12, 2009
Hi Guys, My two bob's worth re comments on Jeffs video. I have found from bitter experience that it is quite difficult to assess a climb or approach gradient by watching a video, particularly when filmed from behind or in front of the flight path. Many years ago I was involved in an initial test flight of an RV6A fitted with a dreaded nose wheel. The flight was uneventful & after carrying out several stalls to establish a safe approach speed I made my approach in the accustomed manner, after a normal touch down, without any warning the machine started a violent porpoise over which I had no control, then the nose leg failed I only traveled about 50 yards on a sealed runway. Later inspection showed a clean break exactly where the leg changed in thickness with very little radius where it exited the outer tube. The owner showed me a video sequence taken from almost in front of the event. this video & the broken leg were sent to the manufacturer in the USA who sent out an email world wide criticizing the test pilot & alleging that he had made a very steep approach with little flare and had subjected the machine to some brutal pitch changes after landing. This was a bit hard to take as at the time I had a total of 22000 flying hours on over 100 types & had also done over 20 initial test flights of home builts including 6 RV's. It was very interesting to note that shortly after this another two nose legs failed, then the nose leg design was very quickly modified to have a safe radius where it exited the tube. This whole affair was based on a video evidence,shot from dead ahead of the approach path. So what I am saying here is that perhaps caution should be taken before criticism is made after watching a video taken from behind or in front. >From the shots taken from the side I thought that Jeff was exemplary with his technique, he was careful not to pull off too early, had a good margin above the stall & showed excellent directional control, nothing squirrelly about it. The other factor is that with trees ahead it is not a bad idea to go for max climb gradient initially. These trees could not be seen on the video Back to my shed, my own Piet only needs fuel tank, top decking on fuse & covering after 3 years hard work, I have to keep at it as I'm now 81, I look forward to sending you all a video of my own first flight (taken from the side) Best regards Graham Hewitt in West Australia ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2009
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: bungee wrapping
I asked this a while ago but wasn't really ready to start, and have lost the info. I am sorry for asking again, but would really appreciate your input. Talking Jenny gear here. seems the two thicknesses used are 1/2 and 5/8, most using 1/2. How many feet did you use on each side, and how many wraps. Also, by "wrap" I guess I mean one complete time around. Or... how many pieces of bungee can you see on each side of the "V" Also, can anyone think of a reason I couldn't use cable clamps to hold them together at the ends? Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wayne Bressler <wayne(at)taildraggersinc.com>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Jim, Post that video on YouTube! Jeff - I was impressed with your climb angle. It looked like good fun! Wayne Bressler Jr. Taildraggers, Inc. taildraggersinc.com Sent from the phone that made the Blackberry obsolete. On Nov 11, 2009, at 12:58 AM, Jim Markle wrote: > > > > I have a video of you and that Werner taking off at Brodhead in (I > think) 2002...it WAS incredible! > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Pieti Lowell <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com> >> Sent: Nov 10, 2009 10:55 PM >> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Got a new camera >> >> > >> >> Hi Jeff:, >> Looks perfect to me, I'm glad that I never have shown the rate of >> climb when I had the Werner 145, 500 cu in. on my Piet, It was very >> capable of a loop on take-off and still have 200 feet under me at >> the bottom of the loop. God help me if the engine sneezed once. I >> tested that item at 2000Ft. >> Jeff, fly as you feel comfortable with, And you sure look good to me. >> Pieti Lowell >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272204#272204 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins
Pieters, We were invited to bring the Piet to a local fly-in. The organizer asks that we set out a sign or something that has information on the Pietenpol Aircamper. As this is last minute (just got off the phone with the guy and the fly-in is this Saturday morning), I don't really have time to put something together. Come to think of it, if I had time for THAT, I'd use it flying the Piet! Anyway, do any of you have a digital version of Piet info that you set out beside your airplane when you attend fly-ins? Any place you can point me to on the web? Thanks in advance, Jeff -- --- Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine Editor-in-Chief Molecular Vision ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2009
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins
Here's a copy of what I think is just about the neatest thing I've ever seen for that type of info. Larry Prange did this and I thought it was really cool. I've attached a small version but if you want a larger, more detailed copy of the file, let me know offlist. -----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> >Sent: Nov 11, 2009 2:51 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins > > >Pieters, > >We were invited to bring the Piet to a local fly-in. The organizer >asks that we set out a sign or something that has information on the >Pietenpol Aircamper. As this is last minute (just got off the phone >with the guy and the fly-in is this Saturday morning), I don't really >have time to put something together. Come to think of it, if I had >time for THAT, I'd use it flying the Piet! Anyway, do any of you have >a digital version of Piet info that you set out beside your airplane >when you attend fly-ins? Any place you can point me to on the web? > >Thanks in advance, > >Jeff >-- >--- > >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D. >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology >Emory University School of Medicine >Editor-in-Chief >Molecular Vision > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Jeff I did several for the Big Piets for airshow displays. If you can do the artwork, I can print you some tomorrow say 18"x24" or 24"x36"I enclosed a pic of some I did for the Epps Bi-Plane display. Let me know. Barry Davis 770-834-8900 -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Boatright Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:52 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins Pieters, We were invited to bring the Piet to a local fly-in. The organizer asks that we set out a sign or something that has information on the Pietenpol Aircamper. As this is last minute (just got off the phone with the guy and the fly-in is this Saturday morning), I don't really have time to put something together. Come to think of it, if I had time for THAT, I'd use it flying the Piet! Anyway, do any of you have a digital version of Piet info that you set out beside your airplane when you attend fly-ins? Any place you can point me to on the web? Thanks in advance, Jeff -- --- Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine Editor-in-Chief Molecular Vision ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <ghans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Got a new camera
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Hello Jeff, Frankly, your take-offs and climb-outs looked fine to me because you didn't haul it off the ground at low speed and seemed to have lots of speed during the climb-out. As Graham Hewett observed, a camera (even a new one!) can create an illusion depending on the camera's location relative to the action. From your posting, it is evident that you are keenly aware of the draggy nature of the Pietenpol and are handling it accordingly. Your Piet seems to accelerate in a spritely manner, as does mine with a C85 Continental up front. When I first flew it (39 years ago on November 15th), it was powered by a Continental A65. At our elevation of about 2400 feet, its performance with an adult passenger on a hot day was marginal, and it needed to be flown very carefully. The C85 is a vast improvement, but I continually remind myself that whatever you had up front doesn't make any difference when the engine quits. Zero is zero and it is "deadstick" time. Therefore, I tend to be very conservative by climbing out at about 70 mph, unless I have to clear obstacles. With the A65 I had to climb at about 60 mph because the cruise speed was only in the low seventies. With the C85, the climb is still good even at 70+ and I would have adequate speed for control and extra time to lower the nose should the engine decide to take the rest of the day off. (Of course, in this area there are lots of grain fields and our airstrip has clear approaches so I don't really have to claw for altitude right after taking off.) During the early 1950s I worked in the north as an aircraft mechanic for 4 1/2 years and had the good fortune to do a lot of flying with three veteran bush pilots who, all of them, had flown Spitfires in combat. I had a private pilot licence then and learned a lot about flying technique and weather from them--which was invaluable later on when I became a commercial pilot. I learned from them and others that if you stall, you lose control---and when you lose control, you die. During the initial climb-out you will not have sufficient altitude to do much and if you are also low on airspeed/kinetic energy, you may stall if the engine suddenly fails. Having extra airspeed means a lower angle of attack and is "money in the bank", so to speak. It is far better to be able to fly the airplane into the treetops under control and lose the airplane, than to stall and lose everything. I remember examining the wreckage of a Cessna 180 that had an engine failure at low altitude over solid bush. The cabin section was the largest part remaining and all four (there may have been five!)occupants walked away because the pilot maintained airspeed and control. And I remember the Taylorcraft pilot who was killed because he tried to turn back to the airstrip after his engine failed, stalled and spun in. Even then, he probably would have survived had he been wearing shoulder harness because the airplane wasn't all that badly damaged. Ironically, he had plenty of room in the field ahead and didn't need to try to turn back! A DH Beaver floatplane pilot I knew died when he tried to save the airplane after the engine failed (from fuel contamination) shortly after taking off from a lake, and stalled. Had he put it down on the rocks under control, they would have survived and the airplane (not the floats) may have been salvageable. Anyway, this old guy (I'll be 81 next month) will continue to abide by the ancient aeronautical dictum: "Always maintain thine airspeed lest the ground arise and smite thee." My $0.02---but that isn't worth much anymore! Cheers, Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Alberta, Canada) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: bungee wrapping
Date: Nov 11, 2009
7' of 5/8" cord. 3 wraps will do it. Hose clamps are perfectly acceptable. Use heat shrink tubing on the ends of the cord to keep them from fraying. Greg C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:55 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: bungee wrapping > > > I asked this a while ago but wasn't really ready to start, and have lost > the info. I am sorry for asking again, but would really appreciate your > input. Talking Jenny gear here. > > seems the two thicknesses used are 1/2 and 5/8, most using 1/2. > > How many feet did you use on each side, and how many wraps. > > Also, by "wrap" I guess I mean one complete time around. Or... how many > pieces of bungee can you see on each side of the "V" > > Also, can anyone think of a reason I couldn't use cable clamps to hold > them together at the ends? > > Douwe > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2009
From: airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins
Jeff, P.F. Beck in Barnwell S. C has info on the pietenpol already printed out. I'm sure he would be glad to send it to you. His phone number is 803 259 6381. Cheers, Gardiner Mason ----- Original Message ---- From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 4:17:48 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins Here's a copy of what I think is just about the neatest thing I've ever seen for that type of info. Larry Prange did this and I thought it was really cool. I've attached a small version but if you want a larger, more detailed copy of the file, let me know offlist. -----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> >Sent: Nov 11, 2009 2:51 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins > > >Pieters, > >We were invited to bring the Piet to a local fly-in. The organizer >asks that we set out a sign or something that has information on the >Pietenpol Aircamper. As this is last minute (just got off the phone >with the guy and the fly-in is this Saturday morning), I don't really >have time to put something together. Come to think of it, if I had >time for THAT, I'd use it flying the Piet! Anyway, do any of you have >a digital version of Piet info that you set out beside your airplane >when you attend fly-ins? Any place you can point me to on the web? > >Thanks in advance, > >Jeff >-- >--- > >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D. >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology >Emory University School of Medicine >Editor-in-Chief >Molecular Vision > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "dwilson" <marwilson(at)charter.net>
Date: Nov 11, 2009
You may have to rotate this photo's for proper orientation, then use your software to zoom in for a better view... These photo's are of the construction of the one piece wing. 1966 Bernard Pietenpol. Note the small block located on the top of the spar next to the end rib, Bernard located an eye hook at the end of each spar so that he could connect the one piece wing to a pulley system that he used to lower or raise the wing in order to attach it to the fuselage. He could accomplish this without any assistance. The pulley system can be seen at the Pietenpol Hanger at the Pioneer Airport in Oshkosh. He really was a genius... Hope you enjoy the pictures. Dan Wilson Austin, Minnesota Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272394#272394 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan11_416.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan10_476.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan9_119.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan6_135.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan4_503.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 11, 2009
Cool photos! Thanks for sharing. -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272399#272399 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2009
Subject: Re: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins
From: Robert Ray <rray032003(at)gmail.com>
Well I would think a poster listing the type, weight, name of designer, stall speed top speed, engines used (no wait that would take forever) origin date of design and a few mentions would be enough, successful completions, hundreds, perhaps thousands. Just use a magic marker. Plans available definite yes. Service ceiling 23,000 feet (just kidding) Russell On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:17 PM, airlion wrote: > > Jeff, P.F. Beck in Barnwell S. C has info on the pietenpol already printed > out. I'm sure he would be glad to send it to you. His phone number is 803 > 259 6381. Cheers, Gardiner Mason > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 4:17:48 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins > > > Here's a copy of what I think is just about the neatest thing I've ever > seen for that type of info. > > Larry Prange did this and I thought it was really cool. > > I've attached a small version but if you want a larger, more detailed copy > of the file, let me know offlist. > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> > >Sent: Nov 11, 2009 2:51 PM > >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: splash page for Piets at Fly-Ins > > > > > >Pieters, > > > >We were invited to bring the Piet to a local fly-in. The organizer > >asks that we set out a sign or something that has information on the > >Pietenpol Aircamper. As this is last minute (just got off the phone > >with the guy and the fly-in is this Saturday morning), I don't really > >have time to put something together. Come to think of it, if I had > >time for THAT, I'd use it flying the Piet! Anyway, do any of you have > >a digital version of Piet info that you set out beside your airplane > >when you attend fly-ins? Any place you can point me to on the web? > > > >Thanks in advance, > > > >Jeff > >-- > >--- > > > >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D. > >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology > >Emory University School of Medicine > >Editor-in-Chief > >Molecular Vision > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "ivan.todorovic" <tosha(at)sezampro.rs>
Date: Nov 12, 2009
Thanks for nice photos. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272423#272423 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2009
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
"He could accomplish this without any assistance. The pulley system can be seen at the Pietenpol Hanger at the Pioneer Airport in Oshkosh. He really was a genius... " DO archive this! With all the "let's change this" and "let's change that" I sometimes get so caught up in.....those words (in my opinion) sometimes get lost.... "He really was a genius..." When I grew up I got to hang out with a few older characters, one was a tv repairman one was an auto mechanic and the other was a machinist/tool and die man, and those times were life changing for me. What I would give to get to be a kid getting to piddle around in Mr. Pietenpol's shop. I'm not even sure if he was the kind of fellow that would have allowed such a thing but I can dream.... He really was a genius... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: YouTube postings
Date: Nov 12, 2009
Okay, armchair landing coaches, here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe0H0dqCZuE Let the critique begin. Corky's comment was: "pull the stick back into your gut and keep it there". Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
From: "dwilson" <marwilson(at)charter.net>
Date: Nov 12, 2009
If you ever get the opportunity to visit the Fillmore County Historical Museum in Fountain, Minnesota you can visit part of Bernard's shop. Many of the machine tools from his workshop are in the museum. There are two Aircampers and a Skyscout along with many artifacts from his home, workshop and life in Cherry Grove, Minnesota. It is a real treasure for anyone interested in the history of Mr. Pietenpol and the development of the Aircamper. Hey, remember Orrin Hoopman was just a kid when he started hanging around Bernard's workshop. Who do you think provided the encouragement? I am sure Vi Kapler could tell you stories about kids hanging around Cherry Grove just for the chance to get a ride in that airplane with an automobile engine. Yea! you can dream... DW Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272512#272512 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: YouTube postings
Date: Nov 12, 2009
I vote "Good Landing" (Ya got to use the plane again, didn't ya?) Gene N502R in Beautiful West Tennessee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:33 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: YouTube postings > > > Okay, armchair landing coaches, here's the link: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe0H0dqCZuE > > Let the critique begin. Corky's comment was: > "pull the stick back into your gut and keep it there". > > 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 07:38:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: YouTube postings
From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 12, 2009
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one, at least according to my CFI back around 1995. By that measure, all of my landings were good ones. And I never bent the airplane, so that's just icing on the cake. Billy McCaskill Urbana, IL/Baker, LA tail feathers nearly done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272520#272520 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2009
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: YouTube postings
Plane on ground in tact, pilot alive, I don't see an issue.- "A good land ing is one you can walk away from", so the saying goes. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Youtube video
Date: Nov 12, 2009
A short one posted a little while ago..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suOMiQUMd7w ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Youtube video
Very nice! >A short one posted a little while ago..... > ><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suOMiQUMd7w>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suOMiQUMd7w ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Youtube video
Date: Nov 12, 2009
I'd know that gear leg anywhere! Nice... Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down.) _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gcardinal Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:08 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Youtube video A short one posted a little while ago..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suOMiQUMd7w ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Some Very Nice Comments...
Dear Listers, I've been getting some really nice comments from Listers along with their List Support Contributions. I've shared some of them below. Please read them over and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade and operation of these services. There are lots of sweet gifts available, so browse the extensive selection and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution. http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ----------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists ----------- Few things in life bring more usefulness than the List. This is worth every penny! Stephen T. I have enjoyed the list for way too many years, but continue to get closer to flying my project with the help of listers. C.L. Thanks for this List. It's been a great source of encouragement and information. Arden A. Great service! Gerald T. It's always interesting reading the lists and I've gotten some good help from the issues and answers there. Steve T. Been a member of the List for 12 years. Keep up the good work. John H. Great Site! Harry M. Great source of information... Martin H. Thanks for providing this great service! Jeff P. I continue to get and give information through these lists. Ralph C. This is a wonderful resource! Warren H. This is what inernet was meant for, sharing information and experience. Michael W. Thanks for making such a good list! Fred D. Thanks for running a great service! Michael F. I really appreciate it. Dan H. Thanks for the great service. Michael L. Thanks for maintaining this great resource. John C. Your sites have been a great resourses and an introduction to many competent aircraft designers and fabricators. Jon M. Thanks for all that you do to maintain the Matronics forums and for the personal help that you have been to me in answering my questions regarding the use of the forums. William B. [The List] helped me get flying, fly off my test hours and make my systems better. Ralph C. The Universe is a better place because of you. Eric J. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: YouTube postings
Date: Nov 13, 2009
Dan; thanks for your comments. First I'll state the facts, then the disclaimer. The facts are that I did just about everything wrong that could be done wrong on that landing. Took my focus out of the cockpit and put it on the observers on the ground since I knew they had a camera going. Started my roundout too high, then when the airplane started to balloon, I punched in power but then changed my mind and told myself to pull the power, pull back the stick, and hold it back so then it came down hard and bounced. Forgot to hold upwind aileron and let the wing start lifting. The disclaimer is that this was one of my first solo landings in the airplane, shortly after I got signed off in it. Also, it was breezy and hot that afternoon. Today I am a far better Piet pilot and I make superb landings every time now. And if you'll buy that, I have a healthcare plan I'd like to sell you... Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: YouTube postings
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2009
Wow Oscar! That looks like a landing I made.......... today! Sometimes ya get beautiful ones, sometimes ya get ugly ones. Oh well. Seriously though what really makes you get better at landing is making a landing like that and then straightening it out and calming it down. That's where you really feel out the airplane and know you have control of it. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272737#272737 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: YouTube postings
Date: Nov 13, 2009
I'd be willing to bet that we've all made "memorable" landings. I say post 'em if you got 'em. Critiques are welcomed. The benefits will be twofold, we might learn something and we'll all feel better knowing that not all landings are greasers. Here is mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk3e7HLF_M8 Greg C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:37 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: YouTube postings > > Wow Oscar! That looks like a landing I made.......... today! Sometimes > ya get beautiful ones, sometimes ya get ugly ones. Oh well. Seriously > though what really makes you get better at landing is making a landing > like that and then straightening it out and calming it down. That's where > you really feel out the airplane and know you have control of it. > > Don Emch > NX899DE > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272737#272737 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: YouTube postings
THAT's a bad landing?! Oh man, I'm going to have to fly into Janesville and truck the Piet over to Brodhead if THAT's a bad landing. > >I'd be willing to bet that we've all made "memorable" landings. >I say post 'em if you got 'em. Critiques are welcomed. > >The benefits will be twofold, we might learn something and we'll all >feel better knowing that not all landings are greasers. > >Here is mine: > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk3e7HLF_M8 > >Greg C. > >---- -- Jeff Boatright "Now let's think about this..." ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Air Camper splash page
Wow, now this is fast action. On Wednesday I asked the list if anyone had a splash page for showing with a Piet at fly-ins. A day and a half later the attached shows up from Barry Davis. Thanks Barry - it'll go over great at the Jackson Co. Fly-In tomorrow! Jeff -- Jeff Boatright "Now let's think about this..." ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: YouTube postings
Date: Nov 14, 2009
There's plenty more where that came from...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFPwQ5nFOcQ Greg C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:10 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: YouTube postings > > THAT's a bad landing?! > > Oh man, I'm going to have to fly into Janesville and truck the Piet > over to Brodhead if THAT's a bad landing. > > >> >>I'd be willing to bet that we've all made "memorable" landings. >>I say post 'em if you got 'em. Critiques are welcomed. >> >>The benefits will be twofold, we might learn something and we'll all >>feel better knowing that not all landings are greasers. >> >>Here is mine: >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk3e7HLF_M8 >> >>Greg C. >> >>---- > > > -- > > Jeff Boatright > "Now let's think about this..." > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jim" <quinnj(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Fuselage Dimensions
Date: Nov 14, 2009
I'm about to join the two sides of the fuselage, but, once again am struggling with the plans, specifically trying to figure out the top and bottom dimensions. Does anyone have a clean set of dimensions/drawings to help with this. I'm building the long fuse. Thanks, Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2009
From: Ken Howe <ken@cooper-mtn.com>
Subject: Re: Fuselage Dimensions
I'm not to that part of the project yet. Until now I hadn't looked enough at the plans set to realize that those dimensions aren't shown on the supplemental sheet. I guess what I'll end up doing is laying it out full size on the workbench where I'll assemble it. Actually I plan to build a mock-pit after I finish my ribs. Now I may do it full length just to get these dimensions. My thoughts: Lay out one half - start with a full length centerline. Draw the front of the fuse parallel to that, back to where ever you'll start the bend. The plans show full width back to the rear panel, but I know some have kept it full width to the rear seat back. Mark the position and width of the tail post on the centerline. Now take a flexible strip of wood, tack it to the full width, straight line at the front and bend it back to the tail post. Mark the cross member locations. Mirror the whole thing for the other side and measure away. Since there are so many variations, widened fuselage, different points to start the bend, adjusted seat back locations, etc., I'd think we'd all have to lay it out out this way unless building a stock short fuse. Let us know how it goes. --Ken jim wrote: > I'm about to join the two sides of the fuselage, but, once again am > struggling with the plans, specifically trying to figure out the top and > bottom dimensions. Does anyone have a clean set of dimensions/drawings > to help with this. I'm building the long fuse. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fuselage Dimensions
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Jim, Make your cockpit dimension to suit (whether 24" or wider), insert those x-members then squeeze the ends together at the tail. The rest of the dimensions will be whatever they are at that station. Happy Building, Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down.) _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jim Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:20 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage Dimensions I'm about to join the two sides of the fuselage, but, once again am struggling with the plans, specifically trying to figure out the top and bottom dimensions. Does anyone have a clean set of dimensions/drawings to help with this. I'm building the long fuse. Thanks, Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Fuselage Dimensions
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
I would think, looking at the plans (don't have the fuselage in front of me), that you would just use the dimensions from the overhead view on the '33 fuselage. The 'long' fuselage adds length between various stations, but it does not change the number of struts or diagonals. For example: on the '33 plans the vertical and diagonal members are numbered, 1 through 14. Label the members 1 through 14 on your long fuselage drawing, and just transfer the width dimensions. Stations #1-5 are 24". Starting with the seat back (station #7), it goes to 22" wide. Station #9 is 17 3/4". Station #11 is 11". Finally, Station #13 is 5 1/2". I assume there were no widths given on the supplemental long fuse plan because the intent is for you to use the same width dimensions given on the '33 sheet; no need to draw it out again. At least that's how I see it.... Ryan On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:20 AM, jim wrote: > I'm about to join the two sides of the fuselage, but, once again am > struggling with the plans, specifically trying to figure out the top and > bottom dimensions. Does anyone have a clean set of dimensions/drawings to > help with this. I'm building the long fuse. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: UK built-up wing spar
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Is the built-up (box) wing spar that is approved for use in the U.K. a 3/4" thick spar or 1"? I've looked at pictures of one (Paul Shenton's, I believe) and can't see how it could possibly be 3/4". Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Subject: Re: UK built-up wing spar
From: Lloyd Smith <lesmith240(at)gmail.com>
Oscar, I have looked at the built up spars as well, and it is hard to determine how they are constructed from photos. I have searched for a place to order the PFA drawings for this spar, but all I have found is Mr. Trextor's drawings of his proposed spar. It looks doable, but I'm interested in the necessity of intercostals where the ribs attach, filler blocks where fittings attach, etc. These things are just as important as the spanwise loads because that's how we hang the fuse from the wing, :-) On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Oscar Zuniga wrote: > > > Is the built-up (box) wing spar that is approved > for use in the U.K. a 3/4" thick spar or 1"? I've > looked at pictures of one (Paul Shenton's, I believe) > and can't see how it could possibly be 3/4". > > Oscar Zuniga > Air Camper NX41CC > San Antonio, TX > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > -- "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." --British publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Subject: Re: UK built-up wing spar
From: Lloyd Smith <lesmith240(at)gmail.com>
I did just find this, but I wonder if the spar drawings are available as a supplement to US builders? http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/#/modifications-data/4533829721 On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Lloyd Smith wrote: > Oscar, I have looked at the built up spars as well, and it is hard to > determine how they are constructed from photos. I have searched for a place > to order the PFA drawings for this spar, but all I have found is Mr. > Trextor's drawings of his proposed spar. It looks doable, but I'm > interested in the necessity of intercostals where the ribs attach, filler > blocks where fittings attach, etc. These things are just as important as > the spanwise loads because that's how we hang the fuse from the wing, :-) > > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Oscar Zuniga wrote: > >> > >> >> >> Is the built-up (box) wing spar that is approved >> for use in the U.K. a 3/4" thick spar or 1"? I've >> looked at pictures of one (Paul Shenton's, I believe) >> and can't see how it could possibly be 3/4". >> >> Oscar Zuniga >> Air Camper NX41CC >> San Antonio, TX >> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com >> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists > or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." --British > publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954) > -- "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." --British publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Subject: Re: UK built-up wing spar
From: Gerry Holland <gholland@content-stream.co.uk>
Hi Might be worth dropping a line to Alan James in UK (aka Mr. Pietenpol) and asking about this matter. gbucojames(at)hotmail.com Regards Gerry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: UK built-up wing spar
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Over the years I as well as others have been unsuccessfully in getting the UK spar plans. The person who designed the spar will not sell them to anyone in the U.S. due to liability concerns. Chris Sacramento, CA WestCoastPiet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Lloyd Smith To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: UK built-up wing spar Oscar, I have looked at the built up spars as well, and it is hard to determine how they are constructed from photos. I have searched for a place to order the PFA drawings for this spar, but all I have found is Mr. Trextor's drawings of his proposed spar. It looks doable, but I'm interested in the necessity of intercostals where the ribs attach, filler blocks where fittings attach, etc. These things are just as important as the spanwise loads because that's how we hang the fuse from the wing, :-) On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Oscar Zuniga wrote: Is the built-up (box) wing spar that is approved for use in the U.K. a 3/4" thick spar or 1"? I've looked at pictures of one (Paul Shenton's, I believe) and can't see how it could possibly be 3/4". Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ========== ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution le, List Admin. ========== st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ========== http://forums.matronics.com ========== -- "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." --British publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: UK built-up wing spar
Date: Nov 15, 2009
Oscar, I built the UK spar. Check out http://www.cpc-world.com Page 4 of the build photos. The front spar is 7/8", the rear is 3/4". Both are covered with 1/8" ply totally on the front of the spars and in part on the rear of the spars. I can give you some dimensions if you like. I understand, as already suggested, Jim Wills will not sell to the US for fear of litigation if some thing fails. I have put them to the test and they don't fail..... Cheers Peter Wonthaggi Australia http://www.cpc-world.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar Zuniga Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2009 2:59 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: UK built-up wing spar Is the built-up (box) wing spar that is approved for use in the U.K. a 3/4" thick spar or 1"? I've looked at pictures of one (Paul Shenton's, I believe) and can't see how it could possibly be 3/4". Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK built-up wing spar
From: "carson" <carsonvella(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Heres some pic's of mine I almost have one wing built but I can take photos of any part of the other two spars before I start assembly of the next wing if you have any specific requests Carson Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272848#272848 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/lotsa_stuff_150_704.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/lotsa_stuff_149_383.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/lotsa_stuff_148_620.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Fuselage Dimensions
That's what I did.. Ben Charvet Airworthiness inspection scheduled for 12/4! Ryan Mueller wrote: > I would think, looking at the plans (don't have the fuselage in front > of me), that you would just use the dimensions from the overhead view > on the '33 fuselage. The 'long' fuselage adds length between various > stations, but it does not change the number of struts or diagonals. > For example: on the '33 plans the vertical and diagonal members are > numbered, 1 through 14. Label the members 1 through 14 on your long > fuselage drawing, and just transfer the width dimensions. > > Stations #1-5 are 24". Starting with the seat back (station #7), it > goes to 22" wide. Station #9 is 17 3/4". Station #11 is 11". Finally, > Station #13 is 5 1/2". > > I assume there were no widths given on the supplemental long fuse plan > because the intent is for you to use the same width dimensions given > on the '33 sheet; no need to draw it out again. At least that's how I > see it.... > > Ryan > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:20 AM, jim > wrote: > > I'm about to join the two sides of the fuselage, but, once again > am struggling with the plans, specifically trying to figure out > the top and bottom dimensions. Does anyone have a clean set of > dimensions/drawings to help with this. I'm building the long fuse. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2009
From: Jim <jimboyer(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Fuselage Dimensions
Oh come on Gary, thats too common sense. It must be harder than that. Jim B. Jim Boyer Santa Rosa, CA Pietenpol on wheels Tail surfaces done Wing ribs done Corvair engine Nov 14, 2009 07:11:01 AM, pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com wrote: Jim, Make your cockpit dimension to suit (whether 24 or wider), insert those x-members then squeeze the ends together at the tail. The rest of the dimensions will be whatever they are at that station. Happy Building, Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down) From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jim Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:20 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage Dimensions I'm about to join the two sides of the fuselage, but, once again am struggling with the plans, specifically trying to figure out the top and bottom dimensions. Does anyone have a clean set of dimensions/drawings to help with this. I'm building the long fuse. Thanks, Jim http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comhttp://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List'>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com'>http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2009
From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Certified Engine question
I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would drive the insurance folks nuts. I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than its engine/prop anyway. This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a tough choice. My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are concerned? Thanks Ben Charvet ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Certified Engine question
Date: Nov 15, 2009
Oh, I never answered your question. I left the original dataplate on the engine. It was riveted to the crankcase and was all but illegible, but it's still there. Jack Phillips NX899JP Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:40 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would drive the insurance folks nuts. I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than its engine/prop anyway. This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a tough choice. My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are concerned? Thanks Ben Charvet ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Certified Engine question
Date: Nov 15, 2009
Ben, I rebuilt my A65, with no logbooks at all. I built it under the supervision of an IA, but he didn't turn a wrench on it, and didn't sign anything off. I made a new log for it, with the following notation: "Recording Tach time: 0.00 Hours; Total Time in Service: Unknown; Overhauled engine in accordance with Continental Overhaul Manual to "New" limits. Installed the following overhauled components: Crankcase, overhauled by Divco, Inc. "Yellow Tag" WDC#79640. Crankshaft, S/N S111199-2, overhauled by Aircraft Specialties, Connecting rods S111199-2, overhauled by Aircraft Specialties, Rocker Arms P/N 639615, overhauled by Triad Aviation. The following parts were magnafluxed by Triad Aviation: Crankshaft Gear, Camshaft Gear, Oil Pump Impellers. Installed the following new parts: Camshaft (P/N 4546) - Fresno Air Parts; Cam Followers (8) (P/N 21608) - Fresno Air Parts; Millennium Cylinders (S/N 65A01988/89/90/91 - Superior Air Parts; Magnetos (Slick 4333), new Unison ignition harness, UREM40E Sparkplugs. Overhauled Stromberg NAS3-A1 Carburetor with stainless steel needle valve. Installed Brackett air filter, BA-4106. Installed new stainless steel intake pipes." I dated that notation July 8, 2002, which was when I built the engine. Then, when the FAA came out to inspect the airplane (I used the local FSDO, rather than a DAR. The DAR wanted $500 to inspect it. The FAA was free, but I had to wait a week for them to come out.), the inspector asked me to make the following notation in the log: Date 10/5/2004; Recording Tach Time 00.77 hours; "I certify that I have inspected this engine and propeller in accordance with the scope and details of Appendix D to Part 43 and found it to be in a condition for safe operation" Signed: J.C. Phillips (Repairman- Pending) That was all there was to it. The inspector was aware that I had rebuilt the engine, and that it had a certificated prop. He signed off the airplane with a 25 hour phase 1 test period. I think the FAA Inspectors are actually quite a bit more lenient than the DAR's are (probably because they don't worry about the FAA breathing over their shoulders like the DARs do). Good luck, Jack Phillips NX899JP Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:40 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would drive the insurance folks nuts. I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than its engine/prop anyway. This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a tough choice. My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are concerned? Thanks Ben Charvet ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Certified Engine question
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2009
Ben, Jack's experience sounds exactly like mine. I also had the FAA do the inspection. They had me write a similar entry in my logbook. He was aware that I had done a large amount of the work on the engine too. It's almost like that didn't even matter. I also didn't have an IA signature. As a side note. Although these engines are super simple and there are many overhaul shops out there, the guys that truly know these engines (the small Continentals) are getting harder and harder to come by. I would encourage anyone that has access to a mechanic that is very knowledgeable on these engines to soak up as much info as you can. Learn and understand your engine well. They really are remarkable little engines. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272992#272992 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Perry Rhoads" <prhoads61(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Piet Flying
Date: Nov 15, 2009
Just a few random Pietenpol flying pictures from yesterday in central Illinois. I can't let this thing sit in the hangar all winter !!! Perry Rhoads N12939 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <ghans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003
Date: Nov 15, 2009
Group, Today, November 15th, is the 39th anniversary of the first flight of my Pietenpol. Due to other commitments, I flew it yesterday because after 39 years a day either way didn't seem significant. Here is a shot taken over the nose before the camera battery gave up because of the cold (about 35 degrees F.). I'll send another shot taken on this flight in a following post. Cheers, Graham Hansen (in central Alberta, Canada) The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <ghans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 005
Date: Nov 15, 2009
Group, Here is another shot taken toward the port side showing lots of landing spots (stubble fields) in case of an engine failure. This little airplane has been a great source of pleasure to me, and I hope all of you have as much fun with your Pietenpols as I have had with mine. Cheers, Graham Hansen (in central Alberta, Canada) The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 005 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Contributions Down By 21%...
Dear Listers, As of today, contributions to the Matronics List Fund Raiser are lagging behind last year at this time by 21%. I have a fund raiser each year simply to cover my operating costs for the Lists. I *do not* accept any advertising income to support the Lists and rely solely on the contributions of members to keep the expenses paid. I run all of my own servers and they are housed here locally, and the Internet connection is a commercial-grade, T1 connection with public address space. I also maintain a full backup system that does nightly backups of all List-related data so that in the event of a server crash or worse, all of the Lists and the many years of List archive data could be restored onto a new server in a matter of hours. All of this costs a fair amount of money, not to mention a significant amount of my personal time as well. I have a Fund Raiser each year to cover these costs and I ask that members that feel they receive a benefit from my investments, make a modest contribution each year to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. If you enjoy the Lists, please make a contribution today. I also offer some incentive gifts for larger contribution levels. At the Contribution Web Wite, you can use a credit card, Paypal, or personal check to show your support for the continuation of these services: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Certified Engine question
Ben, I am not an A&P, but during a conversation with a local small Continental demi-guru, he mentioned that he found a document that says that the compressions on an A-65 arn't considered out-of-spec until they hits 8lbs. Count 'em. 8. That sounds unbelievable to me, so check with your local A&P or drop Harry Fenton a line - he *is* Mr. Small Continental engine guru, and is generally pretty responsive to such questions. Looks like he's got a full section on compressions in his FAQ: http://bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm#compression_limits Cheers, Dan Ben Charvet wrote: > > I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished > project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness > inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder > to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. > Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled > the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. > I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine > came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through > phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. > Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. > > So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience > rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in > automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started > overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, > crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental > A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be > signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed > and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent > in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do > this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would > drive the insurance folks nuts. > > I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in > bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley > metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the > Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just > swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the > A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. > I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than > its engine/prop anyway. > > This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a > tough choice. > > My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified > engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a > Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are > concerned? > > Thanks > > Ben Charvet > > > > > > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Paule" <dpaule(at)frii.com>
Subject: Re: Certified Engine question
Date: Nov 16, 2009
There's a Continental service bulletin, M84-15, that says that the compression needs to be referenced to the "Master Orfice Tool," part number 646953-A. They sell the tool, it's a bar with female spark plug threads at each end and a calibrated orfice in the middle. The idea is that you hook up the compressor to it and with the regulator gauge set to exactly 80 psi, using the tool, the cylinder gauge ought to show 40 to 50 psi. If it doesn't the differential tester is out of calibration and can't be used. You'll have to refer to the service bulletin for more details. Back about 20 years ago, mine cost around $40. Nicely made tool in a plastic case. Not something you'd find at Home Depot. David Paule ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:53 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question > > Ben, > > I am not an A&P, but during a conversation with a local small > Continental demi-guru, he mentioned that he found a document that says > that the compressions on an A-65 arn't considered out-of-spec until they > hits 8lbs. Count 'em. 8. That sounds unbelievable to me, so check > with your local A&P or drop Harry Fenton a line - he *is* Mr. Small > Continental engine guru, and is generally pretty responsive to such > questions. Looks like he's got a full section on compressions in his FAQ: > > http://bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm#compression_limits > > Cheers, > Dan > > > > Ben Charvet wrote: >> >> I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished >> project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness >> inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder >> to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. >> Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled >> the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. >> I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine >> came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through >> phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. >> Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. >> >> So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience >> rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in >> automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started >> overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, >> crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental >> A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be >> signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed >> and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent >> in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do >> this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would >> drive the insurance folks nuts. >> >> I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in >> bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley >> metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the >> Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just >> swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the >> A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. >> I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than >> its engine/prop anyway. >> >> This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a >> tough choice. >> >> My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified >> engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a >> Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are >> concerned? >> >> Thanks >> >> Ben Charvet >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Dan Yocum > Fermilab 630.840.6509 > yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov > Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Certified Engine question
Date: Nov 16, 2009
Not quite right. When you use the master orifice tool, once you set your tester to input 80 psi, you use the number you get as the new minimum. It does not mean that you can't use your tester, just that you have derived a new minimum psi based on the master orifice tool. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: David Paule<mailto:dpaule(at)frii.com> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question =EF=BB There's a Continental service bulletin, M84-15, that says that the compression needs to be referenced to the "Master Orfice Tool," part number 646953-A. They sell the tool, it's a bar with female spark plug threads at each end and a calibrated orfice in the middle. The idea is that you hook up the compressor to it and with the regulator gauge set to exactly 80 psi, using the tool, the cylinder gauge ought to show 40 to 50 psi. If it doesn't the differential tester is out of calibration and can't be used. You'll have to refer to the service bulletin for more details. Back about 20 years ago, mine cost around $40. Nicely made tool in a plastic case. Not something you'd find at Home Depot. David Paule ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov> To: Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:53 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question > > Ben, > > I am not an A&P, but during a conversation with a local small > Continental demi-guru, he mentioned that he found a document that says > that the compressions on an A-65 arn't considered out-of-spec until they > hits 8lbs. Count 'em. 8. That sounds unbelievable to me, so check > with your local A&P or drop Harry Fenton a line - he *is* Mr. Small > Continental engine guru, and is generally pretty responsive to such > questions. Looks like he's got a full section on compressions in his FAQ: > > http://bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm#compression_limits > > Cheers, > Dan > > > > Ben Charvet wrote: >> >> I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished >> project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness >> inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder >> to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. >> Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled >> the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. >> I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine >> came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through >> phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. >> Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. >> >> So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience >> rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in >> automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started >> overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, >> crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental >> A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be >> signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed >> and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent >> in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do >> this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would >> drive the insurance folks nuts. >> >> I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in >> bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley >> metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the >> Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just >> swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the >> A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. >> I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than >> its engine/prop anyway. >> >> This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a >> tough choice. >> >> My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified >> engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a >> Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are >> concerned? >> >> Thanks >> >> Ben Charvet >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Dan Yocum > Fermilab 630.840.6509 > yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov > Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. > > ========== > Support Your Lists This Month -- > Get Some the Annual Contribution link Terrific Free www.aeroelectric.com > HomebuiltHELP Contribution Web bsp; > Pietenpol-List Un/Subscription, > --> ========== > bsp; via the ========== > > > www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/> www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/> www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Paule" <dpaule(at)frii.com>
Subject: Re: Certified Engine question
Date: Nov 16, 2009
Well, that's what I was tryin' to say. Thanks for making it a lot clearer! Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Gene Rambo To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:53 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question Not quite right. When you use the master orifice tool, once you set your tester to input 80 psi, you use the number you get as the new minimum. It does not mean that you can't use your tester, just that you have derived a new minimum psi based on the master orifice tool. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: David Paule To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question =EF=BB There's a Continental service bulletin, M84-15, that says that the compression needs to be referenced to the "Master Orfice Tool," part number 646953-A. They sell the tool, it's a bar with female spark plug threads at each end and a calibrated orfice in the middle. The idea is that you hook up the compressor to it and with the regulator gauge set to exactly 80 psi, using the tool, the cylinder gauge ought to show 40 to 50 psi. If it doesn't the differential tester is out of calibration and can't be used. You'll have to refer to the service bulletin for more details. Back about 20 years ago, mine cost around $40. Nicely made tool in a plastic case. Not something you'd find at Home Depot. David Paule ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum(at)fnal.gov> To: Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:53 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question > > Ben, > > I am not an A&P, but during a conversation with a local small > Continental demi-guru, he mentioned that he found a document that says > that the compressions on an A-65 arn't considered out-of-spec until they > hits 8lbs. Count 'em. 8. That sounds unbelievable to me, so check > with your local A&P or drop Harry Fenton a line - he *is* Mr. Small > Continental engine guru, and is generally pretty responsive to such > questions. Looks like he's got a full section on compressions in his FAQ: > > http://bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm#compression_limits > > Cheers, > Dan > > > > Ben Charvet wrote: >> >> I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished >> project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness >> inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder >> to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. >> Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled >> the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. >> I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine >> came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through >> phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. >> Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. >> >> So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience >> rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in >> automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started >> overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, >> crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental >> A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be >> signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed >> and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent >> in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do >> this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would >> drive the insurance folks nuts. >> >> I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in >> bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley >> metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the >> Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just >> swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the >> A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. >> I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than >> its engine/prop anyway. >> >> This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a >> tough choice. >> >> My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified >> engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a >> Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are >> concerned? >> >> Thanks >> >> Ben Charvet >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Dan Yocum > Fermilab 630.840.6509 > yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov > Fermilab. Just zeros and ones. > > ========== > Support Your Lists This Month -- > Get Some the Annual Contribution link Terrific Free www.aeroelectric.com > HomebuiltHELP Contribution Web bsp; > Pietenpol-List Un/Subscription, > --> ========== > bsp; via the ========== > > > href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com title=http://www.buildersbooks.com/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Piet Flying
Very nice, sir, very nice. That's a spiffy hat, too. Where'd ya get it? Dan -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2009
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Interesting conversation...
On Saturday we happened to see a "car show" in a little town (Adair, OK) a few miles from our home. So we stopped to check it out. Well I start talking to this fellow with a beautiful 1940's flathead Ford truck. I mentioned that I was going to paint my airplane some of the same colors he had used on his truck. I told him it was going to be "A" powered and he asked if I was building a Pietenpol. Out of the blue.....I could NOT believe it. I soon discover he knows a lot about airplanes. In fact, his son flys for FedEx. I asked him if he was a pilot also and he said no but his last name is Stinson and he's been around airplanes all his life. I should have asked more about that.... He told me about an article in the October 2009 Flying Magazine that has a picture of a Pietenpol. It's a small article but interesting to see a Pietenpol illustration at the start of the article.... Anyway, check it out: http://www.flyingmag.com/unusualattitudes/1805/why-im-not-a-junior-leaguer.html Jim in DC....looking forward to getting home this weekend to work on my Pietenpol!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2009
From: Al Bane <adb7(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Piet Flying
Perry, Nice pics. Hopefully we'll have another Piet flying at Litchfield in the next couple years. I bought a project from Bill See in Ohio this weekend and brought it home. Long fuselage (2 in added width), tail feathers and wing ribs are done. I've got spars and wing struts. It's in my garage now, but will move it to Litchfield as soon as our new hangars are done in the spring. Al Bane -----Original Message----- >From: Perry Rhoads <prhoads61(at)frontiernet.net> >Sent: Nov 15, 2009 10:02 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Flying > >Just a few random Pietenpol flying pictures from yesterday in central Illinois. > >I can't let this thing sit in the hangar all winter !!! > >Perry Rhoads >N12939 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jason Holmes" <jholmes8(at)columbus.rr.com>
Subject: Piet Flying
Date: Nov 16, 2009
Al, I saw the project at Bill's on Saturday, looked like a good buy to me. Bill is my flight instructor and on Saturday we got to take off right before Shad in his Corvair powered Piet. It was certainly a great day for flying and really enjoyed seeing Shad's Aircamper. Enjoy your new project. Jason Holmes Project status: studying plans -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Al Bane Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet Flying Perry, Nice pics. Hopefully we'll have another Piet flying at Litchfield in the next couple years. I bought a project from Bill See in Ohio this weekend and brought it home. Long fuselage (2 in added width), tail feathers and wing ribs are done. I've got spars and wing struts. It's in my garage now, but will move it to Litchfield as soon as our new hangars are done in the spring. Al Bane -----Original Message----- >From: Perry Rhoads <prhoads61(at)frontiernet.net> >Sent: Nov 15, 2009 10:02 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Flying > >Just a few random Pietenpol flying pictures from yesterday in central Illinois. > >I can't let this thing sit in the hangar all winter !!! > >Perry Rhoads >N12939 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: built up spars
From: baileys <baileys(at)ktis.net>
Date: Nov 17, 2009
I'm joining in on this one a bit. Years ago I too tried to get plans for the built up spar the Brits have. As far as I as able to find out there is simply no legal way of doing it and that is the end of that. However EAA has (or had) publications on built up spars. Also there are a number successful home built aircraft that use built up spars. Molt Taylor designed aircraft made largely out of cardboard, fiberglass and epoxy. They used a built spar that probably didn't cost a hundred bucks. Zenith Aircraft Company uses built up aluminum spars that are (IMHO) probably cheaper that aircraft quality Sitka Spruce, stronger and weigh less too. The Skypup Ultra-lite does not have the classic beauty of a Piet, but it uses just one built up spar and the removable three piece wing is fully cantilevered. IMHO the Skypup designer is in the same league as Bernie Pietenpol. A simple straight forward design using commonly available materials. Only this man is a professional aeronautical engineer. If anyone wants to see something about it there is a video called "Machnone" on youtube that shows a lot of the construction methodology of the Skypup. I bought a set of plans from the designer's son just to see how it was constructed. (Over the years I have collected a number of plans for the same reason.) Due to personal responsibilities that I have, building my own Piet is not possible so I stand on the sidelines wishing others well. Hopefully, someone will be inspired by all that is out there on low cost built up spars and the sky will be darkened with Pietenpol Air Campers being flown by happy pilots before too long. Back to lurking, Bob B. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2009
From: Brian Mitchely <bmitchely(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Black Max brakes on my Piet
I am looking at various wheel and brake options for my Aircamper build. I h appened across this on my last trip to Aircraft Spruce in Georgia. Does any one have any experience with the Black Max wheel and brake set up? The BX44 863 will support up to a gross weight of 1500 pounds and uses a 6X6 Tyre. H ere is a link to the product as listed at Aircraft Spruce: http://www.aircr aftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/blackmax.php -=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: built up spars
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Well, I don't see how procuring the UK plans is against the law in any way; Jim Wills just doesn't want to sell them to anyone here. If you were to acquire a set it would be against his wishes, but I highly doubt you would be breaking any laws. As far as holding Zenith spars up as an example of a strong, high quality design....you may want to reconsider that: http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-12_safety_alert.asp They've developed such a tendency to shed their wings/break up in flight that the FAA has seemingly done all they can to require or strongly recommend no further flight until an extensive package of mods are completed on existing aircraft, and will not issue airworthiness certificates for any new aircraft that do not have the mods. Too bad for the Zenith guys... Ryan Sent from my mobile device On Nov 17, 2009, at 5:32 AM, baileys wrote: > > I'm joining in on this one a bit. Years ago I too tried to get plans > for the built up spar the Brits have. As far as I as able to find out > there is simply no legal way of doing it and that is the end of that. > > Zenith Aircraft Company uses built up aluminum spars that are > (IMHO) probably cheaper that aircraft quality Sitka Spruce, stronger > and > weigh less too. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Black Max brakes on my Piet
Date: Nov 17, 2009
From: hvandervoo(at)aol.com
I am using a Matco setup that is very similar, 3/4" axle and similar gross weight, succesfully. BR Hans NX15KV -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mitchely <bmitchely(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Tue, Nov 17, 2009 9:16 am Subject: Pietenpol-List: Black Max brakes on my Piet I am looking at various wheel and brake options for my Aircamper build. I happened across this on my last trip to Aircraft Spruce in Georgia. Does anyone have any experience with the Black Max wheel and brake set up? The BX44863 will support up to a gross weight of 1500 pounds and uses a 6X6 Tyre. Here is a link to the product as listed at Aircraft Spruce: http:// www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/blackmax.php ======================== =========== - -= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month -- -= (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) - -= November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on -= the Contribution link below to find out more about -= this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided -= by: -= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com -= * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com -= * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com - -= List Contribution Web Site: - -= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution - -= Thank you for your generous support! - -= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. - -======================== ======================== =========== -= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum - -= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse -= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription, -= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, -= Photoshare, and much much more: - -= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List - -======================== ======================== =========== -= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - -= Same great content also available via the Web Forums! - -= --> http://forums.matronics.com - -======================== ======================== =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Perry Rhoads" <prhoads61(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Piet Flying
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Al, Great news !! Perry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Bane" <adb7(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:40 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet Flying > > Perry, > > Nice pics. > > Hopefully we'll have another Piet flying at Litchfield in the next couple > years. I bought a project from Bill See in Ohio this weekend and brought > it home. Long fuselage (2 in added width), tail feathers and wing ribs > are done. I've got spars and wing struts. It's in my garage now, but > will move it to Litchfield as soon as our new hangars are done in the > spring. > > Al Bane > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Perry Rhoads <prhoads61(at)frontiernet.net> >>Sent: Nov 15, 2009 10:02 PM >>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Flying >> >>Just a few random Pietenpol flying pictures from yesterday in central >>Illinois. >> >>I can't let this thing sit in the hangar all winter !!! >> >>Perry Rhoads >>N12939 >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: built up spars
Date: Nov 17, 2009
...with one minor correction....the FAA warning is for the 601XL model, which is a long wing with no center section. Both the 601HD & HDS models are performing just fine, with no concerns. They both have an 8' center section. Still...as you say...too bad for the Zenith guys... Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, mounted Tail done, Fuselage on gear (15 ribs down.) -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:24 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: built up spars Well, I don't see how procuring the UK plans is against the law in any way; Jim Wills just doesn't want to sell them to anyone here. If you were to acquire a set it would be against his wishes, but I highly doubt you would be breaking any laws. As far as holding Zenith spars up as an example of a strong, high quality design....you may want to reconsider that: http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-12_safety_alert.asp They've developed such a tendency to shed their wings/break up in flight that the FAA has seemingly done all they can to require or strongly recommend no further flight until an extensive package of mods are completed on existing aircraft, and will not issue airworthiness certificates for any new aircraft that do not have the mods. Too bad for the Zenith guys... Ryan Sent from my mobile device On Nov 17, 2009, at 5:32 AM, baileys wrote: > > I'm joining in on this one a bit. Years ago I too tried to get plans > for the built up spar the Brits have. As far as I as able to find out > there is simply no legal way of doing it and that is the end of that. > > Zenith Aircraft Company uses built up aluminum spars that are > (IMHO) probably cheaper that aircraft quality Sitka Spruce, stronger > and > weigh less too. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2009
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: built up spars
Peter, If you provided sketches with dimensions, combined with the great pix on your site, no one should need more. Tim in central TX -----Original Message----- >From: Peter W Johnson <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> >Sent: Nov 17, 2009 3:01 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: built up spars > > >Hi Guys, > >I used Jim's plans for my spar. > >When building, I make a quick drawing from the plans showing what I need to do for that particular part and take that to the workshop, leaving the plans safe in the office. I still have the notebook drawing I made to build the spars. > >If I posted that on my web site, maybe people would have a better idea of what is required. There are lots of photo's on page 4 of the builders log on the web site. That way nobody needs to get upset. > >What do you reckon?? > >Cheers > >Peter >Wonthaggi Australia >http://www.cpc-world.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2009
From: airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: pilots operating manual
I am looking for a POM for my Piet with a corvair engine. I heard that there was one on the list that I could duplicate. Thanks, Gardiner Mason ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: General Pietenpol questions
From: "njones" <deville-66(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2009
As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer. No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying any homebuilt project. I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground? Years ago back in the 70's I built a large RC model of this aircraft that I entered in the Canadian Scale Nationals in Calgary. Frankly I was less than impressed with the flight characteristics. It was difficult to balance with the short nose moment, a bear to handle on the ground with that narrow gear, being prone to ground loops and dragging a wing tip, especially in a cross-wind. In the air it was particularly touchy in pitch and not pleasant to fly. I realize it is difficult to compare the flight characteristics of a model to full size ( Reynolds numbers etc. ) but they both have that narrow gear and almost no dihedral, in fact in head-on flight pics the aircraft appears to have zero dihedral. Any thought on these comments? I love the aircraft and would consider powering it with a C-85 or possibly a Corvair, the photos of the British G-BUCO are especially inspiring. Thx for the help, Nigel Jones, BC, Canada -------- Nigel R. Jones Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273353#273353 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: General Pietenpol questions
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Interesting background (similar to my own) and good questions Nigel. I am a new builder and do not have any flight time in this airplane yet, but surely someone will be along soon to give you an experienced perspective. G-BUCO also caught my eye very early in the decision making process. I'll be reading the mail. -------- Mark - working on wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273355#273355 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Paule" <dpaule(at)frii.com>
Subject: Re: General Pietenpol questions
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Having built a Fly-Baby many years ago, I'd think that the Pietenpol would be the clear choice for these reasons: 1. It's got that second seat. 2. Fly-Baby performance is often not that much different than the Pietenpol, certainly not enough to be a deal-breaker, for the same engine. There are some Fly-Bablys, though that are cleaned up and can cruise faster. The Fly-Baby is probably easier to reduce drag on. 3. The Pietenpol can be built slightly lighter. 4. The visibility is better in the Pietenpol, if you don't use the Ford with the upright radiator. 5. The Pietenpol might be slightly more robust. The struts help. The Fly-Baby has flying and landing wires. While the Fly-Baby does have folding wings, they are a bit awkward and aren't used that often, generally speaking. Still, they are there and that might make a difference. David Paule > > As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this > aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual > Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer. > No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying > any homebuilt project. > > I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the > Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place > configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft > to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground? > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: General Pietenpol questions
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Nigel, where in BC are you? I have a Piet with a one piece wing, which has no dihedral. The Piet is a joy to fly IF you enjoy open cockpit flying. It is stable in the air and on the ground. The Piet is not prone to ground looping. Just a good, all around easy and gentle plane to taxi, fly and land. Mine has the A 65 with a 76 X 38 prop and I'm very happy with the cruise and climb. From what I see, the only folks that are not happy with the Piet are the ones that try to make it into something it was never ment to be. The Piet is a slow, draggy, windy and delightful airplane and the only change you can make to it, is to take out the delightful. If you do build one, built it by the plans and build it light. You won't be sorry. Gene N502R in rainy Tennessee ----- Original Message ----- From: "njones" <deville-66(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:05 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: General Pietenpol questions > > As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this > aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual > Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer. > No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying > any homebuilt project. > > I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the > Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place > configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft > to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground? > > Years ago back in the 70's I built a large RC model of this aircraft that > I entered in the Canadian Scale Nationals in Calgary. Frankly I was less > than impressed with the flight characteristics. It was difficult to > balance with the short nose moment, a bear to handle on the ground with > that narrow gear, being prone to ground loops and dragging a wing tip, > especially in a cross-wind. In the air it was particularly touchy in pitch > and not pleasant to fly. > > I realize it is difficult to compare the flight characteristics of a model > to full size ( Reynolds numbers etc. ) but they both have that narrow gear > and almost no dihedral, in fact in head-on flight pics the aircraft > appears to have zero dihedral. > > Any thought on these comments? I love the aircraft and would consider > powering it with a C-85 or possibly a Corvair, the photos of the British > G-BUCO are especially inspiring. > > Thx for the help, > > Nigel Jones, BC, Canada > > -------- > Nigel R. Jones > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273353#273353 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 19:26:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: General Pietenpol questions
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Nigel, With sufficient tailwheel time I don't think you'll find a Pietenpol difficult to handle. Its ground handling is quite docile, as long as you are not bothered by not being able to see anything straight ahead. It is not a particularly easy airplane to land, due to its very high drag. When approaching power off, I find the best speed to be 55 mph on short final. The flare has to be timed very well, because the time between beginning the flare at 55 mph and stalling at 35 is approximately 1-2 seconds. However, if you carry a bit of power, the flare can be extended somewhat, making it a bit easier to land. Directional control is not a problem, any more than in any other taildragger. I have flown mine in a 25 knot direct crosswind, and while not enjoyable, the plane could handle it. Flying in such wind is work, and I don't recommend it unless you have no choice (like landing at Oshkosh in strong crosswinds). As for the narrow gear, if you think it is too narrow, make it wider. I widened mine a bit, to a width of 7 feet between the wheels. Still narrower than a Cub (with its 10' tread), but certainly not a handful. Narrow gear does not necessarily make a plane difficult to handle on the ground. I have an RV-4 as well as the Pietenpol. The RV-4 has much narrower gear than the Piet, but is absolutely the easiest plane to land I've ever flown, including all tricycle gear types. No dihedral? No problem. The parasol configuration adds substantial stability, but if you're looking for the stability of a Cessna 210, look elsewhere. On a glass smooth day, my Pietenpol will fly hands off for minutes at a time. It will fly feet off for maybe as long as a second or two. Stability in yaw is not a strong suit. It flies like exactly what it is - a 1929 airplane design. It is very much a rudder airplane, with lot's of adverse yaw. You do have to fly it, so time in a Cherokee or a Cessna is not much of a prep. Try to get some time in a J-3, to get more of a feel for what a Piet is like. Is it enjoyable to fly? Very much. I have not flown a Fly Baby, so I can't compare the two. Of planes I have flown, the closest in feel to a Pietenpol is probably a 1934 Fairchild 22. Again, lots of drag, lots of adverse yaw, and lots of fun. Good luck with your decision. I had the same choice to make (with the Volmer Sportsman thrown into the mix as well). I chose the Pietenpol and have never regretted my choice. If you haven't decided by next July, I suggest you make the trip to Brodhead, Wisconsin for the annual Pietenpol gathering and take a ride in one. 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 njones Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:05 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: General Pietenpol questions As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer. No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying any homebuilt project. I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground? Years ago back in the 70's I built a large RC model of this aircraft that I entered in the Canadian Scale Nationals in Calgary. Frankly I was less than impressed with the flight characteristics. It was difficult to balance with the short nose moment, a bear to handle on the ground with that narrow gear, being prone to ground loops and dragging a wing tip, especially in a cross-wind. In the air it was particularly touchy in pitch and not pleasant to fly. I realize it is difficult to compare the flight characteristics of a model to full size ( Reynolds numbers etc. ) but they both have that narrow gear and almost no dihedral, in fact in head-on flight pics the aircraft appears to have zero dihedral. Any thought on these comments? I love the aircraft and would consider powering it with a C-85 or possibly a Corvair, the photos of the British G-BUCO are especially inspiring. Thx for the help, Nigel Jones, BC, Canada -------- Nigel R. Jones Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273353#273353 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003
From: "njones" <deville-66(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Graham, where in central Alberta are you located? I have a Daughter in Alix just outside of Lacombe, if you are close by would like to see your Piet sometime. I'm in the process of trying to decide on a project and researching various designs. no decision yet. Nigel Jones, Salmon arm, BC -------- Nigel R. Jones Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273366#273366 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2009
From: hpvs(at)southwind.net
Subject: Re: built up spars
Gentlemen! We do have Peter's most excellent material list, with all the "bits & pieces" -- I have "assembled" the spar from these pieces on paper some time ago -- Moment of Inertia for the front PFA spar is very close to the routed "I" spar (1" x 4 3/4" with the 1/2" web thickness). It's really a good design that only needs a wider opening for the front spar in the Piet wing ribs (1 1/8" vs 1") -- The rear spar only needs the original 1" spar opening. I could use some hints on the "swallow-tail" blocks between the caps! ;-) Cheers! Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: General Pietenpol questions
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Jack wrote: >The flare has to be timed very well, because >the time between beginning the flare at 55 mph >and stalling at 35 is approximately 1-2 seconds. >However, if you carry a bit of power, the flare >can be extended somewhat, making it a bit easier >to land. All very true, but I actually like the fact that when you start the flare, you're committed to land the airplane and there isn't much float to speak of. The time in the landing phase in taildraggers that has always been the most nervous for me is that period where the wing is in a relatively high angle of attack and near the stall, nose is up, wheels aren't on the ground yet, and airspeed is scrubbing off. It's when the airplane gets wobbly and the crosswind has its way. Rudder effectiveness is dropping off, so is aileron so you're busy stirring the pot with the stick and your feet are moving to the tempo that is needed to stay straight. So to me, the fact that the Piet doesn't mess around once you start the flare is a good thing. The "wobbly period" is kept to a very minimum, which saves my nerves. The airplane is, to me, a delight to fly but you have to enjoy low, slow, breezy, antique style flying where the wood and fabric are part of the experience and the instrument panel is almost not a factor at all. Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: pilots operating manual
Gardiner, This is the one that I've been using - modified accordingly, of course: http://nx770cg.com/OperationsManual.html Cheers, Dan airlion wrote: > > I am looking for a POM for my Piet with a corvair engine. I heard that there was one on the list that I could duplicate. Thanks, Gardiner Mason > > > > > > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: built up spars
Date: Nov 17, 2009
You can also go here: http://www.westcoastpiet.com/construction.htm And find a couple of good articles if you want to figure out your own..... Greg C. ----- Original Message ----- From: <hpvs(at)southwind.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:43 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: built up spars > > > Gentlemen! > > We do have Peter's most excellent material list, with all the "bits & > pieces" -- I have "assembled" the spar from these pieces on paper some > time ago -- Moment of Inertia for the front PFA spar is very close to the > routed "I" spar (1" x 4 3/4" with the 1/2" web thickness). It's really a > good design that only needs a wider opening for the front spar in the Piet > wing ribs (1 1/8" vs 1") -- The rear spar only needs the original 1" spar > opening. > > I could use some hints on the "swallow-tail" blocks between the caps! ;-) > > Cheers! > Mike C. > Pretty Prairie, KS > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: General Pietenpol questions
I'd also add that, in my unexperienced opinion, the landing gear on the Piet are more forgiving/robust - the 'Baby only has those big wheels for shock absorbtion. As for flying and taxiing, I have to echo Jack's opinion that it's on par with a J-3 Cub. I bought mine in early August, started flying in in mid-September and now have about 14 hours in the Piet. I love it, even if I do complain about freezing my butt off when the temps dip into the 40's (5-10 C to you sane, metric people). I just need to bundle up more is all. Cheers, Dan David Paule wrote: > > Having built a Fly-Baby many years ago, I'd think that the Pietenpol > would be the clear choice for these reasons: > > 1. It's got that second seat. > > 2. Fly-Baby performance is often not that much different than the > Pietenpol, certainly not enough to be a deal-breaker, for the same > engine. There are some Fly-Bablys, though that are cleaned up and can > cruise faster. The Fly-Baby is probably easier to reduce drag on. > > 3. The Pietenpol can be built slightly lighter. > > 4. The visibility is better in the Pietenpol, if you don't use the Ford > with the upright radiator. > > 5. The Pietenpol might be slightly more robust. The struts help. The > Fly-Baby has flying and landing wires. > > While the Fly-Baby does have folding wings, they are a bit awkward and > aren't used that often, generally speaking. Still, they are there and > that might make a difference. > > David Paule > > > > >> >> As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this >> aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the >> usual Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a >> 180 Archer. No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this >> prior to flying any homebuilt project. >> >> I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including >> the Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 >> place configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is >> this aircraft to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground? >> > > > > > -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2009
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: pilots operating manual
Hey, that's the one we use! > >Gardiner, > >This is the one that I've been using - modified accordingly, of course: > >http://nx770cg.com/OperationsManual.html > >Cheers, >Dan > > >airlion wrote: >> >>I am looking for a POM for my Piet with a corvair engine. I heard >>that there was one on the list that I could duplicate. Thanks, >>Gardiner Mason >> >> >> >> >> > >-- >Dan Yocum >Fermilab 630.840.6509 >yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov >"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." > >_ -- --- Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine Editor-in-Chief Molecular Vision ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <ghans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003
Date: Nov 17, 2009
Nigel, I live in Camrose which isn't far from Alix. I keep my airplanes at a friend's farm just east of Camrose. He has a nice grass runway and three airplanes of his own. Currently, I also have three of the darned things: the Pietenpol, a Vagabond (homebuilt version) and a Luscombe. Too many! If you are in this neck of the woods, give me a call. (780) 672-5725 Cheers, Graham ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: built up spars
Date: Nov 18, 2009
Hi Guys, I have put a couple of jpegs on the web site of my notes. Check out the wing spar construction page on http://www.cpc-world.com Cheers Peter Wonthaggi Australia http://www.cpc-world.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 8:23 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: built up spars Peter, If you provided sketches with dimensions, combined with the great pix on your site, no one should need more. Tim in central TX -----Original Message----- >From: Peter W Johnson <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> >Sent: Nov 17, 2009 3:01 PM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: built up spars > > >Hi Guys, > >I used Jim's plans for my spar. > >When building, I make a quick drawing from the plans showing what I need to do for that particular part and take that to the workshop, leaving the plans safe in the office. I still have the notebook drawing I made to build the spars. > >If I posted that on my web site, maybe people would have a better idea of what is required. There are lots of photo's on page 4 of the builders log on the web site. That way nobody needs to get upset. > >What do you reckon?? > >Cheers > >Peter >Wonthaggi Australia >http://www.cpc-world.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What's My Contribution Used For?
Dear Listers, Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question. Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides for the very expensive, commercial-grade T1 Internet connection used on the List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine, List Browser, and Forums. It pays for narly 20 years (yeah, I really said *20* years) worth of online archive data available for instant random search and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums, and Wiki. But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make all those statements these days? It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of the best investments you can make in your Sport... List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: General Pietenpol questions
From: "ivan.todorovic" <tosha(at)sezampro.rs>
Date: Nov 18, 2009
njones wrote: > ..., the photos of the British G-BUCO are especially inspiring. > To Nigel and other G-BUCO fans: did you know that G-BUCO crashed due to engine failure? Don't worry, pilot was unhurt, and it is restored. If you want to read the whole story you have it here: http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/#/the-club-newsletter/4533440300 Click on the "Airborne 13 Part 2" (last two pages) and "Airborne 13 Part 3" (first two pages). Regards, Ivan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273486#273486 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2009
From: airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: pilots operating manual
thanks a bunch guys. Gardiner ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 10:57:31 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pilots operating manual Hey, that's the one we use! > >Gardiner, > >This is the one that I've been using - modified accordingly, of course: > >http://nx770cg.com/OperationsManual.html > >Cheers, >Dan > > >airlion wrote: >> >>I am looking for a POM for my Piet with a corvair engine. I heard >>that there was one on the list that I could duplicate. Thanks, >>Gardiner Mason >> >> >> >> >> > >-- >Dan Yocum >Fermilab 630.840.6509 >yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov >"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." > >_ -- --- Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine Editor-in-Chief Molecular Vision ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What's My Contribution Used For?
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 18, 2009
Matt: I don't think many Pietenpolers realize the valuable service your lists contribute to their needs and entertainment, THANK YOU Pieti Lowell Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273500#273500 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: shipping aluminum sheet
Date: Nov 18, 2009
Aircraft Spruce and others indicate that 4'x12' sheets of aluminum up to about .030" can be shipped as one piece by rolling and boxing. They caution that they don't guarantee that the heavier gauge material will unroll completely flat when shipped this way. Has anyone ordered sheet stock that was shipped rolled this way, and what was your experience with it? Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: shipping aluminum sheet
Date: Nov 18, 2009
I bought a roll of .025" thick 2024T3 sheet from them and it was fine. Heavier gages or lower yield strength grades might not fare as well. 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 Oscar Zuniga Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:11 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet Aircraft Spruce and others indicate that 4'x12' sheets of aluminum up to about .030" can be shipped as one piece by rolling and boxing. They caution that they don't guarantee that the heavier gauge material will unroll completely flat when shipped this way. Has anyone ordered sheet stock that was shipped rolled this way, and what was your experience with it? Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: shipping aluminum sheet
Date: Nov 18, 2009
I've rolled .025 for storage with no problem. Doug Dever In beautiful Stow Ohio > From: taildrags(at)hotmail.com > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet > Date: Wed=2C 18 Nov 2009 10:11:08 -0600 > > > > > Aircraft Spruce and others indicate that 4'x12' sheets > of aluminum up to about .030" can be shipped as one > piece by rolling and boxing. They caution that they > don't guarantee that the heavier gauge material will > unroll completely flat when shipped this way. Has > anyone ordered sheet stock that was shipped rolled > this way=2C and what was your experience with it? > > Oscar Zuniga > Air Camper NX41CC > San Antonio=2C TX > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2009
From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Prop choices for A-65
Ryan, Just a follow-up to this thread... When I was out flying last week I did some rudimentary tests to see what kind of airspeed I was getting with my McCauley 7442 prop. Basically, I pointed it into the wind and flew until I got a reasonably stable ground speed with the iPhone GPS (~76mph), then turned around and took another reading (~99mph) for an average speed of around 87.5mph full out at 2280-ish RPM. Not bad for a draggy ole airplane. And let me tell you it was WINDY! :-D Cheers, Dan Ryan Mueller wrote: > Dan Y. mentioned to me that a number of people (Jeff Boatright, Gene, > etc) are using Jay Anderson (Cloudcars) scimitar props, and they seem to > enjoy the performance. The scimitar props do have a nice 'antiquey' look > to them. I think 76x38 was the size they have used. Anyone with a Jay > Anderson prop care to comment? Any ground clearance issues with the > longer blades? > > What about the Sensenich are you not happy with, Jack? > > Ryan > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Jack Phillips > wrote: > > Ive got a Sensenich 72-42 and am not all that happy with it. I > have a St Croix 76-36 that I have never tried but will some day. > > > > Jack Phillips > > NX899JP > > Raleigh, NC > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > ] *On Behalf Of > *Skip Gadd > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:09 AM > > > *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65 > > > > Ryan, > > Have had 2 props on Felix the GN-1, A-65, plane weighs 720 lbs. > > 1. McCauley Met-L-Prop 74-43. Climbs good can handle pac up to 220 > if is not too hot. Cruse at 2150 68 to 70 MPH. Max RPM 2375. > > 2. Hegy I got from Don E. 72-44 Climbs not as good can handle pac up > to 180. Curse at 1950 72 MPH. Max RPM 2150. > > Interestingly, the plane seems to get 3.8 GPH with ether prop. > > I would like to have a Sensenich 72-42. > > Skip > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Ryan Mueller > > *To: *pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > > *Sent:* 10/20/2009 7:59:17 AM > > *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65 > > > > Good morning all, > > > > There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple > of weeks. I am contemplating it's future. It is complete, and > should be a runner; however it does not come with a prop. I > would prefer to have a wood prop on the Piet. Can those of you > that have wood props flying on A-65's on your Pietenpol's > comment on the make, size, and pitch that you are running, or > you experiences in the past with varying configurations? Thanks > much, and have a good morning. > > > > Ryan > > *<>* > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List* > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > > * * > > * > > " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > a>http://forums.matronics.com > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > > * > > > * -- Dan Yocum Fermilab 630.840.6509 yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 18, 2009
Subject: Re: shipping aluminum sheet
Bought a rolled sheet of .032 24ST. Be very careful, very careful when you cut the holding tapes as that stuff will whip like the tail of a Louisiana gator. Corky in beee uuuu tiful Pietenpol flying weather. Where? Louisiana of course ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: shipping aluminum sheet
Date: Nov 18, 2009
From: hvandervoo(at)aol.com
What's that Oscar, building a spam can ? I have bought and rolled upto .040 with out a problem. But did not buy from Aircraft spruce, I got my stuff local. Try Trident metals (Houston and Austin locations) they carry aircraft grad e aluminum, including mill certification. Pick it up yourself, with sales tax still much less than Aircraft spruce, Wicks or Airparts Good luck Hans NX15KV -----Original Message----- From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:11 am Subject: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet ircraft Spruce and others indicate that 4'x12' sheets f aluminum up to about .030" can be shipped as one iece by rolling and boxing. They caution that they on't guarantee that the heavier gauge material will nroll completely flat when shipped this way. Has nyone ordered sheet stock that was shipped rolled his way, and what was your experience with it? Oscar Zuniga ir Camper NX41CC an Antonio, TX ailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com ebsite at http://www.flysquirrel.net ======================== =========== -

November 03, 2009 - November 18, 2009

Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-in