Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ka
January 16, 2011 - January 24, 2011
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Don, I'm sticking with the wood gear, but I had to rebuild the wheels and
axle because of the damage. While I was at it, I used the same basic brake
design (a drum brake, inside the wire wheel, which I'm gonna cover this time
round) except moved up from go-cart brakes to golf cart brakes, which are
much better quality and larger, though I'm sure they still won't hold those
big wheels. The only other thing I'm changing is my anti-rotation set up
and changing to a travel limiting arched tube rather than a cable, as I've
read about a cable swage giving way on one when someone's bungees broke.
I'll try to get some photos this week, once I get the airbox back on the
carb.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Do back seat backs need to be glued? |
John, as Gary mentioned, the seats provide just about the only shear bracing
in the entire fuselage (the firewall is the only other bracing). Mike Cuy
made an access panel in his rear seatback, but as I recall he left the
perimeter of the seatback intact and cut out an opening for access. Other
people (myself included) have provided an access panel under the belly to
allow access to the elevator bellcrank area.
If you used enough screws to attach the seat back it would probably provide
enough strength, but I found the rear seatback to be too far forward of the
bellcrank to really allow easy access. I put the panel between the two
bottom stringers that I added, spanning between the rear seat bulkhead and
the next cross piece in the fuselage as shown in the picture below:
This area is then covered with a sheet of .025" aluminum. A total of 18
screws hold the panel in place. It comes off every year for the Condition
Inspection, to allow inspection and lubrication of the bellcrank area.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Kuhfahl
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Do back seat backs need to be glued?
Hi, John here. I am new to list--looks great!
I am restoring a Piet built in the 70's--having a ball and will have lots of
questions.
Can I screw the seat backs rather than glue as I found them? A lot easier
access.
Thanks in advance.
BTW I am an A&P and specialize in Continental engines.
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | 69racerx(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Do back seat backs need to be glued? |
Hello i'm new to the group. I'm Patrick ,my dad and I are restoring an old Piet.
I'm in need of prop data so I can carve a prop for the model A. Can anyone
help me find this ? We have thf fuselage and tail group ready for cover and
will be starting on the wings soon. Thanks. Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Do seat backs need to be glued? |
John asked-
> Can I screw the seat backs rather than glue as I found them?
> A lot easier access.
As others have mentioned, the seat backs are structural and add
rigidity and diaphragm strength like bulkheads. But my rear seat
back has a hinged cutout for access to the elevator walking beam,
my ELT and antenna, and the small baggage pouch on the inside rear
of my seat. Come on over and look at it this afternoon ;o)
For others on the list who may not know, John lives at my home
field of San Geronimo Airpark. We hope to fly together one of
these days!
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
San Antonio, TX
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Do back seat backs need to be glued? |
Patrick,
You are at exactly right place!! And good for you & your dad! This time last
year I carved my own prop, which you can see at www.westcoastpiet.com. I
used the prop carving information available from Dan Helsper,
helspersew(at)aol.com, who also carved his prop for a Model A powered Piet, and
did an excellent job of cataloguing it. P.F. Beck is also an excellent
resource, pfbeck(at)bellsouth.net, as he carved his prop for a Corvair powered
Piet (and didn't even break the crank once, yet).
My prop-carving project took about 40 hrs of work. Good luck to you, and
don't forget to send The List pictures of your project and progress!!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
69racerx(at)comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:10 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Do back seat backs need to be glued?
Hello i'm new to the group. I'm Patrick ,my dad and I are restoring an old
Piet. I'm in need of prop data so I can carve a prop for the model A. Can
anyone help me find this ? We have thf fuselage and tail group ready for
cover and will be starting on the wings soon. Thanks. Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do seat backs need to be glued? |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
He shot at me.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327198#327198
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do seat backs need to be glued? |
One of my favorite quotes from Winston Churchill is:
"Nothing is so exhilarating as being shot at without result."
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kevinpurtee
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Do seat backs need to be glued?
He shot at me.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327198#327198
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bender" <jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com> |
far out...
thanks for measuring
jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327200#327200
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Control surfaces |
| From: | "pineymb" <airltd(at)mts.net> |
Hoping to save a lot of research by throwing this question out there.
What are the approximate degrees of deflection (up and down, left and right) on
all control surfaces?
Thanks in advance.
--------
Adrian M
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327209#327209
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
I was about to order the two 2" pulleys in the wing center section for the aileron
control cable. I found this post in the archives and it appears that people
are using the MS24566 Phenolic Pulleys. In the aircraft spruce catalog it
states "shall not be installed on frequently used aircraft controls to bend the
cable more than 15 degrees from a straight line". It appears to me on the prints
that the pulley would bend the cable somewhat just short of 90 degrees.
Should they be used?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327211#327211
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Not to be flip, but it's not a certified aircraft so you can use those pulleys
if you wish. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone having cable failure by
using the pulleys specified in the plans.
I hesitate to make a personal recommendation because I'm frightened the airplane
may hear me and decide it's un-airworthy all of a sudden.
(sorry)
Let your conscious be your guide. This is another topic where we'll get responses
ranging from "the plans are ok" to "you're going to die."
Kevin
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327212#327212
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
So what is the alternative?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327214#327214
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <catdesigns(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Control surfaces |
This is from Mike Cuy for the elevators.
http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Mike%20Cuy%20A-65%20Piet/images/Piet_elevato
r_travel_sketch.jpg
Aileron are limited by the stick hitting your knees.
Chris
Sacramento, Ca
Westcoastpiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of pineymb
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:20 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control surfaces
Hoping to save a lot of research by throwing this question out there.
What are the approximate degrees of deflection (up and down, left and right)
on all control surfaces?
Thanks in advance.
--------
Adrian M
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327209#327209
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cdpratt" <cdpratt(at)att.net> |
Hello
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327218#327218
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <catdesigns(at)att.net> |
Ryan
I sent a message a couple of days ago to your gmail account. Did you get
it?
Chris
Sacramento, Ca
Westcoastpiet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | david pratt <cdpratt(at)att.net> |
I will have ,Just checking to see if i had this all working.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________=0AFrom: cdpratt <cdpratt(at)att.net>=0ATo: pi
etenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sun, January 16, 2011 5:49:30 PM=0ASubje
att" =0A=0AHello=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here
:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327218#327218=0A=0A=0A
===================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net> |
... or choosing a different aircraft to build, or not building an airplane at all
and taking up needle point or flower arranging instead.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327222#327222
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <catdesigns(at)att.net> |
I have never heard anyone complain about cable wear in the wings so I am
using 2" pulleys and have no worries about it. I figure I will inspect the
cables where they bend and replaces if necessary.
Chris
Sacramento, Ca
Westcoastpiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:33 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: pulley size
I was about to order the two 2" pulleys in the wing center section for the
aileron control cable. I found this post in the archives and it appears
that people are using the MS24566 Phenolic Pulleys. In the aircraft spruce
catalog it states "shall not be installed on frequently used aircraft
controls to bend the cable more than 15 degrees from a straight line". It
appears to me on the prints that the pulley would bend the cable somewhat
just short of 90 degrees. Should they be used?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327211#327211
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Sorry, John. We're being cheeky again. I think many folks (including myself)
use the 2" pulleys with no issues. If you're uncomfortable with that you'll need
to redesign the system to accommodate the larger pulleys. I am NOT an expert
on cable control systems, but I have successfully built and flown a Pietenpol
with a plans-built control system.
Up to you, my brother. If 2" pulleys is the only sin you commit I'll test fly
it for you if you'll let me. Heck, I'll fly off the 40 hours.
for what it's worth
Kevin
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327228#327228
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control surfaces |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
I built it per the plans and I have no idea what the angles are. When I rack it
over in an 80 degree bank the ailerons really don't deflect very much. It needs
some rudder when I do that, though. Not sure what the angle on the rudder
is, either.
No idea on the elevator. I've never run out.
I didn't answer your question specifically but I can say that I don't get anywhere
close to full deflection and yet get pretty sprightly performance from an
airplane I named "Fat Bottomed Girl."
I'm out of town or I'd got measure it for you.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327229#327229
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
I have no problems keeping with the plans. So the caution about using this pulley
is because of cable issues and not the strength of the pulley?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327230#327230
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
Since the empirical evidence says it is good to go....then maybe the catalog
might be disregarded.....
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Kringle wrote:
>
> I have no problems keeping with the plans. So the caution about using this
> pulley is because of cable issues and not the strength of the pulley?
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327230#327230
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Right. We can check with the A&Ps but I'm willing to bet it has nothing to do
with the pulleys.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327231#327231
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | cooling eyebrows |
Cracking of aluminum eyebrows seems rampant, and I was wondering. would
another thin metal be more crack resistant? Thin steel wouldn't add much
weight, and might re less prone to harden and crack? I don't mind a little
extra weight on the nose anyhow.
I know the attach points to the cylinder nuts need to be steel so they don't
crush over time, and I know the attach straps should rivet onto the shroud
itself on a large surface using many rivets to distribute the vibration.
Was just rethinking the whole material idea
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woodflier(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Weight and balance calculations |
Weighed the airplane today, and was real pleased that the empty weight came
out out to be 634 lbs.
In doing the weight and balance calculations back home, I find that I'm
close to the rear limit of 20" aft of the leading edge when my big butt is in
the rear seat. I used the center of the rear seat as the CG of the occupant
but I'm seeing that a more accurate location of the occupant's CG is under
the navel, or in my case, an inch or so aft of the front of the seat
bottom. If that's the case, I'm within the aft limit.
Any thoughts on this or am I just avoiding the fact that I really need to
lose a few lbs myself?
Matt Paxton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cooling eyebrows |
| From: | "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net> |
Sounds like a reasonable idea to me Douwe, but then again I'm not an A&P, metallurgist,
or engineer. Other more knowledgeable list members should definitely
comment on this.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327241#327241
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | cooling eyebrows |
I doubled the thickness of the aluminum in my shrouds and went to 5052,
which is a more fatigue resistant alloy that 3003. We'll see how long they
last.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douwe
Blumberg
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: cooling eyebrows
Cracking of aluminum eyebrows seems rampant, and I was wondering. would
another thin metal be more crack resistant? Thin steel wouldn't add much
weight, and might re less prone to harden and crack? I don't mind a little
extra weight on the nose anyhow.
I know the attach points to the cylinder nuts need to be steel so they don't
crush over time, and I know the attach straps should rivet onto the shroud
itself on a large surface using many rivets to distribute the vibration.
Was just rethinking the whole material idea
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Weight and balance calculations |
Sounds like you're in good shape, Matt. The pilot's belt buckle is the
accepted cg location of the pilot. Mine is a bit aft of 20" aft of the LE.
I'm at 34% of chord, or about 20.4" aft of the LE, and it flies just fine.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Woodflier(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:35 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight and balance calculations
Weighed the airplane today, and was real pleased that the empty weight came
out out to be 634 lbs.
In doing the weight and balance calculations back home, I find that I'm
close to the rear limit of 20" aft of the leading edge when my big butt is
in the rear seat. I used the center of the rear seat as the CG of the
occupant but I'm seeing that a more accurate location of the occupant's CG
is under the navel, or in my case, an inch or so aft of the front of the
seat bottom. If that's the case, I'm within the aft limit.
Any thoughts on this or am I just avoiding the fact that I really need to
lose a few lbs myself?
Matt Paxton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Don't they all have that caveat? There I am, all that time
ago, becoming consternated myself thinking, "OK, just
what pulleys can I use then?" Including phenolic ones
that looked just like the ones in the plans! So I said
"The hell with it!" And was going to order the things
anyway after returning from Arlington that year. As
luck would have it I came back with all the pulleys in
the plane and a couple extra for good measure! But
they are all 3".
If you're concerned though, take a look at that front
pulley on the stick. That ain't no 15!!
Something tells me you're right. It's probably that
hairpin thing.
Clif
> Right. We can check with the A&Ps but I'm willing to bet it has nothing
> to do with the pulleys.
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TOM MICHELLE BRANT <tmbrant(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
Anyone make their tank from fiberglass? What's the best cloth to use - see
ms there are many advantages and disadvantages to each style.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
I'd use a satin weave=2C (more glass to resin ratio) and use a vinyl ester
resin. (not affected by fuel). Just my .02
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: tmbrant(at)msn.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank
Date: Sun=2C 16 Jan 2011 22:24:17 -0600
Anyone make their tank from fiberglass? What's the best cloth to use - see
ms there are many advantages and disadvantages to each style.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cooling eyebrows |
| From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Douwe,
With your ability you could make those eyebrows out of some appropriate all
oy of brass. I can visualize a highly-polished cowling eyebrow assembly. Th
at would be cool to see. Let's get some new ideas out there!
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sun, Jan 16, 2011 7:23 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: cooling eyebrows
Cracking of aluminum eyebrows seems rampant, and I was wondering w
ould another thin metal be more crack resistant? Thin steel wouldn
=99t add much weight, and might re less prone to harden and crack? I don
=99t mind a little extra weight on the nose anyhow.
I know the attach points to the cylinder nuts need to be steel so they don
=99t crush over time, and I know the attach straps should rivet onto
the shroud itself on a large surface using many rivets to distribute the vi
bration. Was just rethinking the whole material idea
Douwe
-= - 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
-
-========================
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance calculations |
| From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Matt,
I agree with Jack about your W & B being fine. I am told the airplane actua
lly flies better when the balance is toward the rear anyway. My airplane (m
odel A) is actually nose heavy. I was very surprised because the convention
al wisdom is that the Piet is always tail heavy. Walt Bowe (Model A, from C
alifornia) told me his came out nose heavy also. I set my engine mount to t
he plans, and I was very worried because of the conventional wisdom. Some m
odel A fellows move the engine forward as much as 7 inches (Ken Perkins). I
am able to trim it out in flight, but it still bugs me, and I am racking m
y brain on how to actually add more tail weight (magically, without consequ
ences) so the CG can move back. I am about 155# so I guess this is the reas
on.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance calculations |
I didn't know that any grown man was ever that light -- 155? Wish I
could say that!
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Weight and balance calculations
Matt,
I agree with Jack about your W & B being fine. I am told the airplane
actually flies better when the balance is toward the rear anyway. My
airplane (model A) is actually nose heavy. I was very surprised because
the conventional wisdom is that the Piet is always tail heavy. Walt Bowe
(Model A, from California) told me his came out nose heavy also. I set
my engine mount to the plans, and I was very worried because of the
conventional wisdom. Some model A fellows move the engine forward as
much as 7 inches (Ken Perkins). I am able to trim it out in flight, but
it still bugs me, and I am racking my brain on how to actually add more
tail weight (magically, without consequences) so the CG can move back. I
am about 155# so I guess this is the reason.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control surfaces |
| From: | "pineymb" <airltd(at)mts.net> |
Thanks Kevin, that pretty much answers my question as my concern was what appears
to be minimal travel of the ailerons.
--------
Adrian M
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327269#327269
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control surfaces |
I read one post where the writer said he glued small blocks of wood on the
floor where the aileron activating control horn would be stopped so that it
would limit aileron travel. Apparently he thought the aileron travel was
too great. I think he wanted to stop the moving aileron spar from banging
against the stationary one.
----- Original Message -----
From: "pineymb" <airltd(at)mts.net>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 7:46 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Control surfaces
>
> Thanks Kevin, that pretty much answers my question as my concern was what
> appears to be minimal travel of the ailerons.
>
> --------
> Adrian M
> Winnipeg, MB
> Canada
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327269#327269
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
Tom:
On the advice of my son who works for Burt Rutan at Scaled Composites, I
used the bidirectional "Rutan Fiberglass Cloth" from Aircraft Spruce
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/cm/fiberglass_cloth.html
Compared to the other choices this cloth takes compound curves very well,
wets out easily, and is only as prone to flying fiberglass fibers as every
other cloth type out there. I took a lot of photos during the building of
the tank and they are available here: http://www.eaa1344.com/Projects/Stine
metze/wing_center_section.htm Disclaimer: The tank is still sitting dry
on my shelf awaiting installation so I can't give any performance data or
tell you how it held up to auto gas, etc.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
>>> TOM MICHELLE BRANT 1/16/2011 10:24 PM >>>
Anyone make their tank from fiberglass? What's the best cloth to use -
seems there are many advantages and disadvantages to each style.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do back seat backs need to be glued? |
| From: | John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com> |
Hey Piet people--thanks for the info--what a great group! Still trying to
figure out how to use this forum...Found the front seat back, although
glued, was missing cross-bracing--looks pretty important. Fixed!
For Steve--Ercoupe is great--140 hours now SMOH. Come by and visit when you
get back--Piet is coming along nicely. John
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG FORSCOM <
steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> wrote:
>
>
> Wow what a tiny world. John, I have been lurking this list for several
> years. I would like to get a Piet someday. Oscar is the one who hooked me.
> Where did you get the piet? and how is the Ercoupe doing (for the listers
> John did a beautiful restoration of an Ercoupe and has piddled around with
> several other older planes.)
> Welcome to the list.
>
> Blue Skies,
> Steve (Stuck in Basra, Iraq) D
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:04
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Do back seat backs need to be glued?
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> > Hi, John here. I am new to list--looks great!
> > I am restoring a Piet built in the 70's--having a ball and will
> > have lots of
> > questions.
> > Can I screw the seat backs rather than glue as I found them? A lot
> > easieraccess.
> > Thanks in advance.
> > BTW I am an A&P and specialize in Continental engines.
> >
> > --
> > John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
> > PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
>
>
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Copper Primer Line |
I am currently routing a copper primer line from the rear cockpit to the
left intake. This is 1/8" tubing. Can anyone tell me if a flexible joining
between fuselage and engine is required, as with fuel lines?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copper Primer Line |
| From: | "Jerry Dotson" <jdotson(at)centurylink.net> |
Gary I have never seen anything other than the metal line. I would not tie it down
very close to the engine. The flex in your mounts might fatigue the line.
If it breaks in flight should not be a problem just a real small vacuum leak.
It would have some effect on the idle.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327324#327324
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
| Subject: | cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
Good points Steve. Here is how my son had me do mine. Note that this
needs to be done while you can still get to the inside of the tank as the
"top hat" fittings drop into snug fitting holes with the hat flange on the
inside of the tank and are then fiberglassed in place. The advantage of
this is that should a fitting get knocked loose, it will stay inside the
tank and help plug the hole. As you said, surface preparation is very
important as fresh resin does not bond all that well to cured resin.
Scuff up the cured surface well with coarse grit sandpaper but do not sand
through the glass weave. Add two or three layers of glass inside over the
top of the flange with a plug of some type in place where the finger
strainer will go. The drawing is from memory so there are probably some
minor discrepancies to be seen.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
>>> Steve Ruse 1/17/2011 11:12 AM >>>
My point...if you are going to use fiberglass, be SURE your fitting is
adequately built into the tank. The fitting should probably have
layers of fiberglass on top...mine only had a pile of resin gouped
over the aluminum "top hat" fitting. Fiberglass resin doesn't bond
well to cured fiberglass layups, so if you do that, make SURE you
properly prepare the surface, or better yet, build the fitting into
the tank. I'm sure the Long-EZ & Vari-EZ plans have a good way to do
this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Copper Primer Line |
Gary, wind a couple of turns of the copper line in a circle about 2" or 3"
in diameter (I think I wound mine around a spray can) to make a couple of
loops that can give the line some "give" and flexibility.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Copper Primer Line
I am currently routing a copper primer line from the rear cockpit to the
left intake. This is 1/8" tubing. Can anyone tell me if a flexible joining
between fuselage and engine is required, as with fuel lines?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Primer Line |
Gary. on my corvair with a marvel ma3sb carb you really don't need a primer
because the accelerator pump does the same thing. Cheers, Gardiner, this
assuming you have marvel carb. Plus it won't work with the Stromburg
----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Dotson <jdotson(at)centurylink.net>
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 3:42:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gary I have never seen anything other than the metal line. I would not tie it
down very close to the engine. The flex in your mounts might fatigue the line.
If it breaks in flight should not be a problem just a real small vacuum leak. It
would have some effect on the idle.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327324#327324
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | cooling eyebrows |
Jack,
Three options as I see it:
1. Junk the continental and install a corvair with no colling eyebrows...
2. Use neighbors 16 ton press and make them out of 1/2" steel plates....
3. Impregnated carbon fiber over a mold using acrylic resign 80/20 flex...
Mr. Fargo
--- On Sun, 1/16/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
> From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: cooling eyebrows
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 16, 2011, 8:28 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I doubled
> the thickness of the
> aluminum in my shrouds and went to 5052, which is a more
> fatigue resistant
> alloy that 3003. Well see how long they
> last.
>
>
>
>
> Jack
> Phillips
>
> NX899JP
> Icarus Plummet
>
> Raleigh,
> NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of
> Douwe Blumberg
>
> Sent: Sunday,
> January 16, 2011
> 8:22 PM
>
> To:
> pietenpolgroup
>
> Subject:
> Pietenpol-List: cooling
> eyebrows
>
>
>
>
>
> Cracking of
> aluminum eyebrows seems rampant, and I was
> wondering would another thin metal be more crack
> resistant? Thin
> steel wouldnt add much weight, and might re less
> prone to harden and
> crack? I dont mind a little extra weight on
> the nose anyhow.
>
>
>
>
> I know the
> attach points to the cylinder nuts need to be
> steel so they dont crush over time, and I know the
> attach straps should
> rivet onto the shroud itself on a large surface using many
> rivets to distribute
> the vibration. Was just rethinking the whole material
> idea
>
>
>
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
I see in the diagram a callout for 6 layers of glass for the outside and
3 layers for the inner.. What weight of glass were you using? About
how thick was the final layup?
Dave
On 1/17/2011 4:30 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
> *Good points Steve. Here is how my son had me do mine. Note that
> this needs to be done while you can still get to the inside of the
> tank as the "top hat" fittings drop into snug fitting holes with the
> hat flange on the inside of the tank and are then fiberglassed in
> place. The advantage of this is that should a fitting get knocked
> loose, it will stay inside the tank and help plug the hole. As you
> said, surface preparation is very important as fresh resin does not
> bond all that well to cured resin. Scuff up the cured surface well
> with coarse grit sandpaper but do not sand through the glass weave.
> Add two or three layers of glass inside over the top of the flange
> with a plug of some type in place where the finger strainer will go.
> The drawing is from memory so there are probably some minor
> discrepancies to be seen.*
> **
> *Tom Stinemetze*
> *N328X*
>
>
> >>> Steve Ruse 1/17/2011 11:12 AM >>>
> My point...if you are going to use fiberglass, be SURE your fitting is
> adequately built into the tank. The fitting should probably have
> layers of fiberglass on top...mine only had a pile of resin gouped
> over the aluminum "top hat" fitting. Fiberglass resin doesn't bond
> well to cured fiberglass layups, so if you do that, make SURE you
> properly prepare the surface, or better yet, build the fitting into
> the tank. I'm sure the Long-EZ & Vari-EZ plans have a good way to do
> this.
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Primer Line |
Listen to Jack.
That is how it is installed on NX18235. 250 hours without a problem.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Copper Primer Line
Gary, wind a couple of turns of the copper line in a circle about 2"
or 3" in diameter (I think I wound mine around a spray can) to make a
couple of loops that can give the line some "give" and flexibility.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Boothe
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:07 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Copper Primer Line
I am currently routing a copper primer line from the rear cockpit to
the left intake. This is 1/8" tubing. Can anyone tell me if a flexible
joining between fuselage and engine is required, as with fuel lines?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cooling eyebrows |
AMEN--- Gardiner
----- Original Message ----
From: KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 4:47:38 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: cooling eyebrows
Jack,
Three options as I see it:
1. Junk the continental and install a corvair with no colling eyebrows...
2. Use neighbors 16 ton press and make them out of 1/2" steel plates....
3. Impregnated carbon fiber over a mold using acrylic resign 80/20 flex...
Mr. Fargo
--- On Sun, 1/16/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
> From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: cooling eyebrows
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 16, 2011, 8:28 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I doubled
> the thickness of the
> aluminum in my shrouds and went to 5052, which is a more
> fatigue resistant
> alloy that 3003. Well see how long they
> last.
>
>
>
>
> Jack
> Phillips
>
> NX899JP
> Icarus Plummet
>
> Raleigh,
> NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of
> Douwe Blumberg
>
> Sent: Sunday,
> January 16, 2011
> 8:22 PM
>
> To:
> pietenpolgroup
>
> Subject:
> Pietenpol-List: cooling
> eyebrows
>
>
>
>
>
> Cracking of
> aluminum eyebrows seems rampant, and I was
> wondering would another thin metal be more crack
> resistant? Thin
> steel wouldnt add much weight, and might re less
> prone to harden and
> crack? I dont mind a little extra weight on
> the nose anyhow.
>
>
>
>
> I know the
> attach points to the cylinder nuts need to be
> steel so they dont crush over time, and I know the
> attach straps should
> rivet onto the shroud itself on a large surface using many
> rivets to distribute
> the vibration. Was just rethinking the whole material
> idea
>
>
>
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
>n
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Copper Primer Line |
I remember now where I saw this setup with a coil in the line to take the
vibration and motion. As usual, just about any question on how to build an
airplane is covered in the Bingelis books. Look in Firewall Forward, on
page 173, figure 5. You'll see exactly what I was talking about.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Phillips
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Copper Primer Line
Gary, wind a couple of turns of the copper line in a circle about 2" or 3"
in diameter (I think I wound mine around a spray can) to make a couple of
loops that can give the line some "give" and flexibility.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Copper Primer Line
I am currently routing a copper primer line from the rear cockpit to the
left intake. This is 1/8" tubing. Can anyone tell me if a flexible joining
between fuselage and engine is required, as with fuel lines?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
Tom, I have been studying the write-up and pictures of your fiberglass
fuel tank. I have a couple of questions. 1). How does the tank get
fastened into the center-section? Or do you just figure gravity and
weight of fuel will hold it in place? 2). I notice you have assembled
the center section without the metal butt joint straps and cabane
fittings installed. How do you plan to weld the cabane fittings to the
joint straps without setting your center section on fire? I was
planning to weld the two together and fasten them to the spars before
the butt ribs go on. Am I missing something here? Nice job on the
tank. Another question -- 3). When joining the four sections together
do you wet the mating surfaces or just let the additional layers of
cloth hold them together?
----- Original Message -----
From: TOM STINEMETZE
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank
Tom:
On the advice of my son who works for Burt Rutan at Scaled Composites,
I used the bidirectional "Rutan Fiberglass Cloth" from Aircraft Spruce
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/cm/fiberglass_cloth.html
Compared to the other choices this cloth takes compound curves very
well, wets out easily, and is only as prone to flying fiberglass fibers
as every other cloth type out there. I took a lot of photos during the
building of the tank and they are available here:
http://www.eaa1344.com/Projects/Stinemetze/wing_center_section.htm
Disclaimer: The tank is still sitting dry on my shelf awaiting
installation so I can't give any performance data or tell you how it
held up to auto gas, etc.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
>>> TOM MICHELLE BRANT 1/16/2011 10:24 PM >>>
Anyone make their tank from fiberglass? What's the best cloth to use
- seems there are many advantages and disadvantages to each style.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
Here's a link to some pics of my tank construction;
http://www.clifdawson.ca/Homepage4-10-06/Pietenpol_Page_6.html
Next go to page nine where I finaly got around to bolting
the thing in. Rats! It looks like I didn't put up any pics of the
filler cap! I bought this cap for $5.00 at Arlington and made
the base for it. The base is brought up through from the inside
and has a couple of layers of cloth over it extending out an
inch. The black line you see in the glass are black marker
used in the cutting process.
It's Vinyl ester resin and "medium" cloth. That's all I can find
on the bill I just looked up.
Clif.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Campbell
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank
Tom, I have been studying the write-up and pictures of your fiberglass
fuel tank. I have a couple of questions. 1). How does the tank get
fastened into the center-section? Or do you just figure gravity and
weight of fuel will hold it in place? 2). I notice you have assembled
the center section without the metal butt joint straps and cabane
fittings installed. How do you plan to weld the cabane fittings to the
joint straps without setting your center section on fire? I was
planning to weld the two together and fasten them to the spars before
the butt ribs go on. Am I missing something here? Nice job on the
tank. Another question -- 3). When joining the four sections together
do you wet the mating surfaces or just let the additional layers of
cloth hold them together?
----- Original Message -----
From: TOM STINEMETZE
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank
Tom:
On the advice of my son who works for Burt Rutan at Scaled
Composites, I used the bidirectional "Rutan Fiberglass Cloth" from
Aircraft Spruce
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/cm/fiberglass_cloth.html
Compared to the other choices this cloth takes compound curves very
well, wets out easily, and is only as prone to flying fiberglass fibers
as every other cloth type out there. I took a lot of photos during the
building of the tank and they are available here:
http://www.eaa1344.com/Projects/Stinemetze/wing_center_section.htm
Disclaimer: The tank is still sitting dry on my shelf awaiting
installation so I can't give any performance data or tell you how it
held up to auto gas, etc.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
>>> TOM MICHELLE BRANT 1/16/2011 10:24 PM >>>
Anyone make their tank from fiberglass? What's the best cloth to
use - seems there are many advantages and disadvantages to each style.
Tom B.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack" <jack(at)textors.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Primer Line |
Gardiner could you expand why it won't work on a Stromburg?
Thanks,
Jack
DSM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of airlion
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gary. on my corvair with a marvel ma3sb carb you really don't need a primer
because the accelerator pump does the same thing. Cheers, Gardiner, this
assuming you have marvel carb. Plus it won't work with the Stromburg
----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Dotson <jdotson(at)centurylink.net>
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 3:42:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gary I have never seen anything other than the metal line. I would not tie
it
down very close to the engine. The flex in your mounts might fatigue the
line.
If it breaks in flight should not be a problem just a real small vacuum
leak. It
would have some effect on the idle.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327324#327324
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Primer Line |
Jack, the stromburg does not have the accelerator pump so you do need the
primer. Sorry I was not clear.Gardiner
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack <jack(at)textors.com>
Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 6:26:58 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gardiner could you expand why it won't work on a Stromburg?
Thanks,
Jack
DSM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of airlion
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gary. on my corvair with a marvel ma3sb carb you really don't need a primer
because the accelerator pump does the same thing. Cheers, Gardiner, this
assuming you have marvel carb. Plus it won't work with the Stromburg
----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Dotson <jdotson(at)centurylink.net>
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 3:42:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gary I have never seen anything other than the metal line. I would not tie
it
down very close to the engine. The flex in your mounts might fatigue the
line.
If it breaks in flight should not be a problem just a real small vacuum
leak. It
would have some effect on the idle.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327324#327324
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Primer Line |
Gardiner, you may wish you had a primer in addition to the accelerator pump
of the Marvel Schebler. My RV-4 has a Marvel Schebler carburetor, and no
primer. It is almost impossible to start it when the temperature is below
30, and I sincerely wish the builder had added a primer (it would be a real
pain to add it now).
Of course, if it is below 30 you probably won't be doing much flying in a
Pietenpol, but if you had a set of skis like Don Emch has, you might wish
you had a primer.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of airlion
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Jack, the stromburg does not have the accelerator pump so you do need the
primer. Sorry I was not clear.Gardiner
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack <jack(at)textors.com>
Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 6:26:58 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gardiner could you expand why it won't work on a Stromburg?
Thanks,
Jack
DSM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of airlion
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gary. on my corvair with a marvel ma3sb carb you really don't need a primer
because the accelerator pump does the same thing. Cheers, Gardiner, this
assuming you have marvel carb. Plus it won't work with the Stromburg
----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Dotson <jdotson(at)centurylink.net>
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 3:42:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Copper Primer Line
Gary I have never seen anything other than the metal line. I would not tie
it
down very close to the engine. The flex in your mounts might fatigue the
line.
If it breaks in flight should not be a problem just a real small vacuum
leak. It
would have some effect on the idle.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327324#327324
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | FW: Hand propping an airplane |
Y'all be careful out there, unless you want to become ventilated like this
fellow:
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: Gene & Tammy [mailto:zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:43 AM
Subject: Fw: Hand propping an airplane
Good morning Jack.
Received this photo this morning from a friend in Alaska. Wonder if it
should be posted on the Piet sight? I love to hand prop. For me, it is all
part of flying a Piet, but like flying, it can come back and bite you, if
your not very careful. What do you think? Don't want to get anything
started. If you think it should be posted, feel free to do so.
Gene
Hand propping an airplane ..OUCH !!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
>>> "Charles Campbell" 1/17/2011 6:23 PM >>>
Tom, I have been studying the write-up and pictures of your fiberglass
fuel tank. I have a couple of questions. 1). How does the tank get
fastened into the center-section? Or do you just figure gravity and
weight of fuel will hold it in place? 2). I notice you have assembled
the center section without the metal butt joint straps and cabane fittings
installed. How do you plan to weld the cabane fittings to the joint
straps without setting your center section on fire? I was planning to
weld the two together and fasten them to the spars before the butt ribs go
on. Am I missing something here? Nice job on the tank. Another question
-- 3). When joining the four sections together do you wet the mating
surfaces or just let the additional layers of cloth hold them together?
Charles:
I'll try to answer as best I can.
1) Stainless steel straps will wrap across the top and attach to the spars
front and back. The bottom was formed to fit around the two wood formers
on either side so will be held in place by them and by trays glued to the
front and back spars. I may also decide that straps are needed on the
bottom side as those two wood formers are just butt glued to the spars.
There will also be a ply bottom glued around the perimeter that will cover
the tank space.
2) You got me there. I haven't looked at that part of the project yet.
3) The four sections were still tacky when they were joined together. I
screwed them together with drywall screws which were later removed at the
same time that the connecting holes were made in the slosh plates. Note
that after the four sections were joined there are still two layers of
cloth/resin that cover the entire tank so the joints are not exposed. You
could probably see that the four sections did not have squared off corners
but have a 1/2", more or less, radius every place that the fiberglass has
to wrap around. This is necessary to retain strength in the glass fibers
and to help prevent wrinkles. Therefore when the pieces are brought
together there is a substantial valley formed at the joints. These
valleys were filled with S-Glass strand (roving) which is just a rope of
long stranded glass which is wetted out with resin and wrapped around the
seam until the surface is close to flush with the tank surface. The
remainder of the valley is filled with a resin/floc mix which can be
smoothed out with a putty knife, etc. so that the outer layers of cloth do
not bridge the valley and create a void. You can see this in the photos
but I did not provide much explanation to go along with it.
Tom
N328X
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copper Primer Line |
| From: | "Jerry Dotson" <jdotson(at)centurylink.net> |
Jack I agree with you about the primer. It squirts the gas right in the intake
port and makes for less work on the starter or proper man. Also less likely to
have a carb fire. I was trying to hand prop a Cessna 140 I had years ago. It
was cold and the starter wouldn't turn it over because it was so cold. It had
no primer but pumped the throttle. It sort of spit back and the carb and aid filter
caught fire......no fire extinguisher. The only damage was requiring a new
air filter. I had a rag I tried to beat it out with but when the gas that was
there burned up the fire went out.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327439#327439
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Hand propping an airplane |
Sure makes a good case for electroic start. Gardiner
--- On Tue, 1/18/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: FW: Hand propping an airplane
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 10:59 AM
=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AY=99all be carefu
l out there, unless you=0Awant to become ventilated like this fellow: =0A
=0A =C2- =0A=0AJack Phillips =0A=0ANX899JP=C2- =9CIcarus Plummet
=9D =0A=0ARaleigh, NC =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AFro
m: Gene & Tammy [mailto:zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net]
=0ASent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011=0A10:43 AM
=0ATo: Jack Phillips
=0ASubject: Fw: Hand propping an=0Aairplane =0A=0A=0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AGood morning Jack. =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AReceived this photo thi
s morning=0Afrom a friend in Alaska .=C2-=0AWonder if it should be posted
on the Piet sight?=C2- I love to hand=0Aprop.=C2- For me, it is all pa
rt of flying a Piet, but like flying, it can=0Acome back and bite=C2- you
, if your not very careful.=C2- What do you=0Athink?=C2- Don=99t
want to get anything started.=C2- If you think it should=0Abe posted, fee
l free to do so. =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AGene =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=C2
- =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AHand propping=0Aan airplane=0A.O
UCH !!!! =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A=C2- =0A=0A=C2- =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=C2-
=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
| From: | John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com> |
I want to put the plate in because you just can not get to anything through
the two side inspection plates already there. I saw Oscar's yesterday, but
wanted to see where other's have located it, how big, and how you supported
the plate, etc.
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Hand propping an airplane |
Gardiner, yes it does or so thought this unlucky fellow. He never
learned how to properly hand prop a plane and when his battery gave out
and there wasn=99t anyone around to help, he gave it a try.
Gene in wet Tennessee
From: airlion
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: Hand propping an airplane
Sure makes a good case for electroic start. Gardiner
--- On Tue, 1/18/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: FW: Hand propping an airplane
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 10:59 AM
Y=99all be careful out there, unless you want to become
ventilated like this fellow:
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =9CIcarus Plummet=9D
Raleigh, NC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene & Tammy [mailto:zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:43 AM
To: Jack Phillips
Subject: Fw: Hand propping an airplane
Good morning Jack.
Received this photo this morning from a friend in Alaska .
Wonder if it should be posted on the Piet sight? I love to hand prop.
For me, it is all part of flying a Piet, but like flying, it can come
back and bite you, if your not very careful. What do you think?
Don=99t want to get anything started. If you think it should be
posted, feel free to do so.
Gene
Hand propping an airplane .OUCH !!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FW: Hand propping an airplane |
| From: | mike Hardaway <bkemike(at)gmail.com> |
Obviously he did it wrong. Here's the proper technique:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Jack Phillips wrot
e:
> Y=92all be careful out there, unless you want to become ventilated like
> this fellow:
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Hand propping an airplane |
How in the world did he get it in the back?=C2- Turned his back on it i g
uess, I was told never, NEVER turn you back on a prop in rotation, and for
saftey sake I always (try) to walk way out towards the wing tip when passin
g from fwd to behind the prop.=C2- I was lucky one time when I was younge
r and stupid (a line boy) I was proping a 150 for a guy who left his master
switch on, wet ramp, he never performed a handprop operation before, basic
ally a recipe for disaster.=C2- 10, 15,20 blades later I sliped and went
under the plane of rotation of the prop, thank God I thought enough to let
go of the blade on the way down.=C2- After that I went in, changed my pan
ts, and told him to have the fbo charge his battery.=C2-
=C2-
Could've been me!, or anyone who gets complacant.
=C2-
Shad
--- On Tue, 1/18/11, mike Hardaway wrote:
From: mike Hardaway <bkemike(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: Hand propping an airplane
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 2:39 PM
Obviously he did it wrong.=C2- Here's the proper technique:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Jack Phillips wro
te:
Y=99all be careful out there, unless you want to become ventilated li
ke this fellow:
=C2-
Jack Phillips
NX899JP=C2- =9CIcarus Plummet=9D
Raleigh, NC
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Mine is 15"x9" and directly under the bellcrank. With barrel nuts screwed
into the wood and machine screws holding on the cover. Have seen some twice
this size which may be a good idea.
rick
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, John Kuhfahl wrote:
> I want to put the plate in because you just can not get to anything through
> the two side inspection plates already there. I saw Oscar's yesterday, but
> wanted to see where other's have located it, how big, and how you supported
> the plate, etc.
>
> --
> John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
> PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand propping an airplane |
That's a nasty picture, and a good reminder! Attached is the correct way to
hand start a Corvair powered Pietenpol...
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327490#327490
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Hey all,
Haven't seen any posts from Mike Cuy in a while, and was wondering if anyone
knew if everything is okay with him? If you're there Mikee, we miss your
posts!
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
I think Mikee was in Florida for the holidays, visiting his Mom. Now he's
probably snowed under (literally and figuretively) at work.
Jack Phillips
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douwe
Blumberg
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mike Cuy
Hey all,
Haven't seen any posts from Mike Cuy in a while, and was wondering if anyone
knew if everything is okay with him? If you're there Mikee, we miss your
posts!
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrel Jones <wd6bor(at)vom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Hand propping an airplane |
On 1/18/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> Y'all be careful out there, unless you want to become ventilated like
> this fellow:
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
We've got a one-armed pilot whose Champ got him after about 3,000 hours
of experience. It only takes once. Tie the tail EVERY TIME, chock the
wheels EVERY TIME, then get ready to run like crazy if you put the
throttle in the wrong position JUST THIS ONCE. That's what got our guy,
who is lucky to still be alive.
Darrel Jones
Pfeifer Sport
Sonoma, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Vetter" <vetter(at)evertek.net> |
He post regularly on facebook. Today as a matter of fact.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327500#327500
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | The Airplane Speaks |
Sometimes great stuff comes from the craziest places!
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BarAero.html
Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG FORSCOM" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Darrel, I notice that you list a Pfeifer Sport. What does the Pfeifer fly like?
What are the numbers esp as compared to a Pietenpol.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: Darrel Jones <wd6bor(at)vom.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:43
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: Hand propping an airplane
> On 1/18/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Y'all be careful out there, unless you want to become ventilated
> like
> > this fellow:
> >
> > Jack Phillips
> >
> > NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
> >
> > Raleigh, NC
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> >
> We've got a one-armed pilot whose Champ got him after about 3,000
> hours
> of experience. It only takes once. Tie the tail EVERY TIME, chock
> the
> wheels EVERY TIME, then get ready to run like crazy if you put the
> throttle in the wrong position JUST THIS ONCE. That's what got our
> guy,
> who is lucky to still be alive.
>
> Darrel Jones
> Pfeifer Sport
> Sonoma, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
| From: | John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Rick. No one else responded to this, but I guess I'll just make my
own decision. Thanks for your input. John
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Rick Holland wrote:
> Mine is 15"x9" and directly under the bellcrank. With barrel nuts screwed
> into the wood and machine screws holding on the cover. Have seen some twice
> this size which may be a good idea.
>
> rick
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, John Kuhfahl wrote:
>
>> I want to put the plate in because you just can not get to anything
>> through the two side inspection plates already there. I saw Oscar's
>> yesterday, but wanted to see where other's have located it, how big, and how
>> you supported the plate, etc.
>>
>> --
>> John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
>> PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
>>
>> *
>>
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
John,
I didn't respond because I had just posted a picture of my access panel last
week and assumed you had seen it. Here it is again:
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Kuhfahl
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate
Thanks Rick. No one else responded to this, but I guess I'll just make my
own decision. Thanks for your input. John
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Rick Holland wrote:
Mine is 15"x9" and directly under the bellcrank. With barrel nuts screwed
into the wood and machine screws holding on the cover. Have seen some twice
this size which may be a good idea.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flying to Brodhead |
| From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Oscar,
My son lives in Marion, IA. I let him base my Aeronca over there at the Mar
ion Airport a few years ago, for the summer. This is a privately owned airp
ort (the only one that is open to the public in the whole state they claim)
and is run by a husband and wife team. As I remember, they generally have
a few open T hangars available whenever I go over there. No great shakes bu
t your Piet would be out of the rain and hail. You could give them a call a
nd see what the situation is. Whenever I asked if I could leave my airplane
there overnite (tie down) they were accommodating. The first names of the
owners are Pat and Perry I believe. I hear they recently almost sold out to
the city for an industrial park, but couldn't work out a deal. They have a
nice fly-in there every June and the whole town comes out for breakfast.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
| From: | John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Jack--new to list. I need to figure out how to use archives? Sorry
to be a newbee pain. John
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Jack Phillips wrot
e:
> John,
>
>
> I didn=92t respond because I had just posted a picture of my access panel
> last week and assumed you had seen it. Here it is again:
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *John Kuhfahl
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:38 AM
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Where to locate rear bottom inspection
> plate
>
>
> Thanks Rick. No one else responded to this, but I guess I'll just make m
y
> own decision. Thanks for your input. John
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Rick Holland wrote:
>
> Mine is 15"x9" and directly under the bellcrank. With barrel nuts screwed
into the wood and machine screws holding on the cover. Have seen some twic
e this size which may be a good idea.
>
>
> **
>
> * *
>
>
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bencharvet(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
My inspection plate goes from the rear of the plywood floor, all the way
back to the next cross-member where the bellcrank is. Its made of
aluminum and provides excellent access to my bellcrank fittings and the
pulleys on the seatback where the elevator cables come through. Its not
nearly as elegant as Jack's, but it works.
Ben Charvet
NX866BC
On 1/19/2011 6:38 AM, John Kuhfahl wrote:
> Thanks Rick. No one else responded to this, but I guess I'll just
> make my own decision. Thanks for your input. John
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Rick Holland > wrote:
>
> Mine is 15"x9" and directly under the bellcrank. With barrel nuts
> screwed into the wood and machine screws holding on the cover.
> Have seen some twice this size which may be a good idea.
>
> rick
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, John Kuhfahl
> > wrote:
>
> I want to put the plate in because you just can not get to
> anything through the two side inspection plates already there.
> I saw Oscar's yesterday, but wanted to see where other's have
> located it, how big, and how you supported the plate, etc.
>
> --
> John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
> PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
>
> *
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
>
> --
> John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
> PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Center section butt ribs |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
On the three piece wing center section ribs, I see nothing in the plans to indicate
that they should be sheathed on one side with plywood or receive extra diagonals
and gussets as the wing end ribs call for. However, in looking at all
the pictures I could find, it appears many do so. What's up with that?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327537#327537
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
I wonder what other builders of 3-piece wings have done on what I call
the center section joint strap/cabane fittings problem? I just don't
see how Tom is going to put that subassembly in place without
practically destroying the butt ribs.
----- Original Message -----
From: TOM STINEMETZE
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank
>>> "Charles Campbell" 1/17/2011 6:23 PM
>>>
Tom, I have been studying the write-up and pictures of your fiberglass
fuel tank. I have a couple of questions. 1). How does the tank get
fastened into the center-section? Or do you just figure gravity and
weight of fuel will hold it in place? 2). I notice you have assembled
the center section without the metal butt joint straps and cabane
fittings installed. How do you plan to weld the cabane fittings to the
joint straps without setting your center section on fire? I was
planning to weld the two together and fasten them to the spars before
the butt ribs go on. Am I missing something here? Nice job on the
tank. Another question -- 3). When joining the four sections together
do you wet the mating surfaces or just let the additional layers of
cloth hold them together?
Charles:
I'll try to answer as best I can.
1) Stainless steel straps will wrap across the top and attach to the
spars front and back. The bottom was formed to fit around the two wood
formers on either side so will be held in place by them and by trays
glued to the front and back spars. I may also decide that straps are
needed on the bottom side as those two wood formers are just butt glued
to the spars. There will also be a ply bottom glued around the
perimeter that will cover the tank space.
2) You got me there. I haven't looked at that part of the project
yet.
3) The four sections were still tacky when they were joined together.
I screwed them together with drywall screws which were later removed at
the same time that the connecting holes were made in the slosh plates.
Note that after the four sections were joined there are still two layers
of cloth/resin that cover the entire tank so the joints are not exposed.
You could probably see that the four sections did not have squared off
corners but have a 1/2", more or less, radius every place that the
fiberglass has to wrap around. This is necessary to retain strength in
the glass fibers and to help prevent wrinkles. Therefore when the
pieces are brought together there is a substantial valley formed at the
joints. These valleys were filled with S-Glass strand (roving) which is
just a rope of long stranded glass which is wetted out with resin and
wrapped around the seam until the surface is close to flush with the
tank surface. The remainder of the valley is filled with a resin/floc
mix which can be smoothed out with a putty knife, etc. so that the outer
layers of cloth do not bridge the valley and create a void. You can see
this in the photos but I did not provide much explanation to go along
with it.
Tom
N328X
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
| From: | "BYD" <billsayre(at)ymail.com> |
I plan on using a method called out in the Boredom Fighter plans by Don Wolf.
Sew Dacron tape to each side of two 18-inch zippers with excess protruding past
each end (to be trimmed at installation). Cover the teeth with masking tape
and install during tape application of the covering process. When cover and
painting is done, remove masking tape, open zippers and cut fabric underneath
with a razor blade.
I found that Polyfiber remained flexible enough not to crack after numerous annuals
(or condition inspections) and this provided plenty of access. I tied the
two zipper pulls together with rib-lacing cord during operation.
I did no engineering or calculations and no numbers were harmed during application
or use. Use at your own peril.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327551#327551
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/zippers_108.bmp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bencharvet(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center section butt ribs |
The wingtip end ribs need the extra verticals to keep the covering from
warping the rib down when the fabric is stretched. I put a 2 inch wide
strip of 1/16 in plywood sheeting on the flight surfaces of my center
section end ribs to keep the covering from pulling them outward when
stretched. I still got a little bit of a warp on the top of the wing
after the fabric was fully stretched. The butt end of the wing I just
covered in fabric, and put the verticals in there too, but dont think
they are necessary.
Ben Charvet
NX866BC
Nearly time for my first annual condition insp.
On 1/19/2011 8:10 AM, Kringle wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kringle"
>
> On the three piece wing center section ribs, I see nothing in the plans to indicate
that they should be sheathed on one side with plywood or receive extra
diagonals and gussets as the wing end ribs call for. However, in looking at all
the pictures I could find, it appears many do so. What's up with that?
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327537#327537
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flying to Brodhead |
Oscar
I have some friends in the Stillwater, OK, area who might be able to help
you out.
Give me a shout -
email - _dog67(at)aol.com_ (mailto:dog67(at)aol.com)
Jonathan Apflebaum
In a message dated 1/18/2011 8:50:56 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
taildrags(at)hotmail.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Oscar Zuniga
Howdy, Low 'n' Slow fliers-
It's looking real tough for me to take off the time needed to make it
to Brodhead without some creative planning. I simply won't have enough
vacation time saved up by July to do it the way I'd like. What I'm
thinking now is that I may need to move the airplane up there in stages.
First stage would be to fly up to Oklahoma some weekend this summer and
leave the airplane with a 'friendly' somewhere. Fly commercial back to
San Antonio. Flying commercial would mean I'd need to find a place
around Tulsa probably, where I could park "Scout" for a couple of weekends
and still have good commercial connections.
Next leg would involve flying commercial back to OK and then flying Scout
to the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area over a weekend... I have friends there but
nobody with a hangar (yet). Best choice would be Marion Airport (C-17),
Iowa. Anybody near there have a place I could stash a Piet for a few weeks
this summer?
I could catch a commercial flight out of Cedar Rapids back to San Antonio
and then sit it out until the weekend of Brodhead, when I'd fly
commercial back out and then make my triumphal entry into the hallowed
Brodhead airspace in 41CC for the weekend. I have no idea how I'd ever
get the airplane back, but what the heck- maybe I could sell it at Brodhead
and be done with this low and slow business ;o) It's a lot of trigger-work
but I don't know how else I can do it. My wife and I have worked out
this understanding where I can play with airplanes as long as I take her
on trips every couple of months, so that's been burning up my vacation
time from work. Wish I could retire ;o)
And for what it's worth, I only weigh 155 lbs. but it sure doesn't seem to
be getting me anywhere in life to keep my weight, cholesterol, and blood
pressure where the doc says they should be. I should just get me a little
cabana on a beach in Belize, build me a cheap Air Camper out of hardware
store stuff, and sit back on the beach, drink beer and eat fried calamari
and forget about doctors and medicals from now on. Take a sunset flight
in my junker Camper every now and then and never worry about feds, docs,
or the IRS.
do not archive
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
San Antonio, TX
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Jack Phillips is correct, went to see my 87 year old Mom over the weekend w
ith my brother down south and have been buried at
work and after hours but do monitor the list from time to time but haven't
read any posts lately.
I'm in hibernation mode waiting for Ground Hog Day to see if I see my shado
w or not :)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
Charles:
This issue doe not seem to be substantially different than the problem of
welding the bushings and anchor lugs on the lower front strut/landing gear
fittings. In both cases it involves welding the fittings without starting
the wood burning. The way I did the lower gear fittings was to jig it all
up on the fuselage and then just "tack" weld the parts together with a MIG
welder. By "tack" I mean to just touch it lightly. Then, you take the
assembly back off, move to your weld table, and complete the weld. You
may end up with a couple of little dark places in the wood but no serious
charring. In the case of the strap/cabane fittings you could probably
bolt everything in place for alignment and then put a dab of JB WELD on
each side to hold the alignment for final finish welding if you wanted to
do it all with gas. From experience the JB WELD will turn loose with the
heat application and will come off easily. You will want to wear a
respirator of some sort though since the JB WELD will turn loose some
nasty gasses when heated.
Stinemetze
N328X
>>> "Charles Campbell" 1/19/2011 8:32 AM >>>
I wonder what other builders of 3-piece wings have done on what I call the
center section joint strap/cabane fittings problem? I just don't see how
Tom is going to put that subassembly in place without practically
destroying the butt ribs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center section butt ribs |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
Thanks Ben, that's pretty much how the plan looks. Do you glue the uprights to
the spars? The plan shows nails only. If they are glued it would look to me
to be a pretty messy job being how they have to slide on and the tight fit.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327603#327603
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center section butt ribs |
| From: | "Catdesigns" <Catdesigns(at)att.net> |
I added 1/16-inch plywood to the center section end ribs in case I use it as a
storage locker instead of a fuel tank. I did not use it on the wing panels.
I added braces to the end ribs like the plans show.
Also, I glued the ribs to the spars because I didn't know some people say not to.
I'm not sure the correct answer.
Chris
--------
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestCoastPiet.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327607#327607
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center section butt ribs |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
What are the pros and cons of putting a fuel tank in the wing or using it for storage?
What are most doing?
Attached a couple of pics of my progress.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327610#327610
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/progress_007_2_218.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/progress_001_2_692.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center section butt ribs |
Pros: 1) Center of Gravity does not change as fuel is burned. 2) You can
always have a nose tank (header tank) in addition if you want extra range
or put your storage area in the nose.
Cons: 1) Any fuel you spill goes directly into the pilot's seat where it
lies in wait; 2) You have to have a ladder to get the fuel up there. 3)
Unsightly hoses, valves, fuel guage, etc. hanging down below the wing (and
directly over the passenger's head.)
Hum, that seems to come out in favor of putting the tank in the nose which
is probably why I chose to put mine in the center section.
Stinemetze
>>> "Kringle" 1/19/2011 3:32 PM >>>
What are the pros and cons of putting a fuel tank in the wing or using it
for storage? What are most doing?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center section butt ribs |
| From: | Ken Chambers <ken.riffic(at)gmail.com> |
Hey John
You may have thought this through already, but just in case: drill before
gluing.
It's a lot easier to drill the center section spars for the straps and other
hardware BEFORE you glue the ribs and other bracing in place. I drilled
after glueing and it was hard to measure and drill accurately with all that
stuff in the way.
Ken
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Kringle wrote:
>
> What are the pros and cons of putting a fuel tank in the wing or using it
> for storage? What are most doing?
>
> Attached a couple of pics of my progress.
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327610#327610
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/progress_007_2_218.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/progress_001_2_692.jpg
>
>
--
Ken Chambers
512-796-1798
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center section butt ribs |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
Good point Ken. That was my plan but I was trying to see how things were going
to fit together. Kinda fun actually putting some parts together!
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327617#327617
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center section butt ribs |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
One other benefit to the tank in the CC is more fuel pressure, which is
probably why I did a nose tank. Actually fuel pressure is plenty with a nose
tank.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:53 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
> *Pros: 1) Center of Gravity does not change as fuel is burned. 2) You
> can always have a nose tank (header tank) in addition if you want extra
> range or put your storage area in the nose.*
> *Cons: 1) Any fuel you spill goes directly into the pilot's seat where it
> lies in wait; 2) You have to have a ladder to get the fuel up there. 3)
> Unsightly hoses, valves, fuel guage, etc. hanging down below the wing (and
> directly over the passenger's head.)*
> **
> *Hum, that seems to come out in favor of putting the tank in the nose
> which is probably why I chose to put mine in the center section.*
> **
> *Stinemetze*
>
>
> >>> "Kringle" 1/19/2011 3:32 PM >>>
> What are the pros and cons of putting a fuel tank in the wing or using it
> for storage? What are most doing?
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Come on!!!: flying to Brodhead |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Jim - I actually made it to southern KS last year on Day 1, though the intended
stopover was vicinity OKC.
If you're serious, we can go via Pryor this year. It's not out of the way. Shelley
should be making the trip with me by car this time (solo last year on the
way up, she was with me on the way back). If your friend is okay with me landing
there we'd probably buy you guys dinner & reebs. We're set up to camp so
we're self-sustaining.
Have you met Shelley? Oh, heck, we've never met in person, have we! Well, we
can fix that.
All contingent on the valve-eating, crank-snapping corvair behaving, and not getting
screwed by work!
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327627#327627
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrel Jones <wd6bor(at)vom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pfeifer Sport |
Steven,
The Pfeifer Sport is a steel tube version of the Pietenpol. As such, it
flies like a Bucker Jungmeister and is about fifty miles an hour faster.
Just kidding. It flies just like a Piet, which is pretty nice.
Darrel
On 1/19/2011 1:55 AM, Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG FORSCOM wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG FORSCOM"
>
> Darrel, I notice that you list a Pfeifer Sport. What does the Pfeifer fly like?
What are the numbers esp as compared to a Pietenpol.
>
> Blue Skies,
> Steve D
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Darrel Jones<wd6bor(at)vom.com>
> Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:43
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: Hand propping an airplane
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>> On 1/18/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>>> Y'all be careful out there, unless you want to become ventilated
>> like
>>> this fellow:
>>>
>>> Jack Phillips
>>>
>>> NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
>>>
>>> Raleigh, NC
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>> We've got a one-armed pilot whose Champ got him after about 3,000
>> hours
>> of experience. It only takes once. Tie the tail EVERY TIME, chock
>> the
>> wheels EVERY TIME, then get ready to run like crazy if you put the
>> throttle in the wrong position JUST THIS ONCE. That's what got our
>> guy,
>> who is lucky to still be alive.
>>
>> Darrel Jones
>> Pfeifer Sport
>> Sonoma, CA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Come on!!!: flying to Brodhead |
If I'm serious????? I couldn't be MORE serious! Of course I'm serious! Come
on....
Using the airstrip will be fine. We've had a couple piet friends fly through the
area and we're always welcome.
Wish I had known you were flying anywhere near here (Kansas is...sorta) last year.
I would have insisted you swing by this way.
Ok, enough talk....you guys get your flight plans done and make SURE we're on the
route. Plenty of room to stay and all are welcome.
One tiny little issue maybe...I may be out of town that week. You're still welcome
but I'll say my prayers just to be sure! Something tells me this is MY Brodhead
year!!!
Dang, I'm nowhere NEAR flying mine up there and all this talk is getting me excited!
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil>
>Sent: Jan 19, 2011 7:00 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Come on!!!: flying to Brodhead
>
>
>Jim - I actually made it to southern KS last year on Day 1, though the intended
stopover was vicinity OKC.
>
>If you're serious, we can go via Pryor this year. It's not out of the way. Shelley
should be making the trip with me by car this time (solo last year on the
way up, she was with me on the way back). If your friend is okay with me landing
there we'd probably buy you guys dinner & reebs. We're set up to camp
so we're self-sustaining.
>
>Have you met Shelley? Oh, heck, we've never met in person, have we! Well, we
can fix that.
>
>All contingent on the valve-eating, crank-snapping corvair behaving, and not getting
screwed by work!
>
>--------
>Kevin "Axel" Purtee
>NX899KP
>Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327627#327627
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pfeifer Sport |
I have a PDF copy of the March 1976 Sport Aviation article on Joe Pfiefer.
Really interesting reading for anyone interested in the Pfiefer Sport (WITH a Corvair
engine!).
Let me know offlist if anyone wants a copy and I'll email it to you.
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: Darrel Jones <wd6bor(at)vom.com>
>Sent: Jan 19, 2011 8:52 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport
>
>
>Steven,
>
>The Pfeifer Sport is a steel tube version of the Pietenpol. As such, it
>flies like a Bucker Jungmeister and is about fifty miles an hour faster.
>Just kidding. It flies just like a Piet, which is pretty nice.
>
>Darrel
>
>
>On 1/19/2011 1:55 AM, Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG FORSCOM wrote:
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG FORSCOM"
>>
>> Darrel, I notice that you list a Pfeifer Sport. What does the Pfeifer fly like?
What are the numbers esp as compared to a Pietenpol.
>>
>> Blue Skies,
>> Steve D
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Darrel Jones<wd6bor(at)vom.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:43
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: Hand propping an airplane
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>>
>>> On 1/18/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>>>> Y'all be careful out there, unless you want to become ventilated
>>> like
>>>> this fellow:
>>>>
>>>> Jack Phillips
>>>>
>>>> NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
>>>>
>>>> Raleigh, NC
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -------
>>> We've got a one-armed pilot whose Champ got him after about 3,000
>>> hours
>>> of experience. It only takes once. Tie the tail EVERY TIME, chock
>>> the
>>> wheels EVERY TIME, then get ready to run like crazy if you put the
>>> throttle in the wrong position JUST THIS ONCE. That's what got our
>>> guy,
>>> who is lucky to still be alive.
>>>
>>> Darrel Jones
>>> Pfeifer Sport
>>> Sonoma, CA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Model A Mag drive |
| From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Listers,
Here is a copy of an email I just sent to Larry Morlock detailing my 2nd ma
g drive troubles, after he inquired about it.
Hi Larry,
I had 13 hours on her (in flight). Maybe another 10 on the ground. During t
he flight the trouble occurred, I had checked the mags (in flight) individu
ally before I left the proximity of the airport. All seemed well so I ventu
red out. The engine started running rough, and I checked the mags to discov
er that the cam gear-driven mag appeared to be completely dead. As of this
date, I am still unsure why the engine continued running rough after I shut
off that mag, and switched over to the crank mag. That is still a mystery
to me. The only thing I can think of, is that in my panic, maybe I left the
switch on "both" and the cam-driven mag was catching periodically (because
of the partial tooth situation) and it was sending wild sparks in there.
So I am not quite sure even now what happened, or exactly when. As you can
see from the photos about 30% of the gear teeth are completely cracked off.
The remaining teeth appear to be "worn" off. This is my speculation: There
was insufficient clearance between the aluminum timing gear and the steel
magneto gear. I had no trouble inserting and mounting that magneto at all,
so no red flags were raised at that time. In my ignorance, I did not check
the clearance between the gears. Over a period of hours, pressure was exert
ed onto the aluminum gear teeth and the metal failed on a number of the tee
th, either from fatigue, or just the continued "mooshing" of the steel mag
gear teeth against the aluminum teeth.
When I contacted Ken Perkins, he speculated the same, and said the fix was
adding shims (or extra gasket thickness) between the mag housing (casting t
hat the mag is bolted to) and the engine block to achieve a clearance of fo
ur thousandths. This action would necessarily give more clearance between t
he two gears in question. But upon further examination, this action creates
another problem. It is kind of hard to explain in an email, but there are
three bolt holes that would have to be elongated, in the flat timing gear c
over, in order to allow those three timing gear cover bolts to line up with
the holes in the back of the engine block. I guess this would not be that
big of a deal because only a few thousands of an inch would be needed.
I myself have decided to go in another direction as far as the 2nd (redunda
nt) ignition system goes (mostly to satisfy my wife). The Model A car suppl
iers sell an electronic ignition module that drops into a traditional distr
ibutor body. It will appear to be a stock Model A ignition system. Downside
for me, is that I need a battery. I found a light weight battery at Wicks
(4.4 lbs) that I will use. Another hang up is how is it recharged? I will m
aybe get a solar cell to put out when I am on the ground. Who knows, after
you have proven the viability of the Perkins mag drive, I might go back to
that! BTW Falluca told me that the aluminum gear should have had no problem
with this set-up if clearances were correct.
I think you would be wise to, during your on-ground break-in period, perio
dically remove that mag and peer in there to closely inspect that gear to s
ee how it is doing. BTW, there was no apparent wear or damage that I can de
tect on the steel mag gear.
I am willing to send you this aluminum gear for your close inspection. You
may be able to glean some clues upon close examination. Let me know and I w
ill UPS or mail it over to you.
Please ask me more specific questions if you have them, and I will be more
than glad to help however I can.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bencharvet(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel tank placement. was Center section butt ribs |
I have the nose tank, and the effect of fuel burn off is barely
noticeable as far as pitch trim.
Ben
On 1/19/2011 4:53 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
> *Pros: 1) Center of Gravity does not change as fuel is burned. 2)
> You can always have a nose tank (header tank) in addition if you want
> extra range or put your storage area in the nose.*
> *Cons: 1) Any fuel you spill goes directly into the pilot's seat where
> it lies in wait; 2) You have to have a ladder to get the fuel up
> there. 3) Unsightly hoses, valves, fuel guage, etc. hanging down
> below the wing (and directly over the passenger's head.)*
> **
> *Hum, that seems to come out in favor of putting the tank in the nose
> which is probably why I chose to put mine in the center section.*
> **
> *Stinemetze*
> *
> *
> >>> "Kringle" 1/19/2011 3:32 PM >>>
> What are the pros and cons of putting a fuel tank in the wing or using
> it for storage? What are most doing?
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woodflier(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: access panel for bellcrank |
John, I left the second bay behind the seat back on the bottom of the
fuselage uncovered and made an cover out of aluminum sheet to cover it. I
simply screwed it in with #6 x 1/2" stainless wood screws. It gives great access
to those four elevator turnbuckles that I have directly connecting the
elevator cables to the bellcrank.
Matt Paxton
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, John Kuhfahl wrote:
>
>> I want to put the plate in because you just can not get to anything
>> through the two side inspection plates already there. I saw Oscar's
>> yesterday, but wanted to see where other's have located it, how big,
and how
>> you supported the plate, etc.
>>
>> --
>> John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
>> PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Model A Mag drive |
| From: | "bender" <jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com> |
Hey Dan ... i was thinking the same thing... but with the FSI distributor... it
has centrifugal advance that is a full 28 deg at 1750 rpm
there is another distributor drive coming out from the secrets of speed guys...
uses a VW distributor on the timing cover with a separate gear ..
http://www.secretsofspeed.com/IGNITIONS.htm
looks pretty cool..
i gave my engine to Rich from antique engine rebuilders at the local model a swap
meet last weekend... we talked about your troubles a bit..
looking forward to hanging it on the nose
jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327685#327685
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Model A Mag drive |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Got electronic ignition on my auto engine Piet, but its a CSC.
rick
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, bender wrote:
> jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com>
>
> Hey Dan ... i was thinking the same thing... but with the FSI
> distributor... it has centrifugal advance that is a full 28 deg at 1750 rpm
> there is another distributor drive coming out from the secrets of speed
> guys... uses a VW distributor on the timing cover with a separate gear ..
> http://www.secretsofspeed.com/IGNITIONS.htm
> looks pretty cool..
> i gave my engine to Rich from antique engine rebuilders at the local model
> a swap meet last weekend... we talked about your troubles a bit..
> looking forward to hanging it on the nose
>
> jeff
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327685#327685
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A Mag drive |
Here's another thought. The Aerovee guys run a very simple fixed advance s
econdary. Don't know much about it except it's very simple. I believe the
y only run one set of plugs too.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A Mag drive
> From: jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com
> Date: Thu=2C 20 Jan 2011 08:58:21 -0800
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
om>
>
> Hey Dan ... i was thinking the same thing... but with the FSI distributor
... it has centrifugal advance that is a full 28 deg at 1750 rpm
> there is another distributor drive coming out from the secrets of speed g
uys... uses a VW distributor on the timing cover with a separate gear ..
> http://www.secretsofspeed.com/IGNITIONS.htm
> looks pretty cool..
> i gave my engine to Rich from antique engine rebuilders at the local mode
l a swap meet last weekend... we talked about your troubles a bit..
> looking forward to hanging it on the nose
>
> jeff
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327685#327685
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Model A Mag drive |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Aerovee uses dual electronic ignition and dual plugs.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Doug Dever wrote:
> Here's another thought. The Aerovee guys run a very simple fixed advance
> secondary. Don't know much about it except it's very simple. I believe
> they only run one set of plugs too.
>
> Doug Dever
> In beautiful Stow Ohio
>
>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A Mag drive
> > From: jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com
> > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:58:21 -0800
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> >
> jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com>
> >
> > Hey Dan ... i was thinking the same thing... but with the FSI
> distributor... it has centrifugal advance that is a full 28 deg at 1750 rpm
> > there is another distributor drive coming out from the secrets of speed
> guys... uses a VW distributor on the timing cover with a separate gear ..
> > http://www.secretsofspeed.com/IGNITIONS.htm
> > looks pretty cool..
> > i gave my engine to Rich from antique engine rebuilders at the local
> model a swap meet last weekend... we talked about your troubles a bit..
> > looking forward to hanging it on the nose
> >
> > jeff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327685#327685
> >
> >
> = Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> &g====================
> > _====
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A Mag drive |
You are correct The Aerovee actually uses 4 modules and yes it uses dual p
lugs. I was thinking of the Great Plains VW.
They have a fixed secondary.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
Date: Thu=2C 20 Jan 2011 14:07:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A Mag drive
From: at7000ft(at)gmail.com
Aerovee uses dual electronic ignition and dual plugs.
On Thu=2C Jan 20=2C 2011 at 12:57 PM=2C Doug Dever wrote:
Here's another thought. The Aerovee guys run a very simple fixed advance s
econdary. Don't know much about it except it's very simple. I believe the
y only run one set of plugs too.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A Mag drive
> From: jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com
> Date: Thu=2C 20 Jan 2011 08:58:21 -0800
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
om>
>
> Hey Dan ... i was thinking the same thing... but with the FSI distributor
... it has centrifugal advance that is a full 28 deg at 1750 rpm
> there is another distributor drive coming out from the secrets of speed g
uys... uses a VW distributor on the timing cover with a separate gear ..
> http://www.secretsofspeed.com/IGNITIONS.htm
> looks pretty cool..
> i gave my engine to Rich from antique engine rebuilders at the local mode
l a swap meet last weekend... we talked about your troubles a bit..
> looking forward to hanging it on the nose
>
> jeff
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327685#327685
>
>
= Archive Search & Download=2C 7-Day Browse=2C Chat=2C FAQ=2C
&g====================
> _=====
>
>
>
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock=2C Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers=2C that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
| From: | "echobravo4" <eab4(at)comcast.net> |
Could the turtleneck be made to be removable
Like on a Jenny?
--------
Earl Brown
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I
intended to be.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327804#327804
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Where to locate rear bottom inspection plate |
| From: | "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net> |
It probably could be, Earl. I think someone here on this list has actually done
that but I can't remember who. I've been thinking about doing the same thing
when I get to the point of building my fuselage (which at the rate I'm going
is YEARS down the road).
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327812#327812
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How about this idea? |
| From: | "Mild Bill" <whfrank(at)charter.net> |
What would be the benefits of steel strips embedded in wood?
--------
Bill Frank
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327818#327818
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
| From: | "womenfly2" <keriannprice(at)hotmail.com> |
My Fiberglas tank ....
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327819#327819
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ft0008_744.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
Do you have pics of how you made your tank? Looks real nice.
Brian
SLC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
womenfly2
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 2:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank
My Fiberglas tank ....
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327819#327819
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ft0008_744.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How about this idea? |
| From: | "Mild Bill" <whfrank(at)charter.net> |
OK. Thanks.
Sometimes it's hard to tell. At a forum on ornithopters I attended at Oskhosh some
years ago, the presenter extolled the astounding performance of living birds,
claiming at one point that some birds could maintain level flight indefinitely,
in perfectly still air, without flapping their wings. I approached him after
the forum and asked him how these birds could attain an infinite glide ratio,
seemingly against the laws of aerodynamics.
He responded, "Feathers." When I asked how feathers could do this, he clarified
with great exuberance but also in perfect seriousness, "Negative drag!"
I smiled courteously and walked off.
--------
Bill Frank
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327833#327833
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How about this idea? |
| From: | "Mild Bill" <whfrank(at)charter.net> |
By the way, the idea in the OP would work. Really it would.
Just use titanium instead of steel, by virtue of which you obtain "Negative Weight."
8)
--------
Bill Frank
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327834#327834
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cloth used for Fiberglass fuel tank |
| From: | "womenfly2" <keriannprice(at)hotmail.com> |
Pilot78 ... see my Web Site.
Cheers.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327867#327867
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How about this idea? |
| From: | "womenfly2" <keriannprice(at)hotmail.com> |
Aluminum tube with riveted gusset plates ...... ?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327868#327868
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How about this idea? |
| From: | "Brett Phillips" <bphillip(at)shentel.net> |
I do believe that some of these folks are beginning to show signs of cabin
fever...
Perhaps a foam and glass Piet would be best? (Cough, Cough, splutter,
choke!)
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
Simple question, but need some help. I originally was planning on building the
FGM wing or perhaps the one part wing which I understood as having 28 ribs.
I've reconsidered and will be building the 3-piece wing and am waiting for the
plans I ordered from Don Pietenpol.
I have 30 ribs completed (2 more than were needed for the one-piece wing). Is
this enough for the 3-piece wing or do I need to make a few more?
For reference, I did build the rib from the full-size plan I received from Don
Pietenpol last September.
Thanks for any input.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327883#327883
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
Yes, Tom, that's the correct count, however, I find it difficult to believe
that you built 30 ribs since September. It's been almost 3 years and I'm
only on #24...!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gboothe5 [mailto:gboothe5(at)comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:50 AM
Subject: FW: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tdudley(at)umn.edu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
Simple question, but need some help. I originally was planning on building
the FGM wing or perhaps the one part wing which I understood as having 28
ribs. I've reconsidered and will be building the 3-piece wing and am
waiting for the plans I ordered from Don Pietenpol.
I have 30 ribs completed (2 more than were needed for the one-piece wing).
Is this enough for the 3-piece wing or do I need to make a few more?
For reference, I did build the rib from the full-size plan I received from
Don Pietenpol last September.
Thanks for any input.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327883#327883
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Knowlton " <flyingscott_k(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
I just finished my ribs and the count is 14 per wing plus two full ribs in the
center section plus an additional two tail ribs and one nose rib for the center
section. Your 30 full ribs is fine but you need those nose and tail ribs eventually.
Scott Knowlton
-----Original Message-----
From: tdudley(at)umn.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:52:09
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
Simple question, but need some help. I originally was planning on building the
FGM wing or perhaps the one part wing which I understood as having 28 ribs. I've
reconsidered and will be building the 3-piece wing and am waiting for the plans
I ordered from Don Pietenpol.
I have 30 ribs completed (2 more than were needed for the one-piece wing). Is this
enough for the 3-piece wing or do I need to make a few more?
For reference, I did build the rib from the full-size plan I received from Don
Pietenpol last September.
Thanks for any input.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327883#327883
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
| From: | "Ryan Mueller" <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
He must not have a kitchen... ;P
Ryan Mueller
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:55:09
Yes, Tom, that's the correct count, however, I find it difficult to believe
that you built 30 ribs since September. It's been almost 3 years and I'm
only on #24...!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gboothe5 [mailto:gboothe5(at)comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:50 AM
Subject: FW: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tdudley(at)umn.edu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
Simple question, but need some help. I originally was planning on building
the FGM wing or perhaps the one part wing which I understood as having 28
ribs. I've reconsidered and will be building the 3-piece wing and am
waiting for the plans I ordered from Don Pietenpol.
I have 30 ribs completed (2 more than were needed for the one-piece wing).
Is this enough for the 3-piece wing or do I need to make a few more?
For reference, I did build the rib from the full-size plan I received from
Don Pietenpol last September.
Thanks for any input.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327883#327883
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
| From: | "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net> |
You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the hangar. Ribs
are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
I just went to the shop and counted. I have 31 built, 14 for each wing
section and 3 for the center section. If you plan on putting a fuel tank in
the centersection you will need 2 false ribs for the aft section (behind the
rear spar) and one false nose rib in the place of the center rib of the
centersection. Actually, the 3-piece wing plan covers mainly the center
section and how the center section is connected to the wing sections. It
does have dimensions of the wing spar and plans for the spar butt joint
straps. Lots of luck. See you at Brodhead, the Mecca of Pietenpols. Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: <tdudley(at)umn.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
>
> Simple question, but need some help. I originally was planning on
> building the FGM wing or perhaps the one part wing which I understood as
> having 28 ribs. I've reconsidered and will be building the 3-piece wing
> and am waiting for the plans I ordered from Don Pietenpol.
>
> I have 30 ribs completed (2 more than were needed for the one-piece wing).
> Is this enough for the 3-piece wing or do I need to make a few more?
>
> For reference, I did build the rib from the full-size plan I received from
> Don Pietenpol last September.
>
> Thanks for any input.
>
> Tom
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327883#327883
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My wife
would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the hangar.
> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>
> --------
> Billy McCaskill
> Urbana, IL
> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
Gary, I averaged one rib per day when I was in the rib mode. Of course I'm
retired (retarded). I had kind of an assembly line going. First, I took
yesterday's rib out of the jig, took the top rib cap for today's rib off the
prebending jig and put it in the rib jig, then the bottom rib cap, then cut
the connecting members per a prearranged plan, glued the members and
installed the top-side gussets (precut). I then put the gussets on the back
of yesterday's rib. Last I took a rib cap out of the soaker and put it in
the prebending jig. Last I put another rib cap in the soaker, left the shop
and closed the door. It was really the most enjoyable part of the project.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
>
> Yes, Tom, that's the correct count, however, I find it difficult to
> believe
> that you built 30 ribs since September. It's been almost 3 years and I'm
> only on #24...!
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gboothe5 [mailto:gboothe5(at)comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:50 AM
> To: gboothe5(at)comcast.net
> Subject: FW: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> tdudley(at)umn.edu
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:52 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
>
>
> Simple question, but need some help. I originally was planning on
> building
> the FGM wing or perhaps the one part wing which I understood as having 28
> ribs. I've reconsidered and will be building the 3-piece wing and am
> waiting for the plans I ordered from Don Pietenpol.
>
> I have 30 ribs completed (2 more than were needed for the one-piece wing).
> Is this enough for the 3-piece wing or do I need to make a few more?
>
> For reference, I did build the rib from the full-size plan I received from
> Don Pietenpol last September.
>
> Thanks for any input.
>
> Tom
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327883#327883
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
Thanks for the insight. I'm right now soaking an additional two capstrips to bring
the total to 32. Hard to believe how much fun cutting and glueing wood together
can be.
Gary, each night I read a chapter of the "Little House on the Prairie" books to
my little girl. Last night there was a poem in the chapter:
"Lost, between sunrise and sunset,
One golden hour, set with sixty diamond minutes.
No reward is offered, for it is gone forever."
I don't know who came up with it (my background is more science and medicine, not
literature), but it kind of gave me a boost of inspiration to keep building.
My goal was one rib per day like some others have posted. It took me longer,
but it sure is fun to keep plugging away.
Again, thanks for the help.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327932#327932
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
Charles,
Seems like a great plan...worked good! Me? Takes 2 hours per rib, but I
found them incredibly monotonous, thinking the whole time about other stuff!
I now have the tail ready for cover, the fuselage and center section ready
for cover, and almost ready to run the engine on the airframe...but those
remaining 7 ribs just keep waiting!
Now, as Billy suggested, I need to build an extra one just for gee-whiz!
Heck, that's going to add another 3 months to my build time....
See you at Brodhead! (I'll be the guy in the ball cap with a camera)
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles
Campbell
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
Gary, I averaged one rib per day when I was in the rib mode. Of course I'm
retired (retarded). I had kind of an assembly line going. First, I took
yesterday's rib out of the jig, took the top rib cap for today's rib off the
prebending jig and put it in the rib jig, then the bottom rib cap, then cut
the connecting members per a prearranged plan, glued the members and
installed the top-side gussets (precut). I then put the gussets on the back
of yesterday's rib. Last I took a rib cap out of the soaker and put it in
the prebending jig. Last I put another rib cap in the soaker, left the shop
and closed the door. It was really the most enjoyable part of the project.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
>
> Yes, Tom, that's the correct count, however, I find it difficult to
> believe
> that you built 30 ribs since September. It's been almost 3 years and I'm
> only on #24...!
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gboothe5 [mailto:gboothe5(at)comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:50 AM
> To: gboothe5(at)comcast.net
> Subject: FW: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> tdudley(at)umn.edu
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:52 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib question
>
>
> Simple question, but need some help. I originally was planning on
> building
> the FGM wing or perhaps the one part wing which I understood as having 28
> ribs. I've reconsidered and will be building the 3-piece wing and am
> waiting for the plans I ordered from Don Pietenpol.
>
> I have 30 ribs completed (2 more than were needed for the one-piece wing).
> Is this enough for the 3-piece wing or do I need to make a few more?
>
> For reference, I did build the rib from the full-size plan I received from
> Don Pietenpol last September.
>
> Thanks for any input.
>
> Tom
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327883#327883
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
Tom,
I admire you for working on your dream while still raising young-uns! You
make a great example...
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tdudley(at)umn.edu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 2:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
Thanks for the insight. I'm right now soaking an additional two capstrips
to bring the total to 32. Hard to believe how much fun cutting and glueing
wood together can be.
Gary, each night I read a chapter of the "Little House on the Prairie" books
to my little girl. Last night there was a poem in the chapter:
"Lost, between sunrise and sunset,
One golden hour, set with sixty diamond minutes.
No reward is offered, for it is gone forever."
I don't know who came up with it (my background is more science and
medicine, not literature), but it kind of gave me a boost of inspiration to
keep building. My goal was one rib per day like some others have posted.
It took me longer, but it sure is fun to keep plugging away.
Again, thanks for the help.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327932#327932
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
I'm now about half way on the ribs. My question is with ailerons. Do you just
build the entire rib section then cut out the ailerons? What about the center
sections....do you build special ribs or do most just cut standard ribs apart?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327957#327957
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
Gary,
Thanks for the kind words. Bedtime is at 8 o'clock and if there's anything residency
taught me, it's to live on 4-5 hours sleep. My Piet is getting built when
everyone in my house sleeps.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327959#327959
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
Kringle,
As I understand it, you build the wings on the spars first, then cut the ailerons
out. Not certain about the center section, but I guess I'm planning on building
full ribs and cutting them out.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327960#327960
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | wax solvent and trim tab size |
Hey all,
Two questions.
Firstly, I glassed my cowling over a waxed mold and now want to add a layer
and glass some stiffners to the inside, but there is a fair amount of wax
residue on the inside of the cowling from the mold. I've tried mineral
spirits, MEK and Formbys furniture refinisher and nothing really removes it
well. Was going to get some acetone, but thought I"d send it out to see
what you guys would suggest.
Secondly. What do you guys think is the minimal size a trim tab on the
elevator could be to work? Don't think it takes much.
Thanks,
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
Hey Tom....
-
Lets see some photos of your progress! Sound like you have been very busy w
ith all this cold weather!
-
Ken H
Hawley,MN
-
--- On Sat, 1/22/11, tdudley(at)umn.edu wrote:
From: tdudley(at)umn.edu <tdudley(at)umn.edu>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
Date: Saturday, January 22, 2011, 8:05 PM
Gary,
Thanks for the kind words.- Bedtime is at 8 o'clock and if there's anythi
ng residency taught me, it's to live on 4-5 hours sleep.- My Piet is gett
ing built when everyone in my house sleeps.
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327959#327959
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
Can anyone tell me the amount of travel needed for the trim control? I am a
dding a trim control knob under my seat that is connected to my bell crank
for trimming out the plane for level flight. Photos are forth coming. Just
need to know how much adjustment is needed for nose up and nose down.
-
Ken H
Halwey, MN
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
I have a few questions in regard to the center section.
I am wondering why most have changed from the as drawn support cables for the center
section to the streamline supports from the top of the center section to
the top motor mounts? I am leaning towards using the 3/32" cables.
Anyone have rub issues with the cables on the center section pulleys...side load
rubbing? It appears that with the cabanes vertical, the cables and pulleys look
fine. But when I rake the center section back, the cables then rub on the
pulley sideways. (side load) I do not have the cables in, I am running string
for now and just checking how it all goes together.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wax solvent and trim tab size |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
I measured tabs on several Cessnas and Pipers and ended up with an average
of 12 x 3.5". Haven't flown yet so I can't say how it will work.
rick
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
>
> Secondly. What do you guys think is the minimal size a trim tab on the
> elevator could be to work? Don=92t think it takes much.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Douwe
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
Hey Ken,
Hope your winter has been going well. Kind of hard to stomach the -16 degree weather
we've had the last few days. Kind of cold in my garage so I've had to
move to the basement.
I've added a few pictures--nothing that hasn't been seen before dozens of times
on this forum, but since you've asked.
Maybe when the weather warms up I can swing up and take a look at your progress.
I'm still interested in that Corvair engine. . .
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327976#327976
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_pics_016_240.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/027_571.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_pics_014_874.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/006_131.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com> |
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because they
take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one side of
the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but rather
cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes to the sides
of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from cantilevering forward
in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your cabanes straight up and down,finish
everything but the motor mount,do a weight and balance with the plane
complete,covered etc. and put your motor in where it needs to be you will have
perfect weight and balance,no rubbing cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls
and no wondering if your CG is right or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor
mounts instead of one.On the other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks
in to make it balance,they're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
| From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Hi Tom,
Thanks for sharing those pictures. Brings back fond memories. I built all t
he ribs before I found this forum, and did not know I was supposed to soak
or steam the top cap strips. When I found out, I got that "knot" that forms
in the bottom of your stomach when things like this happen. Took a 5 gallo
n bucket 1/2 full of water and soaked the noses of all the ribs overnite. I
am sure this relieved all stresses because two of them actually broke just
aft of the first diagonal, and I had to make new ones. The glue joints wer
e unaffected.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my vise.
Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already ground on
them?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Just make 'em
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
ground on them?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack" <jack(at)textors.com> |
This could be an option. Pretty sharp radius though.
http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-Vise-Brake/H3245
Jack
DSM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
ground on them?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
I agree, that sharp radius is not good.
I have one of those and just worked it with my grinder until I "blunted" the point.
It ended up being a very handy tool I've used many times.
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack <jack(at)textors.com>
>Sent: Jan 23, 2011 7:40 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
>
>
>This could be an option. Pretty sharp radius though.
>http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-Vise-Brake/H3245
>Jack
>DSM
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
>Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:49 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
>
>
>I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
>vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
>ground on them?
>
>--------
>John
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
I have a grizzly vise brake, and had to increase the radius of the
bending edge (pretty easy to file down). As it comes, it impresses
marks on the bend that would be stress risers. Filed down (I did mine
to work with steel in the .09 t0 .125 range), it works great. They
are cheap enough that you might want to get several and file them down
even more (or less) for thicker or thinner stock.
The only issue I've found with this tool is that you have to be really
careful that the stock is indexed exactly right before you bend it -
there are no reference marks for alignment on the tool itself.
Kip Gardner
On Jan 23, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Jack wrote:
>
> This could be an option. Pretty sharp radius though.
> http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-Vise-Brake/H3245
> Jack
> DSM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Kringle
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:49 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
>
>
> I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks
> in my
> vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii
> already
> ground on them?
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
Agree with Billy. I cut out a 1/8" ply Scimitar propeller like Dan Helspar's and
hung it on the wall over the patio door. I thought it was the neatest thing
in that room!
And yes, it WAS a great conversation starter. I quickly got tired of my wife's
"conversations" about having it hanging up there and took it down.
Sure looked cool though (up to the point where the "conversations" started).
Jim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
>Sent: Jan 22, 2011 4:04 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
>build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My wife
>would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>>
>> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the hangar.
>> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>>
>> --------
>> Billy McCaskill
>> Urbana, IL
>> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Thanks Dave. So, the as drawn CS brace cables are not a good idea from a strength
point of view?
Your idea of wing position and CG calculations are worth keeping in mind. However,
as I temp. mount my CS to trial fit cables,(string) cut access holes and make
my instrument panel, I found that I can only move my C.S. forward only so
much then the brace cables hit the back of the front seat back. Even at this position,
there is some pulley side loading.
I know most people rack their CS back for CG fixes. I was curious if anyone noticed
the side load on the pulleys and how, if at all, they fixed it. There are
a few ways that I can think of to fix this issue, but none of which would be
easy or quick. What have you guys noticed and how did you fix it. (or not...)
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Dangerous Dave wrote:
> From: Dangerous Dave <dsornbor(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 7:23 AM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: "Dangerous Dave"
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward
> braces is because they take out the brace wires around the
> front cockpit and just bracing one side of the cockpit is
> not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but rather
> cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear
> cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to
> keep the wing from cantilevering forward in a crash-bad
> landing.Also if you just put your cabanes straight up and
> down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a weight and
> balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your
> motor in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight
> and balance,no rubbing cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls
> and no wondering if your CG is right or if you'll have to
> make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the other
> hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
Sounds like time to get a new wife...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Markle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
Agree with Billy. I cut out a 1/8" ply Scimitar propeller like Dan
Helspar's and hung it on the wall over the patio door. I thought it was the
neatest thing in that room!
And yes, it WAS a great conversation starter. I quickly got tired of my
wife's "conversations" about having it hanging up there and took it down.
Sure looked cool though (up to the point where the "conversations" started).
Jim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
>Sent: Jan 22, 2011 4:04 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
>build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My wife
>would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>>
>> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the
hangar.
>> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>>
>> --------
>> Billy McCaskill
>> Urbana, IL
>> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
| From: | "Jerry Dotson" <jdotson(at)centurylink.net> |
I have a HF bender that is handy on larger projects but was too slow to get rigged
up for the Piet jobs. I used various pieces of angle iron the I ground different
radii on and my trusty vise.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328016#328016
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bender_138.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
| From: | "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net> |
Jim Markle showed me the Grizzly break that he uses and I had to get one. I didn't
like the idea of pounding metal to shape in my vise... this thing allows
you much better control of the placement and angle of the bends. Simple device,
and worth the money.
I agree on the sharpness... it needs wider radius. I ran mine on a surface grinder
and then rounded it of with a hand file.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328017#328017
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft
you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and
potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is
going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and then
add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave wrote:
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because
> they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one
> side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but
> rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes
> to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
> cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
> cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
> weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor
> in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is right
> or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
> other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gboothe5" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
John,
Instead of using steel bending blocks in my vice, I used 1/8" thick aluminum
angle, because.....I had some, and it's very easy to shape the radii.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
ground on them?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | questions from a new guy... |
| From: | "MPB" <mike(at)seatec.us> |
I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on the project
in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on first). I have a couple
of questions that I would like to throw out there and gain some practical knowledge.
At this point I am heavily leaning toward the one piece wing, the steel
tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85 or 0200)
1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing, fuselage, tail feathers)
before another? From a space standpoint I would build the tail and wing
before the fuselage as they take up less room in the shop, but my building
partner says to build the fuselage first so you can build everything to fit to
it.
2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it to be lighter
or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions correct?
3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another medium to work
with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice most of the sites
and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also can't help but
think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would love to hear opinions
from both sides.
Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the build, asking more
questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328021#328021
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PShipman" <perrytshipman(at)gmail.com> |
Hi,
Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and interesting
so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have purchased the easy
stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future in mind I'd like to ask
a few questions (note ... could find the answers via seach):
1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different styles
of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the pot" [Twisted
Evil]
3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind the
engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front of the engine
between the engine & the prop?
Thanks
Perry
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | questions from a new guy... |
Welcome, Mike!
There is nothing wrong with your approach to build tail, wings, fuse, in
that order. Nor is there anything wrong with wings, tail, fuse, or fuse,
tail, wings, or fuse, wings, tail, or....you get the picture...
Many builders start with the tail, just to get into the swing of things...or
start with ribs. Since the wing is supported above the fuselage, all you
need to do is follow the dimensions and it all hooks up just fine.
I built the 3-piece wing because of building space reasons, but the
one-piece builders say that the 1-piece wing is easier and lighter (makes
sense).
Wood is easy for me, but if you are comfortable with steel...go for it! I
don't there's any reason not to, except maybe for material costs. I bought
locally available poplar at a fraction of the price of spruce, saving close
to $1,000. Can't say what 4130 tubing would have cost.
In any case, you're at the right place for all questions. Be sure to let us
know where you are located, and make sure to check out all the cool stuff at
www.westcoastpiet.com.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on the
project in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on first). I
have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there and gain
some practical knowledge. At this point I am heavily leaning toward the one
piece wing, the steel tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85 or 0200)
1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing, fuselage,
tail feathers) before another? From a space standpoint I would build the
tail and wing before the fuselage as they take up less room in the shop, but
my building partner says to build the fuselage first so you can build
everything to fit to it.
2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it to be
lighter or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions correct?
3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another medium to
work with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice most of
the sites and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also can't
help but think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would love to
hear opinions from both sides.
Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the build, asking
more questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328021#328021
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
Dave,
The only gear worth considering is the wood, Jenny style gear with wire
wheels! (ducking)
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question
Hi,
Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future in
mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers via
seach):
1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the pot"
[Twisted Evil]
3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front of
the engine between the engine & the prop?
Thanks
Perry
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | "PShipman" <perrytshipman(at)gmail.com> |
Gary,
! The only folks worth knowing have strong opinions, IMO! :D
I was wondering, though, if the split gear might be better on rough/unimproved
strips???
Perry (Dave is my partner in crime in this endeavor)
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328035#328035
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
Perry (not Dave),
I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
about? BTW...Aren't you jealous of all those mid-west guys and their grassy
strips? Then, again, you have the perfect weather where you are.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Gary,
! The only folks worth knowing have strong opinions, IMO! :D
I was wondering, though, if the split gear might be better on
rough/unimproved strips???
Perry (Dave is my partner in crime in this endeavor)
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328035#328035
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Groah <dskogrover(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
Gary...
I think Perry should attend the West Coast Pietenpol Gathering June 4th at
Frazier Lake .
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
________________________________
From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 9:02:38 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Perry (not Dave),
I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
about? BTW...Aren't you jealous of all those mid-west guys and their grassy
strips? Then, again, you have the perfect weather where you are.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Gary,
! The only folks worth knowing have strong opinions, IMO! :D
I was wondering, though, if the split gear might be better on
rough/unimproved strips???
Perry (Dave is my partner in crime in this endeavor)
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328035#328035
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | "PShipman" <perrytshipman(at)gmail.com> |
Gary,
After 30 years in Alaska, it is hard to be jealous of anyone :D.
Yes, the sunshine is nice (though HOT at times) but it is great to be around my
aging parents. Lots of private/hidden strips around the SW, though.
As to rough ... I probably won't be landing on any more boulder strewn beaches
in this lifetime ... just move interested in major differences between the two
gear types.
ALSO ... the split gear with tall balloon tiers is a little more like the 1930's
Ryan look, which fits San Diego well, eh?
Perry
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328041#328041
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Rambo <generambo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
OK=2C Ryan=2C I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum
and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to
say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing=2C but
using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have w
ith the W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting t
he datum at a fixed point=2C such as the firewall or propeller flange=2C th
e wing leading edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point=2C
the information as to axle location and engine mount length would have been
much more useful. As it stands=2C I do not see any use for the data as pu
blished.
Gene Rambo
Date: Sun=2C 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables=2C pulleys=2C wing supports
From: rmueller23(at)gmail.com
Keep in mind=2C as the numbers in the W&B article bear out=2C it is more ef
fective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as moving
the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine forward. I
f you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of the engine
relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft you are n
ow shifting the weight of the engine=2C the fuselage=2C the pilot=2C and po
tentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is go
ing to be a more effective way to correct CG problems=2C and will also avoi
d the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or=2C you could split th
e difference and shift the wing some=2C and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically=2C it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing=2C weigh your completed
fuselage=2C add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location=2C an
d then add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with th
e locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun=2C Jan 23=2C 2011 at 6:23 AM=2C Dangerous Dave wr
ote:
Michael=2CThe reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is becaus
e they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing o
ne side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces
but rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cab
anes to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from c
antilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your caban
es straight up and down=2Cfinish everything but the motor mount=2Cdo a weig
ht and balance with the plane complete=2Ccovered etc. and put your motor in
where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance=2Cno rubbing
cables=2Cgreat fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is rig
ht or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On th
e other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it balance
=2Cthey're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le=2C List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
I'm going to look for some aluminum blocks tomorrow and radius them with my router
bits. I hear high speed steel cuts it like butter.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328045#328045
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | "PShipman" <perrytshipman(at)gmail.com> |
Wow ... that would be fun ... I presume you mean Frazier Lake, CA and not CA as
in Canada
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328049#328049
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Michael,
When you talk about the support cables for the center section, I assume you're
referring to the diagonal bracing cables that run between the front and rear
cabanes on the right side. (see attached image)
The reason why most builders replace them with diagonal tubing running from the
top of the front cabane struts down to the top engine mounts is because those
cables make it very difficult to get into the front seat (as if it isn't difficult
enough). BHP recommended using the diagonal tube braces, and included the
modified engine mount brackets in the supplementary plans.
The way things are designed, the aileron control cables will be pretty well vertical
when the cabane struts are vertical. Shifting the wing back 4 inches (which
is about as far as most builders go) results in a change of approximately
5 degrees. If the deflection seems to be too much, it would be pretty simple to
add a wedge to the back side of the spar to account for the misalignment.
Dave,
Are you saying that you intend to install cables where others have installed the
diagonal tubes AND also installing cables running from the tops of the rear
cabanes back towards the rear cockpit? I don't see the benefit. Just sounds like
more cables to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328050#328050
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cs_cables_672.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Don't worry about not having enough metal cutting/grinding/welding to do. I
built a wood fuselage and spent as much time on metal work as wood work
(especially if you are building split gear). Most people start with ribs, as
mentioned the wing is so independent of the fuselage there is no need to
have the fuselage done first, but if you have the room go for it. (Would
recommend building a mock fuselage first though).
rick
Wood is easy for me, but if you are comfortable with steel...go for it! I
> don't there's any reason not to, except maybe for material costs. I bought
> locally available poplar at a fraction of the price of spruce, saving close
> to $1,000. Can't say what 4130 tubing would have cost.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:05 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
>
>
> I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on the
> project in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on first). I
> have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there and gain
> some practical knowledge. At this point I am heavily leaning toward the
> one
> piece wing, the steel tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85 or 0200)
>
> 1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing, fuselage,
> tail feathers) before another? From a space standpoint I would build the
> tail and wing before the fuselage as they take up less room in the shop,
> but
> my building partner says to build the fuselage first so you can build
> everything to fit to it.
>
> 2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it to be
> lighter or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions correct?
>
> 3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another medium
> to
> work with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice most of
> the sites and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also can't
> help but think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would love to
> hear opinions from both sides.
>
> Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the build,
> asking
> more questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
>
> Mike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328021#328021
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ford engine mount |
| From: | "bender" <jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com> |
Am i reading the plans right ??
i'm working on the engine mount for the A.. looking at the ash engine supports
, the drawing says the front should be 2 1/2 inches lower than the back ?? that
seems like a lot but if its right then i'll build it that way
jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328059#328059
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mount_372.png
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
I don't know, Jack! I've had mine quite a few years and wouldn't want to
break in a new one!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
> Sounds like time to get a new wife...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Markle
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:46 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>
> Agree with Billy. I cut out a 1/8" ply Scimitar propeller like Dan
> Helspar's and hung it on the wall over the patio door. I thought it was
> the
> neatest thing in that room!
>
> And yes, it WAS a great conversation starter. I quickly got tired of my
> wife's "conversations" about having it hanging up there and took it down.
>
> Sure looked cool though (up to the point where the "conversations"
> started).
>
> Jim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
>>Sent: Jan 22, 2011 4:04 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>>
>
>>
>>Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
>>build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My
>>wife
>
>>would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net>
>>To:
>>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the
> hangar.
>>> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Billy McCaskill
>>> Urbana, IL
>>> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Contrary to what would seem logical, the radius of the bend is NOT dependent on
the radius of the "knife" die, but rather, on the opening size of the "vee" die,
and the elasticity of the metal being bent.
Provided the die is sized correctly for the thickness of the metal being bent,
and that the bending is stopped before the knife is driven so far that the metal
is being squished between the knife and the vee die, the result should be the
same with a sharp "knife" as with a radius.
When bending steel in this type of setup, the so-called bottom die (the v-shaped
part) should have an opening that ideally measures 8 times the thickness of
the metal being bent. The opening can be as small as 6 times, or as large as 10
times the metal thickness without negative effects.
The metal will form a natural radius that is determined by the material elasticity,
rather than the radius of the tool.
Of course, if the vise is tightened too far (bottoming), the knife will cut into
the metal.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328060#328060
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bend_air_188.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
The only thing I have to say about the type of wheels is that it is a matter
of taste. I, personally, don't like the looks of the wire, motorcycle type
wheels but that is strictly a personal opinion. I'm sure you'll hear a lot
of pros to the question. Can't give any opinion on the engine and the glue
question was covered a couple of months back. Most seem to think the T88 is
the (only)way to go.
----- Original Message -----
From: "PShipman" <perrytshipman(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question
>
> Hi,
>
> Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
> interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
> purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future
> in mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers
> via seach):
> 1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
> 2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
> styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the
> pot" [Twisted Evil]
> 3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
> the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front
> of the engine between the engine & the prop?
>
> Thanks
>
> Perry
>
> --------
> Perry Shipman
> Lakeside, CA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
See what I mean?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: First Question
>
> Dave,
>
> The only gear worth considering is the wood, Jenny style gear with wire
> wheels! (ducking)
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:31 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
> interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
> purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future
> in
> mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers via
> seach):
> 1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
> 2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
> styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the
> pot"
> [Twisted Evil]
> 3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
> the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front
> of
> the engine between the engine & the prop?
>
> Thanks
>
> Perry
>
> --------
> Perry Shipman
> Lakeside, CA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that is
irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engine
farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) fore
or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft you
cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective change.
Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo wrote:
> OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum
> and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to
> say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but
> using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have
> with the W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting
> the datum at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the
> wing leading edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the
> information as to axle location and engine mount length would have been much
> more useful. As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
>
> Gene Rambo
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> From: rmueller23(at)gmail.com
>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
> effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
> moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
> forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
> the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft
> you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and
> potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is
> going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
> the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
> out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
> difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
>
> Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
> engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
> fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and then
> add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
> locations to see how the numbers come out....
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave wrote:
>
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because
> they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one
> side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but
> rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes
> to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
> cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
> cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
> weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor
> in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is right
> or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
> other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
> st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ttp://forums.matronics.com
> =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
Check out:
http://www.matronics.com/search/
<http://www.matronics.com/search/>Read the instructions to ensure you format
your search for maximum effectiveness. Years and years worth of info on the
archives.
Probably the radiator installation is in that location because it is simple,
easy, and effective.
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:31 AM, PShipman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
> interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
> purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future in
> mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers via
> seach):
> 1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
> 2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
> styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the pot"
> [Twisted Evil]
> 3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
> the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front of
> the engine between the engine & the prop?
>
> Thanks
>
> Perry
>
> --------
> Perry Shipman
> Lakeside, CA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
You don't have to do the Jenny gear to use big spoke wheels, you can go
conventional or spoke with split gear, as on Don Emich's Piet.
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Charles Campbell <
cncampbell(at)windstream.net> wrote:
> cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
>
> The only thing I have to say about the type of wheels is that it is a
> matter of taste. I, personally, don't like the looks of the wire,
> motorcycle type wheels but that is strictly a personal opinion. I'm sure
> you'll hear a lot of pros to the question. Can't give any opinion on the
> engine and the glue question was covered a couple of months back. Most seem
> to think the T88 is the (only)way to go.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "PShipman" <perrytshipman(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:31 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question
>
>
>> >
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
>> interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
>> purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future in
>> mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers via
>> seach):
>> 1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
>> 2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
>> styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the pot"
>> [Twisted Evil]
>> 3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
>> the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front of
>> the engine between the engine & the prop?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Perry
>>
>> --------
>> Perry Shipman
>> Lakeside, CA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
I definately agree about the mock fuselage bit. Wish I had known about
it before I started -- I would probably have a nicer fuselage.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
Don't worry about not having enough metal cutting/grinding/welding to
do. I built a wood fuselage and spent as much time on metal work as wood
work (especially if you are building split gear). Most people start with
ribs, as mentioned the wing is so independent of the fuselage there is
no need to have the fuselage done first, but if you have the room go for
it. (Would recommend building a mock fuselage first though).
rick
Wood is easy for me, but if you are comfortable with steel...go for
it! I
don't there's any reason not to, except maybe for material costs. I
bought
locally available poplar at a fraction of the price of spruce,
saving close
to $1,000. Can't say what 4130 tubing would have cost.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:05 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on
the
project in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on
first). I
have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there and
gain
some practical knowledge. At this point I am heavily leaning toward
the one
piece wing, the steel tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85
or 0200)
1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing,
fuselage,
tail feathers) before another? From a space standpoint I would
build the
tail and wing before the fuselage as they take up less room in the
shop, but
my building partner says to build the fuselage first so you can
build
everything to fit to it.
2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it
to be
lighter or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions
correct?
3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another
medium to
work with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice
most of
the sites and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also
can't
help but think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would
love to
hear opinions from both sides.
Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the
build, asking
more questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328021#328021
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib question |
HA! Yup, putting up with my airplane stuff hanging on the living room wall would
make her perfect in every way....hey wait a minute....if she was THAT perfect
she wouldn't have to settle for me!
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Jan 23, 2011 8:48 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>Sounds like time to get a new wife...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Markle
>Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:46 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>Agree with Billy. I cut out a 1/8" ply Scimitar propeller like Dan
>Helspar's and hung it on the wall over the patio door. I thought it was the
>neatest thing in that room!
>
>And yes, it WAS a great conversation starter. I quickly got tired of my
>wife's "conversations" about having it hanging up there and took it down.
>
>Sure looked cool though (up to the point where the "conversations" started).
>
>Jim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
>>Sent: Jan 22, 2011 4:04 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>>
>
>>
>>Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
>>build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My wife
>
>>would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net>
>>To:
>>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the
>hangar.
>>> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Billy McCaskill
>>> Urbana, IL
>>> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
Just kidding about the Jenny style gear. It was proven last year at Brodhead
that a Piet can be landed perfectly well with a broken split axle gear...
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:35 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Gary,
After 30 years in Alaska, it is hard to be jealous of anyone :D.
Yes, the sunshine is nice (though HOT at times) but it is great to be around
my aging parents. Lots of private/hidden strips around the SW, though.
As to rough ... I probably won't be landing on any more boulder strewn
beaches in this lifetime ... just move interested in major differences
between the two gear types.
ALSO ... the split gear with tall balloon tiers is a little more like the
1930's Ryan look, which fits San Diego well, eh?
Perry
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328041#328041
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
Aluminum works very similar to wood, with same tools! Good luck...
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:44 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks
I'm going to look for some aluminum blocks tomorrow and radius them with my
router bits. I hear high speed steel cuts it like butter.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328045#328045
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
Yes, Frazier Lake, CA. You are officially 'on the list!' We are working hard
to build a West Coast Pietenpol Air Force to someday invade Brodhead...but
don't tell anyone!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(Just finished Rib #24!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:58 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Wow ... that would be fun ... I presume you mean Frazier Lake, CA and not CA
as in Canada
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328049#328049
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
Good thought, Mike! Just finished Rib #24, and running the primer line.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Groah
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Gary...
I think Perry should attend the West Coast Pietenpol Gathering June 4th at
Frazier Lake .
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
_____
From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 9:02:38 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Perry (not Dave),
I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
about? BTW...Aren't you jealous of all those mid-west guys and their grassy
strips? Then, again, you have the perfect weather where you are.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:52 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com> |
Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and no ugly
forward cabane.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com> |
Perry,I'd do some serious consideration on what your going to do with your piet.T88
is great but I'd do some serious research on the 8 million ways to build
a piet.Mine is a bush plane and built as such.Big motor,tundra tires, Supercub
style gear,Ceconite 101 etc.You can build it however you see fit,but if your
landing in the bush the wood gear and ford motor with bicycle wheels wont even
get you of the ground let alone back on it.Its a 29' design that can use a pile
of updating without changing the looks.Just my 3 cents,Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328079#328079
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
| From: | "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com> |
If I was going to build another Piet I would definitly build everything out of
steel except the wing and it would be one piece and 4' longer with a NACA64A410
airfoil,fuselage 4" wider and I'd stick with the long fuselage.Dave What order
you build it in is irrelevant
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328080#328080
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Gene,
It's vector math! William could have picked the location of the right
aileron horn if he really wanted to do the math in 3 dimensions (yuck!),
but since the aircraft CG must be 25-33% of the wing cord (someone
correct me if I'm wrong on that), picking the LE of the wing is FAR
easier to take the rest of the measurements from. Let me say that
again: the distance of the CG from the LE is a constant
value. It is absolutely NOT incorrect, nor is it
irrelevant, to pick that point from which to make all the other
measurements.
Additionally, take N8031 as a case in point against moving the engine
(that's #2 in the list in case anyone was wondering). The second owner
lengthened the motor mount - brace yourselves - 8 inches. EIGHT INCHES!
And it still didn't completely fix the W&B balance of the plane.
Supposedly, I only weigh 143 lbs. For the record, I'm 171 fully dressed
and I've flown 'er about 55 hours. The previous owner was heavier than
me by at least 25 lbs and he flew the plane about 180 tach hours.
I have to say that sealing the elevator gaps helped the overall pitch
handling A LOT. Now, I'm thinking about rebuilding the cabanes and
shifting the wing back to get everything tuned up, but the way the
center section attach points were created - the bolts are parallel to
the fuselage - 90 degrees off from all other Piet's I've seen - it's
going to take more work than just building new front cabanes with welded
diagonal braces.
But, since the plane flies, and flies pretty well (y'all saw that at
B'head last year), I'm not all rip rarin' to get started on that project
quite yet.
Dan
On 01/23/2011 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo wrote:
> OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum
> and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to
> say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but
> using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have
> with the W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than
> putting the datum at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller
> flange, the wing leading edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a
> fixed point, the information as to axle location and engine mount length
> would have been much more useful. As it stands, I do not see any use for
> the data as published.
>
> Gene Rambo
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> From: rmueller23(at)gmail.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
> effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
> moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
> forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight
> of the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the
> wing aft you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage,
> the pilot, and potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to
> the datum. This is going to be a more effective way to correct CG
> problems, and will also avoid the "anteater" look you could acquire by
> having to hang the engine so far out (especially with lighter small
> Continentals). Or, you could split the difference and shift the wing
> some, and move the engine forward some.
>
> Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
> engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your
> completed fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed
> location, and then add in the weight of the wing at the proposed
> location. Play with the locations to see how the numbers come out....
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is
> because they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and
> just bracing one side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will
> not have forward braces but rather cables the the motor mount and
> cables running from the rear cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You
> need something to keep the wing from cantilevering forward in a
> crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your cabanes straight up and
> down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a weight and balance
> with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor in where it
> needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is
> right or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of
> one.On the other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to
> make it balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
> st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ttp://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."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
>From the "Builder's Questions" notes in the text available from the
Pietenpol family, penned by Donald:
--------------------------------
Question: "Why don't you up-date the plans?"
Answer: "I'm not certain what is meant by up-dating the plans. The plans as
designed by Mr. Pietenpol have proven to be correct so many times over and
provide the builder with a successful project from the start. I can't think
of any reason to change the design. The adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it" applies in this case.
If up-date means adding round wing tips. round tail, round rudder, etc, Mr.
Pietenpol tried them all, in every instance the weight usually increase and
the airplane's performance regressed. There is a reason for the square wing
tip design on this airplane. It flies better and has better landing
characteristics. As my father always concluded after his many experiments,
"Keep it simple and keep it light"."
--------------------------------
Just because you have a desire to try to turn it in to something it was
never intended to be doesn't mean it can use a "pile of updating".
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Dangerous Dave wrote:
>
> Perry,I'd do some serious consideration on what your going to do with your
> piet.T88 is great but I'd do some serious research on the 8 million ways to
> build a piet.Mine is a bush plane and built as such.Big motor,tundra tires,
> Supercub style gear,Ceconite 101 etc.You can build it however you see
> fit,but if your landing in the bush the wood gear and ford motor with
> bicycle wheels wont even get you of the ground let alone back on it.Its a
> 29' design that can use a pile of updating without changing the looks.Just
> my 3 cents,Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328079#328079
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
That's what I thought, but I don't know enough to argue.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if
that is irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the
CG within limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a
datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the
engine farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in
relation the LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and
thusly datum) fore or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure,
on most aircraft you cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be
a more effective change. Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo
wrote:
OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the
datum and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is
proper to say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the
wing, but using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big
problem I have with the W&B project that was in the last newsletter.
Rather than putting the datum at a fixed point, such as the firewall or
propeller flange, the wing leading edge (a movable point) was used.
Based on a fixed point, the information as to axle location and engine
mount length would have been much more useful. As it stands, I do not
see any use for the data as published.
Gene Rambo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing
supports
From: rmueller23(at)gmail.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight
of the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the
wing aft you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage,
the pilot, and potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to
the datum. This is going to be a more effective way to correct CG
problems, and will also avoid the "anteater" look you could acquire by
having to hang the engine so far out (especially with lighter small
Continentals). Or, you could split the difference and shift the wing
some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring
out engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your
completed fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed
location, and then add in the weight of the wing at the proposed
location. Play with the locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave
wrote:
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is
because they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just
bracing one side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have
forward braces but rather cables the the motor mount and cables running
from the rear cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to
keep the wing from cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if
you just put your cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the
motor mount,do a weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc.
and put your motor in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight
and balance,no rubbing cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no
wondering if your CG is right or if you'll have to make a half dozen
motor mounts instead of one.On the other hand you can always toss a
couple of bricks in to make it balance,they're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
==========
st"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Dave, what size cable do you use on the rear one?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
>
> Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and
> no ugly forward cabane.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Maybe look at it this way...you can drive a car on the stationary road, or leave
the car standing still and move the road below it. You can move individual pieces
below the wing around, ( gear, engine...) or move the wing. As stated, moving
the wing has the same effect as moving everything below it at once.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Dan Yocum wrote:
> From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 4:37 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: Dan Yocum
>
> Gene,
>
> It's vector math! William could have picked the
> location of the right
> aileron horn if he really wanted to do the math in 3
> dimensions (yuck!),
> but since the aircraft CG must be 25-33% of the wing cord
> (someone
> correct me if I'm wrong on that), picking the LE of the
> wing is FAR
> easier to take the rest of the measurements from. Let
> me say that
> again: the distance of the CG from the LE is a
> constant
> value.It is
> absolutely NOT incorrect, nor is it
> irrelevant, to pick that point from which to make all the
> other
> measurements.
>
> Additionally, take N8031 as a case in point against moving
> the engine
> (that's #2 in the list in case anyone was wondering).
> The second owner
> lengthened the motor mount - brace yourselves - 8
> inches. EIGHT INCHES!
> And it still didn't completely fix the W&B
> balance of the plane.
> Supposedly, I only weigh 143 lbs. For the record, I'm
> 171 fully dressed
> and I've flown 'er about 55 hours. The previous owner
> was heavier than
> me by at least 25 lbs and he flew the plane about 180 tach
> hours.
>
> I have to say that sealing the elevator gaps helped the
> overall pitch
> handling A LOT. Now, I'm thinking about rebuilding
> the cabanes and
> shifting the wing back to get everything tuned up, but the
> way the
> center section attach points were created - the bolts are
> parallel to
> the fuselage - 90 degrees off from all other Piet's I've
> seen - it's
> going to take more work than just building new front
> cabanes with welded
> diagonal braces.
>
> But, since the plane flies, and flies pretty well (y'all
> saw that at
> B'head last year), I'm not all rip rarin' to get started on
> that project
> quite yet.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 01/23/2011 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo wrote:
> > OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The
> location of the datum
> > and moving anything in relationship to it is
> irrelevant. It is proper to
> > say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to
> move the wing, but
> > using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the
> big problem I have
> > with the W&B project that was in the last
> newsletter. Rather than
> > putting the datum at a fixed point, such as the
> firewall or propeller
> > flange, the wing leading edge (a movable point) was
> used. Based on a
> > fixed point, the information as to axle location and
> engine mount length
> > would have been much more useful. As it stands, I do
> not see any use for
> > the data as published.
> >
> > Gene Rambo
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables,
> pulleys, wing supports
> > From: rmueller23(at)gmail.com
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >
> > Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article
> bear out, it is more
> > effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues
> (or think of it as
> > moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just
> move the engine
> > forward. If you move the engine forward you are only
> moving the weight
> > of the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand
> if you move the
> > wing aft you are now shifting the weight of the
> engine, the fuselage,
> > the pilot, and potentially a fuselage fuel tank
> forward in relation to
> > the datum. This is going to be a more effective way to
> correct CG
> > problems, and will also avoid the "anteater" look you
> could acquire by
> > having to hang the engine so far out (especially with
> lighter small
> > Continentals). Or, you could split the difference and
> shift the wing
> > some, and move the engine forward some.
> >
> > Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than
> just figuring out
> > engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing,
> weigh your
> > completed fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at
> the proposed
> > location, and then add in the weight of the wing at
> the proposed
> > location. Play with the locations to see how the
> numbers come out....
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave > >
> wrote:
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message
> posted by: "Dangerous Dave"
> > >
> >
> > Michael,The reason most folks
> are putting in the forward braces is
> > because they take out the
> brace wires around the front cockpit and
> > just bracing one side of the
> cockpit is not quite adequate.I will
> > not have forward braces but
> rather cables the the motor mount and
> > cables running from the rear
> cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You
> > need something to keep the
> wing from cantilevering forward in a
> > crash-bad landing.Also if you
> just put your cabanes straight up and
> > down,finish everything but the
> motor mount,do a weight and balance
> > with the plane
> complete,covered etc. and put your motor in where it
> > needs to be you will have
> perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
> > cables,great fit on the
> cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is
> > right or if you'll have to
> make a half dozen motor mounts instead of
> > one.On the other hand you can
> always toss a couple of bricks in to
> > make it balance,they're
> cheap.Dave
> >
> > --------
> > Covering Piet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > ==========
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > ==========
> > le, List Admin.
> > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > ttp://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."
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Thanks to those who submitted some answers and suggestions. I will go with the
CS-to- top engine mount supports.
As for the pulley side load...as I get more built and can start to get a handle
on where the CS needs to be located, I will then attend to the pulley/cable issue...if
there still is one.
Thanks again.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Charles Campbell wrote:
> From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 4:46 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: "Charles Campbell"
>
> Dave, what size cable do you use on the rear one?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing
> supports
>
>
> Dave"
> >
> > Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and
> rearward stability and
> > no ugly forward cabane.Dave
> >
> > --------
> > Covering Piet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ford engine mount |
| From: | "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net> |
Yes, you're reading the plans correctly. I can't recall ever seeing anyone on
this list having any issues with the downthrust of the engine as mounted per the
plans. It's been working fairly well for over 80 years now as it was designed,
I don't see any point in changing it now.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328090#328090
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | questions from a new guy... |
Hi Mike,
Good to have you as a new Pietenpol builder. Welcome to the best group of
people on the internet..This is a bunch that has opinions on every subject -
Pietenpol or otherwise. Some of these opinions are even useful!
As for your questions, I'll give MY opinions, and please remember what they
say about opinions - Opinions are like rectums. Everybody has one and most
of them are full of crap.
1. The only real benefit to building one component before the other is
personal preference. I did wings, then tail, then fuselage. The advantage
to doing it that way is that the wings and tail tend to be relatively flat
pieces that are easy to store. Once you build the fuselage, you are stuck
with it taking up a good deal of floor space. However this is offset by the
fact that you can sit in it and make airplane noises, which can be done with
the wing and tail but they are just not as efficient for that task. Your
building partner is partially correct in saying that you need to build
things to fit the fuselage (the strut fittings, primarily), but the same can
be said for the wing. Build BOTH before making the fittings. And as Mike
Cuy points out in his video (the best $20 you can spend, by the way, apart
from the $80 you need to spend for the four Tony Bingelis books), all of the
fittings for the Pietenpol should be lengthened by at least 1/2" to make it
easier to fit the clevis pins in past the fabric.
2. The one piece wing is definitely lighter. It is also a pain in the rear
to move and store, and even picking it up really needs 3 people so it
doesn't deflect too much in the middle. I'm not sure how much lighter it is
than the 3-piece, but my guess is somewhere around 10 lbs., when you count
the extra wood, the extra fittings and bolts, and the fairings which cover
the gap between the outer panels and the centersection.
3. I think the steel fuselage is probably lighter and stronger, but it also
is a lot of trouble to plan ahead for every little fitting and attachment,
and welding on tabs so you can something. There are a number of steel fuse
Piets flying, including Roman Buckholts (sp? - sorry Roman) and the Big
Piets from Georgia. It basically depends on how comfortable you are with
welding. Many Pietenpol builders are attracted to the design because it
looks simple and they are familiar with woodworking, little realizing just
how much welding is involved with building a wooden airplane.
Build what you want. As long as you don't try to "improve" the design much,
you'll end up with a great airplane
Good luck,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on the
project in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on first). I
have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there and gain
some practical knowledge. At this point I am heavily leaning toward the one
piece wing, the steel tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85 or 0200)
1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing, fuselage,
tail feathers) before another? From a space standpoint I would build the
tail and wing before the fuselage as they take up less room in the shop, but
my building partner says to build the fuselage first so you can build
everything to fit to it.
2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it to be
lighter or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions correct?
3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another medium to
work with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice most of
the sites and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also can't
help but think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would love to
hear opinions from both sides.
Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the build, asking
more questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Ryan, you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is
referring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplanes.
Obviously, what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and
balance) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of
pressure (or center of lift, as it is sometimes called). This is usually
stated as the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord, and
the easiest way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how
much to move the wing, it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe is
used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine, and since that point is
pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it makes sense to use it
if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacturers
typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub,
sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so that all
arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the firewall or
the leading edge, anything forward of that has a negative arm which can lead
to calculation errors if not recognized.
I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that you
intend to possibly move is not the best choice, since all the variable
weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now will have a
different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not
wrong, just more work.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that is
irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engine
farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) fore
or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft you
cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective change.
Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo wrote:
OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum and
moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to say
that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but using
the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have with the
W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting the datum
at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the wing leading
edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the information as
to axle location and engine mount length would have been much more useful.
As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
Gene Rambo
_____
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
From: rmueller23(at)gmail.com
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft
you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and
potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is
going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and then
add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave wrote:
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because
they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one
side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but
rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes
to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor
in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is right
or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
balance,they're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for contributing your thoughts Jack, always valuable. I won't pick
your post apart, but mainly focus on the final statement: "...choosing the
LE is not wrong, just more work". Well, it may be a bit more work than just
moving one item and recalculating your numbers, but as long as you
understand what you have to recalculate when you move the LE....it's not
much more work. Grab a freely available W&B spreadsheet, and understand wha
t
you are doing, and you can calculate the results just fine. I don't believe
it's any more difficult than any of the math or building that you have to d
o
in the build.....so no reason to shy away from it. Thanks,
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jack Phillips wrot
e:
> Ryan, you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is
> referring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplane
s.
> Obviously, what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and
> balance) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of
> pressure (or center of lift, as it is sometimes called). This is usually
> stated as the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord, and
> the easiest way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
>
>
> But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how
> much to move the wing, it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe
is
> used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine, and since that point is
> pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it makes sense to use
it
> if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacturers
> typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub,
> sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so that
all
> arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the firewall
or
> the leading edge, anything forward of that has a negative arm which can l
ead
> to calculation errors if not recognized.
>
>
> I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that yo
u
> intend to possibly move is not the best choice, since all the variable
> weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now will have a
> different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not
> wrong, just more work.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ryan Mueller
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:17 PM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
>
>
> The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
> irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that
is
> irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
> limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
>
>
> If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engi
ne
> farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
> LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) for
e
> or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft yo
u
> cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective chang
e.
> Prove me wrong, please...
>
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo wrote:
>
> OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum a
nd
> moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to say
> that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but usin
g
> the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have with
the
> W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting the dat
um
> at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the wing lead
ing
> edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the information
as
> to axle location and engine mount length would have been much more useful
.
> As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
>
> Gene Rambo
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> From: rmueller23(at)gmail.com
>
>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
> effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
> moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
> forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
> the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing
aft
> you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, a
nd
> potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This i
s
> going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also av
oid
> the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
> out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
> difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
>
>
> Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
> engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
> fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and t
hen
> add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
> locations to see how the numbers come out....
>
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave wrote:
>
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is becaus
e
> they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing o
ne
> side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces
but
> rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabane
s
> to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
> cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
> cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
> weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your moto
r
> in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbi
ng
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is righ
t
> or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
> other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *ttp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
So you replace two "ugly" forward cabanes with four cables, two fore and
aft?
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Dangerous Dave wrote:
>
> Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and
> no ugly forward cabane.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com> |
Ryan,If a steerable tailwheel,brakes landing gear in the proper position,pulleys
with bearings,4130 steel,synthetic fabric,a real motor,required instuments,seatbelts,nose
fuel and elt aren't updates then I guess the plans are perfect and
you should strictly adhere to them,Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328104#328104
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com> |
The drag coefficient of 4 3/32" cables is 1/8 that of 2- 7/8 x 2 1/2 struts-math
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328105#328105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Who would make the diagonals out of 7/8" x 2-1/2" tubing? Mine are 1/2" x
1-3/8". And yes, they have a lower drag coefficient than 4 3/32" cables
(a round shape is one of the worst shapes you can try to push through the
air - out of all proportion to its actual frontal area)
Check out this video, which demonstrates pretty graphically the drag of a
round object.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftq8jTQ8ANE
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dangerous
Dave
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The drag coefficient of 4 3/32" cables is 1/8 that of 2- 7/8 x 2 1/2
struts-math
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328105#328105
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor(at)aol.com> |
Apparently physics and aeronautical engineering don't apply to Piets guess I should
have built unicycle
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328116#328116
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net> |
Dave,
For whatever it might be worth, Dan Helsper and numerous other builders here have
adhered extremely closely to the plans, and their airplanes are perfectly flyable
just the way they are. Some people just like to try to re-invent the
wheel, while others are quite happy with the wheel as it is. As the Piet is designed,
the wheel seems perfectly round to me.
Ford Model A engines (and Corvairs too) really are real engines, they certainly
aren't just figments of the imagination bolted to the firewalls. Lycomings
and Continentals are NOT immune to failure either... ANY mechanical device is
subject to fail without notice, there is no special dispensation from the FAA
stating that Ly-Cons are not subject to the laws of nature or physics.
The landing gear as it is drawn in the plans is in the correct position if you
are not using brakes. Not everyone puts brakes on their Piet, not everyone needs
them depending on where they choose to fly from.
And when is the last time you or anyone else you know actually used 80lb Irish
linen and nitrocellulose dope to cover an airplane? Some changes are made due
to availability of materials, cost considerations, common sense (casein glue,
anybody?), and some just to meet FAA requirements. This doesn't mean the plane
needs to be "updated" (redesigned). If you feel the need to deviate from the
plans or change something on your plane, feel free to do so, it is YOUR plane.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328127#328127
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
| From: | "dwilson" <marwilson(at)charter.net> |
I've posted this before, here is my homemade brake. Cost about 20 bucks to build.
Great Radius bends, will bend everything you need for most homebuilt fittings.
I've bent a piece of .250 - 6 inches wide at 90 degrees. It does take
a little muscle. The lighter stuff .10 and thinner is pretty easy.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328130#328130
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn4555_797.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
| From: | "PShipman" <perrytshipman(at)gmail.com> |
Losts of good thoughts here ... appreciate all the support and ideas!
As to a bush version ... nah ... that is behind me, though that R2800 sure would
be fun out front!
I think at this point I want to keep Dave's wife happy with slow and "stick around
home" type of power ... though the Lion Speed Head on the Ford might make
it a little more fun.
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328133#328133
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Groah <dskogrover(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
Gary!!! It's looking great! I'm glad to see you're working on that thing.
I've been slowed down a little this past week because of a daughter with a
respiratory virus. But I'll be back at it soon. I can't let you get ahead o
f me.
Mike Groah
On Jan 23, 2011, at 12:48 PM, "Gary Boothe" wrote:
> Good thought, Mike! Just finished Rib #24, and running the primer line
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down)
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-li
st-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Groah
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:34 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
>
> Gary...
>
> I think Perry should attend the West Coast Pietenpol Gathering June 4th a
t Frazier Lake .
>
>
> Mike Groah
> Tulare CA
>
> From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 9:02:38 AM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
>
>
> Perry (not Dave),
>
> I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
> about? BTW...Aren't you jealous of all those mid-west guys and their grass
y
> strips? Then, again, you have the perfect weather where you are.
>
> Gary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:52 AM
> To:
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar> |
| Subject: | ford engine mount |
Jeff,-that's an error in the-F&GM,-should be 2 1/2 degrees, not inche
s. The "new" improved plans says 1" drop. Also, the bolts and tubes are of
different sizes.
Saludos
-
Santiago=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Michael;
This has probably already been answered, but the reason most folks
go with cabane braces forward to the firewall instead of the X-brace
cables between the cabanes is that it makes it easier for passengers
to get in and out of the front cockpit if those X-brace cables are
not there. Either method is fine structurally.
I have seen more than one Air Camper with the X-brace cables only on
one side of the cockpit (the starboard side, or 'far side' if you're
trying to climb into the front cockpit) though.
If you do go with cabane brace tubes, you would do well to read and
heed what William Wynne opined on the subject recently, on his website
here: http://www.flycorvair.com/osh2010.html , photos 4 and 5 from the
top.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
San Antonio, TX
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
So far I've heard comments ranging from, "That's an absolutely beautiful airplane"
to "That prop looks like crap!" Fortunately, most comments have been complimentary.
I recently read that chrome spoked wheels on a 1920s airplane make
her look like a "tart." That one made me smile. Fat-Bottomed-Girl is a tart!
That's wonderful. That's what I want her to be.
I've also been told that I'm remiss for allowing the case nuts to rust on the dreaded
crank-snappin'-valve-eatin'-corvair. I've been called a liar for claiming
an initial rate of climb of 700 fpm on a cool morning at sea level with the
ugly prop. I didn't hit that guy. The guy who commented on some metal work
that was in process, "Not much of a metal worker, are you?" came REAL close to
getting smacked. Those of you who know me well know that I'm willing and able,
though not likely, to do that:).
I've been told that my welds look "cold." There's certainly some precedent to
question my welding, but that specifically was not the issue.
My point? Be careful who you listen to. The guys who have built their planes
and have flown them a bunch are probably reliable sources of information.
Like Jack said, there are a lot of opinions out there. In the Pietenpol world,
I personally seek the advice of people like Jack Phillips (engineer & builder),
Hans van der Voort (engineer & builder), Mike Cuy (builder & teacher), Don
Emch (builder) and Dan Helsper (builder). There are several others, but those
guys are a good start. I also listen closely to guys like Gary Boothe and Rick
Holland. Their work speaks for itself.
For what it's worth.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328154#328154
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: First Question |
Is there not reference somewhere to BHP himself having
to land in a plowed field, ACROSS the rows and then
taking off again later. All with no damage to the wood gear?
Clif
Wood - The original composite. That doesn't weaken in
summer heat.
>
> Perry (not Dave),
>
> I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
> Gary
>
> Gary,
>
> ! The only folks worth knowing have strong opinions, IMO! :D
>
> I was wondering, though, if the split gear might be better on
> rough/unimproved strips???
> Perry Shipman
> Lakeside, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
Here is a photo of the bender my father built several years ago. He made th
ree of these and they work perfect. I also have an angle bender which slide
s over the top of the center bending iron.
If anyone is interested, I have a bench mount one very similar to this one
I can take pictures of... surely we can negotiate a price.
-
Ken H
Fargo, ND
-
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
Members:
-
Here is a couple photos of my trim assemble for the stick pressure. I have
not completed the rest of the set-up for the springs ect.. but seeking info
rmation as to how much travel should be allowed for. Jack, Mike, any ideas?
-I am fabricating-and attaching the spring to my bell crank.
-
Ken H.
Fargo, ND-
-
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
Of no comparison to the fine brake that Dan is illustrating, but functional
for an 8' bend, is this brake I built out of angle iron and a piano hinge
(for a previous project). I have since cut it down to 5', which is still
longer than I need for the Piet cowling.
Fortunately, I have returned from the Dark Side, and am at home with wood
and fabric...
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(24 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dwilson
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks
I've posted this before, here is my homemade brake. Cost about 20 bucks to
build. Great Radius bends, will bend everything you need for most homebuilt
fittings. I've bent a piece of .250 - 6 inches wide at 90 degrees. It does
take a little muscle. The lighter stuff .10 and thinner is pretty easy.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328130#328130
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn4555_797.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lively Forum Today! |
| From: | "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net> |
Yep, lively indeed. I'm getting my mind geared up to get going again too... cold
or not, cabin fever is setting in. Helps that we had EAA pancakes this weekend...
now we are talking Brodhead and Oshkosh plans.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328168#328168
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: ford engine mount |
Don't forget why it was done in the first place. The Ford
has quite low HP and in takeoff the plane ( well, all AC ),
mush through the air. Having the engine point downwards
compensates for this somewhat by aligning the axis of
the prop closer to the line of flight.
Clif
>
> Yes, you're reading the plans correctly. I can't recall ever seeing
> anyone on this list having any issues with the downthrust of the engine as
> mounted per the plans. It's been working fairly well for over 80 years
> now as it was designed, I don't see any point in changing it now.
>
> --------
> Billy McCaskill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
| From: | "MPB" <mike(at)seatec.us> |
thanks all for the feedback!
It did bring up a couple questions. Why a "mock" fuselage? space? layout?
I have also seen a little going around about different airfoils and it was brought
up by Dave here. I have to admit that the one on the plan looks a little
primitive. I downloaded a pdf of the "ribblet 612" airfoil. do you know if this
is the same one you recommended? Is there a lot of discussion on which airfoil
to use?
Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328176#328176
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lively Forum Today! |
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
Mark,
Cold? I'd bet Oklahoma cold ain't all too bad--it's been downright awful up in
Minnesota; -22 F last night. You don't know of any good property down there,
do you?
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328177#328177
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gary Boothe's Ribs |
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
Really! After the pictures you posted of your fantastic craftsmanship, you need
to finish those last few ribs (and the wall-hanging one). If you'd like, I'm
sure you could find 7 or 8 of us to help!
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328178#328178
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
The primary reason for a mock fuselage is to see if you can comfortably fit
in a Pietenpol. Pietenpol builders are larger now than they were back in
the day of Bernard and Don Finke (and they seem to be getting larger all the
time). If you fly a Pietenpol any distance, you will be sitting in it for a
long time. When I fly mine from North Carolina to Brodhead, it is about 13
hours of flying, and I have done that in one day (once). That's a long time
to sit in first class, much less in a cramped cockpit where there is exactly
ONE position you can sit. So many people build a "mockpit". I think a
better alternative is to go to Brodhead before you start building and sit in
as many different Piets as the owners will allow and make your decision from
that.
As for the airfoil, a Pietenpol is a 1929 airplane. If that is what you
want, build it to the plans. If you want something more modern, build a
Sonex. Seriously, there are some under construction with the Riblett
airfoil. To my eye, they don't look like Pietenpols (the leading edge
doesn't look right - too fat). There is a lot of discussion about airfoils
but not enough Ribletts are flying to give good data.
Build a Pietenpol to the plans, and build it light and it will fly well.
Modify the design, make it heavy, it may or may not (probably won't). There
have been a huge number of Pietenpols built, with a lot of variations from
the plans. I don't know of any of them that fly any better than a strictly
plans built airplane.
Just my opinions. Take them with a grain of salt.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet" (A Pietenpol built pretty close to the plans. I
wish I'd built it closer to the plans. It would fly better)
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:46 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: questions from a new guy...
thanks all for the feedback!
It did bring up a couple questions. Why a "mock" fuselage? space? layout?
I have also seen a little going around about different airfoils and it was
brought up by Dave here. I have to admit that the one on the plan looks a
little primitive. I downloaded a pdf of the "ribblet 612" airfoil. do you
know if this is the same one you recommended? Is there a lot of discussion
on which airfoil to use?
Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328176#328176
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Ken, I think mine gives a travel at the bellcrank that the springs attach to
of about 6" total. Of course the travel required is entirely dependent on
the strength of the spring used.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of KM Heide
CPO/FAAOP
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Trim set-up
Members:
Here is a couple photos of my trim assemble for the stick pressure. I have
not completed the rest of the set-up for the springs ect.. but seeking
information as to how much travel should be allowed for. Jack, Mike, any
ideas? I am fabricating and attaching the spring to my bell crank.
Ken H.
Fargo, ND
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ford engine mount |
| From: | "bender" <jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com> |
i sure thought 2 1/2 inches was too much.... 2 1/2 degrees sounds better.. thanks
for the replies
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328190#328190
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
| From: | "MPB" <mike(at)seatec.us> |
Its funny. You always hear that advise from experienced builders "stick to the
plans". The RV crowd says it, boats designs, etc. Yet we can never seem to
avoid "tinkering" with the design (I'll refrain from saying "improving"). I guess
its part of what draws someone to building, but I appreciate the advise.
Like so many discussions the airfoil one seems to have strong opinions on both
sides that will warant some more research.
Thanks again,
Mike
BTW- Gary asked where I am located and I noticed he is from Cool, CA. I live in
Prunedale near Monterey Bay. I have family in Placerville. Small world...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328192#328192
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Thanks Oscar. My cabane attach fittings at the center section were made with extra
bolt holes to attach the supports from the center section to the top engine
mount. My plan is to weld metal brackets to the support struts then bolt those
to the center section fittings at the cabane attach fitting.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | "Luke W." <luke.wuest(at)centurytel.net> |
Hi Guys,
Long time Lurker (spelling), love the info flowing on this forum, by far the best
on the net.
I have had the Ray Allen system in my Hatz for the last ten years and it has been
flawless. It is setup just like the piet pictures above and I cannot imagine
a trim system that could weigh less if you all ready have an electrical system.
Luke
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328199#328199
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
I think "plans builders" are born with the "tinkerers gene". We can't help
ourselves. Otherwise we would just have purchased a quick build kit.
Now please excuse me, I just thought of a "better" way to attach my cabane
brace tubes.
rick
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:27 AM, MPB wrote:
>
> Its funny. You always hear that advise from experienced builders "stick to
> the plans". The RV crowd says it, boats designs, etc. Yet we can never
> seem to avoid "tinkering" with the design (I'll refrain from saying
> "improving"). I guess its part of what draws someone to building, but I
> appreciate the advise. Like so many discussions the airfoil one seems to
> have strong opinions on both sides that will warant some more research.
> Thanks again,
> Mike
>
> BTW- Gary asked where I am located and I noticed he is from Cool, CA. I
> live in Prunedale near Monterey Bay. I have family in Placerville. Small
> world...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328192#328192
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Three other benefits of the mock cockpit:
- figuring out how things go together before cutting up your expensive wood
- turned upside down makes a great welding jig for the landing gear, and if
some wood starts smoking while tack welding some brackets, who cares?
- great conversation piece and amusement for the kids in the back yard
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> The primary reason for a mock fuselage is to see if you can comfortably fit
> in a Pietenpol. Pietenpol builders are larger now than they were back in
> the day of Bernard and Don Finke (and they seem to be getting larger all
> the
> time). If you fly a Pietenpol any distance, you will be sitting in it for
> a
> long time. When I fly mine from North Carolina to Brodhead, it is about 13
> hours of flying, and I have done that in one day (once). That's a long
> time
> to sit in first class, much less in a cramped cockpit where there is
> exactly
> ONE position you can sit. So many people build a "mockpit". I think a
> better alternative is to go to Brodhead before you start building and sit
> in
> as many different Piets as the owners will allow and make your decision
> from
> that.
>
> As for the airfoil, a Pietenpol is a 1929 airplane. If that is what you
> want, build it to the plans. If you want something more modern, build a
> Sonex. Seriously, there are some under construction with the Riblett
> airfoil. To my eye, they don't look like Pietenpols (the leading edge
> doesn't look right - too fat). There is a lot of discussion about airfoils
> but not enough Ribletts are flying to give good data.
>
> Build a Pietenpol to the plans, and build it light and it will fly well.
> Modify the design, make it heavy, it may or may not (probably won't).
> There
> have been a huge number of Pietenpols built, with a lot of variations from
> the plans. I don't know of any of them that fly any better than a strictly
> plans built airplane.
>
> Just my opinions. Take them with a grain of salt.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP "Icarus Plummet" (A Pietenpol built pretty close to the plans. I
> wish I'd built it closer to the plans. It would fly better)
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:46 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: questions from a new guy...
>
>
> thanks all for the feedback!
> It did bring up a couple questions. Why a "mock" fuselage? space? layout?
> I have also seen a little going around about different airfoils and it was
> brought up by Dave here. I have to admit that the one on the plan looks a
> little primitive. I downloaded a pdf of the "ribblet 612" airfoil. do you
> know if this is the same one you recommended? Is there a lot of discussion
> on which airfoil to use?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328176#328176
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Gene wrote:
>it is important to move weight in relation to the ham sandwich
>in my back pocket (when seated in the aircraft
Say, Gene... are you gonna eat that sandwich or is it extra?
--------
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
Air Camper NX41CC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328214#328214
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Gene Rambo's on that named list, too. When he told me that he'd looked over the
airplane last year after the crash I knew we were in good shape.
Sorry Gene!
Kevin
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328218#328218
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gboothe5(at)comcast.net |
Rick,
A few days ago you posted some pics of your electric trim. I have that exact actuator
from my abandoned 601HDS project. I have been fighting such luxuries (along
with the 5th bearing), but I am now resigned to the fact that I am building
a "tinkered with" Piet. Hope Mr. Pietenpol is smiling upon me. Furthermore,
I already have a full blown electric system, complete with switches, knobs and
fuses.
Regrettably, I deleted your pics. Would you mind re-posting?
Gary
Sent on the Sprint Now Network from my BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | "Ozarkflyer" <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
Check over on the KR forum. There have been several trim systems made with a salvaged
automobile electric mirror motor. Required installing in the elevator
like the pictures show, but the users are happy with their performance.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328224#328224
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
| From: | "Ozarkflyer" <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
Did you forget the "fisherman"?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328225#328225
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lively Forum Today! |
| From: | "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net> |
You are right Tom... cold is a relative term. Cold to us is teens and 20s overnight
with the occasional single digits, but it makes me want to stay away from
my non insulated hangar. About this time of year I just can't stand it anymore,
so I'll add a few layers and find a way to get something done.
Property? Sure, lots of it around here. The future job market isn't looking too
bad for us either... come on down!
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328227#328227
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
| From: | "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net> |
+1 on Kevin's comments. I'm trying my best to keep to myself and build to the
plans, but occasionally I am unable to find the answers I need so I ask here.
All in all there are good folks here and you'll find out who knows what they
are talking about pretty quick.
Kevin... "Liar" and "Not much of a metal worker"? Hmm, I might not make a fist
either, but I would verbally embarrass someone for being so rude. I know, some
would say that I am a hot head, or that I have poor communication skills for
doing such a thing... oh well.
For what it's worth, I really dig your airplane. I hope for mine to be very similar.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328235#328235
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
I still consider myself a newbie here but have learned to respect the opinions
of the same people you have listed. Two of those individuals share private emails
with me and answer the questions I have but don't want to post on the list.
Jack Phillips would be another one I would put my trust in but he hates corvair
engines.
This weekend a friend of mine told me to avoid using T-88 epoxy as it will break
down at 110 degrees F. So on the tarmac at Phoenix in the summer your plane
could fall apart. I emailed threesystems about heat limits of T-88 and this
is their reply.
An upper limit would be around 160-180F. The T-88 itself will not fail.
Failure comes from a combination of stresses from the wood shrinking
combined with the fact that the Glass Transition Temperature for T-88 is
around 150F.
System Three Resins, Inc.
Technical Support
253-333-8118
www.systemthree.com
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328237#328237
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
No problemo Gary, I am also trying to resist spending the extra $1100 for a
Weseman 5th bearing also.
rick
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:15 AM, wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> A few days ago you posted some pics of your electric trim. I have that
> exact actuator from my abandoned 601HDS project. I have been fighting suc
h
> luxuries (along with the 5th bearing), but I am now resigned to the fact
> that I am building a "tinkered with" Piet. Hope Mr. Pietenpol is smiling
> upon me. Furthermore, I already have a full blown electric system, comple
te
> with switches, knobs and fuses.
>
> Regrettably, I deleted your pics. Would you mind re-posting?
>
> Gary
> Sent on the Sprint=AE Now Network from my BlackBerry=AE
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
Empirical evidence and a boatload of hours accumulated have shown that a
Piet built with T-88 is not going to fall apart when it gets hot outside....
Ryan
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Kringle wrote:
>
> I still consider myself a newbie here but have learned to respect the
> opinions of the same people you have listed. Two of those individuals share
> private emails with me and answer the questions I have but don't want to
> post on the list. Jack Phillips would be another one I would put my trust
> in but he hates corvair engines.
>
> This weekend a friend of mine told me to avoid using T-88 epoxy as it will
> break down at 110 degrees F. So on the tarmac at Phoenix in the summer your
> plane could fall apart. I emailed threesystems about heat limits of T-88
> and this is their reply.
>
> An upper limit would be around 160-180F. The T-88 itself will not fail.
> Failure comes from a combination of stresses from the wood shrinking
> combined with the fact that the Glass Transition Temperature for T-88 is
> around 150F.
>
> System Three Resins, Inc.
> Technical Support
> 253-333-8118
> www.systemthree.com
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328237#328237
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike Hardaway <bkemike(at)gmail.com> |
You shouldn't worry, Gary. Mr. Pietenpol was the supreme tinkerer; from
what I understand, no two of his airplanes were ever exactly alike.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:15 AM, wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> A few days ago you posted some pics of your electric trim. I have that
> exact actuator from my abandoned 601HDS project. I have been fighting suc
h
> luxuries (along with the 5th bearing), but I am now resigned to the fact
> that I am building a "tinkered with" Piet. Hope Mr. Pietenpol is smiling
> upon me. Furthermore, I already have a full blown electric system, comple
te
> with switches, knobs and fuses.
>
> Regrettably, I deleted your pics. Would you mind re-posting?
>
> Gary
> Sent on the Sprint=AE Now Network from my BlackBerry=AE
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gboothe5(at)comcast.net |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gboothe5" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks, Rick! To heck with it.I'm going full IFR, while I'm at it..
Gary
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Trim
No problemo Gary, I am also trying to resist spending the extra $1100 for a
Weseman 5th bearing also.
rick
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:15 AM, wrote:
Rick,
A few days ago you posted some pics of your electric trim. I have that exact
actuator from my abandoned 601HDS project. I have been fighting such
luxuries (along with the 5th bearing), but I am now resigned to the fact
that I am building a "tinkered with" Piet. Hope Mr. Pietenpol is smiling
upon me. Furthermore, I already have a full blown electric system, complete
with switches, knobs and fuses.
Regrettably, I deleted your pics. Would you mind re-posting?
Gary
Sent on the SprintR Now Network from my BlackBerryR
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
I don't hate Corvair engines. They have their place in aviation.
You see, amphibs and floatplanes occasionally need to be secured off shore
and the best way to do that is to sink a heavy and useless object with a
rope tied to it, that can then be used to secure the airplane. Corvair
engines are perfect for this task!
Just kidding, of course.
Now about this "friend" who told you that T-88 will break down at 110
degrees, BE WARY. Every airport has at least one "expert" who has never
built an airplane but knows everything about building one, and is sure to
point out that what you are doing is wrong. The best way to handle them is
to keep your head down and keep working, and if they persist, you can say
either "that turns out not to be the case" or "Bullsh*t", depending on a
number of factors:
a) Your mood at the time
b) Whether you care to maintain this idiot as a friend
c) Young ladies or children are present
Wait till you start covering it with fabric. The smell of dope or PolyBrush
seems to draw these folks like a pig pickin' draws flies. And they're all
Experts, although they have never covered an airplane. Their "...uncle
covered one with Irish Linen, back in '48, and he said you had to...".
Don't listen to them. Don't pay attention to half of what you read on this
forum. Read Tony Bingelis, and CAM18 (AC 43.13) and the manufacturer's info
and directions, and make up your own mind. Talk to your local EAA Technical
Counselor, but vette him first to make sure he actually knows something
about wood and fabric airplanes. The EAA is not too particular about the
experience required to become a TC, although they DO require that you must
have built at least one airplane. A good TC will disqualify himself from
questions where he knows nothing. For example, I'm the TC for our local EAA
Chapter, and I was recently asked a question regarding carbon fiber layups
on a Lancair. I disqualified myself because I simply have no experience or
knowledge about composite materials and work. I will be gaining some of
that when I get to the cabin top and doors on the RV-10 I'm building, but
until I have worked with it myself, I won't offer an opinion.
And before you ask, yes, I have had a Corvair. A 1966 model, with a 110 hp
engine and a 4 on the floor. First car I ever wrecked. My Machine Design
class in college used the Corvair as the example of how NOT to design a belt
drive system. The design of that system was consistent with the design of
the rest of the car. Remember, this car was designed to be Cheap. It was
targeted squarely at the first real threat Detroit felt from foreign cars -
a car that also had an air cooled engine mounted in the rear of the car, and
sold for a very low price.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ah, opinions...
I still consider myself a newbie here but have learned to respect the
opinions of the same people you have listed. Two of those individuals share
private emails with me and answer the questions I have but don't want to
post on the list. Jack Phillips would be another one I would put my trust
in but he hates corvair engines.
This weekend a friend of mine told me to avoid using T-88 epoxy as it will
break down at 110 degrees F. So on the tarmac at Phoenix in the summer your
plane could fall apart. I emailed threesystems about heat limits of T-88
and this is their reply.
An upper limit would be around 160-180F. The T-88 itself will not fail.
Failure comes from a combination of stresses from the wood shrinking
combined with the fact that the Glass Transition Temperature for T-88 is
around 150F.
System Three Resins, Inc.
Technical Support
253-333-8118
www.systemthree.com
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328237#328237
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
| From: | "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net> |
A 1966 with a 110 motor eh? That may very well be, but did you have an RH case?
[Laughing]
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328289#328289
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
I didn't think about that, that's another $50,000 for a Garmin G1000 with
the "highway in the sky" in case you accidently fly into a cloud and can't
tell which way is up (or down). I'll just strap the 2 screens on my left an
d
right rear cabanes.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Gboothe5 wrote:
> Thanks, Rick! To heck with it=85I=92m going full IFR, while I=92m at it
=85.
>
>
> Gary
>
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland
> *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2011 10:15 AM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Trim
>
>
> No problemo Gary, I am also trying to resist spending the extra $1100 for
a
> Weseman 5th bearing also.
>
> rick
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:15 AM, wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> A few days ago you posted some pics of your electric trim. I have that
> exact actuator from my abandoned 601HDS project. I have been fighting suc
h
> luxuries (along with the 5th bearing), but I am now resigned to the fact
> that I am building a "tinkered with" Piet. Hope Mr. Pietenpol is smiling
> upon me. Furthermore, I already have a full blown electric system, comple
te
> with switches, knobs and fuses.
>
>
> Regrettably, I deleted your pics. Would you mind re-posting?
>
> Gary
> Sent on the Sprint=AE Now Network from my BlackBerry=AE
>
>
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
> *
>
===========
>
===========
=========
> =
===========
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
That reminds me, I still need to order my "Unsafe At Any Speed" labels for
the sides of my fuselage.
rick
> I don't hate Corvair engines. They have their place in aviation.
>
> You see, amphibs and floatplanes occasionally need to be secured off shore
> and the best way to do that is to sink a heavy and useless object with a
> rope tied to it, that can then be used to secure the airplane. Corvair
> engines are perfect for this task!
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ah, opinions... |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
Jack,
Good advice as usual. I'll be visiting your beautiful state for a few days at
January 16, 2011 - January 24, 2011
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ka