Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-lw
January 17, 2013 - Present
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392523#392523
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Ordering strip steel in 4130 is the easiest way to make most of the fittings and
I believe ACS sells
the various widths needed so you don't have to buy the sheets and have them sheared.
It is a little
more expensive that way but makes part making pretty easy. I wouldn't rely on
anything ACS says
is a 'kit' for anything but just go thru your plans carefully one night and note
down in a few columns
how many feet of the various widths and thicknesses you'll need and you'll come
up with a more accurate
accounting I believe of the metal needed to fabricate most of the Pietenpol fittings.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | George Abernathy <avionixoz(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Electrical Layout |
Hi Jack,=0A=0AThis morning I realized that I didn't answer your question ab
out the volt meter. =0A=0A=0AIt should have a fuse or circuit breaker. The
buss bar and battery can supply more current than the voltmeter wires can t
ake. This applies to all electrical things. If big wires connect to small
=C2- wires, protect the small wires. =0A=0A=0AGeorge=0A=0A=0A=0A_________
_______________________=0A From: George Abernathy <avionixoz(at)yahoo.com>=0AT
o: "pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com" =0ASent: T
hursday, January 17, 2013 9:50 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Electrical
Layout=0A =0A=0AHi Jack,=0A=0AA quick look at an old Cessna 150 manual mig
ht be in order here. It probably has a similar generator setup.=0A=0AI bing
ed and found this link =0A=0Awww.verticalpower.com/docs/Top_10_Wiring_Mista
kes.pdf=0A=0A=0AI=0A drew up a schematic for the generator circuit showing
the location of =0Athe charge discharge amp meter. Generators tend to be a
little noisy and=0A shielded wire is the best thing to shut it up. An easy
place to ground =0Athe shield is at the generator. Putting some "radio nois
e" caps on the =0Agenerator output terminal=C2- and the field terminal of
the regulator may =C2-=0A help. =0A=0AI just noticed that I forgot the s
tarter switch on my diagram. No time to redraw it tonight. Sorry=0A=0AIf=0A
you are using a firewall grounding point is important not to forget the=0A
ground Strap to the engine. Alternators and=0A generators don't charge wit
hout it. But the engine will start! The =0Acontrol cables metal primer and
fuel lines will conduct enough current =0Ato start the engine. =0A=0AMake s
ure that you use a continuous duty =0Abattery contactor. It should be hefty
enough to conduct and interrupt =0Athe current from the starter contactor.
=0A=0AWarning story time:=0A=0AWhen=0A I was a line vermin in the worlds s
econd largest nuclear navy one of my=0A jobs was to observe while the 4360
engines were started. One hot day =0Awe=0A started the right engine as norm
al and ran it for its every four day =0Aallotted time. We shut it down afte
r starting the left engine up. The =0Amechanic "Budzo" was looking at the l
eft engine. I heard a faint yell =0Afollowed by bodily harm threats from ou
r squadron boxer. While putting =0Athe plugs in the Power recovery turbines
the prop started to turn. Only =0Ahis reflexes prevented a TKO. =0A=0ATurn
ed out that the starter contactor had engaged by itself! We moved=0A no swi
tches. Turning off the battery=C2- master switch stopped the prop. =0A=0A
We=0A put a sign on the aircraft doors and went to maintenance control to
=0Araise a work order. The avionics guys showed up to work on something and
=0A plugged our beat up old NC-5 power cart in. The prop spun. They arrived
=0A =C2- before we could finish the paper work. =0A=0ALuckily the prop on
ce again missed the cart cables and people. =0A=0AThe moral :=0A=0AProps=0A
are dangerous and even if the engine doesn't start a spinning prop is =0Ar
eally upsetting. Thinking about what could go wrong is not a bad idea. =0A
=0ABut wait there's more it slices and dices. =0A=0AGenerators=0A depend on
the voltage regulator to disconnect them from the battery. If=0A the isola
tor contact in the regulator sticks it will become a motor. =0AUnlike alter
nators they do not have diodes. =0A=0AThe procedure on =0Amost aircraft ( w
arning this is very old memory sludge) is to start the =0Aengines and then
turn on=0A the generators. Observing the charge discharge amp meter to make
sure =0Athings are good. The regulator grounds the field. If it is not gro
unded =0Athings don't work right. =0A=0AGeorge=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________
________________________=0A From: Jack <jack(at)textors.com>=0ATo: "pietenpol-
list(at)matronics.com" =0ASent: Thursday, Janua
ry 17, 2013 12:25 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Electrical Layout=0A
=0A=0AGood ideas George, thanks. My T&B says 13.75v and .8 A. Also for the
voltmeter does it connect between ground and bus bar with no fuse?=0AThanks
for all the help!=0A=0ASent from my iPad=0AJack Textor=0A=0AOn Jan 16, 201
3, at 2:54 PM, George Abernathy wrote:=0A=0A=0AHello
Jack,=0A>=0A>The wire sizes are ok. Larger is=C2- better for voltage drop
. The main purpose of circuit breakers seems to be protecting the wire. Mos
t aircraft radios and instruments die pretty quietly. =0A>=0A>The wire for
the trim could be larger for ruggedness and=C2- for voltage drop. =0A>Mot
ors pull a lot of current on when they start. Usually about 6 times the run
ning current. That does not mean the circuit breaker or fuse needs to be 6
times the running current. Circuit breakers and fuses are made to support t
he higher current=0A during motor start.=C2-=C2- =0A>=0A>Wire tends to
be sized to fit the connectors on the various things. For instance the enco
der will most likely have a sub =0A>D connector.=C2- 22 and 24 gauge=C2
- fit nicely in the solder cups or crimp pins. The newer radios have high
density sub D=0A connectors and a 22 gauge is going to be difficult to fit
. For power they sometimes supply a special pin that will accept a larger w
ire. =0A>=0A>Power and ground wires need to be big enough for voltage drop
=C2- and still fit in the connectors. The manufacturers of most aircraft
stuff are pretty good at recommending the minimum wire sizes and circuit br
eaker requirements. One place that can be problems is encoder power. The po
wer switches in the older transponders weren't strong enough for the solid
state encoders. They had or may still have a heater in them to stabilize th
e altitude sensors. =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>___________________________
_____=0A> From: Jack <jack(at)textors.com>=0A>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
=0A>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:39 PM=0A>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-L
ist: Electrical Layout=0A> =0A>=0A>Electrical Layout =0A>George thanks for
the info! I googled=0Aflashing the field and may leave that to someone tha
t knows more about itAlso=0Awhen you mention smaller breakers, sho
uld the wire size be reduced, I think=0ABengalis stated that relationship?
=0A>=C2-=0A>Jack Textor=0A>Des Moines, IA=0A>=C2-=0A>=0A>______________
__________________=0A> =0A>From:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [
mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George Abern
athy=0A>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013=0A9:29 PM=0A>To: pietenpol-list@mat
ronics.com=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:=0AElectrical Layout=0A>=C2-=0A
>Hi there=0AJack,=0A>=0A>The transponder and encoder can run off the same b
reaker max 5 amps. The turn=0Aand bank plus gauges could be a 5 amp breaker
. Check your turn and bank and I=0Aexpect that it runs on about two amps.
=0A>=0A>Ah a generator. Looks like it is wired correctly. A shield over its
output lead=0Awould be good also. =0A>=0A>Shields are a thing known as a "
faraday" shield. They usually work=0Abest grounded in only one place. The e
ngine block is probably best. If current=0Aflows through them they tend to
become ground loops. =0A>=0A>Don't forget to flash your field=0A>=0A>George
=0A>=C2-=0A>=C2-=0A>=0A>________________________________=0A> =0A>From:J
ack=0A=0A>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com =0A>Sent: Wedn
esday, January 16, 2013=0A11:56 AM=0A>Subject: Pietenpol-List:=0AElectrical
Layout=0A>=C2-=0A>For=0Athosethatunderstandelectricalstuff please take a
look=0Aat the attached sketch of my planned electrical system. I have not
included the=0Amags.Please share any flaws or concernsbecause this is an ar
ea=0AI know very little about. Years ago Iinstalledacigarette=0Alighter in
my boat, it only worked when the spot light was on and I burned my=0Anose t
esting it!=C2- Not sure on theammeter hookup. Also=0Awould appreciate inp
ut for installing a voltmeter instead of the amp gauge.=0A>Thanks!=0A>Jack
=0A><<...>> =0A>Jack Textor=0A>Des Moines, IA=0A>=C2-=0A>=C2-=0A>=C2-
=0A>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>http://forums.matr
onics.com=0A>http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>=C2-=0A>http://www.
matro==================== =0A>=0A>
=0A>=======================
=============0A>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?
Pietenpol-List=0A===================
=================0Acs.com=0A=====
======0Amatronics.com/contribution=0A=========
= =0A<="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronicsfollow" target="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com/">htt
p://foru==========
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Model A with carb heat box |
From: | "BYD" <billsayre(at)ymail.com> |
Although I fabricated a carb-heat system for my Model-A engine, I have not operated
it at high RPM enough to answer your question. What I have experienced at
low to mid-range RPMs was slight to no RPM change. Ive been planning on using
a remote laser-thermometer to check temps at the muff, air duct and carburetor
throat to see what the temperature changes might be.
Gene I hadnt heard about the air filter restriction before and will have to play
with that also when I get back to the project. Thanks!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392532#392532
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p6080010_180.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, the famous Pietenpol kit arrives as a big crate in your driveway..... The
crate is EMPTY so you make the airplane out of the crate itself....(ha!)
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392533#392533
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
I believe ACS has a disclaimer at the bottom of their pages warning that the "kits"
are based on lists provided to them by others. Because the "kit" lists different
thicknesses than are found on the Pietenpol plans, I wonder if the list
might actually be based on the Grega GN-1 plans, which has different metalwork
than the Air Camper. I would recommend that you spend some time going through
your plans and do your own calculations of what you will need. And, as Mike
suggested, consider buying pre-sheared strips, unless you have access to a
metal shear.
In fact, I would recommend that you calculate your own list of materials for the
wood as well. For instance, the plywood kit lists more than 7 full sheets of
plywood; there simply isn't that much plywood in a Piet.
Finally, you may want to hold off on making all of the metal fittings ahead of
time. Some fittings will need to be made to suit the woodwork that you build.
Because these are plans-built wooden aircraft, no two will be exactly the same.
And slight differences in woodwork can and will result in certain metal parts
being required to be made to fit. The difference might only be something
like a hole location shifting 1/16" or even 1/32", but that variance can mean
the difference between a part that fits, and one that doesn't. Of course, most
builders end up making a lot of fittings more than once. Consider it to be
a part of the learning process.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392534#392534
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave Millikan <n11dmx(at)yahoo.com> |
Bernie didn't have ACS..Try Lowes for sheet steel, cheaper, no shipping.
J-3s were built from 1020 steel. for years
-NX1QS.. Dave millikan..FLA
--- On Thu, 1/17/13, Bill Church wrote:
From: Bill Church <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Steel Parts
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 10:44 PM
>
I believe ACS has a disclaimer at the bottom of their pages warning that th
e "kits" are based on lists provided to them by others.- Because the "kit
" lists different thicknesses than are found on the Pietenpol plans, I wond
er if the list might actually be based on the Grega GN-1 plans, which has d
ifferent metalwork than the Air Camper.- I would recommend that you spend
some time going through your plans and do your own calculations of what yo
u will need.- And, as Mike suggested, consider buying pre-sheared strips,
unless you have access to a metal shear.
In fact, I would recommend that you calculate your own list of materials fo
r the wood as well.- For instance, the plywood kit lists more than 7 full
sheets of plywood; there simply isn't that much plywood in a Piet.
Finally, you may want to hold off on making all of the metal fittings ahead
of time.- Some fittings will need to be made to suit the woodwork that y
ou build.- Because these are plans-built wooden aircraft, no two will be
exactly the same.- And slight differences in woodwork can and will result
in certain metal parts being required to be made to fit.- The difference
might only be something like a hole location shifting 1/16" or even 1/32",
but that variance can mean the difference between a part that fits, and on
e that doesn't.- Of course, most builders end up making a lot of fittings
more than once.- Consider it to be a part of the learning process.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392534#392534
le, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, the famous Pietenpol kit arrives as a big crate in your driveway..... The
crate is EMPTY so you make the airplane out of the crate itself....(ha!)
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392557#392557
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net> |
Listen to the wisdom of Mike Cuy and Bill Church.
Spend the time going through the plans and make up your own list. Also,
don't forget to go to www.westcoastpiet.com
where you will find a handy steel thickness gage-to-decimal conversion
chart.
Greg Cardinal
Minneapolis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Plummer" <plummerharvey(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel Parts
>
>
> I purchase a set of Pietenpol plans. I thought I would spend some winter
> days making steel parts. I noticed that Aircraft Spruce has a Steel Kit
> for the Piet. It includes .063", .090" and .125" thick 4130 sheets. When
> studying the plans I see parts made of .030", .060", .075" and .090" thick
> material. Can all parts be made using the ACS kit?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Harv
>
> --------
> Harv, 485PB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392523#392523
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan Yocum <yocum137(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Model A with carb heat box |
Doesn't the RPM go to zero when you turn off the carb heat on a Model A?
:o)
Dan
--
Dan Yocum
yocum137(at)gmail.com
On Jan 16, 2013, at 7:25 AM, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:
> Does anyone have data or anecdotal information on how much extra RPM one g
ets by shutting off the "perpetual" carburetor heated air on a model A?
>
> Dan Helsper
> Puryear, TN
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Model A with carb heat box |
From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
I have a special gauge on my engine that indicates when I can turn off the
carb heat.......when the condensation finally dries-up....stops slinging-of
f the induction and hitting me in the face! BTW I knew you were still "here
" D.Y. I could feel it :O)
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Yocum <yocum137(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 18, 2013 6:48 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Model A with carb heat box
Doesn't the RPM go to zero when you turn off the carb heat on a Model A?
:o)
Dan
--
Dan Yocum
yocum137(at)gmail.com
On Jan 16, 2013, at 7:25 AM, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:
Does anyone have data or anecdotal information on how much extra RPM one ge
ts by shutting off the "perpetual" carburetor heated air on a model A?
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | a hardware store steel rant... |
OK, add me to the Pedant-arist list. here goes.
PLEASE Do NOT spend all those years building a scratch-built plane that you
want to last for a lifetime, fly yourself and others around many thousands
of feet above the very hard earth and try to save a VERY few bucks by using
steel found at Lowe's, Home Depot, Ace or any other hardware store.
Do not do the above and try to save a VERY few bucks by using wood that
isn't up to snuff.
Do not do the above and try to save a VERY few bucks by using hardware store
cable. Or shackles. Or turnbuckles.
Do NOT substitute anything that has to do with strength and safety to save a
few bucks. We have discussed this many times over the years and the actual
savings in buying cheaper metal and wood is insignificant!!!!!!!!!!! Don't
do it!!!!!! What in the world is the point!!!!!!
Trust me, ALL these decisions take on a WHOLE new meaning when your dreams
turn to reality and you're flying a friend's kid and get knocked around in
some wicked turbulence.. That hundred buck savings pales in significance
REAL QUICK!!!!! IT'S MEANINGLESS!!!!!!!
I'm the last guy on earth to swallow that "only aircraft certified" line,
BUT use common sense people and don't get so carried away with "Pietenpol
scavenger" syndrome and saving a dime here and there that you loose sight of
the big picture.
This advice is actually worth a lot MORE than my usual $.02 charge.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
HEAR, HEAR!!!!!!
In fairness it's not just Pietenpol's. I've been in the company of $100K RV Builders
whinging over the price of item at $2.00 that is needed!
Thanks Douwe for a fair input.
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Subject: | using inferior anything or cutting corners----just fly |
alone then
Great post Douwe. I think it is fine if you want to cut corners on your hardware,
glue, materials, and engine
rebuild IF you are building a ONE seater but if you even think about giving a ride
you're being pretty arrogant
and irresponsible to use crappy materials or cut any corners in building whatever
homebuilt airplane you're building.
Enough bad things can happen even if you use the best of everything....in clear,
perfect VFR weather no less.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "C N Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
Harvey, I'm not a purist. I made all my steel parts from 0.090 4130 steel.
If you use just one gauge, it is much easier to determine the length bolt to
order/use. I didn't use the thin material and form them into aerodynamic
shape and then weld -- I used .090 material for all the control horns mainly
because I can't weld and the aircraft welder I am using charges $50 per
hour. Might be just a bit heavier than the welded ones, but I'm using a
larger engine so can stand a little more weight. My $0.02. Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Plummer" <plummerharvey(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel Parts
>
>
> I purchase a set of Pietenpol plans. I thought I would spend some winter
> days making steel parts. I noticed that Aircraft Spruce has a Steel Kit
> for the Piet. It includes .063", .090" and .125" thick 4130 sheets. When
> studying the plans I see parts made of .030", .060", .075" and .090" thick
> material. Can all parts be made using the ACS kit?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Harv
>
> --------
> Harv, 485PB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392523#392523
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Subject: | Re: using inferior anything or cutting corners----just |
fly alone then
I saw a Piet at a little fly in. The guy had cut a lot of corners to build quicker.
He had some rough looking welds. He did not round off some of the wood, lots
of square corners. He did not sand very much, if at all. He used latex paint....
Very minimalist. BUT he spent the money to get aircraft grade materiels
and things like the rough looking welds did look like they were strong and the
wood was properly done, just not pretty. He also maintained that the difference
in cost between cheap materiels and aircraft grade was just a small percentage
of the final cost.
His goal was to put togather a good, safe flying Piet and he did not care about
looks. He flew it in and out of the fly-in and others said he was a good aviator
and had built some other good homebuilts.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Date: Friday, January 18, 2013 8:44
Subject: Pietenpol-List: using inferior anything or cutting corners----just fly
alone then
> RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <
>
> Great post Douwe. I think it is fine if you want to cut corners on your hardware,
glue, materials, and engine
> rebuild IF you are building a ONE seater but if you even think about giving a
ride you're being pretty arrogant
> and irresponsible to use crappy materials or cut any corners in building whatever
homebuilt airplane you're building.
> Enough bad things can happen even if you use the best of everything....in clear,
perfect VFR weather no less.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "C N Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
Subject: | Re: using inferior anything or cutting corners----just |
fly alone then
Steve, I agree with you. I will not have the prettiest, fanciest,
most-sanded, contest-quality, Piet around. It will have pretty and STRONG
welds (they are all done by an aircraft welder using his very expensive TIG
machine). I did use some Douglas fir and some Poplar (neither bought at
ACS) but I was talked into replacing my Douglas fir spars with VERY
EXPENSIVE spruce wood from ACS. All my hardware is AN stuff from ACS. It
will not be the prettiest airplane around but I won't hesitate to put my
grandkids (or great grandkids) in the front seat and ride around in VFR
weather. Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: using inferior anything or cutting
corners----just fly alone then
>
>
> I saw a Piet at a little fly in. The guy had cut a lot of corners to build
> quicker. He had some rough looking welds. He did not round off some of the
> wood, lots of square corners. He did not sand very much, if at all. He
> used latex paint.... Very minimalist. BUT he spent the money to get
> aircraft grade materiels and things like the rough looking welds did look
> like they were strong and the wood was properly done, just not pretty. He
> also maintained that the difference in cost between cheap materiels and
> aircraft grade was just a small percentage of the final cost.
>
> His goal was to put togather a good, safe flying Piet and he did not care
> about looks. He flew it in and out of the fly-in and others said he was a
> good aviator and had built some other good homebuilts.
>
> Blue Skies,
> Steve D
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]"
>
> Date: Friday, January 18, 2013 8:44
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: using inferior anything or cutting
> corners----just fly alone then
> To: "pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com"
>
>
>> RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <
>>
>> Great post Douwe. I think it is fine if you want to cut corners on your
>> hardware, glue, materials, and engine
>> rebuild IF you are building a ONE seater but if you even think about
>> giving a ride you're being pretty arrogant
>> and irresponsible to use crappy materials or cut any corners in building
>> whatever homebuilt airplane you're building.
>> Enough bad things can happen even if you use the best of everything....in
>> clear, perfect VFR weather no less.
>>
>> Mike C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: using inferior anything or cutting corners----just |
fly alon
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Making things "pretty" usually doesn't add to the cost, but it usually does take
more time (and patience).
As for good wood being expensive, keep in mind that everything is relative. In
the overall scheme of things, the cost of wood will not be one of the biggest
cost items in the finished aircraft. If you will be renting a hangar to house
your finished aircraft, you'll most likely spend more on hangar rent in the first
year than you will spend on all of the wood in the whole plane. Because I
enjoy doing woodworking, I purchased rough-sawn Sitka planks, and milled my own
component parts. My first plank was $8 per board foot, and was used to build
my ribs and tail. I had to cut around a few areas that were sub-standard,
and some of the wood became kindling. My second plank was much pricier, at $18
per board foot, but the wood was PERFECT. 20 feet long, with grain running straight
as an arrow for the entire length. The only waste was the thickness of
the saw blade. If I had it to do over again, I would only buy the more expensive
wood. The overall cost difference would only be maybe three hundred dollars.
As is usually the case, you get what you pay for.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392595#392595
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | George Abernathy <avionixoz(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
Hallelulya, Amen!=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: D
ouwe Blumberg =0ATo: pietenpolgroup =0ASent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 1:19 AM=0ASubject:
Pietenpol-List: a hardware store steel rant...=0A =0A=0A =0AOK, add me to
the Pedant-arist list here goes=0A=C2-=0APLEASE Do NOT
spend all those years building a scratch-built=0Aplane that you want to las
t for a lifetime, fly yourself and others around many=0Athousands of feet a
bove the very hard earth and try to save a VERY few bucks by=0Ausing steel
found at Lowe=99s, Home Depot, Ace or any other hardware=0Astore.=C2
- =0A=C2-=0ADo not do the above and try to save a VERY few bucks by=0Au
sing wood that isn=99t up to snuff.=0A=C2-=0ADo not do the above an
d try to save a VERY few bucks by=0Ausing hardware store cable.=C2- Or sh
ackles.=C2- Or turnbuckles.=0A=C2-=0ADo NOT substitute anything that ha
s to do with strength and=0Asafety to save a few bucks.=C2- We have discu
ssed this many times over the=0Ayears and the actual savings in buying chea
per metal and wood is insignificant!!!!!!!!!!!=C2- Don=99t do it!!!
!!! What in the world is=0Athe point!!!!!!=0A=C2-=0ATrust me, ALL these d
ecisions take on a WHOLE new meaning=0Awhen your dreams turn to reality and
you=99re flying a friend=99s kid and=0Aget knocked around in s
ome wicked turbulence.=C2-=C2- That hundred=0Abuck savings pal
es in significance REAL QUICK!!!!!=C2- IT=99S=0AMEANINGLESS!!!!!!!
=0A=C2-=0AI=99m the last guy on earth to swallow that =9Conly
=0Aaircraft certified=9D line, BUT use common sense people and don
=99t get=0Aso carried away with =9CPietenpol scavenger=9D sy
ndrome and saving a=0Adime here and there that you loose sight of the big p
icture.=0A=C2-=0AThis advice is actually worth a lot MORE than my usual $
===
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
I couldn't agree more with Douwe. When I first saw the post about
using Lowe's steel, and the justification, I had a shiver - the ghost
of The Fisherman is at large.
Kip Gardner
On Jan 18, 2013, at 4:15 PM, George Abernathy wrote:
> Hallelulya, Amen!
>
>
> From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
> To: pietenpolgroup
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 1:19 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: a hardware store steel rant...
>
> OK, add me to the Pedant-arist list=85 here goes=85
>
> PLEASE Do NOT spend all those years building a scratch-built plane
> that you want to last for a lifetime, fly yourself and others around
> many thousands of feet above the very hard earth and try to save a
> VERY few bucks by using steel found at Lowe=92s, Home Depot, Ace or
> any other hardware store.
>
> Do not do the above and try to save a VERY few bucks by using wood
> that isn=92t up to snuff.
>
> Do not do the above and try to save a VERY few bucks by using
> hardware store cable. Or shackles. Or turnbuckles.
>
> Do NOT substitute anything that has to do with strength and safety
> to save a few bucks. We have discussed this many times over the
> years and the actual savings in buying cheaper metal and wood is
> insignificant!!!!!!!!!!! Don=92t do it!!!!!! What in the world is the
> point!!!!!!
>
> Trust me, ALL these decisions take on a WHOLE new meaning when your
> dreams turn to reality and you=92re flying a friend=92s kid and get
> knocked around in some wicked turbulence=85. That hundred buck
> savings pales in significance REAL QUICK!!!!! IT=92S
MEANINGLESS!!!!!!!
>
> I=92m the last guy on earth to swallow that =93only aircraft
certified=94
> line, BUT use common sense people and don=92t get so carried away with
> =93Pietenpol scavenger=94 syndrome and saving a dime here and there
that
> you loose sight of the big picture.
>
> This advice is actually worth a lot MORE than my usual $.02 charge.
>
> Douwe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave Millikan <n11dmx(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
I apologise if 've misled any one.
My Piet has 4130 steel tubing=C2- fuselage, wing ftgsnad wing struts
I will cease my structrural comments, I have used commonn steel around
the landing gear, and in critical areas have doubled the thickness.
I have reworked the fuse warren truss=C2-to reflect William Wynnes
recommend the wing moving afta couple of inches.
For instance , I first opted for piano=C2- higes for the ailerons
after further review , the piano hinges would requie addition
metal strips because all the screws would be in line.
I went to Ace hadware and bot common screen door hinges
which spread the lad across the spar--- :
I must confess I am an engineer and flew model airplanes with Neil Armstron
g
Pls don't let me lead you =C2-a stray, ...follow the plans if you are on
your own=C2-
Ex KB-29P tanker pilot.. still alive
Best NX1QZ in Fla
From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: a hardware store steel rant...
Date: Friday, January 18, 2013, 9:59 PM
I couldn't agree more with Douwe. =C2-When I first saw the post about usi
ng Lowe's steel, and the justification, I had a shiver - the ghost of The F
isherman is at large.
Kip Gardner
On Jan 18, 2013, at 4:15 PM, George Abernathy wrote:
Hallelulya, Amen!
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 1:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: a hardware store steel rant...
OK, add me to the Pedant-arist list here goes
=C2-
PLEASE Do NOT spend all those years building a scratch-built plane that you
want to last for a lifetime, fly yourself and others around many thousands
of feet above the very hard earth and try to save a VERY few bucks by usin
g steel found at Lowe=99s, Home Depot, Ace or any other hardware stor
e.=C2-
=C2-
Do not do the above and try to save a VERY few bucks by using wood that isn
=99t up to snuff.
=C2-
Do not do the above and try to save a VERY few bucks by using hardware stor
e cable.=C2- Or shackles.=C2- Or turnbuckles.
=C2-
Do NOT substitute anything that has to do with strength and safety to save
a few bucks.=C2- We have discussed this many times over the years and the
actual savings in buying cheaper metal and wood is insignificant!!!!!!!!!!
!=C2- Don=99t do it!!!!!! What in the world is the point!!!!!!
=C2-
Trust me, ALL these decisions take on a WHOLE new meaning when your dreams
turn to reality and you=99re flying a friend=99s kid and get kn
ocked around in some wicked turbulence.=C2-=C2- That hundred b
uck savings pales in significance REAL QUICK!!!!!=C2- IT=99S MEANIN
GLESS!!!!!!!
=C2-
I=99m the last guy on earth to swallow that =9Conly aircraft ce
rtified=9D line, BUT use common sense people and don=99t get so
carried away with =9CPietenpol scavenger=9D syndrome and savin
g a dime here and there that you loose sight of the big picture.
=C2-
This advice is actually worth a lot MORE than my usual $.02 charge.
=C2-
Douwe
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Model A with carb heat box |
I found out that the standard Aeronca heat muff and exhaust stacks (for the
A65 and A75) didn't produce much temperature rise at all when carb heat wa
s applied. The air pretty much shoots right past the stacks into the air b
ox with the standard setup. I had a flat steel plate added in the "Y" of t
he exhaust stacks where the muff goes=2C that forces the air to go around t
he pipes and the heated plate=2C and now I get a nice temperature rise and
a noticeable RPM drop on application of carb heat.
Don't ask me how I know=2C but carb heat is a must on these setups.
Oscar ZunigaMedford=2C ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 power
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
Hey Dave,
You contradicted yourself by saying "follow the plans..." in that you're giving
structural advice there, which calls for 1020 steel like you mentioned, and you
saw how well that went over! :)
Don't sweat it, they get a little jumpy around here when you "don't follow the
plans", well, except how THEY didn't... We're all selectively compliant.
Not many steel fuselages out there and it seems you built your own, lots of guys
here would love to know more about that, and they won't assume you're using
Lowe's hardware for the motor mounts...
Tools
PS Thanks for your service. Did you fly control line planes with Armstrong?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392625#392625
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | About an old and dear friend |
From: | "bonesona1a" <bunknbad(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi folks...
Hope you don't mind my adding a note off subject of Piets...we lost a valuable
friend to all, and a dear friend to some of us, this past week. Fred Cabanas.
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130116remembering-fred-cabanas.html?CMP=News%3AS3RM#ooid=A3c21oODpjfNA0ntEM-mdHb7CM7HsrjA
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130116remembering-fred-cabanas.html?CMP=News%3AS3RM#ooid=A3c21oODpjfNA0ntEM-mdHb7CM7HsrjA
Thanks
Davy Jones
N428DJ
--------
I was the Deacon in Nam....now I am the hopeful of pietenpol build
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392630#392630
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: dzus , camlock, or southco |
Having spent most of my flying in the Canadian bush I tend to agree. Unles
s weight/performance is an issue you can never have too much fuel. Nice to
have choices. I never take off on a cross country with anything but full
tanks. I landed once with 30min of fuel left and both guages were pegged o
n empty. NOT a comfortable feeling.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: dzus =2C camlock=2C or southco
> From: Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org
> Date: Tue=2C 15 Jan 2013 07:07:31 -0800
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
ity.org>
>
> I can carry 22.5 gallons. I find it nice that I have a choice to carry th
e extra gallons if needed. Sometime while making long cross countries there
is no fuel available even though there is a place to land and stretch for
awhile. Like between San Diego and Yuma. Worse yet=2C Yuma to Casa Grande.
Very long legs. It is also nice that I can fly out 1.5 hours=2C have breakf
ast and return home without refueling. You can always carry less fuel if yo
u don't need it for the flight=2C but it is nice to have the choice. I have
a 10 gallon nose tank and 12.5 in the center section.
>
> My 3 cents=2C
>
> --------
> Scott Liefeld
> Flying N11MS since March 1972
> Steel Tube
> C-85-12
> Wire Wheels
> Brodhead in 1996
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392343#392343
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Al Schaus Propeller for Model A Ford |
From: | "dwilson" <marwilson(at)charter.net> |
Did some prop balancing with Vi Kapler this morning. Vi is looking for a Model
A Ford prop carved by Al Schaus. He wants to copy the prop with his prop carver.
You can reach Vi at 507-288-3322. He also has four sets of tail hinges.
When these are gone, they are gone. He will not be casting any more hinges.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392646#392646
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave Millikan <n11dmx(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
Yes control line.. forgot to mention we both graduated from Purdue U.
All my fasteners are AN, plus all the wing connections are 4130
My first homebuilt was a Starduster Too which is getting in the way at
my hangar, My 2nd was a GeeBee pedal plane for my grandson
who is graduating from high school in June
I am-about to carve my own 60/32 prop
At almost 84, we've gotta have fun
Dave
--- On Sat, 1/19/13, tools wrote:
From: tools <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: a hardware store steel rant...
Date: Saturday, January 19, 2013, 5:14 AM
Hey Dave,
You contradicted yourself by saying "follow the plans..." in that you're gi
ving structural advice there, which calls for 1020 steel like you mentioned
, and you saw how well that went over!- :)
Don't sweat it, they get a little jumpy around here when you "don't follow
the plans", well, except how THEY didn't...- We're all selectively compli
ant.
Not many steel fuselages out there and it seems you built your own, lots of
guys here would love to know more about that, and they won't assume you're
using Lowe's hardware for the motor mounts...
Tools
PS Thanks for your service.- Did you fly control line planes with Armstro
ng?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392625#392625
le, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
Just how "in the way" is that Starduster Too? I mean, if you're having a storage
problem... Of course, not really going to believe you until I see a picture,
just sayin.
I figured you had to fly control line given the time frame and all. I'm about
to start on a George Aldrich Nobler. I'll scratch build it from the 1952 plans
so it'll be Old Time and Vintage legal. I still prefer the control line flying
over radio control.
So, the Piet and Starduster are one thing, but did you use AN hardware in the Gee
Bee? It IS a racer after all, and probably took a lot more abuse at the hands
of a grandkid imagining he's Doolittle than our little Piets will ever see!
I've got plans for a Spad (ala Rickenbacker) for my son... who just started
college. Uh, maybe I'll have it done for HIS kids!
Cheers,
Tools (old Navy tanker pilot)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392663#392663
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
From: | "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com> |
Just a question-
What did BHP use?
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392671#392671
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
From: | "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com> |
I forgot to add-
Tools,
nice comments.
Dave,
It sounds you have decades of experience in airplane construction and know how
to make good choices. I would be happy to talk with you about your steel tube
fuselage. Either online or offline. This is a good resource for Pietenpols in
general, but. as Tools said, not too many steel tube fuselages in the group. I
have a steel tube fuselage I purchased about a year ago, and I have many questions
that you, or pictures of your Pietenpol might answer.
Let me know the easiest way to get with you. Also, thank you for your service,
but don't let Tools fool you. Not only is he an 'old tanker pilot', but he did
it in "Hoovers"! For any non-Naval Aviation types, that is the S-3. Listen to
one start up and you know why they are called "Hoovers".
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392673#392673
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Model A with carb heat box |
From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
By the way, and I know that the question and post have to do with the Model A,
but if anyone is interested- I have some pix of the "hot plate" modification that
I made to the standard Aeronca heat muff on my Continental, here:
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/engine/carbheat.html
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392679#392679
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net> |
This afternoon, Tyler an I were driving home from the gun range and we were near
the Skiatook airport in Skiatook, Oklahoma. Suddenly, a red and white Air Camper
comes climbing over the tree tops. I recognized it as my friend and fellow
EAA 10 member, Ken Gates... so we boogie over to the airport to take a few
photos. Ken gave me a little background on the airplane and I thought some of
you might be able to tell us a bit more about it or the builder... especially
you fellas from Ohio. The builder was a fellow by the name of Marvin Grout
of New Carlisle, Ohio. A/W date was 10/22/99. I don't know Marvin, but some
of you may like to know that it is still flying, and has a really nice running
Corvair. Ken has it listed for sale, but told me today that he may be having
second thoughts.
I tried to post this to the Pietenpol group on Facebook, but for some reason it
would not allow me to post once I uploaded an image... anyone have an idea why
that might be?
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage and Fuse framed up - Working on Landing Gear
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392683#392683
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc04160_202.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc04163_160.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc04139_179.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Cross wind component |
From: | Rod Wooller <rodwooller(at)gmail.com> |
My test pilot asked me what the maximum cross wind component is for a
Pietenpol.
I had no idea, can anyone help out with this?
Thanks,
Rod Wooller
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
I've done about 25-30mph, but not by choice (had to go to the proctologist
to get the seat cusion removed).- Keep it under 5-10mph for the test flyi
ng, early morning or in the evening.--OURS will stay under control if y
ou keep the speed up, but they are all a little different from one piet to
the next.- Ground angle, landing gear width, type, C/G, type of tailwheel
, and on and on.- Hope this helps.- Just be on the conservitive side un
till you really get to know the airplane.
-
Shad
--- On Sat, 1/19/13, Rod Wooller wrote:
From: Rod Wooller <rodwooller(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cross wind component
Date: Saturday, January 19, 2013, 11:49 PM
My test pilot asked me what the maximum cross wind component is for a Piete
npol.
I had no idea, can anyone help out with this?
Thanks,
Rod Wooller
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Subject: | Re: a hardware store steel rant... |
"We're all selectively compliant."
Reminds me of Historical Reenactors. Some will show up in new levis, Cowboy boots,and
a mobetta shirt and say they are reenacting being a cowboy on the trail.
Others will brag about having the right stitching on the button holes on their
drop seat long johns.
The best are somewhere in the middle.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: tools <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, January 18, 2013 23:20
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: a hardware store steel rant...
>
> Hey Dave,
>
> You contradicted yourself by saying "follow the plans..." in that you're giving
structural advice there, which calls for 1020 steel
> like you mentioned, and you saw how well that went over! :)
>
> Don't sweat it, they get a little jumpy around here when you "don't
> follow the plans", well, except how THEY didn't... We're all
> selectively compliant.
>
> Not many steel fuselages out there and it seems you built your own,
> lots of guys here would love to know more about that, and they
> won't assume you're using Lowe's hardware for the motor mounts...
>
> Tools
>
> PS Thanks for your service. Did you fly control line planes with
> Armstrong?
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392625#392625
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Wanted - 6" Northrop Wheels |
From: | "Mr. Craig" <acwelder(at)cableone.net> |
Looking for a pair of the old plane Jane 6" Northrop wheels Bernard Pietenpol sold
with his Pietenpol kits.
Same as what is on N13691
Thanks Craig
http://www.pacificflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mn-45-1-Pietenpol.jpg
http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircraft/large/000/062/062118.jpg
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff81/Baldeagle27/PietShadeTree5.jpg
--------
A goal without a plan is nothing more than a wish. -- orion
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392715#392715
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Beyond the FGM, an article on Model A's by Mr Pietenpol |
From: | "Mr. Craig" <acwelder(at)cableone.net> |
I have that issue. Send me an email and I'll get you a copy of the last article.
Craig
--------
A goal without a plan is nothing more than a wish. -- orion
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392726#392726
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I've never had anything near a 25-30 MPH crosswind component while landing or taking
off in Scout, but I've had half that and my experience has been that you
will run out of rudder in anything much more than that.
Some of the folks on this list with a lot of hours in Piets will have much more
to say about it though. Then there's Raymond Hanover, who flies in the Texas
Panhandle, where their clothing dries horizontally on the clothesline. Maybe
he'll chime in.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392736#392736
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | steve emo <steve.emo58(at)gmail.com> |
I'm not advising it. but I know I've done 20kts + gusts to 30 --- ONCE.
Gusts make a huge difference as do local trees/building.
Less than 15kts I'd say is good after you have a few hundred landings.
starting out <3/4 windsock.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:41 PM, taildrags wrote:
>
> I've never had anything near a 25-30 MPH crosswind component while landing
> or taking off in Scout, but I've had half that and my experience has been
> that you will run out of rudder in anything much more than that.
>
> Some of the folks on this list with a lot of hours in Piets will have much
> more to say about it though. Then there's Raymond Hanover, who flies in
> the Texas Panhandle, where their clothing dries horizontally on the
> clothesline. Maybe he'll chime in.
>
> --------
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> A75 power
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392736#392736
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com> |
Rod,
Has your chosen test pilot done much work in that area? I have done some Post Maintenance
test flying in my past life (Not the same as testing a Piet, but many
concepts are the same). My goal in testing was to keep the variables to a minimum,
so you are learning, testing, and checking one thing at a time. Too many
variables skews the results.
My suggestion is calm wind to slight wind day for those first test flights. It
makes it much easier to figure out if the airplane is rigged right when you are
having to fly or land in a crab. He shouldn't even be concerned as to what a
Piet is capable of at this point. I hope his question was general in nature and
not what he was going to try and do in the test phase.
My 1.5 cents
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392748#392748
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Steel Parts Again |
From: | "Harvey Plummer" <plummerharvey(at)yahoo.com> |
Instead of using 1025 or 4130 steel, has anyone used aluminum? For example, instead
of welding .030" thick parts to make aileron horns, could one use .090" or
.125" thick aluminum, no welding?
Thanks for the input.
--------
Harv, 485PB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392751#392751
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Steel Parts Again |
Not sure how you would attach it to the spar, or to the x-member behind to
give the horn its leverage, just for starters. I'm sure you'll get flamed on
this one, so you better get your cast iron underwear on...
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harvey
Plummer
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel Parts Again
-->
Instead of using 1025 or 4130 steel, has anyone used aluminum? For example,
instead of welding .030" thick parts to make aileron horns, could one use
.090" or .125" thick aluminum, no welding?
Thanks for the input.
--------
Harv, 485PB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392751#392751
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Al Schaus Propeller for Model A Ford |
From: | "dwilson" <marwilson(at)charter.net> |
OK, in response to a couple of emails I should have stated that I think Vi gets
$ 70.00 for his hinges. Also, if he does not answer his phone leave a message.
He will get back to you if you leave him a number. Vi does not use a computer
so you have to get him on the phone. If he let's me know that the hinges
are sold, I will post same.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392768#392768
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Steel Parts Again |
From: | "echobravo4" <eab4(at)comcast.net> |
Are we sure cast iron would be the best choice?
--------
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=392773#392773
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Continental A75 Piets |
From: | "FandS_Piet" <fkim79(at)gmail.com> |
I dont know of any piets that have an A75 besides Oscar. I was wondering what
prop we should install to pull our A75 so if anybody out there is running an A75
I would be curious to hear your input.
Thanks
--------
Fred Kim
Pittsburgh, Pa
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392782#392782
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
Recent discussion on a "Real" (read certified) airplane list came to the consensus
that a test flight should never include a passenger that is not involved in
the test flight.
Being involved means either being a safety pilot or doing something specific.
Safety pilots either look for other planes or makes sure the shiny side stays
up while the pilot looks at instruments, gauges, some airplane part (Aleron or
tailfeathers) or performs a specific maneuver. Also a mechainic or fellow pilot
can go along to help observe something.
Taking someone on a test flight, should not be done lightly. The last thing you
need in a plane being tested is to have to deal with someone doing something
"crazy" like grabbing the controls and freezing or undoing the seatbelt and standing
up to tell you there is a problem. More than likely they will simply be
a distraction.
Something to think about.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: jarheadpilot82 <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, January 20, 2013 14:05
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cross wind component
>
> Rod,
>
> Has your chosen test pilot done much work in that area? I have done some Post
Maintenance test flying in my past life (Not the same as testing a Piet,
> but many concepts are the same). My goal in testing was to keep the
> variables to a minimum, so you are learning, testing, and checking
> one thing at a time. Too many variables skews the results.
>
> My suggestion is calm wind to slight wind day for those first test
> flights. It makes it much easier to figure out if the airplane is
> rigged right when you are having to fly or land in a crab. He
> shouldn't even be concerned as to what a Piet is capable of at this
> point. I hope his question was general in nature and not what he
> was going to try and do in the test phase.
>
> My 1.5 cents
>
> --------
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens, GA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392748#392748
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Steel Parts Again |
From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Harv,
If you were to ask any of the Piet builders that have gone from start to fi
nish, I am sure they all would say that one of the best things about the wh
ole experience was the learning process of every phase. My recommendation t
o you, would be to stretch and challenge yourself to make those horns per p
lans. I had little idea of how I was going to make those myself when I was
first contemplating. But boy was I ever proud of those things when I finish
ed.
Dan Helsper (flames shooting out :O)
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Harvey Plummer <plummerharvey(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 20, 2013 2:15 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel Parts Again
.com>
Instead of using 1025 or 4130 steel, has anyone used aluminum? For example,
instead of welding .030" thick parts to make aileron horns, could one use .
090"
or .125" thick aluminum, no welding?
Thanks for the input.
--------
Harv, 485PB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392751#392751
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Steel Parts Again |
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Don't let the streamlined control horns scare you. They are actually pretty easy
to fabricate. Thin sheet metal is not difficult to shape, and once the horns
are welded, they become incredibly stiff. To make the horns out of flat aluminum,
the thickness would likely need to be 3/16" or 1/4" to result in a comparable
rigidity. And then, you would need to add bolted connections for the flanges
and bracing. For sure, the aluminum horns would be heavier than the steel,
per-the-plans horns.
If the thing that is making you hesitate is the need to weld .030" steel, practice
on a bunch of scrap until you feel confident, or just get a more experienced
welder to do that welding for you.
Like Dan said, once you have them made, and someone asks where you got them, you
can state with pride that you made them yourself.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392798#392798
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Continental A75 Piets |
From: | "pineymb" <airltd(at)mts.net> |
My Piet runs an A-75 and the current prop has been on this engine for about 15
years. Had it redone last spring and is an excellent combination for this engine.
Contact me offline and I will send you the numbers when I get a chance to go to
the airport.
--------
Adrian M
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392801#392801
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Continental A75 Piets |
Fred Hi.
I had a Corben Junior, a similar size and weight to a Pietenpol at UAW of 650 pounds,
Gross 950.
The A75-8 had a 72" X 46" wooden Prop and performed OK. Cruise at 85mph at 2200
rpm.
I never got the 2600 maximum RPM for 75hp regardless of the pitch I tried. Could
well have been a 'tired' engine.
That engine is being completely overhauled and I'm going to chance using a Flottorp
72 X 50 that came with another project.
It may well be I have to defer back to 72 X 46 but worth a try.
Regards
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | kmordecai001(at)comcast.net |
Subject: | Continental A75 Piets |
Fred,
I have an A75 on 520SF.=C2- It came to me=C2- with a Hegy 72 x 42, whic
h is about =C2-perfect for an A65.=C2- It will pull 2150- 2200 static a
nd about 2350 WOT level flight, and seems to be happiest cruising at 2150-2
200 & 70-75 mph, depending on ambient conditions .=C2-
A few years ago bought a prop from Clark at Performance Propellers in an ef
fort to get that last 10 hp out of the A75.=C2- He=C2- made this one
=C2-to be a climb prop=C2-for his A75 Cub.=C2- It's a 76 x 39ish (eve
ryone seems to measure pitch in a slightly different manner) , and will tur
n 2500 static and about the same during climb-out at 50 mph.=C2- It requi
res throttling back as you level off to avoid running thru the redline.=C2
- Cruises at 2500 and 70 mph indicated in cool weather,=C2-a bit less
=C2-when it's warm outside.=C2-
I guess the perfect A75 prop would be in between these two, about =C2-260
0 at WOT level flight, and cruising around 2300-2400 .
We're having some nice clear weather along this stretch of the =C2-panhan
dle this weekend.....getting in some flying along with the yard work :-)
Dave Mordecai
Panacea, FL
NX520SF=C2- A75
I dont know of any piets that have an A75 besides Oscar. =C2-I was wonder
ing what
prop we should install to pull our A75 so if anybody out there is running a
n A75
I would be curious to hear your input.
Thanks
--------
Fred Kim
Pittsburgh, Pa
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Subject: | Re: Steel Parts Again |
The attached pictures show a prototype rudder horn I made out of aluminum.
I believe it was 1/8".- To keep the horn from rotating about the axis of
the two mounting bolts, I was going to glue in wood blocks on either side o
f the mounting tabs once the horn was bolted in place.
-
I decided it was not worth the risk of going down this road and-the horn
did weigh more than my finished thin steel one. My steel horns have a sligh
tly different airfoil shape, (easier to form)-than the plans show, are li
ght and strong.- It was worth the effort to make and weld the thin steel.
Michael Perez
Pietenpol HINT Videos
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | "TriScout" <apfelcyber(at)yahoo.com> |
Wheel landings/paved rwys: 25kts max 90 deg x-wind... w/light taps on downwind
heel brake when she starts to weathervane...or..15kts max x-wind on paved rwys
(w/out the assistance of downwind brake). Otherwise, just landing on grass seems
easiest. More than 25kts x-wind, it's best to just hit the cafe.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392837#392837
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
Some pretty impressive figures regarding crosswind limits in Pietenpol at 25 knots
at 90 degrees.
Just to put things out of prospective!
Depending on Manufacturers or Operator Procedures, the cross wind limits are around
30/35 knots on dry surface for Airline operations.
Wet can be 25/30 knots. That's a generic range for say 747-400 or Airbus 330/340.
15 knots steady, 10 knots gusting is more than enough for me in a Parasol aircraft
which in all probability is marginal on power at the best of times.
IMHO.
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
When I was on game I used to land my Tcraft in fairly high crosswinds
(like >20). Would not try it now.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gerry
Holland
Sent: January 21, 2013 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cross wind component
--> <gholland@content-stream.co.uk>
Some pretty impressive figures regarding crosswind limits in Pietenpol at
25 knots at 90 degrees.
Just to put things out of prospective!
Depending on Manufacturers or Operator Procedures, the cross wind limits
are around 30/35 knots on dry surface for Airline operations.
Wet can be 25/30 knots. That's a generic range for say 747-400 or Airbus
330/340.
15 knots steady, 10 knots gusting is more than enough for me in a Parasol
aircraft which in all probability is marginal on power at the best of
times.
IMHO.
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | "TriScout" <apfelcyber(at)yahoo.com> |
oh yeah...I figure that's worse case scenario. If there is any hint of gust's,
forget it. Generally, if it's more than about a 10-12 knot x-wind, it ain't too
fun anymore on paved surface...cafe time for me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392852#392852
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | BRAKES QUESTION? |
From: | "Chris Rusch" <rmdinfo(at)rmdbenders.com> |
Hi everybody, looking for some input as to how often you guys use the brakes in
a pietenpol for steering? i am at that stage of making a decision which way to
go, and i am leaning toward having ONE brake lever on the stick just to lock
the brakes for run up and to stop if im going to crash into something on the
ground. Thoughts, pro and con please.
--------
NX321LR
Fully Assembled
Tail assembly and ailerons covered and painted.
Wings covered and primed, one painted
Mitsubishi Powered
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392888#392888
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Chris--I rarely use my brakes for anything other than run up or for slowing down
when I'm taxiing around
other aircraft or near fuel pumps. I don't use my brakes when landing or taking
off as tailwheel steering
is sufficient for directional control in those operations. If you do need your
brakes on takeoff or landing
then things have gone awry. To answer your question: I never use my brakes to
steer.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | BRAKES QUESTION? |
Chris,
I only use my brakes for steering when operating on the ground - never in
flight. Sorry - couldn't resist.
I use my brakes differentially any time I need to make a sharp turn and need
to break the tailwheel into full swivel. And once it is in full swivel, you
definitely need differential brakes or a lot of throttle, rudder and room to
get it locked into steerable mode again.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Rusch
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:04 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRAKES QUESTION?
Hi everybody, looking for some input as to how often you guys use the brakes
in a pietenpol for steering? i am at that stage of making a decision which
way to go, and i am leaning toward having ONE brake lever on the stick just
to lock the brakes for run up and to stop if im going to crash into
something on the ground. Thoughts, pro and con please.
--------
NX321LR
Fully Assembled
Tail assembly and ailerons covered and painted.
Wings covered and primed, one painted
Mitsubishi Powered
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392888#392888
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: BRAKES QUESTION? |
From: | Rob Bach <skybachs(at)yahoo.com> |
We have Cub brakes used only for run up. I have used them to stop a few times and
because they're so soft, you can mash on them all you want and not feel any
tendencies towards flipping.
We never turn into a tight spot as it's just easier to pick up the 25 lb tail and
place the plane where we want.
Rob
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 22, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "Chris Rusch" wrote:
>
> Hi everybody, looking for some input as to how often you guys use the brakes
in a pietenpol for steering? i am at that stage of making a decision which way
to go, and i am leaning toward having ONE brake lever on the stick just to lock
the brakes for run up and to stop if im going to crash into something on the
ground. Thoughts, pro and con please.
>
> --------
> NX321LR
> Fully Assembled
> Tail assembly and ailerons covered and painted.
> Wings covered and primed, one painted
> Mitsubishi Powered
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392888#392888
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: BRAKES QUESTION? |
From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
I dunno, the handbrake on the stick is kinda cool!
That's all I've got, one actuator for both wheels, I've never found myself wanting
for more. It does have it's limitations, but in this genre, not really noticeable.
Not a lot of plumbing, easy to maintain, affordable, easy to install. I've got
no complaints.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392896#392896
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dick N" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Subject: | Re: BRAKES QUESTION? |
Chris
Check out the Harley Davidson Duo glide actuater. It will mount on the
stick and has plenty of braking power for operating both cylinders. I have
one of those the only problem I have tun into is I cut off the handle a bit
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Rusch" <rmdinfo(at)rmdbenders.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:03 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRAKES QUESTION?
>
>
> Hi everybody, looking for some input as to how often you guys use the
> brakes in a pietenpol for steering? i am at that stage of making a
> decision which way to go, and i am leaning toward having ONE brake lever
> on the stick just to lock the brakes for run up and to stop if im going to
> crash into something on the ground. Thoughts, pro and con please.
>
> --------
> NX321LR
> Fully Assembled
> Tail assembly and ailerons covered and painted.
> Wings covered and primed, one painted
> Mitsubishi Powered
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392888#392888
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
I don't understand why you would say that, Oscar. I've had a few occasions
where I've flown my Pietenpol in 25 knot crosswinds or better. The trip to
Brodhead in 2010 comes to mind, when Randy Bush and I flew up together from
west Tennessee - he in his Corvair powered ship, and me in N502R, which I
was ferrying up to Brodhead for Ryan Mueller. We were making a stop at a
duster field in Pontiac, Illinois, and the winds were just howling straight
across the single runway. While it did induce a good case of
sphincter-clinch, it was no problem for either Randy or me.
I have never run out of rudder in a Pietenpol. It has the strongest rudder
of any plane I've ever flown. Run out of aileron? Yes. Run out of rudder?
I've never had it happen.
In general, I find landing in strong crosswinds easier than taxiing in them.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of taildrags
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:41 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cross wind component
I've never had anything near a 25-30 MPH crosswind component while landing
or taking off in Scout, but I've had half that and my experience has been
that you will run out of rudder in anything much more than that.
Some of the folks on this list with a lot of hours in Piets will have much
more to say about it though. Then there's Raymond Hanover, who flies in the
Texas Panhandle, where their clothing dries horizontally on the clothesline.
Maybe he'll chime in.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392736#392736
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: BRAKES QUESTION? |
From: | Ken Bickers <bickers.ken(at)gmail.com> |
Chris,
When I was at the point of installing brakes, I spent a fair amount of
time sitting in the cockpit trying to figure out whether to use toe
brakes or heel brakes and exactly where and how to mount them to be
most comfortable to me. To be sure, the thought process may have been
muddled by all the airplane noises I was making. I also thought about
mounting something on the stick.
In the end, I decided I liked the idea of a hand brake. I also liked
the idea of differential braking. And I couldn't figure out an
elegant way to mount two brake levers on the stick. So I built
something that I think will work just fine and meets the
keep-it-simple test.
I welded up a bracket onto which two mountain brake levers could be
mounted -- facing each other. I mounted the bracket under the right
hand side of the rear instrument panel. Attached to the levers are
bicycle cables that operate old-style band brakes. With one hand, I
can activate the left, the right, or both levers together. I've
attached a couple of photos. One is looking up from below at the
bottom of the instrument panel. The other is taken from the rear
seat. I haven't operated them yet under engine power. I have tried
them out with my son and my dad pulling me around on the taxiway. Of
course, two man power is a lot less than the power of a whole bunch of
horses.
Cheers, Ken
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Dick N wrote:
>
> Chris
> Check out the Harley Davidson Duo glide actuater. It will mount on the
> stick and has plenty of braking power for operating both cylinders. I have
> one of those the only problem I have tun into is I cut off the handle a bit
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Rusch" <rmdinfo(at)rmdbenders.com>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:03 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRAKES QUESTION?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hi everybody, looking for some input as to how often you guys use the
>> brakes in a pietenpol for steering? i am at that stage of making a decision
>> which way to go, and i am leaning toward having ONE brake lever on the stick
>> just to lock the brakes for run up and to stop if im going to crash into
>> something on the ground. Thoughts, pro and con please.
>>
>> --------
>> NX321LR
>> Fully Assembled
>> Tail assembly and ailerons covered and painted.
>> Wings covered and primed, one painted
>> Mitsubishi Powered
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392888#392888
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
I agree Jack, as long as I land a little hot, and pin on a wheeler the rudd
er is more than enough.- If the landing gear were farther forward that mi
ght make the controlability go down a little.The real tough one is a GUSTY
cross wind.- I would rather land in a steady 25 knotter than a gusty 15 k
notter.- I think 25 on grass is ok, 25 on pavement will keep you busy.
-
Shad
--- On Tue, 1/22/13, Jack Phillips wrote:
From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cross wind component
Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2013, 9:34 PM
et>
I don't understand why you would say that, Oscar.- I've had a few occasio
ns
where I've flown my Pietenpol in 25 knot crosswinds or better.- The trip
to
Brodhead in 2010 comes to mind, when Randy Bush and I flew up together from
west Tennessee - he in his Corvair powered ship, and me in N502R, which I
was ferrying up to Brodhead for Ryan Mueller.- We were making a stop at a
duster field in Pontiac, Illinois, and the winds were just howling straight
across the single runway.- While it did induce a good case of
sphincter-clinch, it was no problem for either Randy or me.
I have never run out of rudder in a Pietenpol.- It has the strongest rudd
er
of any plane I've ever flown.- Run out of aileron?- Yes.- Run out of
rudder?
I've never had it happen.
In general, I find landing in strong crosswinds easier than taxiing in them
.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of taildrags
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:41 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cross wind component
I've never had anything near a 25-30 MPH crosswind component while landing
or taking off in Scout, but I've had half that and my experience has been
that you will run out of rudder in anything much more than that.
Some of the folks on this list with a lot of hours in Piets will have much
more to say about it though.- Then there's Raymond Hanover, who flies in
the
Texas Panhandle, where their clothing dries horizontally on the clothesline
.
Maybe he'll chime in.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392736#392736
le, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: BRAKES QUESTION? |
From: | "Chris Rusch" <rmdinfo(at)rmdbenders.com> |
Thanks for all the input! I think I'm going to run with the hand brake for now....if
duriing taxi tests i dont like it, i will add something more elaborate.
--------
NX321LR
Fully Assembled
Tail assembly and ailerons covered and painted.
Wings covered and primed, one painted
Mitsubishi Powered
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392935#392935
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: BRAKES QUESTION? |
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
The only problem that I can see with the single lever brake is that it would likely
be very difficult to make sure that the braking action on each wheel is the
same. If you're using the brakes to hold the plane for a mag check, it will
probably be okay, but if you're trying to stop the plane from rolling into something
else, and one wheel brakes more than the other, you might end up in a
mess. Food for thought.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392942#392942
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert Dewenter" <rdewenter(at)woh.rr.com> |
Subject: | How do we increase safety? |
Fellow Piet builder/ flyers:
A long story would tell you why I signed up for a college course in
aviation accident investigations - and why at my age I am "in school". It's
for a good cause - an Instrument rating courtesy of the VA. I have come
across some interesting observations I think worth sharing with my fellow
Pietenpol builders/owners and in general to the Experimental home builder
community as a whole. I have a request that you all think about safety and
perhaps post your thought on how we all can increase safety while flying and
for some of us, building.
After reading 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports (2012 all the way to
1970s), it's my novice opinion that the predominant Pietenpol accident CAUSE
is "failure to control the aircraft" in either take-off or landing phase,
usually RESULTS in a stall, stall/spin, hard landing, impact with trees,
failure to maintain directional control after landing, and ground loops.
HIDDEN in these reports is overloaded aircraft unable to climb due to
several "contributing factors" such as density altitude, exceeding the
aircraft gross weight abilities and aircraft loaded outside their CG limits.
Gusty conditions are commonly cited as contributing factors. Every one of
these accidents is human error.
The seconds leading CAUSE of accidents is "Fuel Starvation". In three
cases carb icing was determined to be the likely cause, but is never proven
to be the cause as it "flees the scene of the accident". In a recent
accident (2011) the NTSB stated the cause of the accident was water In the
fuel. In another, the tank was improperly built - the internal finger
strainer was placed over the sump outlet not the supply to the carb and some
"Teflon thread tape" was found blocking the fuel supply inlet to the carb.
In another, the tank vent was blocked by a wasp nest. My favorite of ALL
involves a guy who hand props his engine. The fuel shut off valve is in the
front cockpit (reachable during hand propping). The pilots "NORMAL
PROCEDURE" is to close the fuel valve, prop the engine, then opens the fuel
valve after engine startup. Problem this particular day was he left the
fuel valve closed and when the engine quit during the flight, he could not
reach the fuel valve to open it - it was in the front cockpit! Every one of
these accidents is human error.
Not listed as fuel starvation, one poor guy ran out of fuel in cruise and
made a successful landing off airport in a field with short "ankle length"
grass. He re-filled with 4.5 gallons fuel. On takeoff the left wheel
struck a small rock and the gear collapsed.
I read four accident reports where BUZZING was the CAUSE of the accident .
Contributing to these accidents are things like flying into a pole at 30 ft
AGL, one into a power line, one from a downdraft, and one from failure to
maintain air speed. Every one of these accidents is human error. Four
accidents and 5 fatalities!
The stall/spin on landing or takeoff and BUZZING are the predominant CAUSE
of fatal accidents.
Next come propellers (everyone pay attention!). There are two known
accidents caused by in-flight separation of the propeller (both Fords). In
both cases many (but not all) prop hub bolts had sheared indicating improper
inspections of the propeller, bolts, and hub. Rust was visible on the
sheared portion of the bolts. The third case involved a homemade prop that
failed to provide adequate thrust and the plane crashed on takeoff (actually
the pilot crashed the plane, not the other way around). Every one of these
accidents is human error.
Now here is one that will give those who asked about putting controls up
front will like to hear about - 3 accidents in all. In one accident, the
front passenger inadvertently pulled the throttle closed and the pilot was
unable to overcome the passengers "death grip" on the throttle - they
crashed. In another case, the passenger inadvertently applied left aileron
(with his legs when he turned around to look at the pilot) during a
"upsetting" takeoff, the pilot could not recover in time and they crashed.
Finally in a third incident a seat cushion was interfering with the rudder /
brakes. The preflight did not notice this condition and the pilot crashed
on takeoff. Every one of these accidents is human error .
Notice, I have not yet made mention of any mechanical engine issues so far?
Well there are a couple unrelated accidents, where "loss of engine power"
(not attributed to carb ice) was listed as a contributing factor but NEVER
the CAUSE of the accident (just as in the case of carb ice). In all these
cases "failure to maintain control of the aircraft" was the CAUSE. One
case cited a burnt exhaust valve, and another was "overheating" related to a
blockage of the oil cooler caused oil starvation - ironically the foreign
object was part of a cylinder ring. In a third case "CAUSE UNKNOWN"
resulting in a loss of power. Noted in this case was low compression in 3
of the 4 cylinders. And finally a "burred" carb needle caused the needle
to stick in the closed position (on landing - pilot needed power and did not
get it). Every one of these accidents was CAUSED by human errors.
The very oldest Pietenpol accident reports (1970s) available on line contain
only a few brief words in the accident report. One mentions improper
rigging of a turnbuckle. It broke in fight, the wing shifted and the CG was
disturbed. In another, the "push-pull" rod failed at the bell crank. Both
of these accidents resulted in fatalities. All caused by human error.
Now I am sure there are numerous Pietenpol accidents that did not show up in
the 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports I was able to obtain. I suspect
this because I could not find reports on notable and known accidents of
certain non Pietenpol accidents I wanted to research. But I think it's fair
to say that MOST Pietenpols are inherently safe - because of the design and
because of the builder/owner/pilot. In my novice opinion, It's the pilot
and the "maintainer" that you need to be keeping an eye on to prevent
accidents.
Summation: Most accidents are the result of a chain of events. Normally it
requires only one link in the chain to be broken to avoid an accident. What
accident chain links can you break? ALL of them!
Our Pietenpol "type club" needs to do a better job to prevent accidents. I
suggest the following:
. Better pre-flight inspections with strict adherence to checklists
would have avoided MANY of these accidents.
. Not flying aft of the rear CG limits would have avoided MANY of
these accidents - those of us still building MUST not skip the W&B step at
the end of construction!
. Use of carb heat might have avoided several accidents. Always use
carb heat when power is below cruise setting! Make this a checklist item.
. Avoiding BUZZING would definitely have prevented fatal accidents -
Don't do it!
. Adequate training / experience handling difficult landing and
takeoff conditions. Consider not flying in gusty conditions with passengers
- or at all.
. Better passenger briefing and perhaps requiring usage of an
intercom/headsets to communicate with the passenger should be mandatory
. I suggest passenger placing their hands on the outboard fuse walls
(9 and 3 o'clock) during takeoffs and landings to be part of your
checklists.
. Make front stick removable and keep it uninstalled in most
instances.
. Do a Weight & Balance of the airplane - know your true CG data -
and keep within it.
. Consider Density altitude, gross weight and performance when
taking a passenger
. Pay better attention to slow flight stall/spin avoidance
procedures - takeoffs and landings
WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST we do to make flying our Pietenpol safer?
Bob Dewenter
Piet builder / Corvair owner
Dayton OH
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Glad you read all those NTSB reports Bob and improving our safety record is
a commendable effort for sure but
the NTSB and FAA don't classify homebuilts the same in their records/report
s so analyzing the data can be a muddy
endeavor. (still it is pretty clear what factors cause the most trouble f
or hombuilders/pilots like us)
Ron Wanttaja put together this great report explaining some differences in
the way homebuilt
accidents are tabulated by cause and even includes some comparisons with fa
ctory built GA airplanes.
Worth a look really and he summarizes things nicely.
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: How do we increase safety? |
From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
GREAT post and great reading. These are manmade machines, in a way, you can without
investigating ALWAYS say it's human error. However, except in a general
way, that's not very useful.
Knowing WHAT the human did wrong, is THE BEST information. It's not very useful
to say, (and related to the Lowe's steel debacle) use good materials, use good
craftsmanship, use accepted practices and exercise perfect judgment ALL THE
TIME.
I like your list at the end of the post and is a great starting point. They address
certain more commonly goofed SPECIFIC items. I have several things to add
to the list, learned the hard way, and I'll do that later.
For now, all I have to add is a philosophy I used when I was the Aviation Safety
Officer of VT7 in Meridian MS in the late 90's. Us typical type A overachieving
mathematical types are easily defeated by saying it's obvious you CAN NOT
have a perfect safety record, so what's the point?
I used to remind everyone in the squadron that that fact was absolutely true, so
don't even bother with the Navy's safety record, just their own... Very few
guys were willing to believe that they couldn't do that!
Semantics for sure, but seemed to put things in perspective.
I do have one disagreement, I believe ALL accidents are a result of a chain, not
most. Theoretically not true I'm sure, but probably closer than "most"! Aviation
Safety Officer school was SIX WEEKS of learning how all our buddies morted
themselves, it was morose and depressing. That "chain" is the subject of
practically ALL safety discussions and a super useful thing to understand in safety
awareness.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392959#392959
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: How do we increase safety? |
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Just curious as to what is not useful about saying "use good materials", and "use
good craftsmanship", and "use accepted practices" ALL THE TIME. While it simply
isn't possible to exercise *perfect* judgment ALL THE TIME, it IS possible
to exercise GOOD judgement all the time.
Bill C.
> It's not very useful to say, (and related to the Lowe's steel debacle) use good
materials, use good craftsmanship, use accepted practices and exercise perfect
judgment ALL THE TIME.
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392962#392962
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: How do we increase safety? |
From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
Well, all of those things can be done all the time, but that they're not to a degree
it's worth talking about leads me to believe it's just vague enough to warrant
a closer more relevant look. Making it not very useful as a general statement.
What materials are most commonly used that are unsafe?
What judgment errors are most commonly made with a Pietenpol?
What unsafe practices are generally committed with high frequency?
If we find things that are unique to the Piet, ie are more people committing errors
associated with density altitude with a Piet than a GA aircraft that has
published tables (but the same genre, ie a Cub), maybe we've found something relevant.
Something not likely to be found by simply saying, "don't operate your
plane outside it's performance envelope", which itself is more specific than
saying "don't commit an error in judgment.
One could have an entire world wide encompassing safety program with one phrase.
"Don't do anything unsafe..." That's been proven to be not very useful.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392966#392966
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
Subject: | Re: How do we increase safety? |
All good points to consider but that brings up a series of other questions - perhaps
answered elsewhere. For instance; How do you go about developing your own
"performance envelope" in a manner that keeps you safe and not putting yourself
and your aircraft in danger? I know that this is part of what the 40-hour
(for most of us) fly-off period is supposed to be for. Is there a published
method for coming up with all the required "V" speeds and such?
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
>>> "tools" 1/23/2013 3:19 PM >>>
Well, all of those things can be done all the time, but that they're not to a degree
it's worth talking about leads me to believe it's just vague enough to warrant
a closer more relevant look. Making it not very useful as a general statement.
What materials are most commonly used that are unsafe?
What judgment errors are most commonly made with a Pietenpol?
What unsafe practices are generally committed with high frequency?
If we find things that are unique to the Piet, ie are more people committing errors
associated with density altitude with a Piet than a GA aircraft that has
published tables (but the same genre, ie a Cub), maybe we've found something relevant.
Something not likely to be found by simply saying, "don't operate your
plane outside it's performance envelope", which itself is more specific than
saying "don't commit an error in judgment.
One could have an entire world wide encompassing safety program with one phrase.
"Don't do anything unsafe..." That's been proven to be not very useful.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: How do we increase safety? |
From: | "BYD" <billsayre(at)ymail.com> |
> Is there a published method for coming up with all the required "V" speeds and
such?
AC90-89A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392971#392971
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
The common wisdom I subscribe to is:
Flying is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. The Insurance rates are about
the same. Insurance companies do the math.
To reduce your accident/death rate stay away from the following:
Drinking or drugs) and flying
VFR Flying into IFR
doing aerobatics in a non aerobatic plane,
radical showing off down low.
not wearing the proper safety gear.
fly sick.
Not staying or getting current with an instructor.
poor maintenance.
Granted you can have accidents that are not in those categories, but you significantly
reduce your accident rate if you stay away from these activites. I am
willing to take the residual risk for the joy of flying.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 13:03
Subject: Pietenpol-List: safety?
> Glad you read all those NTSB reports Bob and improving our safety
> record is a commendable effort for sure but
> the NTSB and FAA don't classify homebuilts the same in their
> records/reports so analyzing the data can be a muddy
> endeavor. (still it is pretty clear what factors cause the most
> trouble for hombuilders/pilots like us)
>
>
> Ron Wanttaja put together this great report explaining some
> differences in the way homebuilt
> accidents are tabulated by cause and even includes some
> comparisons with factory built GA airplanes.
> Worth a look really and he summarizes things nicely.
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf
>
>
> Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
Subject: | Re: How do we increase safety? |
Thank you Bill! Just what I was needing.
Stinemetze,
N328X
>>> "BYD" 1/23/2013 4:17 PM >>>
> Is there a published method for coming up with all the required "V" speeds and
such?
AC90-89A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | "TriScout" <apfelcyber(at)yahoo.com> |
I agree w/last two posts. Spot on. I got "caught" coming back to home airfeld w/25kts
direct x-wind (sans gusts) and it gets your attention on downwind(and then
on final) when you see the crab angle required. I was quite surprised at how
well it handled troughout landing/rollout. I just bugged it up 10 on final,
de-crabbed last 10 feet, Hoovered it on the upwind wheel, and as the downwind
wheel touched..."tap".."tap" on downwind heel brake to counter the weathervane
into wind....seemed to work ok (GN-1/A65). I was about to go try it again, but
thought it best not to press my good fortune..
15 plus Knots and "gusting" ... I'd rather take the 25 Knotter w/out the gusts.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392985#392985
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | How do we increase safety? |
Thanks for that synopsis, Bob. Unfortunately, all these causes of accidents
are not limited to Pietenpols only. All of general aviation suffers these,
with experimental aircraft showing up in these statistics a
disproportionately high number of times.
I like your list of bulletpoints at the bottom. I particularly like your
last suggestion. As a CFI, whenever I'm doing a flight review for a private
pilot, I always have him/her go through a series of power-off and power-on
stalls, as well as demonstrating turns in slow flight. I also like to pull
the power at some point to simulate an engine failure and determine if they
are able to correctly pick a suitable landing field and set up an approach
to it. Then when we are on downwind leg in the traffic pattern, I'll pull
it again and tell them to make the runway and land without touching the
throttle. I'm always amazed at the wide patterns people fly, and then
wonder why they can't make the field when the engine quits.
A Pietenpol is a very safe airplane, but it does have its quirks. Chief
among them is the high drag inherent to the design, with the resulting poor
glide ratio. Trying to "stretch" a glide in a Pietenpol is a sure-fire
recipe for disaster. When flying a traffic pattern in a Piet, you want to
stay very close to the runway on the downwind leg. My personal preference
is to fly the approach a little high, and then when I know I can make the
field, slip it to lose altitude.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Dewenter
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:20 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: How do we increase safety?
Fellow Piet builder/ flyers:
A long story would tell you why I signed up for a college course in
aviation accident investigations - and why at my age I am "in school". It's
for a good cause - an Instrument rating courtesy of the VA. I have come
across some interesting observations I think worth sharing with my fellow
Pietenpol builders/owners and in general to the Experimental home builder
community as a whole. I have a request that you all think about safety and
perhaps post your thought on how we all can increase safety while flying and
for some of us, building.
After reading 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports (2012 all the way to
1970s), it's my novice opinion that the predominant Pietenpol accident CAUSE
is "failure to control the aircraft" in either take-off or landing phase,
usually RESULTS in a stall, stall/spin, hard landing, impact with trees,
failure to maintain directional control after landing, and ground loops.
HIDDEN in these reports is overloaded aircraft unable to climb due to
several "contributing factors" such as density altitude, exceeding the
aircraft gross weight abilities and aircraft loaded outside their CG limits.
Gusty conditions are commonly cited as contributing factors. Every one of
these accidents is human error.
The seconds leading CAUSE of accidents is "Fuel Starvation". In three
cases carb icing was determined to be the likely cause, but is never proven
to be the cause as it "flees the scene of the accident". In a recent
accident (2011) the NTSB stated the cause of the accident was water In the
fuel. In another, the tank was improperly built - the internal finger
strainer was placed over the sump outlet not the supply to the carb and some
"Teflon thread tape" was found blocking the fuel supply inlet to the carb.
In another, the tank vent was blocked by a wasp nest. My favorite of ALL
involves a guy who hand props his engine. The fuel shut off valve is in the
front cockpit (reachable during hand propping). The pilots "NORMAL
PROCEDURE" is to close the fuel valve, prop the engine, then opens the fuel
valve after engine startup. Problem this particular day was he left the
fuel valve closed and when the engine quit during the flight, he could not
reach the fuel valve to open it - it was in the front cockpit! Every one of
these accidents is human error.
Not listed as fuel starvation, one poor guy ran out of fuel in cruise and
made a successful landing off airport in a field with short "ankle length"
grass. He re-filled with 4.5 gallons fuel. On takeoff the left wheel
struck a small rock and the gear collapsed.
I read four accident reports where BUZZING was the CAUSE of the accident .
Contributing to these accidents are things like flying into a pole at 30 ft
AGL, one into a power line, one from a downdraft, and one from failure to
maintain air speed. Every one of these accidents is human error. Four
accidents and 5 fatalities!
The stall/spin on landing or takeoff and BUZZING are the predominant CAUSE
of fatal accidents.
Next come propellers (everyone pay attention!). There are two known
accidents caused by in-flight separation of the propeller (both Fords). In
both cases many (but not all) prop hub bolts had sheared indicating improper
inspections of the propeller, bolts, and hub. Rust was visible on the
sheared portion of the bolts. The third case involved a homemade prop that
failed to provide adequate thrust and the plane crashed on takeoff (actually
the pilot crashed the plane, not the other way around). Every one of these
accidents is human error.
Now here is one that will give those who asked about putting controls up
front will like to hear about - 3 accidents in all. In one accident, the
front passenger inadvertently pulled the throttle closed and the pilot was
unable to overcome the passengers "death grip" on the throttle - they
crashed. In another case, the passenger inadvertently applied left aileron
(with his legs when he turned around to look at the pilot) during a
"upsetting" takeoff, the pilot could not recover in time and they crashed.
Finally in a third incident a seat cushion was interfering with the rudder /
brakes. The preflight did not notice this condition and the pilot crashed
on takeoff. Every one of these accidents is human error .
Notice, I have not yet made mention of any mechanical engine issues so far?
Well there are a couple unrelated accidents, where "loss of engine power"
(not attributed to carb ice) was listed as a contributing factor but NEVER
the CAUSE of the accident (just as in the case of carb ice). In all these
cases "failure to maintain control of the aircraft" was the CAUSE. One
case cited a burnt exhaust valve, and another was "overheating" related to a
blockage of the oil cooler caused oil starvation - ironically the foreign
object was part of a cylinder ring. In a third case "CAUSE UNKNOWN"
resulting in a loss of power. Noted in this case was low compression in 3
of the 4 cylinders. And finally a "burred" carb needle caused the needle
to stick in the closed position (on landing - pilot needed power and did not
get it). Every one of these accidents was CAUSED by human errors.
The very oldest Pietenpol accident reports (1970s) available on line contain
only a few brief words in the accident report. One mentions improper
rigging of a turnbuckle. It broke in fight, the wing shifted and the CG was
disturbed. In another, the "push-pull" rod failed at the bell crank. Both
of these accidents resulted in fatalities. All caused by human error.
Now I am sure there are numerous Pietenpol accidents that did not show up in
the 50+ NTSB Pietenpol accident reports I was able to obtain. I suspect
this because I could not find reports on notable and known accidents of
certain non Pietenpol accidents I wanted to research. But I think it's fair
to say that MOST Pietenpols are inherently safe - because of the design and
because of the builder/owner/pilot. In my novice opinion, It's the pilot
and the "maintainer" that you need to be keeping an eye on to prevent
accidents.
Summation: Most accidents are the result of a chain of events. Normally it
requires only one link in the chain to be broken to avoid an accident. What
accident chain links can you break? ALL of them!
Our Pietenpol "type club" needs to do a better job to prevent accidents. I
suggest the following:
* Better pre-flight inspections with strict adherence to checklists
would have avoided MANY of these accidents.
* Not flying aft of the rear CG limits would have avoided MANY of
these accidents - those of us still building MUST not skip the W&B step at
the end of construction!
* Use of carb heat might have avoided several accidents. Always use
carb heat when power is below cruise setting! Make this a checklist item.
* Avoiding BUZZING would definitely have prevented fatal accidents -
Don't do it!
* Adequate training / experience handling difficult landing and
takeoff conditions. Consider not flying in gusty conditions with passengers
- or at all.
* Better passenger briefing and perhaps requiring usage of an
intercom/headsets to communicate with the passenger should be mandatory
* I suggest passenger placing their hands on the outboard fuse walls
(9 and 3 o'clock) during takeoffs and landings to be part of your
checklists.
* Make front stick removable and keep it uninstalled in most
instances.
* Do a Weight & Balance of the airplane - know your true CG data -
and keep within it.
* Consider Density altitude, gross weight and performance when
taking a passenger
* Pay better attention to slow flight stall/spin avoidance
procedures - takeoffs and landings
WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST we do to make flying our Pietenpol safer?
Bob Dewenter
Piet builder / Corvair owner
Dayton OH
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "C N Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
Well, I have never flown a Piet but I don't believe it would be all that
different from a Cub or T-craft or any such. I have always used and taught
(when I was instructing in the Navy as well as civilian) the "wing down"
crosswind technique. You're really just slipping into the wind with no
sudden change at the bottom just before touchdown. Basically, keep the
airplane over the 'centerline' with the ailerons and the airplane lined up
with the centerline with the rudder ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND. C
----- Original Message -----
From: "TriScout" <apfelcyber(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:04 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cross wind component
>
> I agree w/last two posts. Spot on. I got "caught" coming back to home
> airfeld w/25kts direct x-wind (sans gusts) and it gets your attention on
> downwind(and then on final) when you see the crab angle required. I was
> quite surprised at how well it handled troughout landing/rollout. I just
> bugged it up 10 on final, de-crabbed last 10 feet, Hoovered it on the
> upwind wheel, and as the downwind wheel touched..."tap".."tap" on downwind
> heel brake to counter the weathervane into wind....seemed to work ok
> (GN-1/A65). I was about to go try it again, but thought it best not to
> press my good fortune..
>
> 15 plus Knots and "gusting" ... I'd rather take the 25 Knotter w/out the
> gusts.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392985#392985
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | "TriScout" <apfelcyber(at)yahoo.com> |
That's a good technique as well. It's all relative I suppose. I did the bankcheck
hauling in the 80's (8 -9 legs/night) in Learjets, so I got accustomed to having
to avoid dragging a tip tank in severe x-winds, de-crabbing in the flare.
Now flying the 747-8/-400's, as well as the Dreamlifter (LCF). Our manual states
5 deg bank limit to avoid scraping #1 or 4. So I find it much easier to basically
de-crab in the flare to touchdown. I'd probably ground loop trying the
sideslip the GN-1 from 200' up after all these years of doing it the "easy"
way.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393004#393004
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Chris. First off, I am stoked to see your plane! Any chance of broadhead? Secondly,
I modified helsper's brake design and I really like it. A toe actuator
sticks out from the fuse walls just in front of my toes, they go thru slots
in the wood to flay stock levers which lie against the outside of the ply , between
ply and fabric, their ends protrude out a slot at the bottom and a cable
from each brake Ron's to them. All you see in the cockpit is a two inch tube
sticking in, everything else is hidden. Just like dans in concept, just moved
some stuff outboard.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Oil temp / Water temp gauge |
From: | "Pietflyer1977" <rob(at)stoinoff.com> |
Trying to take care of my instrument overhauls early and do not have my fuselage
but yet, or know the location of connection on the Model A engine, but can anyone
tell me how long the leads need to be to reach for the oil temp and a water
temp gauge? I have a oil temp gauge with a 56" lead. Will that be long enough
for a Model A engine? From the rear cockpit . Seems like the longest I can
find is 60" if I was to buy another one. Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393008#393008
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Chris Rusch" <rmdinfo(at)rmdbenders.com> |
Hi Douwe,
Brodhead is in my sights!! just not sure if i can get the 40 hrs off before then.
I am optimistically shooting for May to be test flying. I am finishing up the
fusalage stuff before i cover it, everything else is done and painted. Its
exciting putting stuff together for the FINAL time, using the right hardware and
putting in the cotter keys...
Can you take some pictures of your brake set up?
Chris
--------
NX321LR
Fully Assembled
Tail assembly and ailerons covered and painted.
Wings covered and primed, one painted
Mitsubishi Powered
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393010#393010
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "skipgadd(at)earthlink.net" <skipgadd(at)earthlink.net> |
Douwe,
How far does your toe actuator stick out form the fuse wall? And how far
above and (I assume) in front of neutral rudder bar?
Skip
> [Original Message]
> From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: 1/24/2013 11:17:14 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brakes
>
>
> Chris. First off, I am stoked to see your plane! Any chance of
broadhead? Secondly, I modified helsper's brake design and I really like
it. A toe actuator sticks out from the fuse walls just in front of my
toes, they go thru slots in the wood to flay stock levers which lie
against the outside of the ply , between ply and fabric, their ends
protrude out a slot at the bottom and a cable from each brake Ron's to
them. All you see in the cockpit is a two inch tube sticking in,
everything else is hidden. Just like dans in concept, just moved some
stuff outboard.
>
> Douwe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com> |
I might have a nice "piet" for sale--just sayin'--cheap--too many
projects...
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
President, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack" <jack(at)textors.com> |
Subject: | Avionics Placement |
Good evening all,
My transponder is mounted in the center section. Is there any reason to NOT
locate the encoder close by?
Thanks!
Jack Textor
Des Moines, IA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Avionics Placement |
No reason at all, Jack. That's what I did. I also put the transponder
antenna inside the wing, just outboard of the centersection mounted on a 6"
diameter aluminum groundplane. Works just fine.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Avionics Placement
Good evening all,
My transponder is mounted in the center section. Is there any reason to NOT
locate the encoder close by?
Thanks!
<<...>> <<...>>
Jack Textor
Des Moines, IA
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Avionics Placement |
From: | Gene Rambo <generambo(at)msn.com> |
Bernard didn't???
Gene
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:55 PM, "Jack" wrote:
> Good evening all,
>
> My transponder is mounted in the center section. Is there any reason to NO
T locate the encoder close by?
>
> Thanks!
>
> <<...>> <<...>>
>
> Jack Textor
>
> Des Moines, IA
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar> |
Subject: | Avionics Placement |
Hi Jack, do you have enough room for your aileron balance cable?=0ABeautifu
l work=0A=0ASantiago
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Avionics Placement |
From: | Jack <jack(at)textors.com> |
Very good point!
Sent from my iPad
Jack Textor
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:23 PM, santiago morete w
rote:
> Hi Jack, do you have enough room for your aileron balance cable?
> Beautiful work
>
> Santiago
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Avionics Placement |
From: | Jack <jack(at)textors.com> |
Thanks Jack, did you mount your antenna upside down? Also it was pointed out
by Santiago in a separate email to keep the spar clear for the aileron bala
nce cable...
Sent from my iPad
Jack Textor
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
> No reason at all, Jack. That=99s what I did. I also put the transp
onder antenna inside the wing, just outboard of the centersection mounted on
a 6=9D diameter aluminum groundplane. Works just fine.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-li
st-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:55 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Avionics Placement
>
> Good evening all,
>
> My transponder is mounted in the center section. Is there any reason to NO
T locate the encoder close by?
>
> Thanks!
>
> <<...>> <<...>>
>
> Jack Textor
>
> Des Moines, IA
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Avionics Placement |
Hi Jack,
If by upside down you mean with the antenna below the groundplane, the
answer is yes. Here is a poor quality picture showing the antenna:
It seems to work well enough. The few times I've flown into Class C
(Raleigh, Roanoke) and the one time in Class B (Dulles), ATC has never
commented on getting a poor signal.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Avionics Placement
Thanks Jack, did you mount your antenna upside down? Also it was pointed out
by Santiago in a separate email to keep the spar clear for the aileron
balance cable...
Sent from my iPad
Jack Textor
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
No reason at all, Jack. That's what I did. I also put the transponder
antenna inside the wing, just outboard of the centersection mounted on a 6"
diameter aluminum groundplane. Works just fine.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Avionics Placement
Good evening all,
My transponder is mounted in the center section. Is there any reason to NOT
locate the encoder close by?
Thanks!
<<...>> <<...>>
Jack Textor
Des Moines, IA
==================================
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==================================
cs.com
==================================
matronics.com/contribution
==================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: How do we increase safety? |
From: | "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob,
I have been out flying and had not had a chance to respond to your post until now.
It was a great article and thanks for doing the leg work of researching the
records. You have done all of us a real service.
The NTSB may do things differently with the record keeping of experimental aircraft,
but it is hard to argue with a report of fuel shutoff valves in an unreachable
place, or passengers stepping on the rudder. I think all of your bullet
points are reasonable, and should be considered by all of us.
One bullet point I might add is this - when planning your build, always plan for
the worst. Had the guy that put the fuel shutoff in the cockpit thought that
way, he would have made sure he had access at all times to the valve, not just
at start up. In my build, how does that apply? Routing of fuel lines and the
construction of the fuel tank are big concerns for me. Making sure that if I
have an off field landing, or the gear collapses, the fuel lines are stout enough
to take the forces and making sure my tank and fuel system are not affected
by the deteriorating effects of ethanol. No, I do not plan to use ethanol fuel
in my airplane, but what if it is inadvertently introduced? I am planning for
the worst. Just one example.
Again, nice job, Bob.
P.S. Are there any areas of construction that weasel oil is beneficial? How about
weasel varnish? [Laughing]
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393027#393027
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
Subject: | Avionics Placement |
Just be careful to insure the static port is routed somewhere where the
pressure is subject to local affects. Vented to the cockpit is best I
imagine.
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: January 24, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Avionics Placement
Good evening all,
My transponder is mounted in the center section. Is there any reason to
NOT locate the encoder close by?
Thanks!
<<...>> <<...>>
Jack Textor
Des Moines, IA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TGSTONE236(at)aol.com |
Subject: | TRANSPONDER MOUNT |
EVERYONE HAS A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING THINGS. MY TRANSPONDER MOUNTING. I
HAVE AN ALUMINUM COVER OVER MY FUEL TANK AND THE KT76 ANTENNA IS MOUNTED TO
IT
TED STONE
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Barnwell Regional Airport" <barnwellairport(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
Fellow Pietenpoler's,
For some time, Don Harper and I had planned to write up the results of a
"head to head" test comparing the Pietenpol airfoil to the Riblett
airfoil. To the best of our knowledge, no one else has conducted the
same type testing.
The write up is self explanatory as to our methods.
Remember, testing is ongoing and will continue. The various numbers you
see now very likely will change as we do further testing. Updated
results will be posted when we have something worthwhile to add..
Our intend, is to share the information with the Piet community, not to
start an argument.
thank you,
P. F. Beck
Don Harper
Barnwell, S. C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoi
From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
Very cool stuff. Just the way I would do it. Keep up the good work and have fun
doing it. Great info.
Thank you,
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393044#393044
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
John: you're kidding, right? You're not going to sell the Piet that you're just
about ready to fly??!!
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393045#393045
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TGSTONE236(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: TRANSPONDER MOUNT |
THE CENTER SECTION IS ON SAW HORSES UP SIDE DOWN AS YOU CAN SEE THE CABINE
ATTACH BRACKETS THERE ALSO. ON THE TRANSPONDERS THE CONTROL KNOB IS ON THE
LEFT HAND SIDE.IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY YOU WILL REALIZE THAT I AM CORRECT.
NO I WON'T ANY TROUBLE READING THE UNIT. I'LL POST PIC TURES LATER SHOWING
RIGHT SIDE UP.
TED
In a message dated 1/25/2013 12:51:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
TOMS(at)mcpcity.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "TOM STINEMETZE"
I hate to mention this Ted, but unless you are dyslexic in the vertical
dimension, you are going to have problems reading the dials on that thing.
8^]
Stinemetze
do not archive
>>> 1/25/2013 11:10 AM >>>
EVERYONE HAS A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING THINGS. MY TRANSPONDER MOUNTING. I
HAVE AN ALUMINUM COVER OVER MY FUEL TANK AND THE KT76 ANTENNA IS MOUNTED TO
IT
TED STONE
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
Subject: | Re: TRANSPONDER MOUNT |
Ted:
You are right, of course - the transponder is upside down which makes it right
side up. But where is the fun in that?
I am curious, though, if you were able to pick up a used transponder and encoder
for a not too ridiculous price? I have followed a few on eBay and wondered
if I was going to have to hock my motorcycle or my wife to purchase one.
Stinemetze
N328X
>>> 1/25/2013 2:48 PM >>>
THE CENTER SECTION IS ON SAW HORSES UP SIDE DOWN AS YOU CAN SEE THE CABINE ATTACH
BRACKETS THERE ALSO. ON THE TRANSPONDERS THE CONTROL KNOB IS ON THE LEFT HAND
SIDE.IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY YOU WILL REALIZE THAT I AM CORRECT.
NO I WON'T ANY TROUBLE READING THE UNIT. I'LL POST PIC TURES LATER SHOWING RIGHT
SIDE UP.
TED
________________________________________________________________________________
Tom
A really neat Unit is from TRIG. The encoder is built in, it's low current drainage,
small and lightweight. It's also Mode S.
Take a look. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/trigtt21.php?clickkey=9973
Regards
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
From: | Jack <jack(at)textors.com> |
Beautiful ships!
Sent from my iPad
Jack Textor
On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:56 PM, "Barnwell Regional Airport" wrote:
> Fellow Pietenpoler's,
>
> For some time, Don Harper and I had planned to write up the results of a "
head to head" test comparing the Pietenpol airfoil to the Riblett airfoil. T
o the best of our knowledge, no one else has conducted the same type testing
.
>
> The write up is self explanatory as to our methods.
>
> Remember, testing is ongoing and will continue. The various numbers you s
ee now very likely will change as we do further testing. Updated results wi
ll be posted when we have something worthwhile to add..
>
> Our intend, is to share the information with the Piet community, not to st
art an argument.
>
> thank you,
>
> P. F. Beck
> Don Harper
> Barnwell, S. C.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TGSTONE236(at)aol.com |
KEN,
THE REASON I LEAVE THE CAP LOCK DOWN IS I HUNT AHD PECK TYPING MAKING IT
EASIER FOR ME SOME OF US OLD(75) FOLKS NEVER TOOK TYPING OR KEYBOARD IF THAT
IS POLITICALLY CORRECT.
TOM,
I HAD THIS KT76 FOR YEARS IN MY BEECH A-23.AN A&P BUDDY AND I WENT THROUGH
MY PLANE YEARS AGO FROM A TO Z. THE KT 76 WOULD NOT TRANSMIT. I ORDERED A
GARMIN 320 FOR IT.WHEN STARTED TO CONVERT WE FOUND THE ANTENNA UNPLUGED. NOT
WANTING THE WIFE TO KNOW, WE INSTALLED THE NEW UNIT AND KEPT QUIET ABOUT
IT.THAT IS MY REASON FOR THE KT 76.IT IS BEST SOMETIMES WHAQT GOES ON IN THE
HANGER STAYS IN THE HANGER.
TED
BUILDING CORVAIR POWERED WITH DAN'S 5TH BEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Subject: | a low spot in Tom's fuel line tubing |
Tom,
Great progress you're making and sorry you live in an area where you need a
transponder but looks like you've done
a nice installation.
On another note it appears you've built a low spot into your tubing coming
out of your fuel line. From what I remember
in the Tony Bingelis books, fuel lines should all angle downhill (like gutt
ers) until they hit the gascolator at the low point
and then you can route the line up to the carb.
Glad you are on the list and even better that at 75 year old guy is using e
-mail. Way to go.
Mike C.
Numquam Volavit in Classe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Subject: | yes-- -Ted Stone's fuel tank |
Right on that one Tom S.----- I meant that note to be about Ted Stone's fuel tank.
Good catch.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TGSTONE236(at)aol.com |
THANKS FOR THE APPROVAL GUYS.
I ALSO DON'T MIND CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, THAT ALWAYS GIVES ME A CHANCE TO
MAKE IT RIGHT.
TED STONE
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett airfoil |
UC5GLiwNCg0KSXQgc291bmRzIHRvIG1lIGFzIGlmIHlvdeKAmXJlIHRyeWluZyB0byBzdGFydCBh
biBhcmd1bWVudOKApi4gICAoS0lERElORyEhISkNCg0KV29uZGVyZnVsIHdyaXRlIHVwIGFuZCB0
aGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHNoYXJpbmcgd2hhdCB5b3XigJl2ZSBmb3VuZCB3aXRoIHlvdSBhbmQgeW91
ciBmcmllbmRzIGJlYXV0aWZ1bA0KYWlycGxhbmVzLiAgTG9vayBmb3J3YXJkIHRvIGhlYXJpbmcg
YWJvdXQgbW9yZSByZXN1bHRzIGFzIHlvdSBvYnRhaW4gdGhlbS4gICBTb3VuZHMgbGlrZSBhIEJy
b2RoZWFkDQpGb3J1bSBpbiB0aGUgbWFraW5nLiAgIE5pY2Ugd29yayBhbmQgZWZmb3J0Lg0KDQpN
aWtlIEMuDQoNCg0KDQo9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0QNCg0KDQo
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Boyer <boyerjrb(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
HI P.F.
Thanks for the information; it was interesting and will be looking for more in
the future.
Jim B.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com> |
Life got in the way
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:35 PM, taildrags wrote:
>
> John: you're kidding, right? You're not going to sell the Piet that
> you're just about ready to fly??!!
>
> --------
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> A75 power
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393045#393045
>
>
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
President, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TGSTONE236(at)aol.com |
CENTER SECTION RIGHT SIDE UP SHOWING KT76 IN CORRECT POSITION
CENTER SECTION SHOWING TANK COVER WITH TRANSPONDER ANTENNA MOUNTED
TED STONE
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoi
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
PF and Don,
Excellent work. Thanks for sharing.
This is exactly the type of comparison that has been needed to provide some clear,
unbiased information. The fact that the two aircraft are so similar is key.
The only thing that I can see skewing the results is that the Riblett wing
appears to be red. :)
Looking forward to seeing the next phase of results, as Don's plane gets "broken
in".
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393074#393074
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoi
From: | "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com> |
And we all know that red makes cars and planes fly faster. So that might account
for the rpm difference between the two planes :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393076#393076
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
Very interesting, PF. Please keep us updated. I must admit, I expected to
see some advantage to the Riblett, but there doesn't appear to be much if
any. Perhaps further testing will reveal something. Otherwise it looks
like, once again, that old Pietenpol fellow really knew what he was doing
when he designed this airplane.
I agree with Mike Cuy - looks like this would be an excellent topic for a
forum at Brodhead.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barnwell
Regional Airport
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and
Riblett airfoil
Fellow Pietenpoler's,
For some time, Don Harper and I had planned to write up the results of a
"head to head" test comparing the Pietenpol airfoil to the Riblett airfoil.
To the best of our knowledge, no one else has conducted the same type
testing.
The write up is self explanatory as to our methods.
Remember, testing is ongoing and will continue. The various numbers you see
now very likely will change as we do further testing. Updated results will
be posted when we have something worthwhile to add..
Our intend, is to share the information with the Piet community, not to
start an argument.
thank you,
P. F. Beck
Don Harper
Barnwell, S. C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Ted,
Rather than typing everything with Caps Lock on, why not just type everything in
lower case, and not worry about capitalization of letters?
IT'S JUST HARDER TO READ WHEN EVERYTHING IS IN CAPITAL LETTERS, AND IT FEELS AS
THOUGH THE READER IS BEING SHOUTED AT.
see what i mean?
Just a thought.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393082#393082
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
This is good intel. and I am glad that someone has spent the time to do suc
h work for the benefit of all of us.-
-
-I am currently covering and painting my Riblett 612 wings. I had always
planned to use VGs since building the ribs four years ago.- I am very int
erested in what VGs you used and what if any, suggestions you have for thei
r placement and installation process.- What type paint did you use on the
wing and how well do the VGs stick to said paint? Did you roughen up the a
rea of paint where the VGs attached?- Any insight would be greatly apprec
iated as I will be installing the VGs prior to attaching the wing the the A
C.
Michael Perez
Pietenpol HINT Videos
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
PF,
I am very appreciative of what you guys have done with this report.
Real data is always better than opinion when trying to assess things
like performance.
My project has been stalled for several years thanks to a number of
factors, not the least of which being trying to turn an old, worn-out
farm into a working, profitable one (and holding down a part time
teaching job at the same time to pay the bills while we get the farm
on its feet), but I will be moving on to making ribs and wings in the
next couple of years, and I've been contemplating which way to go.
As far as performance goes, I'm a bit surprised to see such minor
differences. I wonder how much the VG's on your wing contribute to
performance? It would be interesting to learn whether or not that's a
significant factor in the performance of your wing. The other
difference I'm thinking about is that, when using a center section
fuel tank, which I'm planning to do, I think the Riblett has more
potential capacity. When using a Corvair, that may be a
consideration, since it has a higher fuel consumption rate than an
A-65. The other issue that your work does not address (and I'm not
sure it can, but maybe you'll look at this later) is the potential
difference in CG envelope on comparable planes.
Kip Gardner
On Jan 25, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Barnwell Regional Airport wrote:
> Fellow Pietenpoler's,
>
> For some time, Don Harper and I had planned to write up the results
> of a "head to head" test comparing the Pietenpol airfoil to the
> Riblett airfoil. To the best of our knowledge, no one else has
> conducted the same type testing.
>
> The write up is self explanatory as to our methods.
>
> Remember, testing is ongoing and will continue. The various numbers
> you see now very likely will change as we do further testing.
> Updated results will be posted when we have something worthwhile to
> add..
>
> Our intend, is to share the information with the Piet community, not
> to start an argument.
>
> thank you,
>
> P. F. Beck
> Don Harper
> Barnwell, S. C. Panel (Small).JPG>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan Yocum <yocum137(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
What about the vortex generators? That's a major difference in my opinion. I
'd like to see the same number and type of vortex generators put on the 612 t
o see if there's a difference.
Also, were the gross weights at take off the same? Maybe I missed that in t
he text.
Great information! Thanks for doing this.
Dan
--
Dan Yocum
yocum137(at)gmail.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 6:17 AM, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
> Very interesting, PF. Please keep us updated. I must admit, I expected t
o see some advantage to the Riblett, but there doesn=99t appear to be m
uch if any. Perhaps further testing will reveal something. Otherwise it lo
oks like, once again, that old Pietenpol fellow really knew what he was doin
g when he designed this airplane.
>
> I agree with Mike Cuy =93 looks like this would be an excellent topi
c for a forum at Brodhead.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-li
st-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barnwell Regional Airport
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:56 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Rib
lett airfoil
>
> Fellow Pietenpoler's,
>
> For some time, Don Harper and I had planned to write up the results of a "
head to head" test comparing the Pietenpol airfoil to the Riblett airfoil. T
o the best of our knowledge, no one else has conducted the same type testing
.
>
> The write up is self explanatory as to our methods.
>
> Remember, testing is ongoing and will continue. The various numbers you s
ee now very likely will change as we do further testing. Updated results wi
ll be posted when we have something worthwhile to add..
>
> Our intend, is to share the information with the Piet community, not to st
art an argument.
>
> thank you,
>
> P. F. Beck
> Don Harper
> Barnwell, S. C.
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
Dan,
that was part of my question. PF's wing (original Pietenpol) was the
one with V.G.'s. I would think that would substantively change
performance & I would like to see 2 additional 'experiments 9although
PF says he's leaving his VG's on, so one experiment would have to be
with another, comparable plane). First, a comparison of Don's plane
to a plane with a 'clean' Pietenpol airfoil, and secondly, as you
suggest, a comparison of PF's plane with Don's after putting VG's on
Don's wing.
It appeared from what PF wrote that they made a good effort to make
sure that takeoff weights were as close to the same as practical.
Kip Gardner
On Jan 26, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Dan Yocum wrote:
> What about the vortex generators? That's a major difference in my
> opinion. I'd like to see the same number and type of vortex
> generators put on the 612 to see if there's a difference.
>
> Also, were the gross weights at take off the same? Maybe I missed
> that in the text.
>
> Great information! Thanks for doing this.
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Dan Yocum
> yocum137(at)gmail.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 6:17 AM, "Jack Phillips"
> wrote:
>
>> Very interesting, PF. Please keep us updated. I must admit, I
>> expected to see some advantage to the Riblett, but there doesn=92t
>> appear to be much if any. Perhaps further testing will reveal
>> something. Otherwise it looks like, once again, that old Pietenpol
>> fellow really knew what he was doing when he designed this airplane.
>>
>> I agree with Mike Cuy ' looks like this would be an excellent topic
>> for a forum at Brodhead.
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>> NX899JP
>> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
>>
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> ] On Behalf Of Barnwell Regional Airport
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:56 PM
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil
>> and Riblett airfoil
>>
>> Fellow Pietenpoler's,
>>
>> For some time, Don Harper and I had planned to write up the results
>> of a "head to head" test comparing the Pietenpol airfoil to the
>> Riblett airfoil. To the best of our knowledge, no one else has
>> conducted the same type testing.
>>
>> The write up is self explanatory as to our methods.
>>
>> Remember, testing is ongoing and will continue. The various
>> numbers you see now very likely will change as we do further
>> testing. Updated results will be posted when we have something
>> worthwhile to add..
>>
>> Our intend, is to share the information with the Piet community,
>> not to start an argument.
>>
>> thank you,
>>
>> P. F. Beck
>> Don Harper
>> Barnwell, S. C.
>>
>>
>> ========================
>> >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ========================
>> cs.com
>> ========================
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> ========================
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Subject: | chicken and ribs |
I don't know about you guys but I was astounded with how incredibly well my Piet
would climb when the engine was new for
the first couple of years. Incredible performer really on only a 65 horse engine
and the Piet airfoil. I'm really glad to see this
news from PF develop so future builders can have a better set of knowledge when
choosing which wing they want to use.
I know one thing, keep the empty weight in the 630-660 range and you'll have a
good performer with a fresh 65 Continental.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov> |
Subject: | vortex generators |
Dan Yocum brings up the biggest point of all about the vortex generators. I've
heard so many good things about them
that if I could get over the vanity of how they look I might actually install them.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Each thread hasTWO buttons at the bottom..... |
From: | "tkreiner" <tkreiner(at)gmail.com> |
S, when you hit the one on the left, you leave the thread, along with a large group
of us who are scratching our heads wondering what this "new post" means.
The button to the right, however, allows you to reply, which maintains the integrity
- so to speak- of the original thread.
If your intent is to form a new thread, which is great, by all means do so, but
it would be nicer to the vast majority of us if your REPLIES to a thread were
done via the Reply button.
Just sayin'
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393094#393094
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Mike,
I couldn't agree more. The key to a good performing Piet is the old saying "simplicate
and add lightness". The Piet is very affected by excess weight. Not
only does extra weight hurt the climb, it also makes it more sluggish in the
air at cruise speeds. It also raises the landing speed, which creates more stress
on the gear because it is going faster with more weight. The airplane was
designed to be simple and light. If you are still building, try really hard
to resist the urge to add this and that. Try to keep it the simple and basic
machine it was meant to be. Okay.... I'll quit now. :-)
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393101#393101
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
Don, Sorry but the term in "Simplificate and add lightness."
Steve "POEM associate member" D
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Emch <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 19:20
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: chicken and ribs
>
> Mike,
>
> I couldn't agree more. The key to a good performing Piet is the old saying "simplicate
and add lightness". The Piet is very affected
> by excess weight. Not only does extra weight hurt the climb, it
> also makes it more sluggish in the air at cruise speeds. It also
> raises the landing speed, which creates more stress on the gear
> because it is going faster with more weight. The airplane was
> designed to be simple and light. If you are still building, try
> really hard to resist the urge to add this and that. Try to keep
> it the simple and basic machine it was meant to be. Okay.... I'll
> quit now. :-)
>
> Don Emch
> NX899DE
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393101#393101
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Thanks Steve. Didn't know there was such a word. I was going by the official
use of "simplicate" in the old Buckeye Pietenpol Association Newsletter. :-)
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393104#393104
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Studies have shown that we do a much more efficient job reading lower case letters
THAN ALL CAPS for extended reading. All Caps can be clearer if RESTRICTED
to short segments. nOTE hOW tHE nEXT tO sECTIONS rEAD:
WE CULOD SRACBMLE THE WRODS IN WTEHAVER FORM WE WSIH. AS LNOG AS WE AWLYAS MIATIANN
THE ODRER OF THE FRIST AND LSAT LTTEER THE TEXT WLIL SLTIL MKAE SNESE.
We culod sracbmle the wrods in wtehaver form we wsih. As lnog as we awlyas miatiann
the odrer of the frist and lsat ltteer the txet wlil sltil mkae snese.
with lower case letters we are able to look through the words and pick out the
letters that stick up. We actually can read text that is quite scrambled as long
as all the letters are there.
ARMY ORDERS are still written in all caps. The root reason was to simplificate
for the teletype. A much simpler system was required if you only had 26 letters
(one case) plus 10 numbers. With both cases it was 52 letters plus 10 characters.
No need to do it that way but the Army Standard is still to write major
Orders in ALL CAPS. Hard to read.
I would write your operations manual with both and do your placards in ALL CAPS.
BLUE SKIES
steve d
Blue Skies,
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 8:54
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: FUEL TANK
>
> Ted,
> Rather than typing everything with Caps Lock on, why not just type everything
in lower case, and not worry about capitalization of letters?
>
> IT'S JUST HARDER TO READ WHEN EVERYTHING IS IN CAPITAL LETTERS, AND IT FEELS
AS THOUGH THE READER IS BEING SHOUTED AT.
>
> see what i mean?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393082#393082
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
I am also resurrecting YE OLDE TEXIAN WORD Arriven.
For example a text could read "Flight was great, we have arriven at Broadhead."
Blue Skies,
Steve D
Founding member of the Society to stamp out and abolish redundant redundancies,
Association.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Emch <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 20:59
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: chicken and ribs
>
> Thanks Steve. Didn't know there was such a word. I was going by the official
use of "simplicate" in the old Buckeye Pietenpol
> Association Newsletter. :-)
>
> Don Emch
> NX899DE
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393104#393104
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
The quote that I've seen is "Simplicate and add lightness", and is attributed to
William Stout, designer of the Ford Trimotor.
>From Wikipedia (so it must be true :) ):
Stout is remembered for his Farberistic engineering credo, "Simplicate and add
more lightness." This would later become best known as the adopted maxim of Colin
Chapman of Lotus Cars. It actually originated with Stout's designer Gordon
Hooton.
In the spirit of the quote, "simplicate" makes more sense than "simplificate",
if for no reason other than it has one syllable less.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393107#393107
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Tom,
good point. :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393109#393109
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "tkreiner" <tkreiner(at)gmail.com> |
NOOOOOOOOOO!
Not like this!
Hit the OTHER Button!
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393112#393112
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Okay. I get it.
:)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393113#393113
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
I have a copy of "The Speed Seekers" by Thomas G. Foxworth . On Page 83
there is a bit on William B. Stout, designer of the Ford Tri-Motor
transports. I quote exactly: "His lifelong doctrine was 'simplicate and add
lightness.'" So we can assume that he coined the expression, and it
certainly holds true even today.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in chilly, snowy Alberta, Canada)
-----Original Message-----
From: Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: chicken and ribs
Don, Sorry but the term in "Simplificate and add lightness."
Steve "POEM associate member" D
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Emch <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 19:20
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: chicken and ribs
>
> Mike,
>
> I couldn't agree more. The key to a good performing Piet is the old
> saying "simplicate and add lightness". The Piet is very affected
> by excess weight. Not only does extra weight hurt the climb, it
> also makes it more sluggish in the air at cruise speeds. It also
> raises the landing speed, which creates more stress on the gear
> because it is going faster with more weight. The airplane was
> designed to be simple and light. If you are still building, try
> really hard to resist the urge to add this and that. Try to keep
> it the simple and basic machine it was meant to be. Okay.... I'll
> quit now. :-)
>
> Don Emch
> NX899DE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393101#393101
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
Irregardless Bill, I will Endeavor to persevere in pushing my spelling. I will
pursue it ;until it has reached leveliddity with the other word in use.
One of my favorite terms in aviation is "Cheap, fast, or efficient! pick two!"
That points to the "envelope" and the only way to truly expand the envelope is
to put money in it.
Blue "Simplified" Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 21:46
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: chicken and ribs
>
> The quote that I've seen is "Simplicate and add lightness", and is attributed
to William Stout, designer of the Ford Trimotor.
>
> >From Wikipedia (so it must be true :) ):
>
> Stout is remembered for his Farberistic engineering credo, "Simplicate and add
more lightness." This would later become best known as the adopted
> maxim of Colin Chapman of Lotus Cars. It actually originated with
> Stout's designer Gordon Hooton.
>
> In the spirit of the quote, "simplicate" makes more sense than
> "simplificate", if for no reason other than it has one syllable less.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393107#393107
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | "TriScout" <apfelcyber(at)yahoo.com> |
sorry for the late reply(in Germany)....
Yes.. "Airnut" ....in my time it was under the old name, but I understand it as
Airnet now.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393116#393116
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
From: | Gene Rambo <generambo(at)msn.com> |
Since you corrected B Church, I have to point out "irregardless"! is not a word.
It is "regardless"
Gene
On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:30 PM, "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB"
wrote:
>
> Irregardless Bill, I will Endeavor to persevere in pushing my spelling. I will
pursue it ;until it has reached leveliddity with the other word in use.
>
> One of my favorite terms in aviation is "Cheap, fast, or efficient! pick two!"
That points to the "envelope" and the only way to truly expand the envelope
is to put money in it.
>
> Blue "Simplified" Skies,
> Steve D
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Church <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 21:46
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: chicken and ribs
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>>
>> The quote that I've seen is "Simplicate and add lightness", and is attributed
to William Stout, designer of the Ford Trimotor.
>>
>>> From Wikipedia (so it must be true :) ):
>>
>> Stout is remembered for his Farberistic engineering credo, "Simplicate and add
more lightness." This would later become best known as the adopted
>> maxim of Colin Chapman of Lotus Cars. It actually originated with
>> Stout's designer Gordon Hooton.
>>
>> In the spirit of the quote, "simplicate" makes more sense than
>> "simplificate", if for no reason other than it has one syllable less.
>>
>> Bill C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393107#393107
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs |
Actually I've always preferred "Disirregardless" it just sort of sums it
up.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene Rambo
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: chicken and ribs
Since you corrected B Church, I have to point out "irregardless"! is not a
word. It is "regardless"
Gene
On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:30 PM, "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB"
wrote:
>
> Irregardless Bill, I will Endeavor to persevere in pushing my spelling. I
will pursue it ;until it has reached leveliddity with the other word in use.
>
> One of my favorite terms in aviation is "Cheap, fast, or efficient! pick
two!" That points to the "envelope" and the only way to truly expand the
envelope is to put money in it.
>
> Blue "Simplified" Skies,
> Steve D
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Church <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 21:46
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: chicken and ribs
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>>
>> The quote that I've seen is "Simplicate and add lightness", and is
attributed to William Stout, designer of the Ford Trimotor.
>>
>>> From Wikipedia (so it must be true :) ):
>>
>> Stout is remembered for his Farberistic engineering credo, "Simplicate
and add more lightness." This would later become best known as the adopted
>> maxim of Colin Chapman of Lotus Cars. It actually originated with
>> Stout's designer Gordon Hooton.
>>
>> In the spirit of the quote, "simplicate" makes more sense than
>> "simplificate", if for no reason other than it has one syllable less.
>>
>> Bill C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393107#393107
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: vortex generators |
From: | "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com> |
Paul,
No Link. Can you repost, please? Thanks.
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393124#393124
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfoil
From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Otherwise it looks like, once again, that old Pietenpol fellow really knew
what he was doing when he designed this airplane.
Was never drawn to the siren's song of changing the airfoil shape on the Pi
et. Especially because all the so-called advantages were strictly theoretic
al (except for one man's anecdotal experience). After all, I was building a
PIETENPOL (caps intended). Why do we always try to make it "a little bette
r"? (I myself am guilty of this, at a very low level of course). This is su
ch a major change in my opinion. The bad thing about using the Riblett, is
that when all is said and done there will always and forever be that naggin
g voice in the back of your mind that wants to know if it really would have
been "better"..... left the way it was :O). There are some changes to the
design that are incorporated by individuals that have practical reasons. A
three-piece wing is easier to transport and fit into a shop......4130 is mo
re readily available......wing struts of the original type cannot be obtain
ed.....seat belts will keep you from dying. But changing the basic airfoil
shape seems maybe, one step too many. If the Riblett is OK, then why not a
J-3 wing? Why not landing gear from a Cub? And that may lead to the dreaded
............GN-1!!!!!!
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN (dodging flames)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
From: | "TriScout" <apfelcyber(at)yahoo.com> |
shad...I heard a lot of them later went to fluxjet...feel free to Prime Minister
me if you want to toss a few names around. I know the ones that were there in
80's/early 90's...
Ler
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393128#393128
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Cross wind component |
Since the string was deleted, I have absolutely no clue what this comment is
about...
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TriScout
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:15 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cross wind component
shad...I heard a lot of them later went to fluxjet...feel free to Prime
Minister me if you want to toss a few names around. I know the ones that
were there in 80's/early 90's...
Ler
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393128#393128
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Barnwell Regional Airport" <barnwellairport(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Location to buy vortex generators Re. Comparrison test |
Pietenpol-Riblett airfoils
Fellow Pietenpol fans,
A number of you have asked about where to find vortex generators.
I bought the vortex generators on my Piet from www.landshorter.com out
in Idaho. Found them on the internet. Price was $100 eight years ago.
Very easy to install.
I'm not promoting them one way or another . You decide if they are right
for you.
Testing is and will continue on Don's plane as weather allows.We worked
on correcting the erratic airspeed readings yesterday afternoon. Getting
better.
We will not post any more results until we have some refined numbers to
share. Remember, our intent is to share information so that you can make
an informed choice as to which airfoil suits your needs.
Thanks and keep the discussion going.
P. F. Beck
Barnwell, S. C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Subject: | Re: chicken and ribs and words and I did something |
cool.
I use this definition of regard:
to have or show respect or concern for.
to think highly of; esteem.
to take into account; consider.
So Regardless means not to take into account.
Irregardless means to not not take in to account Therefor it means regard.
So Disirregardless means to not take into account. I like it! it adds meaning and
depth
Really I would like y'all to please stop helping me not help you!
Blue Skies,
Steve D
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
OT Yesterday I did one of the neatest things I have ever done. I took a wounded
warrior for a flight in my Vtail. Ben lost both legs and his right arm to an
IED. He has a great attitude. He rolled his chair up to the rear of my wing. Drug
himself onto the wing. I had to get in first and he used a seat pad to get
over the door frame and into the right seat. Not one complaint, just "how do
I do this?"
Good takeoff and flew out away from San Antonio. I explained Pull go up, push go
down, turn right go right and turn left, go left. I asked it he understood and
when Ben said yes, I surprised him by Throwing him the yoke (the Bonanza has
a single control that will "throw over" from left to right seat. He looked surprised
but was not reluctant to take the controls. I had him fly for about 25
min and then we returned to base. He loved it.
Next week, weather permitting, John Kuhfahl will give him a ride in his Ercoupe
and I will give his wife a ride in my plane. I mentioned him getting his Sport
pilot ticket and told him "if you are healthy enough to drive you can fly."
One of his next steps is to get prosthetics and they will modify his Ford F150
so that he can drive it. He currently drives a Polaris Razor that is modified
with a "suicide knob" and an adapter so that his stump can work the throttle
and brakes.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <don.h(at)wcoil.com> |
GOOD ON YOU MAJ Steve 73s w8zrz
-----Original Message-----
From: Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:11 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Neat thing
OT Yesterday I did one of the neatest things I have ever done. I took a
wounded warrior for a flight in my Vtail. Ben lost both legs and his right
arm to an IED. He has a great attitude. He rolled his chair up to the rear
of my wing. Drug himself onto the wing. I had to get in first and he used a
seat pad to get over the door frame and into the right seat. Not one
complaint, just "how do I do this?"
Good takeoff and flew out away from San Antonio. I explained Pull go up,
push go down, turn right go right and turn left, go left. I asked it he
understood and when Ben said yes, I surprised him by Throwing him the yoke
(the Bonanza has a single control that will "throw over" from left to right
seat. He looked surprised but was not reluctant to take the controls. I had
him fly for about 25 min and then we returned to base. He loved it.
Next week, weather permitting, John Kuhfahl will give him a ride in his
Ercoupe and I will give his wife a ride in my plane. I mentioned him
getting his Sport pilot ticket and told him "if you are healthy enough to
drive you can fly." One of his next steps is to get prosthetics and they
will modify his Ford F150 so that he can drive it. He currently drives a
Polaris Razor that is modified with a "suicide knob" and an adapter so that
his stump can work the throttle and brakes.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
Subject: | OT well done water bomber video |
http://player.vimeo.com/video/48642618
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: vortex generators |
From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I have a set of VGs from Landshorter (http://www.landshorter.com/index.html)
The price is very good, the VGs come with detailed instructions, and the parts
are very well made (molded).
I have not installed or flown them on Scout yet, but now that I think about it,
with the wings sitting on tables at the moment, it may be just the right time
to do it! I've already painted them yellow to match the wing and tail surfaces,
so all I have to do is lay out the spacing and fasten them in place. Hmmm...
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393154#393154
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfo
From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Well said, Dan.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/San Marcos, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393157#393157
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: vortex generators |
From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
I have thought about putting those gizmo's on my plane too. I keep hearing how
good they work. The part that bothers me is that sometimes after I return home
from an afternoon of flying there is a 30 knot wind at my home airport. I
think they would take away my ability to taxi or even land if I had them. Therefore
I will use that money to buy more fuel so I can convert the fuel into noise
which is converted into flight which is equal to pleasure/lower blood pressure.
Oh yea, they also add to the empty weight.
Keep them light,
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393159#393159
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: How do we increase safety? |
From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Hi Bob - One quick comment about the "poor guy" who "ran out of fuel in cruise
and made a successful landing off airport in a field." I, along with several
hundred other people, watched him take off for that flight from a fly-in we were
attending. His float gauge was indicating empty. Several people mentioned
it to him. His partner asked him about it. Shelley offered to go get him gas.
He said he didn't need any fuel.
Some accident chains are easier to decipher than others.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/San Marcos, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393160#393160
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and |
Riblett airfo
Paul, a canard or winglets would look great on a Pietenpol.
Michael Perez
Pietenpol HINT Videos
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and |
Riblett airfo
No they wouldn't. I actually think he is going to add a pair of bad 70s
lambchop sideburns to the airplane.
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2424 American Lane
Madison, WI 53704
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com
On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Michael Perez wrote:
> Paul, a canard or winglets would look great on a Pietenpol.
>
> Michael Perez
> Pietenpol HINT Videos
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Before installing the pitot tube to the wing, I am wondering if it would be
worth bending the tube first. I have seen them both straight and bent and
am curious if a bend would allow water to settle in on the bottom and allow
"dry" air to flow into the indicator. (if getting cought in rain in flight
) Perhaps-in flight, the water will just get pushed in anyway.- Anyone
have issues with the straight tube pitots and water?
-
Michael Perez
Pietenpol HINT Videos
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | A-65 prop in classifieds |
From: | "Pilot78" <wings.wheels29(at)yahoo.com> |
I saw this in our local aviation classifieds. Thought I would post, I know nothing
of this prop just passing it along.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=218&ad=23838197&cat=151&lpid=1&search
Brian
SLC - UT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393203#393203
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and |
Riblett airfo
Or catfish wiskers. Where did he say he lived?
Clif
As we acquire more knowledge, things
do not become more comprehensible,
but more mysterious. Albert Schweitzer.
No they wouldn't. I actually think he is going to add a pair of bad
70s lambchop sideburns to the airplane.
John Hofmann
Paul, a canard or winglets would look great on a Pietenpol.
Michael Perez
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Comparison test between Pietenpol airfoil and Riblett |
airfo
From: | "biplan53" <biplan53(at)hotmail.com> |
I think I'll go with Cliff on the catfish wiskers!!
--------
Building steel fuselage aircamper.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=393215#393215
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Wire wheels for sale $300 |
From: | Bryce Reid <1rciokc(at)gmail.com> |
I have a set of wire wheels I am not going to use on my Pietenpol I thought s
omeone might want them for there's
$300 package and ready to ship, you pay the shipping
They would ship from Oklahoma City 73132
You can call or email
Bryce
405-226-3625
1rciokc(at)gmail.com