Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ni

March 15, 2014 - March 22, 2014



      > My experience is that the EAA will support most ideas that don't absorb
      > manpower, which they are short of during Oshkosh. A big part of getting
      > their support is explaining that this isn't something for the 10 guys
      > flying in in their planes, but it is a gathering point to have many people
      > from the Pietenpol community make Oshkosh a specific destination this year.
      >
      > Food for thought: Rather than bringing the EAA's Piet artifacts to the
      > flight line, How about a visit to the Pietenpol hangar? We could pick one
      > evening and have a group photo there, and perhaps we could get inside the
      > rope access. I personally would love to spend a few hours sitting in that
      > hangar, looking at marks on the workbench and walls. I would like to get a
      > lot of detail photos of BHP's plane there, and the hangar.
      >
      > Someone should start a dialog with the EAA about how the Pietenpol
      > community can maintain and improve that hangar, the display, and its
      > contents. Spring and fall weekend work parties? You have a lot better
      > chance of getting permission to land at pioneer airport then. You can ask
      > Doc Mosher for more details, he is well versed in operations at Pioneer
      > airport.
      >
      > In speaking with Doc the other day, we both spent a lot of time on the
      > idea that now 85 years later, near 100% of the people involved with the
      > plane and the legacy of the man arrived in the second half of the 85 years.
      > This means that someone, or in most cases, a chain of someones, people we
      > are too late to thank personally, preserved "Pietenpols" for each of us to
      > 'discover.' Getting your plane done and flying it is the best way to
      > preserve the chain, add another strong link. But there are also many other
      > ways, and not every one of them has to be the titanic effort that Doc and
      > Dee put into the news letter and developing 'the Packet.' There are lots of
      > smaller, good things that people do all the time. If we can weave some of
      > these together at the Hangar at Pioneer airport, good.  The structure sits
      > on EAA property, but it doesn't belong to them. It is actually owned by
      > every person who ever unrolled a set of Pietenpol plans at his kitchen
      > table and quietly said to himself "!
      >  I must build this.....' -ww.
      >
      >
      > Read this topic online here:
      >
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420284#420284
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: chuck's
Date: Mar 15, 2014
Beautiful work Chuck!! Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: West Coast Piet fly-in 2014
Date: Mar 15, 2014
Sorry, Ray. Cold and flu...I'm grounded. Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Krause Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: West Coast Piet fly-in 2014 --> Gary, Are you going to Woodland tomorrow? Ray Sent from my iPad > On Mar 14, 2014, at 3:23 PM, "Gary Boothe" wrote: > > --> > > Hopefully, that's a pic of two Piets climbing out...not maintaining alt! > > Gary Boothe > NX308MB > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Catdesigns > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:57 PM > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: West Coast Piet fly-in 2014 > > --> > > Scott > > Closest I came to a ride in your plane was this, > http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/WCP_2013_Gathering/IMG_0512.JPG > > I realized Sunday morning as you were getting ready to leave that I > forgot to get a ride. > > Sure sucked to be left standing on the ground as everyone flies away. > I guess I need to build faster. > > -------- > Chris > Sacramento, CA > WestCoastPiet.com > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420352#420352 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: 4130 tubing laying around
Date: Mar 15, 2014
Hey, Anybody have some 4130 tubing laying around they wanna sell cheap? Round, square, rusty. doesn't much matter. It's for a high-mileage vehicle "fun project" and is just for prototyping. Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Steel Nails and Bulkhead discoloration
From: "N219BR" <briankdurham(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2014
Thanks all. I was of the same mind--I didn't think it was a big deal; but, as always its good to voice your questions with experience base. Thanks, Brian Durham -------- Brian Durham Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420376#420376 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: "Hooking them in"
From: "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2014
Awesome Chuck, just awesome....! -------- 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=420377#420377 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: West Coast Piet fly-in 2014
Date: Mar 15, 2014
Sorry, too! Just get over it! You're too old for that stuff! Ray Krause Sent from my iPad > On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:02 AM, "Gary Boothe" wrote: > > > Sorry, Ray. Cold and flu...I'm grounded. > > Gary Boothe > NX308MB > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Krause > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 9:09 PM > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: West Coast Piet fly-in 2014 > > --> > > Gary, > > Are you going to Woodland tomorrow? > > Ray > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Mar 14, 2014, at 3:23 PM, "Gary Boothe" wrote: >> >> --> >> >> Hopefully, that's a pic of two Piets climbing out...not maintaining alt! >> >> Gary Boothe >> NX308MB >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> Catdesigns >> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:57 PM >> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: West Coast Piet fly-in 2014 >> >> --> >> >> Scott >> >> Closest I came to a ride in your plane was this, >> http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/WCP_2013_Gathering/IMG_0512.JPG >> >> I realized Sunday morning as you were getting ready to leave that I >> forgot to get a ride. >> >> Sure sucked to be left standing on the ground as everyone flies away. >> I guess I need to build faster. >> >> -------- >> Chris >> Sacramento, CA >> WestCoastPiet.com >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420352#420352 > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2014
Subject: Plywood
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
HOLY COW! I just returned from Lowe's. I bought one thin piece of crappy B/C plywood to make shelved in my lockers. A thin, Just under 1/4 piece was $15. The only thing cheaper was chipboard. 1/2 inch was $25 and up! I am becoming a crabby old man, complaining about the cost of things! -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: a day at the hangar
Date: Mar 15, 2014
So there were no more excuses left today. I finished installing the center section flop with the new hinge=2C then installed the new pilot's windscree n=2C serviced the air filter- and there was nothing left to do. Dragged Sc out from my hangar to the self-service pumps (which seemed like it must hav e been 20 miles=2C uphill)=2C put 10 gallons in the tank=2C and towed the a irplane back to the hangar. The tailwheel dolly makes it about as easy as it can be=2C but it was a good workout anyway. Tailwheel tied down=2C stick tied back=2C sumped the gascolator- and there were just no more delay tactics left to try. Mags off=2C pulled it through 8 blades with the throttle cracked=2C then made the mags hot and took off my outer shirt since I expected to get a good workout. The engine surprise d me by lighting off on the third pull! Oil pressure came right up and eve rything looked good=2C so I put on my jacket and settled into the cockpit t o give the oil a good warmup so I could change it after a year and a half o f sitting. The ground shook as the thunder of the mighty A75 let the whole world hear its mighty roaring echoes down the row of hangars. Got the engine good and warm (oil temp about 170-175F)=2C which took about 15 minutes at throttle settings from 1500 on up to full static RPM=2C and during that time I check ed mag drops=2C carb heat=2C and just listened to the engine and felt it ru n. It's wanting me to keep carb heat on all the time and it actually gives an RPM increase=2C not decrease=2C and smoother running with it on. Mag d rop was rough at lower RPM but cleared up as I kept inching the power up an d up and letting the engine warm up. By the time I was ready to shut down =2C it still didn't like higher power settings without carb heat but it wou ld run at 1500 as smooth as silk with the tach needle frozen in place and n o carb heat. It also idled just fine=2C on down to about 800 RPM=2C no car b heat. I'll have to figure that out. Drained and changed the oil=2C noticed that my front main oil seal is still seeping enough to make me want to go ahead and change the seal=2C and then I put the airplane away. Next time out of the hangar=2C which could be to morrow=2C we're going flying. Oscar Zuniga Medford=2C OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: a day at the hangar
From: "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org>
Date: Mar 15, 2014
Woo Hoo! Scout breaths again. Sounds like very little CPR and transfusion will bring most all small Cont engines back to life. Enjoy your flight tomorrow. Pics (proof) please. -------- 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=420399#420399 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2014
From: "mdsalern(at)yahoo.com" <mdsalern(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Plywood
You're not becoming a crabby old man. I'm 32 and feel the same way.=0A=0AWh en I started driving, minimum wage was $4.25 and gas was $.56 a gallon. Tod ay, minimum wage is $7.25 and gas is $3.33. The ratio of wages to cost has decreased dramatically. This is true for so many things, not just gas.=0A =0AI feel that we have seen the last of inexpensive living costs for quite some time. Personally, I'm not sure what to do about it. =0A=0AMichael=0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2014
From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Plywood
thats what happens when people wont shop with their locally owned merchants . it doesn't take very long until there is no competition. I was in lowes a nd had to pay 1.79 for two brass screws in a package.i wanted 25 nothing in bulk for sale.I shop with the little local guy.. I learned the hard way..t oday people only look at the bottom line and- don't see the long term res ults of driving past their little local merchant to save a nickel on a roll of tolet paper. the little guy goes broke and the big guy-ups the price and we can take it or leave it.. americans just cant learn.. when I was a k id it was considered un-American to buy anything but US made. now try to fi nd US made. my dad fought the chineese in two wars and now the cloths on hi s great grand kids back are all made out of this country.. don't complain a bout the big box stores. we did it to ourselves. you, me all of us screwed ourselves to save a nickel..so when im standing in self check doing my own checking out with bag of two screws in a hurry to save five minites of time-im also screwing my neighbor out of a little job that he may need. don't look like im trainable. =0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:41 AM , "mdsalern(at)yahoo.com" wrote:=0A =0AYou're not becomi ng a crabby old man. I'm 32 and feel the same way. =0AWhen I started drivin g, minimum wage was $4.25 and gas was $.56 a gallon. Today, minimum wage is $7.25 and gas is $3.33. The ratio of wages to cost has decreased dramatica lly. This is true for so many things, not just gas. =0AI feel that we have seen the last of inexpensive living costs for quite some time. Personally, I'm not sure what to do about it. =0AMichael=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A____________ ____________________=0A From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>; =0ATo: ; ; =0A Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plywood =0ASent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 2:10:20 AM =0A =0A=0AHOLY COW! I just returned from Lowe's. I bought one thin piece of crappy B/C plywood to make shelved in my lockers. =0A=0AA thin, Just under 1/4 piece was $15. The only thing cheaper was chipboard. =0A=0A1/2 inch wa s $25 and up!=0A=0AI am becoming a crabby old man, complaining about the co st of things!=0A=0A-=0A-- =0A=0ABlue Skies,=0ASteve D=0A =0Ahttp://www.m atronics.com/Navigator?="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">htt ======================= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: a day at the hangar
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Oscar, I had a similar issue with carb heat. Make sure it is fully closing. Enjoy your flight! Gary Boothe NX308MB From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar Zuniga Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:00 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: a day at the hangar So there were no more excuses left today. I finished installing the centersection flop with the new hinge, then installed the new pilot's windscreen, serviced the air filter- and there was nothing left to do. Dragged Scout from my hangar to the self-service pumps (which seemed like it must have been 20 miles, uphill), put 10 gallons in the tank, and towed the airplane back to the hangar. The tailwheel dolly makes it about as easy as it can be, but it was a good workout anyway. Tailwheel tied down, stick tied back, sumped the gascolator- and there were just no more delay tactics left to try. Mags off, pulled it through 8 blades with the throttle cracked, then made the mags hot and took off my outer shirt since I expected to get a good workout. The engine surprised me by lighting off on the third pull! Oil pressure came right up and everything looked good, so I put on my jacket and settled into the cockpit to give the oil a good warmup so I could change it after a year and a half of sitting. The ground shook as the thunder of the mighty A75 let the whole world hear its mighty roaring echoes down the row of hangars. Got the engine good and warm (oil temp about 170-175F), which took about 15 minutes at throttle settings from 1500 on up to full static RPM, and during that time I checked mag drops, carb heat, and just listened to the engine and felt it run. It's wanting me to keep carb heat on all the time and it actually gives an RPM increase, not decrease, and smoother running with it on. Mag drop was rough at lower RPM but cleared up as I kept inching the power up and up and letting the engine warm up. By the time I was ready to shut down, it still didn't like higher power settings without carb heat but it would run at 1500 as smooth as silk with the tach needle frozen in place and no carb heat. It also idled just fine, on down to about 800 RPM, no carb heat. I'll have to figure that out. Drained and changed the oil, noticed that my front main oil seal is still seeping enough to make me want to go ahead and change the seal, and then I put the airplane away. Next time out of the hangar, which could be tomorrow, we're going flying. Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rats!
From: "john francis" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Did I read the plans wrong? Note in the red oval on the print, "all measurements to outside of plywood. I assumed this meant all measurements and made the front of my fuselage 24 wide to the outside of the plywood. Yesterday I borrowed a WW corvair engine mount and found it to be a 1/4 too wide for my frame (the engine mount measured 24 1/4 wide). That would mean that the front, or far left dimension on the print should be 24 inches to the outside of the longerons and not the plywood.....correct? Before I remove the two bottom ash cross struts connecting my sides, I want to make sure. John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420409#420409 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0082_179.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Rats!
Date: Mar 16, 2014
John, The outside of the plywood is the same as the outside of the longerons. Mr. Pietenpol did that on purpose to conserve plywood, but when you add the sides, the outside measurement increases 1/4". Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of john francis Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:58 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rats! --> Did I read the plans wrong? Note in the red oval on the print, "all measurements to outside of plywood. I assumed this meant all measurements and made the front of my fuselage 24 wide to the outside of the plywood. Yesterday I borrowed a WW corvair engine mount and found it to be a 1/4 too wide for my frame (the engine mount measured 24 1/4 wide). That would mean that the front, or far left dimension on the print should be 24 inches to the outside of the longerons and not the plywood.....correct? Before I remove the two bottom ash cross struts connecting my sides, I want to make sure. John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420409#420409 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0082_179.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris" <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject: Rats!
Date: Mar 16, 2014
John I dont think your wrong. I think the 24" to the outside of the plywood was on purpose so you could use half a sheet of plywood on the bottom. Chris T. Sacramento, Ca Westcoastpiet.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of john francis Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:58 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rats! --> Did I read the plans wrong? Note in the red oval on the print, "all measurements to outside of plywood. I assumed this meant all measurements and made the front of my fuselage 24 wide to the outside of the plywood. Yesterday I borrowed a WW corvair engine mount and found it to be a 1/4 too wide for my frame (the engine mount measured 24 1/4 wide). That would mean that the front, or far left dimension on the print should be 24 inches to the outside of the longerons and not the plywood.....correct? Before I remove the two bottom ash cross struts connecting my sides, I want to make sure. John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420409#420409 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0082_179.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 4130 tubing laying around
From: Gardiner Mason <airlion2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Hey Douwe, I may have some left over after I get my motor mount finished. W hat kind of fun project are you making? Is it going to be horse drawn? Gardi ner Sent from my iPad On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:18 AM, "Douwe Blumberg" wrote: > Hey, > > Anybody have some 4130 tubing laying around they wanna sell cheap? Round, square, rusty doesn=99t much matter. It=99s for a hig h-mileage vehicle =9Cfun project=9D and is just for prototyping. > > Douwe > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: leaking Continental front main seal
Date: Mar 16, 2014
=0A =0A =0A Graham and others- I know exactly what the issue is with my front main sea l. When the engine was converted from an A65 and everything was gone throu gh=2C the crank was overhauled as well. What was missed was the step that Continental requires here: http://www.aeronca.org/ContinentalSB-M76-4.pdf . Plating is removed from an area about 1" wide on the front of the crank w here the seal rides=2C and once it's perfectly smooth a 30 degree pattern i s cut into the surface with 180 grit emery cloth to act as a sort of 'screw ' to continuously feed any seepage back into the crankcase. I have a repla cement seal (two of them=2C actually=2C since I may mess up on the first at tempt). It is close work and requires patience. Oh yeah=2C and I've never done it before =3Bo) Oscar Zuniga Medford=2C OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: running lean
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Thanks to those who commented on why my engine may want continuous carb hea t. Indeed I thought about restriction through the air filter=2C and I may try pulling it off for a trial run. It's a conventional flat Air-Maze such as is used on billions of other engines like this. I clean it periodicall y and then spray on some K&N filter oil=2C and maybe that's the problem. I also thought about why it may be running lean and one of the obvious poss ibilities is an air leak either at the carb base gasket or on one of the ma ny intake spider clamps and fittings. I may need to check all of those out =2C too. Without carb heat on takeoff=2C the engine will stumble when power is appli ed=2C and if carb heat is not pulled immediately=2C the engine will die. T his is not good. Oscar Zuniga Medford=2C OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris" <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject: Rats!
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Gary, I never noticed your fuselage was 24 1/4 inches wide. I guess my eyes are getting bad. I took this measurement, like john did, to mean 24-inches AFTER the sides are installed. I never thought it was before but it could be interpreted your way too. This is just one of the joys of scratch building. We can both say we followed the plans and both of us are correct. Chris T. Sacramento, Ca Westcoastpiet.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:28 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rats! --> John, The outside of the plywood is the same as the outside of the longerons. Mr. Pietenpol did that on purpose to conserve plywood, but when you add the sides, the outside measurement increases 1/4". Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of john francis Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:58 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rats! --> Did I read the plans wrong? Note in the red oval on the print, "all measurements to outside of plywood. I assumed this meant all measurements and made the front of my fuselage 24 wide to the outside of the plywood. Yesterday I borrowed a WW corvair engine mount and found it to be a 1/4 too wide for my frame (the engine mount measured 24 1/4 wide). That would mean that the front, or far left dimension on the print should be 24 inches to the outside of the longerons and not the plywood.....correct? Before I remove the two bottom ash cross struts connecting my sides, I want to make sure. John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420409#420409 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0082_179.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "john francis" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
So at this point I guess I will proceed making the wide body version since I do want this engine mount to work. -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420420#420420 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Subject: Re: Plywood
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
Jim, I agree. In Enid, OK there was a great little true value hardware store. Biggars. It had small boxes of screws and such and you could buy 5 #4 screws as well. they always had that little obscure part you needed or would get it. They were put out of business by Walmart and Lowes. (Notice almost every time you see a Lowes it is near Walmart.) Of course Lowes, only sells little nuts and bolts in packages of 5. They also don't carry anything that does not have volume sales so you can't find the part you really need. Yesterday I bought 4 #4 plastic washers for 56 cents. They are worth about 5 for a penny. I miss the old fashioned hardware store. Blue Skies, Steve D On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:14 AM, jim hyde wrote: > thats what happens when people wont shop with their locally owned > merchants. it doesn't take very long until there is no competition. I was > in lowes and had to pay 1.79 for two brass screws in a package.i wanted 2 5 > nothing in bulk for sale.I shop with the little local guy.. I learned the > hard way..today people only look at the bottom line and don't see the lo ng > term results of driving past their little local merchant to save a nickel > on a roll of tolet paper. the little guy goes broke and the big guy ups t he > price and we can take it or leave it.. americans just cant learn.. when I > was a kid it was considered un-American to buy anything but US made. now > try to find US made. my dad fought the chineese in two wars and now the > cloths on his great grand kids back are all made out of this country.. > don't complain about the big box stores. we did it to ourselves. you, me > all of us screwed ourselves to save a nickel..so when im standing in self > check doing my own checking out with bag of two screws in a hurry to save > five minites of time im also screwing my neighbor out of a little job tha t > he may need. don't look like im trainable. > > > On Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:41 AM, "mdsalern(at)yahoo.com" < > mdsalern(at)yahoo.com> wrote: > You're not becoming a crabby old man. I'm 32 and feel the same way. > When I started driving, minimum wage was $4.25 and gas was $.56 a gallon. > Today, minimum wage is $7.25 and gas is $3.33. The ratio of wages to cost > has decreased dramatically. This is true for so many things, not just gas . > I feel that we have seen the last of inexpensive living costs for quite > some time. Personally, I'm not sure what to do about it. > Michael > > * From: * Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>; > * To: * ; ; > * Subject: * Pietenpol-List: Plywood > * Sent: * Sun, Mar 16, 2014 2:10:20 AM > > HOLY COW! I just returned from Lowe's. I bought one thin piece of > crappy B/C plywood to make shelved in my lockers. > > A thin, Just under 1/4 piece was $15. The only thing cheaper was > chipboard. > > 1/2 inch was $25 and up! > > I am becoming a crabby old man, complaining about the cost of things! > > -- > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?= "_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com ">http://forums.matronics.co http://www. matronics.com/N==================== === > forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.m at= --> <http://www.matronics.com/con====%3C/b%3E%3C/font%3E%3 C/pre%3E%3C/td%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/tr%3E%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%3C/tbody%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/table%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%3Cpre%3E%3Cb %3E%3Cfont%20etenpol-List> <http://www.matronics.com/con====%3C/b%3 E%3C/font%3E%3C/pre%3E%3C/td%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/tr%3E%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/tbody%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/table%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3 E%3Cpre%3E%3Cb%3E%3Cfont%20etenpol-List> > =========== com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol- List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Rats!
Date: Mar 16, 2014
...but what does Dan Interim Top Curmudgeon Helsper say? Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:23 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rats! Gary, I never noticed your fuselage was 24 1/4 inches wide. I guess my eyes are getting bad. I took this measurement, like john did, to mean 24-inches AFTER the sides are installed. I never thought it was before but it could be interpreted your way too. This is just one of the joys of scratch building. We can both say we followed the plans and both of us are correct. Chris T. Sacramento, Ca Westcoastpiet.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:28 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rats! --> John, The outside of the plywood is the same as the outside of the longerons. Mr. Pietenpol did that on purpose to conserve plywood, but when you add the sides, the outside measurement increases 1/4". Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of john francis Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:58 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rats! --> Did I read the plans wrong? Note in the red oval on the print, "all measurements to outside of plywood. I assumed this meant all measurements and made the front of my fuselage 24 wide to the outside of the plywood. Yesterday I borrowed a WW corvair engine mount and found it to be a 1/4 too wide for my frame (the engine mount measured 24 1/4 wide). That would mean that the front, or far left dimension on the print should be 24 inches to the outside of the longerons and not the plywood.....correct? Before I remove the two bottom ash cross struts connecting my sides, I want to make sure. John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420409#420409 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0082_179.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: a day at the hangar
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Pics? You want proof? Well, All I have is proof that the engine started and ran yesterday (attached). Taken with the iPhone, so the prop is all melted and flinging pieces of itself into the sky, but there's the place I call "home"- Hangar Tango Six, north hangars, KMFR. Tail is tied to the galvanized steel stormwater grating that was cast integral with the concrete gutter. Ain't goin' nowhere. -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420422#420422 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/start_141.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gerry Holland <gholland@content-stream.co.uk>
Subject: Re: leaking Continental front main seal
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Oscar Hi. Commiserations on needing to do Prop seal. I have had to do it and in truth two things to say. Buying two Seals - great! As you can guess you'll only need one and all will go well. I think I took Prop off just to give a bit more space. I also worked from above the flange on a step of some sorts. The spring inside the seal I adjusted the 'hook' ends, compressed them so it readily coupled and stayed together when pushed into seal. The last action involved carefully prising seal over crank into recess ensuring it was lubricated. In truth it was a lot less traumatic than I envisaged. It will be fine. Regards Gerry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com>
Subject: running lean
Date: Mar 16, 2014
As Shad says, my bet would be an induction leak. I had such a leak when I built my A65, and it caused rough running and backfiring at idle. Check all those hose clamps and make sure all the rubber boots are on cleanly. As for the crankshaft seal, this is an easy task if you have a tapered shaft engine. More difficult with a flanged shaft. Good Luck! 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 Oscar Zuniga Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:22 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: running lean Thanks to those who commented on why my engine may want continuous carb heat. Indeed I thought about restriction through the air filter, and I may try pulling it off for a trial run. It's a conventional flat Air-Maze such as is used on billions of other engines like this. I clean it periodically and then spray on some K&N filter oil, and maybe that's the problem. I also thought about why it may be running lean and one of the obvious possibilities is an air leak either at the carb base gasket or on one of the many intake spider clamps and fittings. I may need to check all of those out, too. Without carb heat on takeoff, the engine will stumble when power is applied, and if carb heat is not pulled immediately, the engine will die. This is not good. Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "john francis" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
The destruction is done and the reconstruction has begun. -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420426#420426 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2014
From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Plywood
im as guilty as the next guy=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:19 PM, Steven Dortch wrote:=0A =0AJim, I agree. In En id, OK there was a great little true value- hardware store. Biggars. It h ad small boxes of screws and such and you could buy 5 #4 screws as well. th ey always had that little obscure part you needed or would get it. They wer e put out of business by- Walmart and Lowes. (Notice almost every time yo u see a Lowes it is near Walmart.) Of course Lowes, only sells little nuts and bolts in packages of 5. They also don't carry anything that does not ha ve volume sales so you can't find the part you really need. =0A=0AYesterday I bought 4 #4 plastic washers for 56 cents. They are worth about 5 for a p enny. =0A=0AI miss the old fashioned hardware store. =0A=0ABlue Skies,=0ASt eve D=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:14 AM, jim hyde <jnl96@yahoo. com> wrote:=0A=0Athats what happens when people wont shop with their locall y owned merchants. it doesn't take very long until there is no competition. I was in lowes and had to pay 1.79 for two brass screws in a package.i wan ted 25 nothing in bulk for sale.I shop with the little local guy.. I learne d the hard way..today people only look at the bottom line and- don't see the long term results of driving past their little local merchant to save a nickel on a roll of tolet paper. the little guy goes broke and the big guy -ups the price and we can take it or leave it.. americans just cant learn .. when I was a kid it was considered un-American to buy anything but US ma de. now try to find US made. my dad fought the chineese in two wars and now the cloths on his great grand kids back are all made out of this country.. don't complain about the big box stores. we did it to ourselves. you, me a ll of us screwed ourselves to save a nickel..so when im standing in self ch eck doing my own checking out with bag of two screws in a hurry to save five minites of time-im also screwing my neighbor out of a little job that he may need. don't look like im trainable. =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>On Sunday, March 16, 2014 2: 41 AM, "mdsalern(at)yahoo.com" wrote:=0A> =0A>You're not becoming a crabby old man. I'm 32 and feel the same way. =0A>When I starte d driving, minimum wage was $4.25 and gas was $.56 a gallon. Today, minimum wage is $7.25 and gas is $3.33. The ratio of wages to cost has decreased d ramatically. This is true for so many things, not just gas. =0A>I feel that we have seen the last of inexpensive living costs for quite some time. Per sonally, I'm not sure what to do about it. =0A>Michael=0A> =0A>=0A>=0A> From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>; =0A>To: <pietenpol-list@ matronics.com>; ; =0A>Subject: Pietenpol-Lis t: Plywood =0A>Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 2:10:20 AM =0A> =0A>=0A>HOLY COW! I just returned from Lowe's. I bought one thin piece of crappy B/C plywood t o make shelved in my lockers. =0A>=0A>A thin, Just under 1/4 piece was $15. The only thing cheaper was chipboard. =0A>=0A>1/2 inch was $25 and up!=0A> =0A>I am becoming a crabby old man, complaining about the cost of things! =0A>=0A>-=0A>-- =0A>=0A>Blue Skies,=0A>Steve D=0A> =0A>http://www.matron ics.com/Navigator?="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http:// forums.matronics.co/ http://www.matronics.com/con====%3C/b%3E%3C/fo nt%3E%3C/pre%3E%3C/td%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/tr%3E%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%3C/tbody%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/table%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%3Cpre %3E%3Cb%3E%3Cfont%20etenpol-List=0A>List" target="_blank">http://www.matr onics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List tp://forums.matronics.com=0A_blank">http ://www.matronics.com/contribution =0A=0A=0A-- =0A=0ABlue Skies,=0ASteve D ================= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: a day at the hangar
From: "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
How do you balance a prop like that one? Funny how I phones do that. -------- 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=420428#420428 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: a day at the hangar
Date: Mar 16, 2014
My prop is very flexible, too... Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of AircamperN11MS Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:09 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: a day at the hangar --> How do you balance a prop like that one? Funny how I phones do that. -------- 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=420428#420428 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: a day at the hangar
From: "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Beautiful Gary. You look very relaxed. It makes me want to go flying again. -------- 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=420432#420432 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com>
My fuse is 24 inches wide from the outside of one top longeron to the outside of the other one. Hope I'm correct. On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:58 AM, john francis wrote: > > Did I read the plans wrong? Note in the red oval on the print, "all > measurements to outside of plywood". I assumed this meant all measurements > and made the front of my fuselage 24" wide to the outside of the plywood. > > Yesterday I borrowed a WW corvair engine mount and found it to be a 1/4" > too wide for my frame (the engine mount measured 24 1/4" wide). That would > mean that the front, or far left dimension on the print should be 24 inches > to the outside of the longerons and not the plywood.....correct? Before I > remove the two bottom ash cross struts connecting my sides, I want to make > sure. > > John > > -------- > John Francis > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420409#420409 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0082_179.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Subject: Re: Plywood
From: "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com>
Try Ace Hardware. I have found things there that don't exist at Lowes or Home Depot. On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Steven Dortch w rote: > Jim, I agree. In Enid, OK there was a great little true value hardware > store. Biggars. It had small boxes of screws and such and you could buy 5 > #4 screws as well. they always had that little obscure part you needed or > would get it. They were put out of business by Walmart and Lowes. (Notic e > almost every time you see a Lowes it is near Walmart.) Of course Lowes, > only sells little nuts and bolts in packages of 5. They also don't carry > anything that does not have volume sales so you can't find the part you > really need. > > Yesterday I bought 4 #4 plastic washers for 56 cents. They are worth abou t > 5 for a penny. > > I miss the old fashioned hardware store. > > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:14 AM, jim hyde wrote: > >> thats what happens when people wont shop with their locally owned >> merchants. it doesn't take very long until there is no competition. I wa s >> in lowes and had to pay 1.79 for two brass screws in a package.i wanted 25 >> nothing in bulk for sale.I shop with the little local guy.. I learned th e >> hard way..today people only look at the bottom line and don't see the l ong >> term results of driving past their little local merchant to save a nicke l >> on a roll of tolet paper. the little guy goes broke and the big guy ups the >> price and we can take it or leave it.. americans just cant learn.. when I >> was a kid it was considered un-American to buy anything but US made. now >> try to find US made. my dad fought the chineese in two wars and now the >> cloths on his great grand kids back are all made out of this country.. >> don't complain about the big box stores. we did it to ourselves. you, me >> all of us screwed ourselves to save a nickel..so when im standing in sel f >> check doing my own checking out with bag of two screws in a hurry to sav e >> five minites of time im also screwing my neighbor out of a little job th at >> he may need. don't look like im trainable. >> >> >> On Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:41 AM, "mdsalern(at)yahoo.com" < >> mdsalern(at)yahoo.com> wrote: >> You're not becoming a crabby old man. I'm 32 and feel the same way. >> When I started driving, minimum wage was $4.25 and gas was $.56 a gallon . >> Today, minimum wage is $7.25 and gas is $3.33. The ratio of wages to cos t >> has decreased dramatically. This is true for so many things, not just ga s. >> I feel that we have seen the last of inexpensive living costs for quite >> some time. Personally, I'm not sure what to do about it. >> Michael >> >> * From: * Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>; >> * To: * ; ; >> * Subject: * Pietenpol-List: Plywood >> * Sent: * Sun, Mar 16, 2014 2:10:20 AM >> >> HOLY COW! I just returned from Lowe's. I bought one thin piece of >> crappy B/C plywood to make shelved in my lockers. >> >> A thin, Just under 1/4 piece was $15. The only thing cheaper was >> chipboard. >> >> 1/2 inch was $25 and up! >> >> I am becoming a crabby old man, complaining about the cost of things! >> >> -- >> Blue Skies, >> Steve D >> >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?= "_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com ">http://forums.matronics.co http://www .matronics.com/N=================== ==== >> forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums. mat= --> <http://www.matronics.com/con====%3C/b%3E%3C/font%3E% 3C/pre%3E%3C/td%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/tr%3E%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%3C/tbody%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/table%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%3Cpre%3E%3C b%3E%3Cfont%20etenpol-List> <http://www.matronics.com/con====%3C/b% 3E%3C/font%3E%3C/pre%3E%3C/td%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/tr%3E% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/tbody%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/table%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div% 3E%3Cpre%3E%3Cb%3E%3Cfont%20etenpol-List> >> >> List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Lis t <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> >> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> >> * >> >> > > > -- > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > * > =========== .matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: running lean
From: Wizzard187 <wizzard187(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Run the engine at idle and spray intake joints with starting fluid and if it picks up rpms you have a leak. -----Original Message----- From: Jack Phillips <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com> Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 2:31 pm Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: running lean As Shad says, my bet would be an inductionleak. I had such a leak when I b uilt my A65, and it caused rough runningand backfiring at idle. Check all those hose clamps and make sure all therubber boots are on cleanly. As for the crankshaft seal, this is aneasy task if you have a tapered shaft engine. More difficult with aflanged shaft. Good Luck! 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 Oscar Zuniga Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:22PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: runninglean Thanks to those whocommented on why my engine may want continuous carb heat . Indeed Ithought about restriction through the air filter, and I may try pulling itoff for a trial run. It's a conventional flat Air-Maze such as i s used onbillions of other engines like this. I clean it periodically andt hen spray on some K&N filter oil, and maybe that's the problem. Ialso thought about why it may be running lean and one of the obviouspossib ilities is an air leak either at the carb base gasket or on one ofthe many intake spider clamps and fittings. I may need to check all ofthose out, to o. Withoutcarb heat on takeoff, the engine will stumble when power is applied, and ifcarb heat is not pulled immediately, the engine will die. This is n otgood. OscarZuniga Medford, OR AirCamper NX41CC "Scout" A75power http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
John, If you look closely at the pictures of the orange fixture for the Piet mounts in the top photo at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2012/11/08/pietenpol-products-motor-mounts-gear-and-instalation-components/ You can see we actually made the fixture width adjustable plus or minus 1/2" for just the reason that you have discovered. I am not sure if Bob, who you borrowed the mount from is on this list, but he sent us an exact width to make it to, so it would fit his plane like a glove. On the other end of the scale, we made one in the same fixture for Terry Hand's steel tube fuselage that was .750" narrower. We have spacers to put in the fixture to bias the mount point to fit either way builders measured their plane. If you chose to build it to Bob's with, let me know and I will make your mount accordingly. On a plans built plane, we plan for builder variations like this in the design of the parts and the tools to make them. -ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420438#420438 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Welcome to Corvair Colleges
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Piet Builders: I would like to share an invitation to this years Corvair Colleges with all of you. For starters, we have #29 in Leesburg Florida, the weekend before Sun n Fun. We intentionally do it this way to allow builders who traditionally travel to SnF, to hit this college 70 miles north of Lakeland. Many people who used to go to SnF for 5 days, now go to the college for 3, drive 90 minutes to Lakeland, and check into SnF for 2 days, see friends, shop and leave before they have to take out a second mortgage to pay for the camping, admission and food vendors there. If you would like to get a look at the event, check this out (It even has a Pietenpol picture) http://flycorvair.net/2014/03/17/corvair-college-29-close-to-last-call/ We have already had one College this year in Texas, Our local hosts were well known Pietenpolers Kevin Purtee and Shelley Tumino. You can see some of the event in photos at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2014/03/13/corvair-college-28-san-marcos-texas/ College #30 is going to be held at the Zenith Factory at Mexico MO. in the middle of September. Sebastien Heintz, President of Zenith, is a good friend of ours, and he has said many times, all builders are welcome at his facility, not just Zenith guys. We held #26 there last year, and a half dozen guys who were there Piet builders. If you are from that neck of the woods, plan on attending. College #31, is an event that should be of interest to all Piet builders. It will ne in early November in Barnwell SC. It will be hosted by We known Pietenpol builder/pilot P.F. Beck. He and his crew have also hosted Corvair Colleges #19 ,#21, #24 and #27. P.F has long said that he would like to welcome Piet builders of all power persuasions. Keep in mind that Barn well is also the home of Don Harpers Piet, know for the Ribblet airfoil tests: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/17/nwe-pietenpol-2700-corvair-don-harper-sc/ Barnwell is also the season end event where we award the Cherry Grove trophy, to the aviator who made the greatest contribution to Corvair Powered flight for the year. We have previously awarded it to P.F, and two years ago we awarded it to Kevin and Shelley. More info at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/18/the-cherry-grove-trophy/ If you would like a general overview of what Colleges are all about, Get a look at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2014/01/31/corvair-college-reference-page/ You do not have to be a Corvair builder to feel welcome at a College. A lot of learning gos on, and it is done in a fun setting. Colleges are Free. The only cost involved is the modest fee that goes to the local host to allow them to provide all the food and drinks, the facility and the workplace. The typical fee is $75 total for three days, about the best bargain left in aviation. We have a number of builders who hit several colleges a year, even though their engine is long done. Many of these people regard the College crowd as their "non-geographical EAA Chapter." If you local chapter is woefully short of positive people or experienced builders, sign up for a college, we have plenty of good people at every one. You can not soar with eagles if you only hang out with turkeys. If you are new to homebuilding, or you have not made the progress you wanted, pick better locations and company.-ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420439#420439 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "john francis" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
William, Build mine just like Bobs as I am using it to set my brackets. John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420440#420440 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2014
From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Rats!
mine is outside to outside including plywood sides is 24 inches at longeron s. longeron to longeron excluding ply sides is 23 3/4=C2-=C2-=C2- out side of engine mounting brackets outside is 24 3/16=C2-=C2- I feel sure that is all correct.. im using an a65 cont.=0A=0Ajim hyde=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:53 PM, john francis wrote: n.com>=0A=0AWilliam,=0A=0ABuild mine just like Bob=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s as I am using it to set my brackets.=0A=0AJohn=0A=0A--------=0AJohn Franci s=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.c - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- ======================= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Welcome to Corvair Colleges
Date: Mar 16, 2014
I am one of those builders described in the last paragraph, having attended 5 Corvair Colleges! Maybe your local EAA chapter is like mine, full of well-meaning people who know a lot about flying but very little about home-made airplanes. These gatherings, though, are full of people ready to dig right into the heart of their airplanes...Pietenpol, Zenith, KR, etc...and learn something meaningful about engines, risk management, W&B...you name it. During the course of the weekend you never know what subject is going come up (beyond how to make Corvairs run); but, most importantly, you will have a great time...if you like hanging out with doers...no matter whether you ever intend to use a Corvair engine or not. You will be made welcome, too, because William's love is for experimental aviation and his passion is for builders to be fully prepared to make good decisions. Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Wynne Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:25 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Welcome to Corvair Colleges --> Piet Builders: I would like to share an invitation to this years Corvair Colleges with all of you. For starters, we have #29 in Leesburg Florida, the weekend before Sun n Fun. We intentionally do it this way to allow builders who traditionally travel to SnF, to hit this college 70 miles north of Lakeland. Many people who used to go to SnF for 5 days, now go to the college for 3, drive 90 minutes to Lakeland, and check into SnF for 2 days, see friends, shop and leave before they have to take out a second mortgage to pay for the camping, admission and food vendors there. If you would like to get a look at the event, check this out (It even has a Pietenpol picture) http://flycorvair.net/2014/03/17/corvair-college-29-close-to-last-call/ We have already had one College this year in Texas, Our local hosts were well known Pietenpolers Kevin Purtee and Shelley Tumino. You can see some of the event in photos at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2014/03/13/corvair-college-28-san-marcos-texas/ College #30 is going to be held at the Zenith Factory at Mexico MO. in the middle of September. Sebastien Heintz, President of Zenith, is a good friend of ours, and he has said many times, all builders are welcome at his facility, not just Zenith guys. We held #26 there last year, and a half dozen guys who were there Piet builders. If you are from that neck of the woods, plan on attending. College #31, is an event that should be of interest to all Piet builders. It will ne in early November in Barnwell SC. It will be hosted by We known Pietenpol builder/pilot P.F. Beck. He and his crew have also hosted Corvair Colleges #19 ,#21, #24 and #27. P.F has long said that he would like to welcome Piet builders of all power persuasions. Keep in mind that Barn well is also the home of Don Harpers Piet, know for the Ribblet airfoil tests: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/17/nwe-pietenpol-2700-corvair-don-harper-sc/ Barnwell is also the season end event where we award the Cherry Grove trophy, to the aviator who made the greatest contribution to Corvair Powered flight for the year. We have previously awarded it to P.F, and two years ago we awarded it to Kevin and Shelley. More info at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/18/the-cherry-grove-trophy/ If you would like a general overview of what Colleges are all about, Get a look at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2014/01/31/corvair-college-reference-page/ You do not have to be a Corvair builder to feel welcome at a College. A lot of learning gos on, and it is done in a fun setting. Colleges are Free. The only cost involved is the modest fee that goes to the local host to allow them to provide all the food and drinks, the facility and the workplace. The typical fee is $75 total for three days, about the best bargain left in aviation. We have a number of builders who hit several colleges a year, even though their engine is long done. Many of these people regard the College crowd as their "non-geographical EAA Chapter." If you local chapter is woefully short of positive people or experienced builders, sign up for a college, we have plenty of good people at every one. You can not soar with eagles if you only hang out with turkeys. If you are new to homebuilding, or you have not made the progress you wanted, pick better locations and company.-ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420439#420439 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: running lean
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Back at the hangar this afternoon, another beautiful day! The airplane starts wonderfully and predictably now, and I had no trouble starting it, cold or hot. Still no joy on resolving the carb heat issue though. I removed the air filter and ran the engine... no change whatsoever. Cross that off the list. I removed all four intake tubes from the spiders, including the clamps and hose fittings, and inspected everything. Nothing cracked, nothing brittle, nothing suspect- so I reassembled all the intake tubes and snugged down all the clamps and ran the engine again. Still no change; cross that off the list. Oh yeah, and I had asked somebody (Gary) about adjusting the idle mixture. The engine speeds up just as it quits when the fuel shutoff is pulled and the engine is allowed to run out of fuel, so I think the idle mixture is correct. My A&P friend had suggested checking the mixture control disks in the Stromberg carb, since they can sometimes get cocked when not assembled properly and they can allow air to go around the plates rather than through the metering holes. Unwired the mixture lever, pulled the mixture assembly cover and disks, cleaned and inspected, reassembled and re-safetied. Ran the engine again... no change. We're eliminating possibilities right and left. The next suspect is the diverter butterfly in the carb heat box. There is a slight gap between the edge of the butterfly and the body of the box, and there is a possibility that at higher airflows and engine speeds, the air is taken partially through the filter and partially through the hot air bypass and sets up a swirl or confused airflow into the carb. I'm going to adjust the butterfly and the carb heat actuation lever to make sure that the butterfly seals tightly when the carb heat is off. Next weekend ;o) I did get to taxi the airplane a bit with the new tailwheel and found that the Matco has its pros and cons over the Scott 2000. When the Matco goes into free castoring, which it does readily, I can pivot the airplane effortlessly on one main and maneuver it in very sharp turns. The downside is that it takes brakes and rudder to get it back into steering mode, a conscious effort compared to the Scott, which could almost read my mind. Some people have said that they leave a little slack in the tailwheel springs and cables and this helps, but I'll have to operate the airplane a little more as-is to see if I want to add slack. I don't like the idea too much. -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420445#420445 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: leaking Continental front main seal
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
The seal on my engine is essentially new, and has seeped oil since new because the crank surface was not prepared properly. I know what needs to be done and will do it, and I'm sure it will be quick and painless. Here's what my A&P told me is the way he does it: "If you have a microwave at the hangar, I pull the spring out of the seal and hook the spring back together behind the flange. Then I submerge the seal in a cup of water and microwave for 30 second intervals until it is steaming. Then just stretch it over the flange and let it shrink back up. While it's shrinking, work the spring into place in the back of the seal. Give it a coat of Permatex Ultra around the outside and in the seal cavity, and slide it into place. Make sure it's fully seated so the seal sits even on the crank and let it cure overnight." -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420446#420446 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: running lean
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Oscar, An induction leak, like a hose, will mess up the idle, but it will have little or no effect on running the engine near it's full static rpm. If you engine needs carb heat to run at static rpm, something else is wrong. Plane sat for 18 Months? What kind of gas/was is in it? Ethanol or not, car gas with 1.5 birthdays is bad. If it was left in the carb, it possibly made things unhappy. Dirty idle circuit; again affects at low speed, but not near static rpm. You mention mag drop at idle? Traditionally, I use 1700 rpm to test the drop on a small Continental. Is it within limits at that rpm? Back to basics: It is likely the last thing you touched, and not very likely to be something like the leaning function in the Stromberg suddenly deciding that this was the moment to go out of wack. Mags off: Does the engine have normal compression on all cylinders? Do you have impulse on both mags? Are they 'clicking' at the same time? Pop the fuel line off right at the carb and make sure you can fill a 1 quart container in 65-75 seconds or less. Not likely to be the air box itself. I have seen engines run perfectly fine with airboxes that had the shaft holes walled out to 1/2". K&N filter oil is great for......K&N filters. not all elements like it. Spray it on some Bracket filters and you might as well have sprayed it with clear paint. -ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420447#420447 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: running lean
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
William; good points, all! To address them one by one: The fuel in the tank was 100LL, but it wasn't there for long. Some time ago I drained the tank to replace the fuel shutoff valve. Nothing on that end of the system is a problem. Same with the carb... I pulled the small screen on the float bowl, cleaned it, and 'tickled' the float to make sure it wasn't hanging up on its pivots (it wasn't). Everything clicked and tinkled inside the float bowl just like it's supposed to and there was no sign of varnish or residue on anything. Mag drop at 1700 RPM is indeed where I test it on runup, and it is normal... about 50 RPM difference between drop on L and R mags. Mags are almost new Slicks, both have impulse couplers. I have not checked compression on the cylinders but will do so very soon. I have also not timed the flow from the fuel system to the carb, but can easily do that as well. My guess is that I can fill a quart container in less than a minute, yes... but will verify. I will ditch the K&N filter oil, clean my Air Maze filter again, and replace it- but I worried about the dust we had in Texas and wanted to have something that would hang onto the dust on the way through the filter. Up here in Oregon, we don't have much dust. In any case, I tried running the engine without the filter and it made no difference in the "I gotta have carb heat!" behavior. -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420448#420448 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Speaking of Doc...
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2014
Doc story #2; It's 1990 or so. I am working on becoming an A&P at Embry-Riddle to go with an Aero-engineering degree. I actually like the A&P skills better, as engineering education is being polluted by an invasion of computer science and programing. About 1/2 way through my Airframe license the FAA announces that they are going to have the "Charles Taylor Award" for outstanding A&P mechanic in the US. Great, adds to the esprit de corps, maybe something to shoot for in 25 years...... Month or two later, here comes a press release from the Feds: They decided that you need to have 50 years of being an A&P to even apply for the award. Great, I figure no rush on my application, I can't submit it until 2041. The bottom of the press release includes the name of some old guy they awarded the first one to, some cat named Donald Moster or Mostel or something....... Fast forward to 2004. I am visiting Doc' and Dee's place in Wisconsin. I have known them for a bit, Doc has even attended our first Corvair College. He has built his own Corvair engine at the following college. He seems like a promising student, I try and share a lot of my wisdom with him. When I am speaking with him, he often has a very interested look on his face and says things like "So that's how engines work! " It is my first visit to Doc's house. He is sitting at the kitchen table reading the editorial page of the paper and commenting on the wisdom of people who write letters to the editor. I am examining the pictures on the walls in Doc's office. I am stunned. It is a collection of been there done that, history of aviation classics. I am having the uncomfortable and rude awakening, that Doc has been playing "New guy" when he actually has an incredible depth of experience. Looking though the framed 8x10s I find a certificate with the department of transportation logo, leaning against a book, kind of dusty. It says CHARLES TAYLOR AWARD.....DONALD MOSHER. I clutch it in my hands and realize several things in rapid order 1) Donald moster or mostel = DONALD 'DOC' MOSHER......2) Doc knows more about engines than I ever will......3) I have spent the last three years speaking to him as if I had something to show him. I walk out to the kitchen, where Doc is still reading letters to the editor. He does not look up from the paper. Me: "You have THE CHARLES TAYLOR AWARD!" Doc: "Whatever...." Me: "You have THE CHARLES TAYLOR AWARD!" Doc: "Is there some point?" Me: "You let me speak to you like I was smart.....and You have THE CHARLES TAYLOR AWARD!" Doc, without looking up from paper "So what, it's all political, who you know, they hand them out like crackerjack prizes." Me: "My ass they do. 50 Years just to apply for it! I would cut off my left arm for this. I would sell my sister into the valley of the lepers, I would ....I would..." Doc, looking up from paper for the first time: "Really, Your quest for external validation isn't very becoming. You should look inside yourself for happiness and satisfaction. " Me: "Thanks, Obi-Wan Kenobi. I feel soooo much better. " -ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420450#420450 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: danhelsper(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Well, drawing No. 5 gives the spread between the wing cabane strut fittings right at 24" to line up vertically coming up from the fuse. So once again young Mr. Hoopman was correct. I think the Corvair engine mount is wrong. Dan Helsper Puryear, TN -----Original Message----- From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 1:37 pm Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rats! ...but what does Dan Interim Top Curmudgeon Helsper say? Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:23 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rats! Gary, I never noticed your fuselage was 24 1/4 inches wide. I guess my eyes are getting bad. I took this measurement, like john did, to mean 24-inches AFT ER the sides are installed. I never thought it was before but it could be interpreted your way too. This is just one of the joys of scratch building . We can both say we followed the plans and both of us are correct. Chris T. Sacramento, Ca Westcoastpiet.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:28 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rats! --> John, The outside of the plywood is the same as the outside of the longerons. Mr. Pietenpol did that on purpose to conserve plywood, but when you add the sid es, the outside measurement increases 1/4". Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of john francis Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:58 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rats! --> Did I read the plans wrong? Note in the red oval on the print, "all measurements to outside of plywood=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D. I assumed this me ant all measurements and made the front of my fuselage 24=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D wide to the outsi de of the plywood. Yesterday I borrowed a WW corvair engine mount and found it to be a 1/4=C3 =A2=82=AC=C2=9D too wide for my frame (the engine mount measured 24 1/4=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D wi de). That would mean that the front, or far left dimension on the print should be 24 inches to t he outside of the longerons and not the plywood.....correct? Before I remove the two bottom ash cross struts connecting my sides, I want to make sure. John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420409#420409 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0082_179.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plywood
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Braniff1996 brought up great points and made me think about what he wrote when I saw this article- http://www.salary.com/12-jobs-on-the-brink-will-they-evolve-or-go-extinct/ Also, William Wynne on his flycorvair.net blog recently brought a fantastic book to my attention that dovetails right in with this. He discussed, and I took his advice and read, the book, Shop Class As Soulcraft by Matthew B. Crawford. http://flycorvair.net/?s=shop+class&submit=Search In William's post, there is a link to the magazine article of the same name that letter turned into the full book. What does this have to do with Pietenpol building, you ask? Not much for you and I, maybe. But if you have a child of between the ages of birth and college, you need to read this to help them to go in a career direction that gives them a quality of life that will allow them to love to fly as much as you do. All, right, I am off the soap box and headed to go flying. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420452#420452 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Just to muddy the waters a little more, refer to drawing No. 6. This seems to be the only place in the drawing set that cannot be interpreted in more than one way. The detail clearly shows the dimensions to be to the outside of the plywood side skins. The dimensions are: 1 1/4" + 4 13/16" + 2" + 8 1/8" + 1" + 5 13/16" + 1 1/4", which gives a grand total of 24 1/4" including the plywood skins, or, 24" to outside of longerons. This seems to be in conflict with the note on drawing No. 1, which says all dimensions to outside of plywood. Unless we interpret that note to be referring to the plywood floor. Having said that, I can't remember whether I built my fuselage to be 24" wide, measured at the longerons, or measured at the plywood. And, to be honest, it doesn't matter. At all. One quarter inch difference in the width one way or the other will not make a significant difference. And if you will be building your own motor mount, simply build the mount to suit the fuselage width you have fabricated. If you will be having your mount built by others, either confirm the mount width before building your fuselage, or give your fabricator clear instructions as to your mounting point dimensions. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420454#420454 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuse_width_497.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Dan, That may not have come out the way you intended, but the Corvair mount I built for Bob Dewenter (that John has on hand) isn't 'Wrong' if it fits Bob's plane like a glove. We made it for Bob after his fuselage was built, to the exact width dimensions he sent. The point I was trying to make is that we can easily make them from 23.5" to 24.375" in the same fixture. Between Pietenpols, KR-2s and Firpies (wooden Vision fuselage) I have made about a half dozen 'De Havilland box' construction style fuselages in the last 20 years. In all of these, I put the outer plywood on the sides while they were still flat on the bench. This steers a builder toward a 24" wide fuselage. >From looking at builder's photos, most people appear to just build the side trusses with the inner gussets, and then stand them up with no skin. I am thinking that most of those people end up with a 24.250" wide fuselage, however, a guy could use this technique and still build a 24" wide plane. My reading of the plans is the same as yours, that the overall fuselage width, with the plywood is intended to be 24". But if I made every mount that way some of them would not fit. John is only working with Bobs mount because he just ordered one from us, and intends to pick it up at Brodhead. I can easily make it a clone of Bob's or I could make it 24" to suit either width. -ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420455#420455 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Welcome to Corvair Colleges
From: "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Shelley and I have been to three. We hosted 22 and 28 and were attendees at 24 in Barnwell. We're looking forward to retirement when we can go just to go. They are social events in addition to being educational. I did not attend any colleges during the 1st build and it took me 5 years to run the engine. By comparison, it took us a weekend to build and run the engine the 2nd time at CC24. Shelley did most of the wrenching, BTW. There were factors other than attending the college that explain the improved efficiency, of course, but the college was a huge help. William has an exceptional background in small airplane design, construction and maintenance. You will learn a lot, even if you're not using a Corvair. -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee Rebuilding NX899KP Austin/San Marcos, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420457#420457 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: 4130 tubing laying around
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Don't have any extra tubing, but am interested in your project. I have been mulling a similar project. Barry NX973BP From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douwe Blumberg Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: 4130 tubing laying around Hey, Anybody have some 4130 tubing laying around they wanna sell cheap? Round, square, rusty. doesn't much matter. It's for a high-mileage vehicle "fun project" and is just for prototyping. Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: 24 1/4" wide fuselage...
Date: Mar 17, 2014
With a fuselage measuring a full =BC=94 too wide, I wonder if it can even be termed a Pietenpol!! I suppose it could be parked in a back row somewhere with the other =93impure=94 imposters!!! :-) Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plywood
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Builders, Six months ago I was sent a very nice hat from EAA HQ, one of the new ones with the traditional logo. It was something of an olive branch, as I had worked as a staff writer for many years, but later became an outsider during the 'corporate shift'. When I saw the hat's tag said "Made in China." I sent it back with a note that I would not wear it, and they should not send things like this to EAA members like Pietenpol builder Roger White. There are some good photos of Brodhead and Oshkosh 201o at this link: http://www.flycorvair.com/osh2010.html About half way down you can see Roger's picture, and he is wearing a hat with a Combat infantryman's Badge. Something he earned at great cost, fighting Chinese in Korea. In my note to HQ I explained that Roger may be subjected to China products at Walmart, because it is a corporation, but the EAA is allegedly a membership association, not driven by profit, and we can have US made hats for men like Roger. If you would like to know how to go from being on the EAA publications masthead for four years to being persona non grata, easy: All you have to do is write a stream of stories like this one, which points out how much of the US light aviation industry is already owned by the Chinese: http://flycorvair.net/2013/07/23/communist-chinese-government-at-oshkosh/ When the message is "These are our new friends," Writing stories about the EAA's president getting caught by 60 minutes with a fake engineering degree, makes one a pariah. I wrote the story below after the C-162 failed, pointing out that the EAA president Jack Pelton, Mr. fake degree, was the guy who plotted exporting the project to China. The story was widely circulated, and yes, I even heard from the EAA's person who runs the 'China Pavilion' at Oshkosh, explaining how much better things would be I just saw it their way. Sadly, they are not really worried about me starting a revolt, as they know only 10-15% of the membership cares about "Made in USA." http://flycorvair.net/2013/10/23/cessnas-chinese-adventure-a-failure/ ----------------------------------------- Michael, I assume that your gas price was a typo, because gas was $1.56 in 1999, it has not been $.56 since well before you were born. I am 51 years old, and I have a strong feeling about keeping aviation affordable to working Americans like you. At it's very root, this was the driving force behind BHP life's work. He started this in the depression, when it was a lot harder, and I don't intend to drop the ball on my watch. We are not a country of spectators. >From the story above: "So, who will make Americas light planes? You will, the working American, just as you have always done. In 1946 Cessna went from war production to making 30 C-120s and C-140s a day, without any issue at all. The greedy corporate scum like Pelton had 6 years to tool up and they couldnt hardly make 30 aircraft per year in China. The only important difference is that the Cessna ownership in 1946 respected their workforce of Americans, and 60 years later Pelton had all his faith in the best $2/hr Chinese workers he could buy. Moving forward, it is clear that Cessna has now abandoned the affordable aircraft market. This makes no difference to any homebuilder. In 1946, Cessna was something of a partner to American labor in producing that generation of affordable American aircraft. Today, they have proven to be a worthless element. Each of us, developing our own craftsmanship, will work in our own one plane factory and produce our own aircraft. This is how American labor will build this generation of affordable aircraft. We dont need cheap labor in China, we dont need greedy CEOs and we dont need any membership organization that is headed by a person who fails to understand this.-ww. -------------------------------------------- Michael, when I was 32, I had just spent 5 years and my $70K life savings Embry-Riddle, had a 3.85 GPA, and he highest paying job in aviation I could find was $10/hr. My personal wealth was limited to my Piet project, 1,500 pounds of books and tools, a rusty 1967 Corvair, what I knew, and a handful of friends. From there I made progress, but I also made a series of foolish decisions that slowed my rate of climb, and one on 7/14/01 that came pretty close to costing my life. It is a safe assumption you are smarter than me, and trust me, no matter how bad things seem economically, you can build your plane. You loose only when you quit. Find other people who motivate you and focus of their positive perspective. You can see in the photos below that we live on a little airport, but we live pretty frugally. I have long known that I am happy when I am dreaming of and working on a project. Material goods beyond tools don't keep me happy. every decision I made to put my craft first, to invest in myself instead of consumer goods, was a step toward building, flying and happiness. If you read anything I write this year, make it the last 5 paragraphs of the story below: http://flycorvair.net/2013/09/09/sunday-a-long-day-at-the-airport/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420461#420461 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: larharris2 Harris <larharris2(at)msn.com>
Subject: W&B
Date: Mar 17, 2014
WW=2C I started looking through your reference articles (http://www.flycorv air.com/osh2010.html) . The third photo shows a plane up on the scales. No twithstanding the possible Chinese source=2C I have thought about ordering a set of digital scales off Ebay for the weighing process. Maybe something in the 350lb range so that the load on each finds a weight near the mid-ran ge. I've got your W&B articles on order=2C but not received yet. Thoughts? Lorenzo > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Plywood > From: WilliamTCA(at)aol.com > Date: Mon=2C 17 Mar 2014 08:03:50 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > > > Builders=2C > > Six months ago I was sent a very nice hat from EAA HQ=2C one of the new o nes with the traditional logo. It was something of an olive branch=2C as I had worked as a staff writer for many years=2C but later became an outsider during the 'corporate shift'. When I saw the hat's tag said "Made in Chin a." I sent it back with a note that I would not wear it=2C and they should not send things like this to EAA members like Pietenpol builder Roger White . > > There are some good photos of Brodhead and Oshkosh 201o at this link: > > http://www.flycorvair.com/osh2010.html > > About half way down you can see Roger's picture=2C and he is wearing a ha t with a Combat infantryman's Badge. Something he earned at great cost=2C f ighting Chinese in Korea. In my note to HQ I explained that Roger may be su bjected to China products at Walmart=2C because it is a corporation=2C but the EAA is allegedly a membership association=2C not driven by profit=2C a nd we can have US made hats for men like Roger. > > If you would like to know how to go from being on the EAA publications ma sthead for four years to being persona non grata=2C easy: All you have to d o is write a stream of stories like this one=2C which points out how much o f the US light aviation industry is already owned by the Chinese: > > http://flycorvair.net/2013/07/23/communist-chinese-government-at-oshkosh/ > > When the message is "These are our new friends=2C" Writing stories about the EAA's president getting caught by 60 minutes with a fake engineering de gree=2C makes one a pariah. I wrote the story below after the C-162 failed =2C pointing out that the EAA president Jack Pelton=2C Mr. fake degree=2C w as the guy who plotted exporting the project to China. The story was widely circulated=2C and yes=2C I even heard from the EAA's person who runs the ' China Pavilion' at Oshkosh=2C explaining how much better things would be I just saw it their way. Sadly=2C they are not really worried about me starti ng a revolt=2C as they know only 10-15% of the membership cares about "Made in USA." > > http://flycorvair.net/2013/10/23/cessnas-chinese-adventure-a-failure/ > > ----------------------------------------- > > Michael=2C I assume that your gas price was a typo=2C because gas was $1. 56 in 1999=2C it has not been $.56 since well before you were born. I am 5 1 years old=2C and I have a strong feeling about keeping aviation affordabl e to working Americans like you. At it's very root=2C this was the driving force behind BHP life's work. He started this in the depression=2C when it was a lot harder=2C and I don't intend to drop the ball on my watch. We are not a country of spectators. > > >From the story above: > > "So=2C who will make America=99s light planes? You will=2C the > working American=2C just as you have always done. In 1946 Cessna went > from war production to making 30 C-120=B2s and C-140=B2s a da y=2C without any issue at > all. The greedy corporate scum like Pelton had 6 years to tool up and the y > couldn=99t hardly make 30 aircraft per year in China. The only impo rtant > difference is that the Cessna ownership in 1946 respected their workforce of > Americans=2C and 60 years later Pelton had all his faith in the best $2/h r Chinese > workers he could buy. Moving forward=2C it is clear that Cessna has now a bandoned > the =9Caffordable=9D aircraft market. This makes no differenc e to any homebuilder. > In 1946=2C Cessna was something of a partner to American labor in produci ng that > generation of affordable American aircraft. Today=2C they have proven to be a > worthless element. Each of us=2C developing our own craftsmanship=2C will work in > our own one plane factory and produce our own aircraft. This is how Ameri can > labor will build this generation of affordable aircraft. We don=99t need cheap > labor in China=2C we don=99t need greedy CEO=99s and we don =99t need any membership > organization that is headed by a person who fails to understand this.-ww. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Michael=2C when I was 32=2C I had just spent 5 years and my $70K life sav ings Embry-Riddle=2C had a 3.85 GPA=2C and he highest paying job in aviatio n I could find was $10/hr. My personal wealth was limited to my Piet projec t=2C 1=2C500 pounds of books and tools=2C a rusty 1967 Corvair=2C what I kn ew=2C and a handful of friends. From there I made progress=2C but I also m ade a series of foolish decisions that slowed my rate of climb=2C and one o n 7/14/01 that came pretty close to costing my life. It is a safe assumptio n you are smarter than me=2C and trust me=2C no matter how bad things seem economically=2C you can build your plane. You loose only when you quit. Fin d other people who motivate you and focus of their positive perspective. > > You can see in the photos below that we live on a little airport=2C but w e live pretty frugally. I have long known that I am happy when I am dreamin g of and working on a project. Material goods beyond tools don't keep me ha ppy. every decision I made to put my craft first=2C to invest in myself ins tead of consumer goods=2C was a step toward building=2C flying and happines s. > > If you read anything I write this year=2C make it the last 5 paragraphs o f the story below: > > http://flycorvair.net/2013/09/09/sunday-a-long-day-at-the-airport/ > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420461#420461 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 4130 tubing laying around
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Douwe, A number of sucssful builders I know are now interested in efficient land based stuff. After building a plane, everything we drive seems to be battleship heavy and barn door aerodynamic. My side kick Vern Stevenson built the three wheeler pictured in the link below. It is half 3 cylinder Geo metro and half a Lancair 320 fuselage I had in the rafters. He graphed them together in my hangar. In Florida the trike is considered a motorcycle, and is exempt from any kind of inspection or insurance. The trike actually has a small steel tube structure in it attaching the unit body driveline end to the composite cockpit and tail cone. Vern has driven it 11,000 miles in the last year, averages 60mpg. Not bad for being made of 'trash.' He brings it to most Colleges, he lets people drive it if they like. You can google his name for more internet pictures. http://flycorvair.net/2013/06/02/fun-with-agkistrodon-piscivorus-and-verns-aero-trike/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420464#420464 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" <jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Plywood
Date: Mar 17, 2014
"You lose only when you quit." I've found that to be true in all aspects of my life and it's what I counsel to students and junior faculty. -- Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine On 3/17/14 11:03 AM, "William Wynne" wrote: > >Builders, > >Six months ago I was sent a very nice hat from EAA HQ, one of the new >ones with the traditional logo. It was something of an olive branch, as I >had worked as a staff writer for many years, but later became an outsider >during the 'corporate shift'. When I saw the hat's tag said "Made in >China." I sent it back with a note that I would not wear it, and they >should not send things like this to EAA members like Pietenpol builder >Roger White. > >There are some good photos of Brodhead and Oshkosh 201o at this link: > >http://www.flycorvair.com/osh2010.html > >About half way down you can see Roger's picture, and he is wearing a hat >with a Combat infantryman's Badge. Something he earned at great cost, >fighting Chinese in Korea. In my note to HQ I explained that Roger may be >subjected to China products at Walmart, because it is a corporation, but >the EAA is allegedly a membership association, not driven by profit, and >we can have US made hats for men like Roger. > >If you would like to know how to go from being on the EAA publications >masthead for four years to being persona non grata, easy: All you have to >do is write a stream of stories like this one, which points out how much >of the US light aviation industry is already owned by the Chinese: > >http://flycorvair.net/2013/07/23/communist-chinese-government-at-oshkosh/ > >When the message is "These are our new friends," Writing stories about >the EAA's president getting caught by 60 minutes with a fake engineering >degree, makes one a pariah. I wrote the story below after the C-162 >failed, pointing out that the EAA president Jack Pelton, Mr. fake degree, >was the guy who plotted exporting the project to China. The story was >widely circulated, and yes, I even heard from the EAA's person who runs >the 'China Pavilion' at Oshkosh, explaining how much better things would >be I just saw it their way. Sadly, they are not really worried about me >starting a revolt, as they know only 10-15% of the membership cares about >"Made in USA." > >http://flycorvair.net/2013/10/23/cessnas-chinese-adventure-a-failure/ > >----------------------------------------- > >Michael, I assume that your gas price was a typo, because gas was $1.56 >in 1999, it has not been $.56 since well before you were born. I am 51 >years old, and I have a strong feeling about keeping aviation affordable >to working Americans like you. At it's very root, this was the driving >force behind BHP life's work. He started this in the depression, when it >was a lot harder, and I don't intend to drop the ball on my watch. We are >not a country of spectators. > >>From the story above: > >"So, who will make Americas light planes? You will, the >working American, just as you have always done. In 1946 Cessna went >from war production to making 30 C-120s and C-140s a day, without >any issue at >all. The greedy corporate scum like Pelton had 6 years to tool up and >they >couldnt hardly make 30 aircraft per year in China. The only important >difference is that the Cessna ownership in 1946 respected their workforce >of >Americans, and 60 years later Pelton had all his faith in the best $2/hr >Chinese >workers he could buy. Moving forward, it is clear that Cessna has now >abandoned >the affordable aircraft market. This makes no difference to any >homebuilder. >In 1946, Cessna was something of a partner to American labor in producing >that >generation of affordable American aircraft. Today, they have proven to >be a >worthless element. Each of us, developing our own craftsmanship, will >work in >our own one plane factory and produce our own aircraft. This is how >American >labor will build this generation of affordable aircraft. We dont need >cheap >labor in China, we dont need greedy CEOs and we dont need any >membership >organization that is headed by a person who fails to understand this.-ww. > >-------------------------------------------- > >Michael, when I was 32, I had just spent 5 years and my $70K life savings >Embry-Riddle, had a 3.85 GPA, and he highest paying job in aviation I >could find was $10/hr. My personal wealth was limited to my Piet project, >1,500 pounds of books and tools, a rusty 1967 Corvair, what I knew, and a >handful of friends. From there I made progress, but I also made a series >of foolish decisions that slowed my rate of climb, and one on 7/14/01 >that came pretty close to costing my life. It is a safe assumption you >are smarter than me, and trust me, no matter how bad things seem >economically, you can build your plane. You loose only when you quit. >Find other people who motivate you and focus of their positive >perspective. > >You can see in the photos below that we live on a little airport, but we >live pretty frugally. I have long known that I am happy when I am >dreaming of and working on a project. Material goods beyond tools don't >keep me happy. every decision I made to put my craft first, to invest in >myself instead of consumer goods, was a step toward building, flying and >happiness. > >If you read anything I write this year, make it the last 5 paragraphs of >the story below: > >http://flycorvair.net/2013/09/09/sunday-a-long-day-at-the-airport/ > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420461#420461 > > ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Welcome to Corvair Colleges
From: dog67(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Fantastic Kevin You got your new Piet flying? Cheers Jonathan Apfelbaum -----Original Message----- From: kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 8:02 am Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welcome to Corvair Colleges il> Shelley and I have been to three. We hosted 22 and 28 and were attendees a t 24 n Barnwell. We're looking forward to retirement when we can go just to go. hey are social events in addition to being educational. I did not attend any colleges during the 1st build and it took me 5 years t o run he engine. By comparison, it took us a weekend to build and run the engine the nd time at CC24. Shelley did most of the wrenching, BTW. There were facto rs ther than attending the college that explain the improved efficiency, of ourse, but the college was a huge help. William has an exceptional background in small airplane design, constructio n and aintenance. You will learn a lot, even if you're not using a Corvair. -------- evin "Axel" Purtee ebuilding NX899KP ustin/San Marcos, TX ead this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420457#420457 -= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum - -= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse -= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription, -= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, -= Photoshare, and much much more: - -= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List - -======================== -= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - -= Same great content also available via the Web Forums! - -= --> http://forums.matronics.com - -======================== -= - List Contribution Web Site - -= Thank you for your generous support! -= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. -= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution -======================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Magneto switch wiring
From: "giacummo" <mario.giacummo(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Hello, I have a pair of Slick magnetos in the a65 engine, and the switch key for R-L-Both or off. >From where does the cable/es from the mag to the switch key depart?... I was traying to find a diagram but I do not find anyone, and I do not see nothing over the mags. thanks in advance. regards -------- Mario Giacummo Photos here: http://goo.gl/wh7M4 Little Blog : http://vgmk1.blogspot.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420470#420470 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Magneto switch wiring
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Mario; are you asking about the attachment stud for the wire on the magneto, or on the switch? -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420476#420476 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Magneto switch wiring
From: "giacummo" <mario.giacummo(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
My question was bad... from the switch that is on the cockpit, I have to send cables to the magnetos, but I do not know where to wire them (at the mag side).. the mags are Slick 4333... PD: como conecto los magnetos a la llave? -------- Mario Giacummo Photos here: http://goo.gl/wh7M4 Little Blog : http://vgmk1.blogspot.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420480#420480 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1011201_170.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/0558_738.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/descarga_157.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Magneto switch wiring
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Mario; the orange wire "jumper" on the magneto must be removed... I think it is only there to temporarily ground the ignition P-lead from the magneto. I'll get the detail from Tony Bingelis' book... then we will start a discussion about whether the shield braid on the P-lead wire should be grounded at both ends or only at one end ;o) -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420482#420482 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Magneto switch wiring
From: "giacummo" <mario.giacummo(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
thank you Oscar. -------- Mario Giacummo Photos here: http://goo.gl/wh7M4 Little Blog : http://vgmk1.blogspot.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420487#420487 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: danhelsper(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 17, 2014
William, There is only one way for a curmudgeon to look at things. But in this case Mr. Church has found that (gasp) there might be a conflict on the plans? Th ere must be some plausible explanation for this. I will search the "papers" in May. Dan Helsper Puryear, TN -----Original Message----- From: William Wynne <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 8:19 am Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rats! Dan, That may not have come out the way you intended, but the Corvair mount I bu ilt for Bob Dewenter (that John has on hand) isn't 'Wrong' if it fits Bob's pla ne like a glove. We made it for Bob after his fuselage was built, to the exact width dimensions he sent. The point I was trying to make is that we can eas ily make them from 23.5" to 24.375" in the same fixture. Between Pietenpols, KR-2s and Firpies (wooden Vision fuselage) I have made about a half dozen 'De Havilland box' construction style fuselages in the last 20 years. In all of these, I put the outer plywood on the sides while they wer e still flat on the bench. This steers a builder toward a 24" wide fuselage. >From looking at builder's photos, most people appear to just build the sid e trusses with the inner gussets, and then stand them up with no skin. I am thinking that most of those people end up with a 24.250" wide fuselage, how ever, a guy could use this technique and still build a 24" wide plane. My reading of the plans is the same as yours, that the overall fuselage wid th, with the plywood is intended to be 24". But if I made every mount that way some of them would not fit. John is only working with Bobs mount because he just ordered one from us, and intends to pick it up at Brodhead. I can easily ma ke it a clone of Bob's or I could make it 24" to suit either width. -ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420455#420455 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plywood
From: Claude Corbett <isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Sent from my iPad > On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:47 AM, "Boatright, Jeffrey" wrote: > > > "You lose only when you quit." > > > I've found that to be true in all aspects of my life and it's what I > counsel to students and junior faculty. > > -- > > Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO > Associate Professor of Ophthalmology > Emory University School of Medicine > > > > >> On 3/17/14 11:03 AM, "William Wynne" wrote: >> >> >> Builders, >> >> Six months ago I was sent a very nice hat from EAA HQ, one of the new >> ones with the traditional logo. It was something of an olive branch, as I >> had worked as a staff writer for many years, but later became an outsider >> during the 'corporate shift'. When I saw the hat's tag said "Made in >> China." I sent it back with a note that I would not wear it, and they >> should not send things like this to EAA members like Pietenpol builder >> Roger White. >> >> There are some good photos of Brodhead and Oshkosh 201o at this link: >> >> http://www.flycorvair.com/osh2010.html >> >> About half way down you can see Roger's picture, and he is wearing a hat >> with a Combat infantryman's Badge. Something he earned at great cost, >> fighting Chinese in Korea. In my note to HQ I explained that Roger may be >> subjected to China products at Walmart, because it is a corporation, but >> the EAA is allegedly a membership association, not driven by profit, and >> we can have US made hats for men like Roger. >> >> If you would like to know how to go from being on the EAA publications >> masthead for four years to being persona non grata, easy: All you have to >> do is write a stream of stories like this one, which points out how much >> of the US light aviation industry is already owned by the Chinese: >> >> http://flycorvair.net/2013/07/23/communist-chinese-government-at-oshkosh/ >> >> When the message is "These are our new friends," Writing stories about >> the EAA's president getting caught by 60 minutes with a fake engineering >> degree, makes one a pariah. I wrote the story below after the C-162 >> failed, pointing out that the EAA president Jack Pelton, Mr. fake degree, >> was the guy who plotted exporting the project to China. The story was >> widely circulated, and yes, I even heard from the EAA's person who runs >> the 'China Pavilion' at Oshkosh, explaining how much better things would >> be I just saw it their way. Sadly, they are not really worried about me >> starting a revolt, as they know only 10-15% of the membership cares about >> "Made in USA." >> >> http://flycorvair.net/2013/10/23/cessnas-chinese-adventure-a-failure/ >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> >> Michael, I assume that your gas price was a typo, because gas was $1.56 >> in 1999, it has not been $.56 since well before you were born. I am 51 >> years old, and I have a strong feeling about keeping aviation affordable >> to working Americans like you. At it's very root, this was the driving >> force behind BHP life's work. He started this in the depression, when it >> was a lot harder, and I don't intend to drop the ball on my watch. We are >> not a country of spectators. >> >>> From the story above: >> >> "So, who will make Americas light planes? You will, the >> working American, just as you have always done. In 1946 Cessna went >> from war production to making 30 C-120s and C-140s a day, without >> any issue at >> all. The greedy corporate scum like Pelton had 6 years to tool up and >> they >> couldnt hardly make 30 aircraft per year in China. The only important >> difference is that the Cessna ownership in 1946 respected their workforce >> of >> Americans, and 60 years later Pelton had all his faith in the best $2/hr >> Chinese >> workers he could buy. Moving forward, it is clear that Cessna has now >> abandoned >> the affordable aircraft market. This makes no difference to any >> homebuilder. >> In 1946, Cessna was something of a partner to American labor in producing >> that >> generation of affordable American aircraft. Today, they have proven to >> be a >> worthless element. Each of us, developing our own craftsmanship, will >> work in >> our own one plane factory and produce our own aircraft. This is how >> American >> labor will build this generation of affordable aircraft. We dont need >> cheap >> labor in China, we dont need greedy CEOs and we dont need any >> membership >> organization that is headed by a person who fails to understand this.-ww. >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> Michael, when I was 32, I had just spent 5 years and my $70K life savings >> Embry-Riddle, had a 3.85 GPA, and he highest paying job in aviation I >> could find was $10/hr. My personal wealth was limited to my Piet project, >> 1,500 pounds of books and tools, a rusty 1967 Corvair, what I knew, and a >> handful of friends. From there I made progress, but I also made a series >> of foolish decisions that slowed my rate of climb, and one on 7/14/01 >> that came pretty close to costing my life. It is a safe assumption you >> are smarter than me, and trust me, no matter how bad things seem >> economically, you can build your plane. You loose only when you quit. >> Find other people who motivate you and focus of their positive >> perspective. >> >> You can see in the photos below that we live on a little airport, but we >> live pretty frugally. I have long known that I am happy when I am >> dreaming of and working on a project. Material goods beyond tools don't >> keep me happy. every decision I made to put my craft first, to invest in >> myself instead of consumer goods, was a step toward building, flying and >> happiness. >> >> If you read anything I write this year, make it the last 5 paragraphs of >> the story below: >> >> http://flycorvair.net/2013/09/09/sunday-a-long-day-at-the-airport/ >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420461#420461 > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please contact > the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the > original message (including attachments). > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W&B
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Lorenzo, Consider this idea: Most local EAA chapters have some bucks stored up, but the rarely can agree on what to spend it on. Here is something to propose to your local chapter: Have them buy a set of scales. The easy thing about it is that both guys with certified planes and guys with experimentals can borrow them. You can rent them to non chapter members for $40 a day. A good set of electronic car scales like the ones we used on the project start at about $1,000. They are well worth it. Scales by companies like Longacre are accurate within their full range to a pound or so. More importantly, they are consistent. Bathroom scales are poor, any work done on them does not count. Grain scales work, but they are tall, and three of them costs more than a good electronic set. You can work with one scale, but it is a pain. 350 lbs is too low, because you want to be able to weigh the plane with people and fuel in it also to calculate the true location of these loads. When you get the Data from Doc Mosher, review it and find the plane we weighed that best compares to your project, ie long fuse, A-65 and I will be glad to assist you in fine tuning the data to match your project. If you are going to Brodhead we will sit down over a cup of coffee and get out a calculator and crunch it for you. Even without weighing it, I am pretty sure we have enough data to hit your CG target within 1/2". I stink at many things in life, can't sing nor dance, I can be a conversational bore, and I got a D in differential equations...twice. But I am an idiot-savant at CG stuff. I will be glad to help anyone out on this, not just Corvair guys. -ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420497#420497 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 4130 tubing laying around
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Will - I know your area of expertise is the Corvair, but I have been trying to get detailed information on building up an 85/O200 experimental engine with very little luck. I have a couple or three 85 cases, two or 3 85 cranks and cams, as well as a couple of boxes of various engine parts, but no cylinders. I have built a certified O200 in the past and 3 different Lycomings, so am familiar with engine building. But have struck out so far in obtaining a desired parts list for building the engine. I know there are some guys on here that have experience with similar engines so would appreciate some input as to getting started. When the weather warms up a bit in the next week or so, first step is to do a detailed inventory of the parts I have in my "stash". But some input as to putting together a "desirable" parts list for the engine build would be appreciated. The first airplane, a Light Sport Bearhawk, will be for a customer that is only comfortable with the Continental engine..the next will be for myself and I'll be attending a Corvair College. M. Haught On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:40 AM, William Wynne wrote: > > Douwe, > > A number of sucssful builders I know are now interested in efficient land based stuff. After building a plane, everything we drive seems to be battleship heavy and barn door aerodynamic. > > My side kick Vern Stevenson built the three wheeler pictured in the link below. It is half 3 cylinder Geo metro and half a Lancair 320 fuselage I had in the rafters. He graphed them together in my hangar. In Florida the trike is considered a motorcycle, and is exempt from any kind of inspection or insurance. The trike actually has a small steel tube structure in it attaching the unit body driveline end to the composite cockpit and tail cone. Vern has driven it 11,000 miles in the last year, averages 60mpg. Not bad for being made of 'trash.' He brings it to most Colleges, he lets people drive it if they like. You can google his name for more internet pictures. > > http://flycorvair.net/2013/06/02/fun-with-agkistrodon-piscivorus-and-verns-aero-trike/ > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420464#420464 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Welcome to Corvair Colleges
From: "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Hi John - I wish I was that quick. Woodwork on the flying surfaces is done. Fuselage is on the gear and I'm getting ready to do the engine installation. Hope to be covering by this summer, flying in '15, Brodhead in '16. We'll miss '15 because it's a cardinal anniversary which won't include Brodhead (though Brodhead was our honeymoon). You, of course, were one of the "other factors" in getting the engine done in one weekend, for which I am eternally grateful! I'll have Shelley give you a big hug when we see you at C37 in a few months. I'd do it but you'll like it better from her. -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee Rebuilding NX899KP Austin/San Marcos, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420499#420499 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" <jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: 4130 tubing laying around
Date: Mar 17, 2014
One of several sources online: http://www.aeronca.com/manuals/Continental_C75_C87_Instruction_and_Service_ Manual.pdf Sections 13-16, pages 53-83 are several parts lists. I think that this Instruction and Service Manual can be purchased from Aircraft Spruce, but you'd have to check their catalog. I am almost certain the one we used for our C75/85 reassembly/overhaul was bought from Spruce, but I'm older now and those brain cells are apparently vacationing somewhere. HTH, Jeff -- Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine On 3/17/14 5:02 PM, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: > > >Will - > >I know your area of expertise is the Corvair, but I have been trying to >get detailed information on building up an 85/O200 experimental engine >with very little luck. I have a couple or three 85 cases, two or 3 85 >cranks and cams, as well as a couple of boxes of various engine parts, >but no cylinders. I have built a certified O200 in the past and 3 >different Lycomings, so am familiar with engine building. But have struck >out so far in obtaining a desired parts list for building the engine. I >know there are some guys on here that have experience with similar >engines so would appreciate some input as to getting started. When the >weather warms up a bit in the next week or so, first step is to do a >detailed inventory of the parts I have in my "stash". But some input as >to putting together a "desirable" parts list for the engine build would >be appreciated. The first airplane, a Light Sport Bearhawk, will be for >a customer that is only comfortable with the Continental engine! > ..the next will be for myself and I'll be attending a Corvair College. > >M. Haught > > >On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:40 AM, William Wynne wrote: > >> >> >> Douwe, >> >> A number of sucssful builders I know are now interested in efficient >>land based stuff. After building a plane, everything we drive seems to >>be battleship heavy and barn door aerodynamic. >> >> My side kick Vern Stevenson built the three wheeler pictured in the >>link below. It is half 3 cylinder Geo metro and half a Lancair 320 >>fuselage I had in the rafters. He graphed them together in my hangar. In >>Florida the trike is considered a motorcycle, and is exempt from any >>kind of inspection or insurance. The trike actually has a small steel >>tube structure in it attaching the unit body driveline end to the >>composite cockpit and tail cone. Vern has driven it 11,000 miles in the >>last year, averages 60mpg. Not bad for being made of 'trash.' He brings >>it to most Colleges, he lets people drive it if they like. You can >>google his name for more internet pictures. >> >> >>http://flycorvair.net/2013/06/02/fun-with-agkistrodon-piscivorus-and-vern >>s-aero-trike/ >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420464#420464 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2014
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: 4130 tubing laying around
I have the standard parts and service manuals for the C75/85 and for the O200. I have all the confidence in the world in building up a straight C75/85 or O200 using standard parts. What I am wanting to do is build up an engine with the 85 Case and using O200 cylinders and whatever combination of parts that will give me the greatest power as well as reliability. I would love to talk to someone that has done this an pick their brain as to a parts list. From what I understand, the experimental version of this engine (I also understand that there is an STC for using O200 cylinders on an 85 Case) puts out around 110 to 115 HP. I know Bob Barrows builds them for sale, but I doubt he would be willing to provide me with his parts list and secrets so that I can build my own engine. M. Haught On 3/17/2014 4:31 PM, Boatright, Jeffrey wrote: > > One of several sources online: > > http://www.aeronca.com/manuals/Continental_C75_C87_Instruction_and_Service_ > Manual.pdf > > Sections 13-16, pages 53-83 are several parts lists. > > I think that this Instruction and Service Manual can be purchased from > Aircraft Spruce, but you'd have to check their catalog. I am almost > certain the one we used for our C75/85 reassembly/overhaul was bought from > Spruce, but I'm older now and those brain cells are apparently vacationing > somewhere. > > HTH, > > Jeff > > > -- > > Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO > Associate Professor of Ophthalmology > Emory University School of Medicine > > > On 3/17/14 5:02 PM, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: > >> >> >> Will - >> >> I know your area of expertise is the Corvair, but I have been trying to >> get detailed information on building up an 85/O200 experimental engine >> with very little luck. I have a couple or three 85 cases, two or 3 85 >> cranks and cams, as well as a couple of boxes of various engine parts, >> but no cylinders. I have built a certified O200 in the past and 3 >> different Lycomings, so am familiar with engine building. But have struck >> out so far in obtaining a desired parts list for building the engine. I >> know there are some guys on here that have experience with similar >> engines so would appreciate some input as to getting started. When the >> weather warms up a bit in the next week or so, first step is to do a >> detailed inventory of the parts I have in my "stash". But some input as >> to putting together a "desirable" parts list for the engine build would >> be appreciated. The first airplane, a Light Sport Bearhawk, will be for >> a customer that is only comfortable with the Continental engine! >> ..the next will be for myself and I'll be attending a Corvair College. >> >> M. Haught >> >> >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:40 AM, William Wynne wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Douwe, >>> >>> A number of sucssful builders I know are now interested in efficient >>> land based stuff. After building a plane, everything we drive seems to >>> be battleship heavy and barn door aerodynamic. >>> >>> My side kick Vern Stevenson built the three wheeler pictured in the >>> link below. It is half 3 cylinder Geo metro and half a Lancair 320 >>> fuselage I had in the rafters. He graphed them together in my hangar. In >>> Florida the trike is considered a motorcycle, and is exempt from any >>> kind of inspection or insurance. The trike actually has a small steel >>> tube structure in it attaching the unit body driveline end to the >>> composite cockpit and tail cone. Vern has driven it 11,000 miles in the >>> last year, averages 60mpg. Not bad for being made of 'trash.' He brings >>> it to most Colleges, he lets people drive it if they like. You can >>> google his name for more internet pictures. >>> >>> >>> http://flycorvair.net/2013/06/02/fun-with-agkistrodon-piscivorus-and-vern >>> s-aero-trike/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420464#420464 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please contact > the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the > original message (including attachments). > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" <jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: 4130 tubing laying around
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Ah, now I get it. Have you asked Harry Fenton? He may provide some insight: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm harry(at)bowersflybaby.com HTH, Jeff -- Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine On 3/17/14 5:43 PM, "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " wrote: > > >I have the standard parts and service manuals for the C75/85 and for the >O200. I have all the confidence in the world in building up a straight >C75/85 or O200 using standard parts. What I am wanting to do is build >up an engine with the 85 Case and using O200 cylinders and whatever >combination of parts that will give me the greatest power as well as >reliability. I would love to talk to someone that has done this an pick >their brain as to a parts list. From what I understand, the >experimental version of this engine (I also understand that there is an >STC for using O200 cylinders on an 85 Case) puts out around 110 to 115 >HP. I know Bob Barrows builds them for sale, but I doubt he would be >willing to provide me with his parts list and secrets so that I can >build my own engine. > >M. Haught > > >On 3/17/2014 4:31 PM, Boatright, Jeffrey wrote: >> >> >> One of several sources online: >> >> >>http://www.aeronca.com/manuals/Continental_C75_C87_Instruction_and_Servic >>e_ >> Manual.pdf >> >> Sections 13-16, pages 53-83 are several parts lists. >> >> I think that this Instruction and Service Manual can be purchased from >> Aircraft Spruce, but you'd have to check their catalog. I am almost >> certain the one we used for our C75/85 reassembly/overhaul was bought >>from >> Spruce, but I'm older now and those brain cells are apparently >>vacationing >> somewhere. >> >> HTH, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -- >> >> Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO >> Associate Professor of Ophthalmology >> Emory University School of Medicine >> >> >> >> >> On 3/17/14 5:02 PM, "H. Marvin Haught" >>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Will - >>> >>> I know your area of expertise is the Corvair, but I have been trying to >>> get detailed information on building up an 85/O200 experimental engine >>> with very little luck. I have a couple or three 85 cases, two or 3 85 >>> cranks and cams, as well as a couple of boxes of various engine parts, >>> but no cylinders. I have built a certified O200 in the past and 3 >>> different Lycomings, so am familiar with engine building. But have >>>struck >>> out so far in obtaining a desired parts list for building the engine. >>>I >>> know there are some guys on here that have experience with similar >>> engines so would appreciate some input as to getting started. When the >>> weather warms up a bit in the next week or so, first step is to do a >>> detailed inventory of the parts I have in my "stash". But some input >>>as >>> to putting together a "desirable" parts list for the engine build would >>> be appreciated. The first airplane, a Light Sport Bearhawk, will be >>>for >>> a customer that is only comfortable with the Continental engine! >>> ..the next will be for myself and I'll be attending a Corvair College. >>> >>> M. Haught >>> >>> >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:40 AM, William Wynne wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Douwe, >>>> >>>> A number of sucssful builders I know are now interested in efficient >>>> land based stuff. After building a plane, everything we drive seems to >>>> be battleship heavy and barn door aerodynamic. >>>> >>>> My side kick Vern Stevenson built the three wheeler pictured in the >>>> link below. It is half 3 cylinder Geo metro and half a Lancair 320 >>>> fuselage I had in the rafters. He graphed them together in my hangar. >>>>In >>>> Florida the trike is considered a motorcycle, and is exempt from any >>>> kind of inspection or insurance. The trike actually has a small steel >>>> tube structure in it attaching the unit body driveline end to the >>>> composite cockpit and tail cone. Vern has driven it 11,000 miles in >>>>the >>>> last year, averages 60mpg. Not bad for being made of 'trash.' He >>>>brings >>>> it to most Colleges, he lets people drive it if they like. You can >>>> google his name for more internet pictures. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>http://flycorvair.net/2013/06/02/fun-with-agkistrodon-piscivorus-and-ve >>>>rn >>>> s-aero-trike/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Read this topic online here: >>>> >>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420464#420464 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of >> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged >> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended >> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution >> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly >> prohibited. >> >> If you have received this message in error, please contact >> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the >> original message (including attachments). >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Welcome to Corvair Colleges
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
I'm going to risk being called senile and inappropriate for bringing this up yet again, but seeing Jon Apfelbaum's name reminds me that he is one of those people who is rarely heard from on this list but who is deserving of recognition for many things. He and Kevin have something in common besides airplane building, too... true heroism. You can read about Jon's actions here: http://castlerocknewspress.net/stories/Parker-doctor-rushed-in-after-Reno-air-crash,95427 You can read about Kevin's actions here: http://www.stripes.com/military-life/kevin-purtee-allen-crist-not-again-not-if-we-could-help-it-1.92790 Oh, yeah, and I should also mention that Jon is a world-class photographer as well. Here are some of his photos from Blakesburg: http://www.antiqueairfield.com/articles/show/1680-fly-in-2013-photos-by-jonathan-apfelbaum -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420502#420502 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Subject: Re: W&B
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
My EAA chapter has one set. It is $25 to rent the scales and the rental comes with the club member who brings them to your hangar, and he makes sure you know what you are doing. He is well worth the rental cost. then he helps put the scales up in the box the correct way. Great Deal. STeve D On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:51 PM, William Wynne wrote: > > Lorenzo, > > Consider this idea: Most local EAA chapters have some bucks stored up, but > the rarely can agree on what to spend it on. Here is something to propose > to your local chapter: Have them buy a set of scales. > > The easy thing about it is that both guys with certified planes and guys > with experimentals can borrow them. You can rent them to non chapter > members for $40 a day. A good set of electronic car scales like the ones we > used on the project start at about $1,000. They are well worth it. > > Scales by companies like Longacre are accurate within their full range to > a pound or so. More importantly, they are consistent. Bathroom scales are > poor, any work done on them does not count. Grain scales work, but they are > tall, and three of them costs more than a good electronic set. You can work > with one scale, but it is a pain. 350 lbs is too low, because you want to > be able to weigh the plane with people and fuel in it also to calculate the > true location of these loads. > > When you get the Data from Doc Mosher, review it and find the plane we > weighed that best compares to your project, ie long fuse, A-65 and I will > be glad to assist you in fine tuning the data to match your project. If you > are going to Brodhead we will sit down over a cup of coffee and get out a > calculator and crunch it for you. Even without weighing it, I am pretty > sure we have enough data to hit your CG target within 1/2". I stink at many > things in life, can't sing nor dance, I can be a conversational bore, and I > got a D in differential equations...twice. But I am an idiot-savant at CG > stuff. I will be glad to help anyone out on this, not just Corvair guys. > -ww. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420497#420497 > > -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Subject: Marvin Haught---try Harry Fenton's Web site on Small Continental
Engines
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Marv, There is a wealth of knowledge here that should help you with your engine build. Mike C. , Ohio http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm Harry Fenton's Hints and Tips for Small Continental Engines * Swapping Parts between Continental Engine Models (Usually done to g et more power) o A-65 Parts in a C-85 Case<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton. htm> o C-85 conversions using O-200 parts<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tec h/fenton.htm> * O-200 Crankshaft in a C-85<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton .htm> * More on the O-200 Crankshaft<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fent on.htm> o A65 conversions using O-200 parts<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech /fenton.htm> o STC'ing C85 Pistons in an O-200<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/f enton.htm> * Cylinder Head Longevity Question<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/ fenton.htm> o C85 Pistons in a C-90<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm> o See also the Continental A&C Series Parts Interchangeability Catalo g<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/Continental%20Parts%20Catalogue.doc>. o Cylinder interchangeability<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fento n.htm> o Swapping Rods<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm> o C85 pistons into an O-200<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton. htm> * Another Article<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm> o O-200 to C90 Conversion<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.ht m> o Adjusting Timing for More Power<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/f enton.htm> o Continental GPU Parts<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm> o Generator to Alternator Swap (O-200)<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/t ech/fenton.htm> o C-75 "Downconversion" to A-65<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fen ton.htm> o A65 Upgrade to 85 HP<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm> o Telling the A65 and C-85 Cases Apart<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/t ech/fenton.htm> o C-85 "Downconversion" to a C-75<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/f enton.htm> o C-85 parts in A65 case, plus details on case reinforcement<http://w ww.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm> o C-90 Camshaft replacement<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton. htm> o Turning a box of A65 and A75 parts into 80 HP<http://www.bowersflyb aby.com/tech/fenton.htm> o More Horsepower from a C90<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton .htm> o Modifed C-75 with O-200 Parts Vibrating a Low RPM<http://www.bowers flybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm> o Converting from Fuel Injection to Carburetor<http://www.bowersflyba by.com/tech/fenton.htm> o O-200 Cylinders on a C85<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.h tm> o Telling Continental Engines Apar<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/ fenton.htm>t * C90 or C85?<http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: R&D into inexpensive components
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Builders, I am a member of a design team that spends a chunk of time every year working on an important design exercise in light planes. It doesn't look anything like a Pietenpol, but it may very well yield some spin off components and ideas that will be useful to Piet guys on a budget. If people are interested, I was going to bring some of this stuff to Brodhead and Oshkosh as show and tell. The design parameters the four of us work on are misleadingly simple, but we invest a lot of time to try to come up not with a basic configuration to meet them on paper (anyone can do that), but we are working on every little element, down to the carb and throttle linkage, every nut and bolt and hour of construction time accounted for. The mission looks like this: 1) 100% LSA legal. 2) $10,000 total budget, including plane, engine, tools, instrumentation 3) 1,000 hour build time, (does not include reading or learning, just work) 4) Plane is safe for any competent C-150 pilot to solo, with no further training. 5) Plane lives outside, tied down, without significant degrading of airframe. 6) Plane can climb at 750 fpm on a standard day with 250 pound pilot and 4 hours of fuel. 7) Plane can fly 100 hours in a year for an operations budget of $2,500, including fuel oil, tie down. ---------------------------------- This is a lot harder to do than it looks at a glance. We are not speaking of what one world class scrounger/master builder can do, we are speaking of regular guys working on their first plane, buying the stuff from available sources. Many Piets could make #1,2, 6, and 7, but they could not get 4 and 5, and probably not 3 either. The plane's layout as it exists today is a fluid concept, because a number of configurations can meet the requirement, but to get into the budget, the details all have to be worked out. Here is an example of testing to find a $159 carb, new, off the shelf: http://flycorvair.net/2012/05/05/in-search-of-the-economical-carburetor/ The design plane now is an ugly single-seat tri-gear, Corvair powered plane made out of sheet metal. I would much rather have a Pietenpol. I am not sure we will ever build the design plane, and we don't actually have to for the exercise to pay real benefits in testing and spin off ideas. Here is one that may interest some Pietenpol guys: Wheels and tires. You can't meet a $10K budget if you are going to donate 12% of it to Cleveland and McCreary just for wheels and tires. One of the things our design uses are 4.80 x 8" trailer wheels and tires. Think I am kidding? Wonder if it would work? Look at these 2002 photos of our test mule, a Skycoupe, that flew on these for years. The last photo shows the tires pretty well. The plane had highly effective mechanical band brakes: http://flycorvair.net/2012/02/27/2700cc-skycoupe-2002-photos/ Hubs for trailers are ridiculously heavy cast steel, but it is very easy and cheap to make lightweight replacements from steel tubing and a disk hogged out in a minute by a Hi-Def. Plasma cutter. Wheels, tires, hubs, bearings and brakes, now looking like $200. This size trailer tire is the same height as a 6x6, has less drag, might be unbreakable on a plane, and is only 2 pounds heavier. It is also available for thirty nine bucks, 24/7 from an aircraft supply store with 4,000 local outlets called Wal-mart. Looking for a slightly bigger one? The 4.80 x 12" is 21" tall and weighs only 17 lbs per wheel and tire, which are worth $49 brand new. At a guess, it probably has less drag than a spoke wheel 26" tall, it certainly does with a disc cover. They are plenty strong even in side loads. (think fishtailing 2,000 pound utility trailer at 55 mph) Again, not for everyone, but a number of these ideas in a single basic plane can make a difference. The most simple flying Piet, even if it is not aesthetically pure, or record light, provides more satisfaction than any masterpiece that is over budget and years behind schedule, sitting in a garage, that will fly "someday." We flew the Skycoupe and its trailer tires to many airshows. in the second incarnation we even had a turbo on it. Practical people loved it. The 1 of 500 who made a negative critical remark was treated to me getting "100% NJ" on him, and loudly asking in front of everyone for him to show us all his own plane, which invariably didn't exist, and then share with him T.R.'s quote on critics. There are many places to apply ideas like this to a Piet build. I read last years notes on how to make 3 pane windshields and frames. You guys who made them and shared the ideas deserve kudos, they look great. Would you like another idea that takes less time? Anyone with a cad program or a sheet of cardboard can knock out a flat plate pattern. This can be traced onto a 1/8" sheet of cast sheet of lexan, and fed straight into a sheet metal brake. If you want a cool looking frame, tape it off and paint it directly on the sheet. If you want the 'riveted' look, drill 1/8 holes and glue in short rivets and paint over them. I didn't bother to do either of these on my Piet, I just made the lexan parts in 30 minutes, and spent about two hours making little bottom frames. I meant to dress them up, but once flying I left them plain for a year. There is a photo here: http://flycorvair.net/2013/12/19/pietenpol-fuel-lines-and-cabanes/ I am not the right guy to ask if the question is "How pretty can it be made?" but I am often a good person to ask if the question is "Is there a faster/less expensive/ airworthy way of doing this?" -ww. -------------------------------------------------------- It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. T.R. Paris France, 1910. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420508#420508 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Marvin Haught---try Harry Fenton's Web site on Small
Continental Engines
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Oh man, Mike! That was the stuff for which I have been looking! I've spent hours on Google, but just never did hit the right search combinations. Thanks - this will be a BIG help! Now I can get started on the education curve! M. Haught On Mar 17, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC] wrote: > Marv, There is a wealth of knowledge here that should help you with your engine build. > Mike C. , Ohio > http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm > Harry Fenton's Hints and Tips for Small Continental Engines > Swapping Parts between Continental Engine Models (Usually done to get more power) > A-65 Parts in a C-85 Case > C-85 conversions using O-200 parts > O-200 Crankshaft in a C-85 > More on the O-200 Crankshaft > A65 conversions using O-200 parts > STC'ing C85 Pistons in an O-200 > Cylinder Head Longevity Question > C85 Pistons in a C-90 > See also the Continental A&C Series Parts Interchangeability Catalog. > Cylinder interchangeability > Swapping Rods > C85 pistons into an O-200 > Another Article > O-200 to C90 Conversion > Adjusting Timing for More Power > Continental GPU Parts > Generator to Alternator Swap (O-200) > C-75 "Downconversion" to A-65 > A65 Upgrade to 85 HP > Telling the A65 and C-85 Cases Apart > C-85 "Downconversion" to a C-75 > C-85 parts in A65 case, plus details on case reinforcement > C-90 Camshaft replacement > Turning a box of A65 and A75 parts into 80 HP > More Horsepower from a C90 > Modifed C-75 with O-200 Parts Vibrating a Low RPM > Converting from Fuel Injection to Carburetor > O-200 Cylinders on a C85 > Telling Continental Engines Apart > C90 or C85? > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Welcome to Corvair Colleges
From: dog67(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 17, 2014
All good ;) Just was wondering how things were going :) My wife will be on leave form the Navy, and we should make Brodhead (look f or the bright yellow glastar taildragger) :) See y'all there Cheers Jon -----Original Message----- From: kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 3:29 pm Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welcome to Corvair Colleges il> Hi John - I wish I was that quick. Woodwork on the flying surfaces is done . Fuselage is on the gear and I'm getting ready to do the engine installation . Hope to be covering by this summer, flying in '15, Brodhead in '16. We'll miss '15 because it's a cardinal anniversary which won't include Brodhead (thoug h Brodhead was our honeymoon). You, of course, were one of the "other factors" in getting the engine done in one weekend, for which I am eternally grateful! I'll have Shelley give you a big hug when we see you at C37 in a few months. I'd do it but you'll like it better from her. -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee Rebuilding NX899KP Austin/San Marcos, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420499#420499 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Subject: Airspeed indicator
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
How tight should the fitting that screws into the airspeed indicator be? -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2014
From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Airspeed indicator
consider checking your 43-13-1B for torque values jim On Monday, March 17, 2014 8:55 PM, Steven Dortch wrote: How tight should the fitting that screws into the airspeed indicator be? -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Subject: Re: Airspeed indicator
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
Jim, I cannot find my copy. Uncle Tony talks all around it. (I now know how to calibrate airspeed by lengthening or moving the pitot.) But I cannot find my AC 43-13-1B. My wife just rolled her eyes when I asked her. I am reasonably sure the torque is between finger tight and two 180 pound men on the end of a 3 foot cheater bar. Blue Skies. Steve D On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:11 PM, jim hyde wrote: > consider checking your 43-13-1B for torque values > > jim > > > On Monday, March 17, 2014 8:55 PM, Steven Dortch < > steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> wrote: > How tight should the fitting that screws into the airspeed indicator be? > > -- > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > > * > > > * > > -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2014
From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Airspeed indicator
I get the same eye roll here everyday especially when cxed checks come in from aircraft spruce and wicks.. the ac 43 13 1b is on line at faa.gov for free.. I hate e books but free is free and no eye roll:-) jim On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:37 PM, Steven Dortch wrote: Jim, I cannot find my copy. Uncle Tony talks all around it. (I now know how to calibrate airspeed by lengthening or moving the pitot.) But I cannot find my AC 43-13-1B. My wife just rolled her eyes when I asked her. I am reasonably sure the torque is between finger tight and two 180 pound men on the end of a 3 foot cheater bar. Blue Skies. Steve D On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:11 PM, jim hyde wrote: consider checking your 43-13-1B for torque values > > >jim > > >On Monday, March 17, 2014 8:55 PM, Steven Dortch wrote: > >How tight should the fitting that screws into the airspeed indicator be? > > >-- > >Blue Skies, >Steve D > > > >" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Magneto switch wiring
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
Mario; Attached are some photos that might help. At the magneto, I grounded the braided wire shield and then I used a rubber boot to cover the P-lead lug. At the ignition switch, I connected the P-lead wires from the magnetos to the Right and Left magneto connections and ran a ground wire from my common ground reference lug (a stud on the metallic firewall) to the Ground connection on my ignition switch. I have a flexible braided grounding strap from the engine block to the ground reference lug on the firewall, too. -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420521#420521 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/ignswitch_708.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/magwire_596.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" <jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Airspeed indicator
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Agree about free is free and not liking reading shop books as ebooks, but a t least the free version at faa.gov has high-quality illustrations. My much abused copy in the hangar can no longer make that claim=85 BTW, I was able to find the table for generic torque values based on bolt/t hread size, but that's for steel. Would those hold true for the materials u sed for airspeed indicator hardware? I am not sure. Being lazy physically a nd mentally, I just hand-tightened mine (7 years and many hours ago), but t hen, my nickname at the field is "Captain Torque". I break things worse th an Baby Hughey. -- Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com<mailto:jnl96(at)yahoo.com>> >" > Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:08 PM etenpol-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airspeed indicator I get the same eye roll here everyday especially when cxed checks come in f rom aircraft spruce and wicks.. the ac 43 13 1b is on line at faa.gov for f ree.. I hate e books but free is free and no eye roll:-) jim On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:37 PM, Steven Dortch > wrote: Jim, I cannot find my copy. Uncle Tony talks all around it. (I now know how to calibrate airspeed by lengthening or moving the pitot.) But I cannot fi nd my AC 43-13-1B. My wife just rolled her eyes when I asked her. I am reasonably sure the torque is between finger tight and two 180 pound m en on the end of a 3 foot cheater bar. Blue Skies. Steve D On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:11 PM, jim hyde > wrote: consider checking your 43-13-1B for torque values jim On Monday, March 17, 2014 8:55 PM, Steven Dortch > wrote: How tight should the fitting that screws into the airspeed indicator be? -- Blue Skies, Steve D " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airspeed indicator
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
So let's think about the application. Air stagnation (ram air) pressure at 160 MPH is about a half a psi. Screw the fitting in enough to hold back that amount of pressure ;o) -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420525#420525 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Marvin Haught---try Harry Fenton's Web site on Small
Contine
From: "biplan53" <biplan53(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2014
ON April 23 at 7:00pm the EAA is having a websimenar. One of them is Mr.Fenton discussing small Continental Engines. If there is an opening left you might be able to sign up. I bet someone at EAA could help you get signed up. -------- Building steel fuselage aircamper. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420529#420529 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Magneto switch wiring
From: "giacummo" <mario.giacummo(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Very clear Oscar, thank you very much. -------- Mario Giacummo Photos here: http://goo.gl/wh7M4 Little Blog : http://vgmk1.blogspot.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420535#420535 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Subject: Re: Airspeed indicator
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
Jeff, I am an old fashoned shadetree mechanic. My mantra is "tighten it down till it strips, then back off a quarter turn. Steve "the threadstripper" D. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Boatright, Jeffrey < jeffboatright(at)emory.edu> wrote: > Agree about free is free and not liking reading shop books as ebooks, > but at least the free version at faa.gov has high-quality illustrations. > My much abused copy in the hangar can no longer make that claim... > > BTW, I was able to find the table for generic torque values based on > bolt/thread size, but that's for steel. Would those hold true for the > materials used for airspeed indicator hardware? I am not sure. Being lazy > physically and mentally, I just hand-tightened mine (7 years and many hours > ago), but then, my nickname at the field is "Captain Torque". I break > things worse than Baby Hughey. > > -- > > Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO > Associate Professor of Ophthalmology > Emory University School of Medicine > > From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com> > Reply-To: "pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com" > Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:08 PM > To: "pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com" > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airspeed indicator > > I get the same eye roll here everyday especially when cxed checks come > in from aircraft spruce and wicks.. the ac 43 13 1b is on line at faa.govfor free.. I hate e books but free is free and no eye roll:-) > > jim > > > On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:37 PM, Steven Dortch < > steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> wrote: > Jim, I cannot find my copy. Uncle Tony talks all around it. (I now know > how to calibrate airspeed by lengthening or moving the pitot.) But I cannot > find my AC 43-13-1B. My wife just rolled her eyes when I asked her. > > I am reasonably sure the torque is between finger tight and two 180 pound > men on the end of a 3 foot cheater bar. > > Blue Skies. > Steve D > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:11 PM, jim hyde wrote: > > consider checking your 43-13-1B for torque values > > jim > > > On Monday, March 17, 2014 8:55 PM, Steven Dortch < > steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> wrote: > How tight should the fitting that screws into the airspeed indicator be? > > -- > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > > * > > " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/> > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > > -- > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > > * > > ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > ics.com <http://ics.com/> > .matronics.com/contribution <http://matronics.com/contribution> > > * > > > ------------------------------ > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please contact > the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the > original message (including attachments). > > * > > > * > > -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: See you at Brodhead
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Builders, We are now just 10 days away from Corvair College #29 in Leesburg FL., Followed the SnF, (where I will be there just to give some forums, hang out a the Zenith booth and go see Dick and the gang at the woodshop). From this point forward, we are in the busiest 120 days of the year leading to Brodhead and Oshkosh. It is a long stream of 12 hour days in the hangar. Productive work, especially on planes, is not punishment to me, I like it. But to do it day after day effectively requires getting into a groove, and to do this I spend a lot less time on the net, just covering our websites and email. In the past 6 years I spent a total of 10 days at Brodhead, and less than 10 hours reading this list, yet I know a bit about most of the people who write in, even the ones not using a Corvair. I have two people specifically to than for this connection, Doc and Dee Mosher. In the six years the covered the newsletter, I devoured each issue, reading every bit of each one many times. The walls of our home are lined in bookshelves, but the back issues of the BPAN live in an honored and accessible place on coffee table. Contrast this with the fact let my EAA membership lapse for 2 years without noticing, because I have not bothered to even look at an issue of Sport Aviation in years. Doc and Dee are the glue that gave many of us a strong connection to Pietenpols and each other. Words are failing me to explain how strongly I feel about that. In the 1990s, the newsletter didn't make me feel that way. I loved the plane I was building but the newsletter of that era had nothing technical in it, was judgmental of non-Ford builders, and portrayed Brodhead as a place to buy a Brat a look at old cars. My world view was shifted by chance when a Piet Guy named Randy Bruce stopped by my house in Daytona beach, to drop of a stack of 100 photos of Brodhead 1991. This was a clean cut guy in his 60's who only flew Continentals, going out of his way to make a 28 year old guy with long hair and a Corvair project feel included. Take that single act of generous spirit away, and my world would have been diminished to accepting a negative man's view of who was welcome to appreciate Bernard's legacy. Every time I have read Doc and Dee's work, I have thought about how their inclusive, pro-people stance has welcomed in countless people just as Randy Bruce's visit to my home did. It is hard to find words to express the depth of my gratitude for this. -------------------------------------------- It may seem as if I have written a lot here in the last weeks, but I ask your indulgence and understanding it is all based on enthusiasm for people, building and ideas. I have spent many hours each night in the last weeks reading the list archives to learn more about people's planes and perspectives. Time well spent. Flying season is back in full swing down here, and the start of each spring makes me feel this way. If you are up North and haven't been to the airport in months, go there on the next clear day and just stand by the side of the runway alone for 30 minutes and think of all the places you can go and visit this season, all connected by nothing more than thin air. Open your hand and swing your arm, it offers little resistance and no support, yet in your shop you are creating a magic device that will allow you to move at will through a sky full of nothing but thin air. ------------------------------------------------- I hope to see as many of you as possible at Brodhead and Oshkosh. All you guys planning the "85th" into Oshkosh, please keep me in the loop. You can count on my full assistance no matter what you guys cook up. You can email me direct at WilliamTCA@aol,com or just call the shop line 904-529-0006. If you guys have Corvair or W&B questions, send them, we will cover it. Call anytime, I work a lot of late nights past midnight. It rings only in the shop, you will not be bothering us if call at 11pm. -ww. ---------------------------------------------------- To keep up with our news and idea blog: http://flycorvair.net/ Our main page of information: http://www.flycorvair.com/ Our Pietenpol specific webpage: http://flycorvair.net/2013/11/28/corvair-pietenpol-reference-page/ . Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420537#420537 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airspeed indicator
From: "womenfly2" <Love2Fly.KAP(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
AC 43.13-1B: WF2 -------- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420538#420538 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airspeed indicator
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Steve, Do not use the torque associated with NPT thread values in general books! Go to the latest spruce catalog and look at pages 106 and 107. These are Nylon fittings. They work great, this is what people use, and they seal perfectly, and you will not be tempted to over tighten them. If you have blue aluminum AN fittings with NPT threads, very carefully apply PTFE tape to them, and then use about 1/3 the normal torque for a NPT thread. Some instruments are 1/4, some are 1/8 NPT. 43.13 is an outstanding book, but it doesn't have answers like this. The instruments section is at the back, and it is largely about design and far 23 reg. compliance. If you have not heard this before, let me share with you the "emperor has no clothes" moment. Not everything in "uncle tonly's" books is valid, and a lot of working mechanics detest the myths he portrayed as across the board facts. Expand your horizons past what a guy stuck in the 1970's mentality wrote. for more ideas look at: http://flycorvair.net/2012/11/29/inexpensive-panel-part-one/ and http://flycorvair.net/2012/12/04/inexpensive-panel-part-two/ . Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420539#420539 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "bdewenter" <anonymouse(at)woh.rr.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Wow, take a road trip to Waterloo IA and you miss a lot on this list. As WW replied, my mount fits like a glove. The final width was a factor of having a perfectly square sheet of 24" wide 1/4" plywood for the floor bottom - this was used to attach the fuse sides and come out perfectly square. Add the outer sheets of 1/8" ply and the total is 24.25". I could not be happier. Both Vern and WW are excellent craftsman. -------- Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter Dayton OH Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420540#420540 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc_0167_large_391.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Subject: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol
Date: Mar 18, 2014
I built my entire airplane using advice from the Tony Bingelis Sportplane b uilder series of books and they are incredible resources and as you all know I'm an avid supporter of using these books which, thoug h are older now, are still a very sound way to build a homebuilt and what I love about Tony's perspective is that he gives you many ways to go about a certain task---then you chose. One thing I see on Pietenpols are static lines/tubes by the airspeed indica tor that are unnecessary. I read in Tony's books that with an open cockpi t plane you can simply eliminate the static tubing lines and plug the static ports on the airspeed and altimeter with poly plugs and then drill a tiny hole in them which will read ambient/static pressure just fine. Back when I built my plane in the early 90's I got all kinds of lousy advic e from people at the airport or people who had supposed knowledge of homebu ilding and many things I heard were simply either not airworthy or sound or outdat ed and full of wives tales and that is why I always deferred to the Bingeli s advice and that gave me an FAA inspection with only 1 item to correct and 15 years of trouble-free flying. I'll stick with my Uncle Tony's advice for home building anyday! Mike C. Ohio http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/instruments/6Installing%2 0a%20Pitot-Static%20System.html [cid:image001.png(at)01CF4291.CA242010] [cid:image002.png(at)01CF4291.CA242010] [cid:image003.png(at)01CF4291.CA242010] ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plywood
From: "TriScout" <apfelcyber(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
That's what is neat about the GN-1. I use AN hardware on everything...down to the tiny washers. As far as I can determine, there is nothing made in china on it. -------- KLNC A65-8 N2308C AN Hardware Airframe 724TT W72CK-42 Sensenich Standard Factory GN-1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420544#420544 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Magneto switch wiring
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
A simple wiring diagram from "Sportplane Construction Techniques" is attached. It's a Word.doc -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420547#420547 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/mag_209.docx ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: See you at Brodhead
From: "echobravo4" <eab4(at)comcast.net>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Yep, Doc and Dee's talk on the Zen of the Pietenpol did it! William, I have to say the people, Doc, Dee, yourself and all the people I've Met in the Pietenpol community were a big part in my going ahead With this project. Not being able to get the time of day from builders groups of other designs I had looked at, I was really surprised to find how open and welcoming the Pietenpol group was to a new builder. I feel very lucky to have stumbled into such a great group of people building a great plane with such a great history. Now I know why people say that the first time you go to Brodhead it's for the planes- after that it's for the people! -------- 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=420548#420548 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Mike, Perhaps the reason why Tony Bingelis gets high marks in your book is because what you were looking for just happened to be his strength, namely information on simple plans built plane with a Continental engine. Some people see this as traditional EAA, all the way back to the modern mechanics Baby ace that started the EAA in 1953. However, some of us think of the EAA as a place to innovate and develop expanded ideas. Not necessarily complex ones, I myself are more interested in ones that give working people more access to flight, getting the out of the spectator seats and into the workshop. Right in front of me is Bingelis's 1988 book firewall forward. A great resource if you happen to be building a plane like yours. However, I can make a pretty good claim that the book is otherwise dated, and he barely disguises his anti innovation bias, often with hints that it is dangerous or foolhardy. Look in the first few pages and see that Bingelis is anti-liquid cooling, predicting they will not be a significant number of non-type certified engines ever. Explain how that accounts for Rotax 912s? His Comments on other non traditional engines are equally off the mark. I am not a VW guy, But there is almost nothing in his comments on them that is still valid. Bingelis's book includes the comment that car engine "Invariably require a radiator", in the photo is BHP personal Corvair powered Aircamper, no radiator. Tony was not big on testing things, and his data reflects that he often blindly repeated things from other sources that he felt were credible. An easy example is that his engine weight data in the book is incorrect. He wrote that an O-200 weighs 188 pounds, without really noting that this is the base weight, it actually is about 50 pounds heavier. Anyone with a scale could tell this, but Tony didn't test stuff like that. If anyone used 188 in a W&B calculation to make a motor mount, they had a rude surprise awaiting them at the scales. Tony also is not shy about making comments about props that revealed he never tested them. Warp Drive has made more than 50,000 props, yet the book says Ground adjustable props for light planes are not common. His comments on prop efficiency are old wives tales he is repeating as facts, even though Rutan and Wittman had long proved higher rpm works, 10 years before Tony wrote the book as 'fact.' Comments like "Keep your prop as long as possible as long as possible" don't actually teach anyone anything. Tony's math on tip speed works, only if you are sitting still. If you would like to see the real formula for Tip speed, it is in many less celebrated books, including my manual. Tony didn't know what vector addition is, but that didn't stop him from dolling out advice on props. His comments on batteries are no longer valid today. Odyssey and interstate dominate the market now, people don't put Gills in home builts anymore. I just watched a 2.1 pound Li battery that cost $122 start a 180Hp Lycoming the other day. That is 19.9 pounds lighter than the Gill that Tony recommends. In the book he states that NiCad batteries and Gell Cells don't work. He knows nothing of AGM batteries. He is stuck in the 1970s, and every new thing to him was ominous. Tony has drawings of fuel systems that endlessly show aluminum had lines in the cockpit rigidly plumbed, even though it is now accepted that this is a serious design mistake in many installations and the root cause of many fatal post crash fires. They have stuff in auto fuel these days that will harm many of the items he recommends in fuel systems. Flat out, no one should but Tony's work ahead of the current manufactures recommendations on a product, but they do all the time. I have seen people ignore the factory design on a Zenith 650 for canopy attachment and use an inappropriate design from Tony's books, because it was "Better." Keep in mind that a CH-650's have had fatal accidents from loss of control after people opened the canopy. Sound like a good plane to do canopy innovation on? Tony's details on items like control cables are very good, and 50% of the stuff in the books is still valid. Problem is if you are a new guy, which half is it? I could dissect the book page by page, but perhaps it is just more useful to tell people not to blindly follow 26 year old advice from a dead guy who never worked on the airframe engine combination you are building. Mike, no one has written more than me about stupid people offering poor advice on the net and in person. Get a look at: http://flycorvair.net/2013/10/08/a-visit-to-the-insane-asylum/ for specific advice on how to avoid these people. My point is Tony's work was dated when he wrote it, and he went past what he understood and cast negative opinions on things that he was unwilling to test nor even read about the tests of others. That isn't what Experimentals are about. They are about being willing to learn. -ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420549#420549 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" <michael.d.cuy(at)nasa.gov>
Subject: exactly right
Date: Mar 18, 2014
'Right in front of me is Bingelis's 1988 book firewall forward. A great res ource if you happen to be building a plane like yours.' You're exactly right William and this list happens to be about building Pi etenpols so that is why I so highly recommend the Bingelis books. You're also correct in that there are many new products on the market that have made some of the old products museum pieces. Mike C. Ohio ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" <jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: See you at Brodhead
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Hope to see you there, William, arriving (hopefully) via my own Piet pilotage! BTW, even though I eventually went "the Continental route," it was actually your words that prompted me to buy the Piet I now own and fly a lot, a plane that, with a lot of help, we rebuilt after an incident, and with a lot of other help, switched from an A65 to a C-85 that I helped assemble 1.87 times (and counting!). I don't recall your exact words, but they were to the effect of: See that guy who just taxied up in that really average-looking plane? He built it and now flies it. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, and it's not perfect to outsiders' standards, but hey, it's safe and he just got back from punching holes in the sky with it. Other than hangout at the airport or read emails, what did you do this morning? If you're not flying, assess your life; figure out what you need to do to get on the path to flying - right now. We're all one day closer to a lost medical. So, I did. Thanks William. -- Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine On 3/18/14 8:21 AM, "William Wynne" wrote: > >Builders, > >We are now just 10 days away from Corvair College #29 in Leesburg FL., >Followed the SnF, (where I will be there just to give some forums, hang >out a the Zenith booth and go see Dick and the gang at the woodshop). >From this point forward, we are in the busiest 120 days of the year >leading to Brodhead and Oshkosh. It is a long stream of 12 hour days in >the hangar. Productive work, especially on planes, is not punishment to >me, I like it. But to do it day after day effectively requires getting >into a groove, and to do this I spend a lot less time on the net, just >covering our websites and email. > >In the past 6 years I spent a total of 10 days at Brodhead, and less than >10 hours reading this list, yet I know a bit about most of the people who >write in, even the ones not using a Corvair. I have two people >specifically to than for this connection, Doc and Dee Mosher. In the six >years the covered the newsletter, I devoured each issue, reading every >bit of each one many times. The walls of our home are lined in >bookshelves, but the back issues of the BPAN live in an honored and >accessible place on coffee table. Contrast this with the fact let my EAA >membership lapse for 2 years without noticing, because I have not >bothered to even look at an issue of Sport Aviation in years. > >Doc and Dee are the glue that gave many of us a strong connection to >Pietenpols and each other. Words are failing me to explain how strongly I >feel about that. In the 1990s, the newsletter didn't make me feel that >way. I loved the plane I was building but the newsletter of that era had >nothing technical in it, was judgmental of non-Ford builders, and >portrayed Brodhead as a place to buy a Brat a look at old cars. My world >view was shifted by chance when a Piet Guy named Randy Bruce stopped by >my house in Daytona beach, to drop of a stack of 100 photos of Brodhead >1991. This was a clean cut guy in his 60's who only flew Continentals, >going out of his way to make a 28 year old guy with long hair and a >Corvair project feel included. Take that single act of generous spirit >away, and my world would have been diminished to accepting a negative >man's view of who was welcome to appreciate Bernard's legacy. Every time >I have read Doc and Dee's work, I have thought about how their in! > clusive, pro-people stance has welcomed in countless people just as >Randy Bruce's visit to my home did. It is hard to find words to express >the depth of my gratitude for this. > >-------------------------------------------- > >It may seem as if I have written a lot here in the last weeks, but I ask >your indulgence and understanding it is all based on enthusiasm for >people, building and ideas. I have spent many hours each night in the >last weeks reading the list archives to learn more about people's planes >and perspectives. Time well spent. > >Flying season is back in full swing down here, and the start of each >spring makes me feel this way. If you are up North and haven't been to >the airport in months, go there on the next clear day and just stand by >the side of the runway alone for 30 minutes and think of all the places >you can go and visit this season, all connected by nothing more than thin >air. Open your hand and swing your arm, it offers little resistance and >no support, yet in your shop you are creating a magic device that will >allow you to move at will through a sky full of nothing but thin air. > >------------------------------------------------- > >I hope to see as many of you as possible at Brodhead and Oshkosh. All you >guys planning the "85th" into Oshkosh, please keep me in the loop. You >can count on my full assistance no matter what you guys cook up. You can >email me direct at WilliamTCA@aol,com or just call the shop line >904-529-0006. If you guys have Corvair or W&B questions, send them, we >will cover it. Call anytime, I work a lot of late nights past midnight. >It rings only in the shop, you will not be bothering us if call at 11pm. >-ww. > >---------------------------------------------------- > >To keep up with our news and idea blog: > >http://flycorvair.net/ > >Our main page of information: > >http://www.flycorvair.com/ > >Our Pietenpol specific webpage: > >http://flycorvair.net/2013/11/28/corvair-pietenpol-reference-page/ > >. > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420537#420537 > > ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 18, 2014
From: Michael Groah <dskogrover(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: West Coast Pietenpol Gathering - 20th
Get those Pietenpols out and flying.- The West Coast Pietenpol Gathering is coming up quickly!=0AThis will be the 20th West Coast Gathering! =0A=0AS aturday June 7th, 2014=0AFrazier Lake Airpark 1C9- =0A=0AWe have a great time.... come join the fun. =0A=0APlease=0A see the attachment ( pdf format ) for the flyer or =0Asend me your email address or home address and I'll m ake sure you get a =0Acopy.- =0A=0A=0AMike Groah=0A414MV=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Kenney <brian.kenney(at)live.ca>
Subject: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on
a Pietenpol
Date: Mar 18, 2014
In defense of Tony - or more to the point the defense of an conservative ap proach to building has its merits. Most of the advice requested from builde rs to this blog are from people learning to build. They are not experienced and if they were almost by definition they wouldn't be asking the question s in the first place. Based on my experience with local Pietenpol builders my conclusion is that a conventional and conservative has proven to more successfully than pushin g the envelope. There have been about 20 Pietenpol built in my area of sou thern Ontario. The successful ones have been powered by aircraft engines. T he ones that have not used aircraft engines have by in large not been succe ssful. This DOES NOT MEAN THEY COULDNT HAVE BEEN SUCESSFUL BUT THEY HAVENT BEEN - it is a fact not an opinion. I am a fan of innovation and admire those who innovate but not everyone has the skills to do that. I am considering doing something quite radical in m y next project but there is no way I would encourage others to do the same because it can lead others to follow in a path that is more dangerous and could ultimately lead to a poor outcome. Building a scratch built aircraft is a job that only the most diligent can complete. Those who persevere should have the greatest chance of success=2C they deserve it. Following Tony is good advice even if it is out of date a nd even wrong. You could do a lot worse by not following it. I have two good friends that have lost 15 years or more each of good flyin g because they chose not to use an aircraft engine. Are they regretful=2C p erhaps not=2C but from my perspective they should be. So when giving advice think about what the experience of the person asking the question=2C not what your particular talent or experience is. > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol > From: WilliamTCA(at)aol.com > Date: Tue=2C 18 Mar 2014 08:26:49 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > > > Mike=2C > > Perhaps the reason why Tony Bingelis gets high marks in your book is beca use what you were looking for just happened to be his strength=2C namely in formation on simple plans built plane with a Continental engine. Some peopl e see this as traditional EAA=2C all the way back to the modern mechanics B aby ace that started the EAA in 1953. > > However=2C some of us think of the EAA as a place to innovate and develop expanded ideas. Not necessarily complex ones=2C I myself are more interest ed in ones that give working people more access to flight=2C getting the ou t of the spectator seats and into the workshop. > > Right in front of me is Bingelis's 1988 book firewall forward. A great re source if you happen to be building a plane like yours. However=2C I can ma ke a pretty good claim that the book is otherwise dated=2C and he barely di sguises his anti innovation bias=2C often with hints that it is dangerous o r foolhardy. > > Look in the first few pages and see that Bingelis is anti-liquid cooling =2C predicting they will not be a significant number of non-type certified engines ever. Explain how that accounts for Rotax 912s? His Comments on oth er non traditional engines are equally off the mark. I am not a VW guy=2C B ut there is almost nothing in his comments on them that is still valid. Bin gelis's book includes the comment that car engine "Invariably require a rad iator"=2C in the photo is BHP personal Corvair powered Aircamper=2C no radi ator. > > Tony was not big on testing things=2C and his data reflects that he often blindly repeated things from other sources that he felt were credible. An easy example is that his engine weight data in the book is incorrect. He wr ote that an O-200 weighs 188 pounds=2C without really noting that this is t he base weight=2C it actually is about 50 pounds heavier. Anyone with a sca le could tell this=2C but Tony didn't test stuff like that. If anyone used 188 in a W&B calculation to make a motor mount=2C they had a rude surprise awaiting them at the scales. > > Tony also is not shy about making comments about props that revealed he n ever tested them. Warp Drive has made more than 50=2C000 props=2C yet the b ook says Ground adjustable props for light planes are not common. His comme nts on prop efficiency are old wives tales he is repeating as facts=2C even though Rutan and Wittman had long proved higher rpm works=2C 10 years befo re Tony wrote the book as 'fact.' Comments like "Keep your prop as long as possible as long as possible" don't actually teach anyone anything. Tony's math on tip speed works=2C only if you are sitting still. If you would lik e to see the real formula for Tip speed=2C it is in many less celebrated bo oks=2C including my manual. Tony didn't know what vector addition is=2C but that didn't stop him from dolling out advice on props. > > His comments on batteries are no longer valid today. Odyssey and intersta te dominate the market now=2C people don't put Gills in home builts anymore . I just watched a 2.1 pound Li battery that cost $122 start a 180Hp Lycomi ng the other day. That is 19.9 pounds lighter than the Gill that Tony recom mends. In the book he states that NiCad batteries and Gell Cells don't work . He knows nothing of AGM batteries. He is stuck in the 1970s=2C and every new thing to him was ominous. > > Tony has drawings of fuel systems that endlessly show aluminum had lines in the cockpit rigidly plumbed=2C even though it is now accepted that this is a serious design mistake in many installations and the root cause of man y fatal post crash fires. They have stuff in auto fuel these days that will harm many of the items he recommends in fuel systems. > > Flat out=2C no one should but Tony's work ahead of the current manufactur es recommendations on a product=2C but they do all the time. I have seen pe ople ignore the factory design on a Zenith 650 for canopy attachment and us e an inappropriate design from Tony's books=2C because it was "Better." Kee p in mind that a CH-650's have had fatal accidents from loss of control aft er people opened the canopy. Sound like a good plane to do canopy innovatio n on? > > Tony's details on items like control cables are very good=2C and 50% of t he stuff in the books is still valid. Problem is if you are a new guy=2C wh ich half is it? I could dissect the book page by page=2C but perhaps it is just more useful to tell people not to blindly follow 26 year old advice f rom a dead guy who never worked on the airframe engine combination you are building. > > Mike=2C no one has written more than me about stupid people offering poor advice on the net and in person. Get a look at: http://flycorvair.net/2013 /10/08/a-visit-to-the-insane-asylum/ for specific advice on how to avoid these people. My point is Tony's work was dated when he wrote it=2C and he went past what he under stood and cast negative opinions on things that he was unwilling to test no r even read about the tests of others. That isn't what Experimentals are ab out. They are about being willing to learn. -ww. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420549#420549 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol
From: "bdewenter" <anonymouse(at)woh.rr.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Brian C-FAUK wrote: > > Building a scratch built aircraft is a job that only the most diligent can complete. Thosewho persevere should have the greatest chance of success, they deserve it. Following Tony is good advice even if it is out of date and even wrong. You could do a lot worse by not following it. > I think the defense of Tony is well intentioned, but I disagree with some of it. I do apologize if the rest of this seems a little harsh. I admit to having a fault that what I think spills out un-censored. No one should take anything I post personally. Neither perseverance nor diligence produce airworthy aircraft - they just produce an object - perhaps one that is not airworthy. Following advice known to be wrong produces unsafe, unworthy aircraft. If Tony's advice is wrong (or outdated) it should not be followed. I have all of Tony's books and rely on them heavily as I do some of the advice on this list. However I do also recognize the age of its expertise and the lack of current materials - asbestos products for firewalls? really?. It was not too long ago that everyone "Knew the world was flat". I do agree that those who have the greatest chance of success follow a proven path, and sound advice as I did to successfully build and run my Corvair convertion engine after a successful 368 day build. It did not require a Lycoming or Continental core to be successful. Success (for me) required the Chevrolet "Green Shop Manual", some education, 3 Corvair Colleges, and professional help. I am an informed builder making sound decisions, following a proven "Corvair" path. Very respectfully -------- Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter Dayton OH Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420601#420601 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rats!
From: "bdewenter" <anonymouse(at)woh.rr.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
danhelsper(at)aol.com wrote: > I think the Corvair engine mount is wrong. > > > -- Dear Mr. Top Crumb.. Sir My (Bob Dewenter) engine mount is NOT wrong. It is exactly what I asked William Wynn to make for me. He even allowed it to be powder coated Black, despite his advice otherwise. My decoding of the plans (not to be confused with actual instructions) was that one should use the entire sheet of 24" wide plywood (floor) to give your ship its maximum interior width allowable with a 24" wide sheet of (pick you choice of three thicknesses) plywood for a floor. I think the only way to resolve the plans contraversy is to go to Brodhead (Last Original) or to Oshkosh and do an actual measurement of one of Bernards' actual "plans built" hand crafted airplanes. -------- Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter Dayton OH Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420603#420603 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 18, 2014
From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Magneto switch wiring
here is a little info- the mag switch has three wires connecting it to th e mags.. they are left mag p lead.. right mag- p lead and a shielded grou nd wire connected to the plane.. that's all=0A=0Ajim hyde=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Tue sday, March 18, 2014 10:21 AM, taildrags wrote:=0A m>=0A=0AA simple wiring diagram from "Sportplane Construction Techniques" i s attached.- It's a Word.doc=0A=0A--------=0AOscar Zuniga=0AMedford, OR =0AAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"=0AA75 power=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=42054 7#420547=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AAttachments: =0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com//file = ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Auto engines in Pietenpols, a perspective.
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2014
Let us all stop and acknowledge that if Bernard Pietenpol listened to people who said you shouldn't fly car engines, every single person on this list would be building some other design. Had he not innovated with the Corvair in 1960, and gone on to revitalize the design, it would have just been a historic foot note. I don't know how anyone can take a hard anti-auto engine stand, and still claim to respect the legacy of BHP. If you think that people who advocate auto power are misguided, I got news for you, you are building an airframe designed by the king of auto power, I am only his acolyte. It is simply not possible to claim to understand and honor the legacy of BHP, and silmaltainiously think that people who put car engine in planes are stupid. In 1993 I flew with Steve Wittman in his olds V-8 powered Tailwind, N37SW. In 2008 my wife Grace flew The last original at Brodhead. Each of these planes had more than 800 hours on them, and they were both designed and built by men that I uphold as the paragons of home building. (Sorry, but I don't think of Tony Bingelis in that club.) If anyone built an exact replica of either plane, it would fly the same hundreds of hours because Physics, chemistry and gravity don't play favorites, and if the plane is exactly the same, it will have the same track record. Read some of my thoughts below to understand why some homebuilders don't have this kind of success. ----------------------------------------------- Brian,I read your thoughts, and agree with many of your perspectives, but come to some different conclusions that you may find worth considering. Think about how this is true: http://flycorvair.net/2013/07/11/randy-bushs-pietenpol-hits-500-hours/ but your friends couldn't make auto engines work. I suggest the problem is in the people, not the metal. Saying anything about Tony Bingelis touches a nerve with people. But it isn't a simple case of 'his conservative approach works' for people. There are important things in my comments I don't want people to miss. Since 1988, things like running a hard aluminum line from your tank to the firewall is no longer considered safe. Read my story: http://flycorvair.net/2013/12/19/pietenpol-fuel-lines-and-cabanes/ and learn that getting burned over 45% of my body was likely preventable by switching to braided lines. I didn't invent that, Diamond Aircraft (right from your area) did. Ask Kevin Purtee about how I asked him to change this on his plane. Two of the same planes, same spin (I think Kevin's hit harder), different fuel line style 12 years apart. My plane burns, Kevin's does not. If Tony were alive today, he could change his mind, just like I did, but he isn't, and continuing to build planes with the hard lines he drew is not honoring his contribution to experimental aviation, it is simple unnecessary risk. That is one example, I have others. easy ones like ethanol in fuel was unknown in 1988, and it is practically unavoidable in non-100LL today. As a reasonable precaution against availability and price of 100LL, I suggest people select materials throughout their fuel system that is ethanol tolerant. Not everything in Tony's book is. Many smart people have made the case that A-65s are better off on auto fuel than 100LL, but I wouldn't try that with a 1988 era fuel system. Let me teach you something about some of the people who choose car engines: Some of them have two Achilles heels. they are cheap and they don't like following the guidance of experienced people. It doesn't matter what type of power plant a builder chooses if he has those two issues in his personality. Understand that car engines attract people with that mindset, and it is the mind set, not the engine itself that causes the problem. I openly discourage people with those perspectives from working with the Corvair, and truthfully I am ok if they quit aviation all together. Cheap and unwilling to learn are not qualities of successful aviators. Would you like to see the opposite? Look at these examples: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/11/pietenpol-review-in-pictures-15-more-corvair-powered-piets/ Tom Brown has 1,500 on his Piet. It isn't dumb luck that did it, he has a different mindset that the people you mention. ----------------------------------------------------- Mike, If Tony was your hero, I am sorry If I was not kind to him. As an engineer, builder and a pilot, if you want to do something to defend Tony's legacy, don't argue with me nor have blind allegiance to the book as if it were holy, Do something great, like rewrite the 1/3 of the book that needs correcting. That would honor the man. You work for NASA. They have never been stagnant, they successfully honor Grissom and all the others by constantly advancing. Why shouldn't we do the same? Your comment "This list happens to be about building Pietenpols" is a good thought. Now if a guy built an exact replica of The Last Original, and put it right next to your plane, could we ask "Who built the real Pietenpol?" I say you both did, but I don't follow the logic of people that claim an A-65 is the 'correct' power plant. I think it is an excellent alternative engine for BHP's design, but in the case of the last original, BHP clearly had his choice of engines, and he picked Corvair. Bingelis's book argues to do just the reverse. So I agree the list is about building Pietenpols. Tony Bingelis didn't like auto engines and Bernard did, and when it comes to building Pietenpols, BHP's perspective trumps Bingelis's in my book. It doesn't mean we can't use some information in Bingelis's books, but we also don't have to buy into, and repeat, his negative attitude on auto engines. Especially because none of Tony's opinions on car engines was based on personal experience, and 100% of Bernard's opinions were. Let me point out that when people without personal experience repeat negative stories about car engines, they are acting just like Bingelis did. Conversely, when people limit their comments on engines to things they know from personal experience in the Arena, they are acting just like Bernard Pietenpol. --------------------------------------------- I used to call BHP 'Bernie" in my writing. I can tell you the exact minute I stopped this. I was speaking with Vi Kappler at Brodhead, in the MacDonald's in town. Listening to Vi, he was speaking of a man who was not an aviation legend, but a dear personal friend, who was gone. When Vi said the name 'Bernie', it suddenly struck me as private, sacred and something that was not mine to use in Vi's presence. BHP, was my hero, but he was Vi's friend, and to use the familiar name in Vi's presence seemed very wrong. I stopped right there, and have written 'Bernard' ever since, because I never wanted to imply I was friends with the man, especially not to anyone who really was. Although I never knew him, I have made great effort to know something about him. I have a little coffee can of soil from the runway at Cherry Grove I picked up in 2002 sitting on top of the refrigerator. Read this short piece to understand why: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/12/cherry-grove-story-part-2/. I have worked in experimental aviation nearly all of my adult life, I have worked on the same engine that Bernard did. I have known some of the great triumphs and also the tragic losses. I was not the man's friend, and I would not know his voice, but I will claim to understand many of his perspectives and values. As an auto engine guy I have far sharper understating of him than any writer who dissuades builders from engines Bernard loved, developed, advocated and shared with us. -ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420605#420605 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Looking for a Continental?
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
This appears to be a nice deal for someone looking for a Continental. I just saw it on Barnstormers, don't know anything about it... A-65-8F $1,750 NO TIREKICKERS Running well when removed for HP upgrade. with engine mount, mags, carb.Oil tanks nice! As removed Contact Call Ed or Amber, Owner - located Birmingham, AL USA Telephone: 205 578-2582 . 866 922 2672 . Posted March 18, 2014 Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser Recommend This Ad to a Friend Email Advertiser Save to Watchlist Report This Ad Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420606#420606 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Bingilis books
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Here's my $.02 In my humble opinion and from my building experience, the Bingilis books are valuable because to my knowledge, they are the only place where MOST of the info needed for a novice to build a plane is to be found in one place. The two main sources of info I had at my disposal during my build was this list and those books. Sure I could search the web endlessly for different ways to swage a cable or make a fitting or drill a hole, but having all that basic knowledge in one place was a huge blessing. Sure some of it is dated, heck the guy was an early gen EAA builder and the books reflect both his personal experience and the era he wrote in. The procedures he wrote about were considered "standard" at the time and MOST of what he wrote is still accurate and if followed, will produce an airworthy Pietenpol. Maybe we need another Bingilis to write some new comprehensive books where we can go for one-stop info shopping using all the current technology. I say until someone does this, keep the books as the basic "go-to" manual. Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bingilis books
From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
[quote="douweblumberg(at)earthlin"]...and MOST of what he wrote is still accurate and if followed, will produce an [MOSTLY] airworthy Pietenpol. Douwe > [b] Is that what ya meant? I've got the books. Use them. Got a lot of other books too, use them also. You guys ever read how to rebuild the Chevy Turbohydramatic 350 transmission? The ending is FANTASTIC, never saw it coming... great read! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420617#420617 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Subject: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on
a Pietenpol
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
We all have the following: The plans (Hoopman with Grega mods), Flying and Glider manuals, AC 43-13, Uncle Tony's books, Various Pietenpol sites, Various flybaby sites, flycorvair.com, Search of matronics archives, asking the list, Google search, talking to the old men at the coffee shop. My airplane guru, Free advice from lurkers at the airport, My own ideas, thots and reservations. All have something to add. Some good, some not so good. I have to make the decision when it is time to cut the part or drill the hole. Blue Skies, Steve D. On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:33 PM, bdewenter wrote: > > > Brian C-FAUK wrote: > > > > Building a scratch built aircraft is a job that only the most diligent > can complete. Those=EF=BDwho persevere should have the greatest chance of > success, they deserve it. Following Tony is good advice even if it is out > of date and even wrong. You could do a lot worse by not following it. > > > > > I think the defense of Tony is well intentioned, but I disagree with some > of it. I do apologize if the rest of this seems a little harsh. I admit to > having a fault that what I think spills out un-censored. No one should > take anything I post personally. > > Neither perseverance nor diligence produce airworthy aircraft - they just > produce an object - perhaps one that is not airworthy. Following advice > known to be wrong produces unsafe, unworthy aircraft. If Tony's advice i s > wrong (or outdated) it should not be followed. > > I have all of Tony's books and rely on them heavily as I do some of the > advice on this list. However I do also recognize the age of its expertis e > and the lack of current materials - asbestos products for firewalls? > really?. It was not too long ago that everyone "Knew the world was flat" . > > I do agree that those who have the greatest chance of success follow a > proven path, and sound advice as I did to successfully build and run my > Corvair convertion engine after a successful 368 day build. It did not > require a Lycoming or Continental core to be successful. Success (for me ) > required the Chevrolet "Green Shop Manual", some education, 3 Corvair > Colleges, and professional help. I am an informed builder making sound > decisions, following a proven "Corvair" path. > > > Very respectfully > > -------- > Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter > Dayton OH > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420601#420601 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Steve, Just don't shoot me if I have the same books on my shelf, study them, and then come up with a different solution. Aviation technology as well as the world around us is constantly evolving. And you have to tailor your build to those old technologies that are still relevant coupled with new. For example, the Bingelis books give techniques for building both a fiberglass fuel tank (comparatively "new school") as well as an aluminum one ("old school" in comparison to fiberglass). I, personally, have no intention of building a fuel tank or system that can be severely damaged by ethanol fuels. Your chances of getting ethanol in your fuel system are pretty good moving forward, whether intentional or unintentional. So old school (aluminum) is the better choice in my opinion. But would you rather use casein glue or T88? "New school" is better, obviously. But if you read Flying and Glider Magazine and took its every word as Gospel, then you might have some issues. Filtering techniques from a previous time with the capabilities and technology of today is all I think that William, or Bob, or any other writers are suggesting. My penny and a half. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420622#420622 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
From: "Vasek" <bigon2(at)seznam.cz>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Hello, I am sending you two photos I made today. It is welded fuselage, tail surfaces, fuel tank, I am working on the control systems now. [Wink] Vasek -------- My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420625#420625 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/trup1_360.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/trup2_207.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bingilis books
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Douwe, The term "Airworthy" has a very specific and understood deffinion if we are speaking of trained professionals operating with good judgement on certified planes. Conversely, it has a very vague definition in homebuilding circles. Consider that all experimentals have an FAA inspection. Does this deem the plane airworthy if it passes? No. Here is the FAA language: "the FAA or a Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) in your geographical area will inspect your amateur-built aircraft for general airworthiness" A lot of people miss-read that to say the inspection makes the plane airworthy. It only says the paperwork is in order, it doesn't even say it is right. On the W&B project, several of the planes we looked at had a W&B sheet that was obviously copied from another plane (wheel base different), but this data passed the DAR. Something like 25% of new homebuilts have a serious mechanical failure (does not always result in incident) during the first 10 hours of flight. Clearly, those planes were not airworthy in my book the day they passed the DAR. Mr. Tools point of adding "Mostly" to your comment is a good one. Working from a book that is mosty right, can only produce a plane that is mostly right. My point is that to be airworthy by the standards of Physics chemistry and gravity, the only organization that uses the death penalty as punishment for non-compliance, a plane must simply be 100% good. Note that a plane which is 99% perfect is certainly better than "Mostly" perfect, but that 1% can be your undoing. I teach people 100% good, all within proven limits. Would you like to see where "mostly" ends up? Get a look at this story, it is about the prettiest 601 ever built, but it was owned buy a guy who put the mixture control in his carb together incorrectly because he didn't want to pay a pro to do it, nor take the time to learn it himself. Combine that with low altitude cruising on flight #1, and you end up dead. I told him twice to let a repair station do the carb. the labor charge was $400, too expensive for Ken: http://flycorvair.net/2013/04/20/risk-management-judgement-error-money-in-the-wrong-place/ Lots of people like to express opinions on "airworthy." I look at it very differently, I am concerned not with a static condition on a single day, I am concerned with a mindset and a process called "Effective risk management." I started with a degree in accident investigation from Embry-Riddle, but that was just the jumping off point. I have learned a lot since. You can read this at length on the link below. It also has great pictures and fun stories about many of my closest friends, who are all dead now. Maybe the things I know cost a lot, and perhaps they are worth thinking about. http://flycorvair.net/2014/01/21/risk-management-reference-page/ At Corvair College#28, Kevin Purtee remarked that he and I are both the same age, have both worked in aviation every day since we were 26, both hold the same degree from Embry-Riddle, and have both extensively studied and managed risk programs. Yet he pointed out that he has learned a lot from the things I have written on the topic. There is a simple explanation for this. He has worked in a very dangerous environment (combat) but has done so with professionals who understand risk management. Conversely, I have spent the same years in the wilderness working with people who often didn't even think they had anything to learn from me. Simply put, I have had a front row seat to countless examples of dangerous thinking and seen the results. I have enough stories, but right now, someone is working on adding to the list. Just make sure it isn't you. I know several hundred people who have successfully completed and safely flown their homebuilt. I also known five times as many that never finished. Ask all the people who failed, and nearly every one of them will have the same collection of books, Tony's among them. Ask the people who succeeded, and the common thread that emerges is that they wisely chose 4 living in person mentors, who had already built and flown the same plane they were working on, and they used their advise to learn from. The successful do not listen to airport lurkers, armchair experts, people who build race cars, nor even majority approved responses from internet discussion groups. They are more selective, and they use up to date information, and they adjust their built or their plane to advancements like fuel lines. -ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420628#420628 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tank
From: Scott Knowlton <flyingscott_k(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
I built a cardboard template of my nose tank and took it along with a neck, c ap and threaded drain fittings to a good friend of mine who welds aluminium. He sent me this photo today. How cool! Scott Knowlton. Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2014
From: Robert Rice <ricekrgr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bingilis books
I heard somewhere that the 350 Turbohydramatic Rebuild was a good read... =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: tools <n0kkj@yahoo .com>=0ATo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:15 AM=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bingilis books=0A =0A=0A--> Pieten pol-List message posted by: "tools" =0A=0A[quote="douweb lumberg(at)earthlin"]...and MOST of what he wrote is still accurate and if followed, will produce an [MOSTLY] airworthy Pietenpol.- - =0A- =0ADo uwe- =0A- =0A- =0A- - - =0A> [b]=0A=0A=0AIs that what ya meant? - =0A=0AI've got the books.- Use them.- Got a lot of other books too, use them also.=0A=0AYou guys ever read how to rebuild the Chevy Turbohydra matic 350 transmission?- The ending is FANTASTIC, never saw it coming... great read!=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.m ============== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tank
From: Lion Mason <airlion2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Make sure you will have enough head pressure for your gasciulator and. carb for the engine to run. I did not so I went to a wing tank. Cheers, Gardiner Sent from my iPhone On Mar 19, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Scott Knowlton wrote: > I built a cardboard template of my nose tank and took it along with a neck, cap and threaded drain fittings to a good friend of mine who welds aluminium. He sent me this photo today. How cool! > > Scott Knowlton. > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tank
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
The tank looks nice. It is the same general shape as mine. The base of mine sits a couple inches below the ash cross support on the firewall. I've never had any kind of head pressure issue with my A-65. I formed my tank up and took it to a welder friend of mine and he was very conscious about making the welds look pretty. They were small, tight, and beautiful when done. I brought the tank home and filled it with water. At that point it looked like I was building a garden watering can instead of a fuel tank because it leaked like crazy. So I took it to a local speed shop that welded up fuel tanks for race cars. He went over it with new big ugly welds. looked bad but I've never had any hint of a leak. :-) I will say... it sure is hard to beat the absolute simplicity of an aluminum nose tank. It is light, ethanol proof, and I have one very short line that leads to the firewall. And hey... Mr. Pietenpol put a nose tank in a Corvair ship so I can still remain on the Top Curmudgeon's and the Top Curmudgeon Emeritus's advisory committee. Don Emch NX89DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420637#420637 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tank
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
One more thing on the tank.... As Mike's uncle Tony says you'll want to make sure the lowest point in the tank has the sump to avoid the collection of water and to make sure it'll get drained out. Ideally you want a low point that is low whether in the three point or in level to cover all your bases. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420638#420638 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Vasek; nice work on the Aircamper fuselage! -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420641#420641 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Subject: Re: Bingilis books
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
One of the most helpful books I have is a 1941 book to teach High School students about airplanes! It describes all the priniciples needed. Including pulleys and such. I could build a Pietenpol from that book with the Flying and Glider manual. Blue Skies, Steve D On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:15 AM, tools wrote: > > [quote="douweblumberg(at)earthlin"]...and MOST of what he wrote is still > accurate and if followed, will produce an [MOSTLY] airworthy Pietenpol. > > Douwe > > > > [b] > > > Is that what ya meant? > > I've got the books. Use them. Got a lot of other books too, use them > also. > > You guys ever read how to rebuild the Chevy Turbohydramatic 350 > transmission? The ending is FANTASTIC, never saw it coming... great read! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420617#420617 > > -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2014
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com>
Your sound system is not big enough! Looks like progress. ;+} Steve d On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Vasek wrote: > > Hello, > > I am sending you two photos I made today. > > It is welded fuselage, tail surfaces, fuel tank, I am working on the > control systems now. > > [Wink] > > Vasek > > -------- > My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: > =88=BC > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420625#420625 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/trup1_360.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/trup2_207.jpg > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- Blue Skies, Steve D ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bingilis books
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 19, 2014
I am determined not to be one of William's dead friends. As much as I want to fly my airplane with all of the beautiful spring days we're having, my engine is not running right and I won't fly it till I get it to run right. It makes plenty of power if I finesse the throttle and carb heat up and down the RPM range, but it's definitely not running right. I have all of Tony's books but I have two copies of the blue one, "The Sportplane Builder", and one of those, older and worn now, is autographed by Tony inside the cover. Close observers of the photos of my magneto wiring that I posted a couple of days ago will notice that many people have autographed the inside (bare) aluminum surface of my engine cowling with a Sharpie, and one of the names, which is partly visible in the photo, is that of the renowned airshow performer and writer Marion Cole. I have a framed, autographed copy of Paul Poberezny climbing from the cockpit of "Paul I", his P-51, in my office. Paul sent it to me himself, in an envelope that he hand-addressed to me at my home. The engine on my airplane is a Continental A75 that has been rebuilt to factory original tolerances with all certified and approved parts and methods, and it has less than 40 hours on it. The magnetos and wiring harnesses are equally new and certified for use on this engine as well. The carburetor is FAA approved for use on this engine, a Stromberg NAS3-A1, rebuilt by an A&P who specialized in these carbs, using all approved parts and methods and in the proper configuration. None of these things changes the fact that my engine is not running right and that I could become one of William's dead friends as a consequence of attempting to fly it in this condition. The last thing I want to do is go silent on this list because somebody had to scrape me and my airplane off the airfield and call my wife to let her know about it. The point is, use good sense, discipline, and prudence... don't just depend on what you read in a famous book plus your good looks. The ground can be very unforgiving when you hit it hard enough. So for the moment, I'm grounded. As Jim Carrey says in "The Mask": 'somebody stop me!' -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420650#420650 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Duane Cole books
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Since we are on a bit of a book subject... I am a huge fan of Duane Cole and his family. If you have not read it yet, get "Happy Flying Safely". Terrific book. It's a quick read and you can find it online for cheap. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420660#420660 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bingilis books
From: Gardiner Mason <airlion2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Oscar, Why don,t you contact Don at Don,s Dream Machines in Griffin Ga. He can probably help you out. Gardiner Sent from my iPad On Mar 20, 2014, at 12:20 AM, "taildrags" wrote: > > I am determined not to be one of William's dead friends. As much as I want to fly my airplane with all of the beautiful spring days we're having, my engine is not running right and I won't fly it till I get it to run right. It makes plenty of power if I finesse the throttle and carb heat up and down the RPM range, but it's definitely not running right. > > I have all of Tony's books but I have two copies of the blue one, "The Sportplane Builder", and one of those, older and worn now, is autographed by Tony inside the cover. > > Close observers of the photos of my magneto wiring that I posted a couple of days ago will notice that many people have autographed the inside (bare) aluminum surface of my engine cowling with a Sharpie, and one of the names, which is partly visible in the photo, is that of the renowned airshow performer and writer Marion Cole. > > I have a framed, autographed copy of Paul Poberezny climbing from the cockpit of "Paul I", his P-51, in my office. Paul sent it to me himself, in an envelope that he hand-addressed to me at my home. > > The engine on my airplane is a Continental A75 that has been rebuilt to factory original tolerances with all certified and approved parts and methods, and it has less than 40 hours on it. The magnetos and wiring harnesses are equally new and certified for use on this engine as well. The carburetor is FAA approved for use on this engine, a Stromberg NAS3-A1, rebuilt by an A&P who specialized in these carbs, using all approved parts and methods and in the proper configuration. > > None of these things changes the fact that my engine is not running right and that I could become one of William's dead friends as a consequence of attempting to fly it in this condition. The last thing I want to do is go silent on this list because somebody had to scrape me and my airplane off the airfield and call my wife to let her know about it. The point is, use good sense, discipline, and prudence... don't just depend on what you read in a famous book plus your good looks. The ground can be very unforgiving when you hit it hard enough. > > So for the moment, I'm grounded. As Jim Carrey says in "The Mask": 'somebody stop me!' > > -------- > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, OR > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" > A75 power > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420650#420650 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Vasek
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Very nice progress Vasek!! Is it difficult to find steel tubing? douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: books n' such
Date: Mar 20, 2014
For the "nit picky" grammarians out there who choose to focus on my wording rather than my message.let me clarify. By using the word "mostly" I was softening my statements so as not to sound didactic. I meant the information is "mostly" up to date and "mostly" still considered "standard". If it's not "up to date" it is still very useful and will produce a solid aircraft. Nothing on the Pietenpol plans is "up to date" either, so it's a perfect fit!! I believe you could build an airworthy and safe Pietenpol with nothing more than the plans, the Bingilis books and some common sense. There are no procedures mentioned in those books that aren't used in a Cessna 150. Let's not become like journalists here, where we focus on one word used a certain way and disregard the main point of the statement. Let's help those people who need good resources to build their airplane, and these are widely regarded as good (invaluable to me) resources to a builder, especially a first time builder. Where else can you go to learn about fuel flow, drilling, making fittings, toe-in, basic covering, instrument plumbing etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....? I say again, keep the books on your shelf. They will prove helpful. How's that gentlemen? Clear enough?? Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Corvair Engine Long term Layup question
From: "GrantZ" <grantz5906(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
I have purchased a builtup Corvair flight engine for my project. It is a FWF from a 601 (owner wanted more HP). It has 4.5 hours. It was built using WW's full line of parts and manuals. This engine will be in storage for at least 12 months. What are the best practices for long term layup? Spraying the cylinders with LPS-1 has been recommended. Does the crankshaft need to be rotated periodically? William, please weigh in here, if you would. Thanks Grant Ziebell Savannah, TN Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420671#420671 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: books n' such
From: "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Quote: "Lets not become like journalists here" ...by using words like "didactic" :-) Actually, I find "Jonathan Livingston Seagul" to be the most helpful book for building my Pietenpol. There, did I stay neutral enough while adding to the spirit and helpfulness of this message board....? Lots of good points made by all "sides" seems like to me. My welder comes tomorrow (to weld my landing gear) and I then hope to post photos.a few days later.......! -------- 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=420672#420672 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: books n' such
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Well said, Douwe. As for the Bingelis books, do we discount the Pietenpol plans simply because the spar splice as drawn has been proven to be improper? No, we don't. Even though many early Air campers were built, and flew successfully using the splice shown in the plans, it has been established that the splice joint is not a proper splice joint, and should not be used. The accepted practice is to follow the methods set out in AC 43.13-2B for splice joints in spars. Likewise, builders are very unlikely to use hard cardboard for their wing leading edges, or use "parilyn" (whatever that is) discs for the inspection window at the aileron pulleys. Should a builder blindly follow every detail in the Pietenpol plans? Probably not. A prudent builder would take into account the fact that the plans were drawn in 1933, and apply current knowledge and technology in their decision making process. Likewise with the Bingelis books, which were written about 30 years ago. So, as with the Pietenpol plans, let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater." The Bingelis books are (and will remain to be) a very valuable resource for anyone building a homebuilt aircraft. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420674#420674 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Engine Long term Layup question
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Grant, I am glad to cover this, and some of the comment may benefit other engines as well, but moving forward, I ask that more Corvair engine specific questions be sent directly to me and I will cover them on our site. It makes sense for Piet builders to discuss Corvair engine installation things like mounts, cowls, W&B and performance in this Piet forum, but I would like to host the engine specific questions like your on our sites and in direct email and calls. It is good for the Continental guys to talk over stuff here, and maybe the Ford guys, because they don't have the same support structure and info chain we do. It isn't anyone's full time job to work out owners questions on other engines, but with the Corvair it is mine, so we can gladly cover it and save space here. As the season gets busier, I am just going to cover our sites and not be here often, so questions are better sent direct. The record for building a Corvair, letting it sit, then flying it in a plane is 11.5 years. As long as it is in a dry place, the engine can't tell time. Wrap it in a blanket before putting it in plastic, (it cuts down on condensation) and put a bare piece of steel inside the plastic where you can see it at a glance. If it looks like it is getting rusty, find a better spot for the engine. House garages are better than metal T-hangars, for both condensation and anti-theft. It is a total myth that lead is good for aircraft valves. In the presence of moisture, the byproducts of combustion of 100LL are very corrosive. Not an issue on engines frequently run, but on 6 weeks to 6 years storage, it is. For this reason, the exhaust needs to be taped shut. On a 4 cylinder engine you can turn it to a position where all the exhaust valves are shut. I index the prop on my wife's C-85 to be level for storage in this position. But on a six you can't do this, two exhausts are always off their seat. (This is the only downside to a very smooth running engine.) The best idea is to run engines on auto fuel if they are just going to get a short test run before storage, and we do this on engines we build and sell, and also most of the ones built and run at Colleges. I just checked and you are 425 miles from CC#30 which will be held in Mexico MO in September, and 500 from CC#31 in Barnwell in November. Advice: Pack up the engine and bring it in, we will check it over and run it for an hour on auto fuel. I will teach you a lot about it, and you will make new friends, and we will feed you. This will cost you $75. Until I win the lottery, I can't actually pay people to attend Corvair Colleges, so at this point there is still a nominal fee for food, but the event is free.) I know the engine you bought, and it is an outstanding deal. The guy sold it for a fraction of what he had in it. He lived 100 miles from Mark at Falcon, our northern service expert, but he didn't not want to ask for or receive assistance. He didn't know much about planes. For example he said on the zenith list that the plane "climbed at 750fpm loaded, but it seemed to need full power just to maintain altitude" Trust me, by simple physics and aerodynamics, any light aircraft that has a 750 fpm ROC does not need "full power" to then maintain altitude. I can explain that to anyone, except of course a person who doesn't want to learn. >From owning the same plane with the same engine, and having 85 other flying examples of the same combination, I can say with some certainty the combination works well, I even have a builder who pulled a gross weight take off with a density altitude of 11,900' on the same combination. Bring the engine to the college and I will personally correct any maladjustments the guy made, for free, even though I didn't build the engine. (I do this just because it was made with our parts) Going back to what I said to Brian, most problems with auto engines are people, not metal. I am very glad you have the engine now, and it is a very good sign that you are asking to learn something. Welcome to the Corvair movement, I am glad to have you aboard. -ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420681#420681 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: books n' such
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Just for a minute consider this: I am not giving anyone a hard time, saying anyone is wrong nor even having an argument. I don't actually think I am going to change the perspective of the people who wrote in much. However, there are a lot of people who will read this that you will not hear from, many of the non-professionals and new to homebuilding, and my goal is to get them to think about information sources more broadly and with a far more critical eye. I am sure that guys like Douwe understand the benefit of the introduction of different perspectives and as an artist he has certainly withstood far harsher commentary, with far less of a point to it. I could use Douwe's comment on C-150s as an introduction to say that if I was doing an annual on that 150 and told the FAA I was only going to comply with AD's written before 1988, they would pull my ticket. Maybe that isn't the exact thought Douwe was getting at, but my point is if it gets someone to better understand that the definition of 'airworthy' is constantly improving, then I can ask that people commenting have thick enough skin to allow some new builder to understand that. Hopefully a list like this is about people thinking and learning new things and not semantics and who gets to be 'right.' Jerry, I am trained not to give any consideration to tact whatsoever, if it interferes with or dilutes a message of airworthiness even one percent. An aircraft mechanic who is even slightly temped to couch things in 'nice' terms because he is reluctant to tell a owner there is a needed giant expense, or his operation of the machine is deficient is a danger to his pilot and a stain on the trade. I was taught that by this man: http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/23/erau-models-of-integrity/. I took an oath, administered by him, to be the passenger's last line of defense, and if it was needed, I would forsake every other consideration to protect them. If you work outside aviation, that might sound quaint. but I can tell you I have directly prevented someone who was not previously listening, from killing themselves and their passenger, by saying the message they didn't want to hear in a way that would have been considered 'tactless' in an office building. People get killed in planes, but Carpal Tunnel Syndrome is rarely fatal. The difference in the Arena matters. I have also directly seen a pilot killed doing something that 6 people present knew was wrong and very dangerous, but none of them said anything because he wasn't a good listener, and people wanted to avoid having a discussion with in terms that might get tactless. If you would like an example of how seriously I take the oath: We had a guy who was going to try 5 hours bottle to throttle, hammered drunk to actually flying young eagles in our EAA chapter. When no one else wanted to be 'tactless' and stop him, I told everyone present that my oath required me to physically stop him, and I was fully prepared in the absence of other action, to remove the man from his plane and beat him until he was not capable of flying it, and I didn't care if this meant going to jail. I look at things in simple terms: I would rather got to jail than attend some kids funeral and explain to his parents why being diplomatic was more important than their child. For more reading on the cost of not speaking up when others are trying to be polite: http://flycorvair.net/2012/02/20/effective-risk-management-2898-words/ and: http://flycorvair.net/2012/06/25/if-only-someone-had-told-him/ The easiest way to predict what an individual will get out of experimental aviation is to ask these questions: Does the person really want to learn? Do they become defensive when encountering different ideas? Do they look for ways to improve their approach a lot harder than they look for affirmation that they have been right all along? There are plenty of people who have finished and flown a plane who would answer No, Yes, No to the three questions, the exact wrong answers. Their flying plane dosen't mean that being willfully ignorant and closed minded is valuable. It just means they were willing to accept a giant unnecessary risk for themselves and their passengers, accept a greatly diminished experience, and lead a stagnant life, all to protect their weak little ego. -ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420682#420682 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vasek
From: "Vasek" <bigon2(at)seznam.cz>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Hi Douwe, Not at all. You just place the order and the other day you can pick them up. But I am in the Czech Republic :) -------- My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420683#420683 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tank
From: Scott Knowlton <flyingscott_k(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Great advice Don. I have the low point in there along with accomodation for a Curtiss drain. Looking forward to doing the install and the flow test. Thanks for the feedback. Scott Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 19, 2014, at 1:11 PM, "Don Emch" wrote: > > > One more thing on the tank.... As Mike's uncle Tony says you'll want to make sure the lowest point in the tank has the sump to avoid the collection of water and to make sure it'll get drained out. Ideally you want a low point that is low whether in the three point or in level to cover all your bases. > > Don Emch > NX899DE > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420638#420638 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
From: "Vasek" <bigon2(at)seznam.cz>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
> Your sound system is not big enough! Otherwise my work would not have a rhythm [Wink] > Looks like the front fuselage is already stretched for a lightweight engine. Is that true? I am using GN-1 plans, but it doesn't seem to be longer, you think it is? Concerning the ribs, I will use the original Pietenpol's. And thank you for your nice words, I am going for a beer!! -------- My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420687#420687 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Date: Mar 20, 2014
There's a guy who knows how to enjoy his project!! Vasek - Your props are beautiful! Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vasek Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:58 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project > Your sound system is not big enough! Otherwise my work would not have a rhythm [Wink] > Looks like the front fuselage is already stretched for a lightweight engine. Is that true? I am using GN-1 plans, but it doesn't seem to be longer, you think it is? Concerning the ribs, I will use the original Pietenpol's. And thank you for your nice words, I am going for a beer!! -------- My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420687#420687 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
From: "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Vasek, The fuselage looks AWESOME...!!! Thanks for posting the photos. Lots of good information there.....! Jake -------- 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=420690#420690 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tank
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Scott, It's cool to get to the point where you are putting finished products in the project. Have fun and good luck! Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420691#420691 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tank
From: Gardiner Mason <airlion2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Hey Don. I received the jig today, and now I have to figure out how to use it. I have never used a jig before so I may have some questions later. Cheers, Gardiner Sent from my iPad On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:54 PM, "Don Emch" wrote: > > Scott, > > It's cool to get to the point where you are putting finished products in the project. Have fun and good luck! > > Don Emch > NX899DE > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420691#420691 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Duane Cole books
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2014
Don, I share your respect for the Cole family. Grace keeps all their books together on a single shelf. I have no talent for aerobatics, but Grace is skilled and never gets queasy in planes. Typing the phrase "rolling outside turn" makes my stomach jumpy and my equilibrium wavy. The first time Grace tried it with her instructor was in an S2B, they worked on it for 10 minutes solid, I could hardly watch, she thought it was "fun." One of the unusual Cole books Grace has is "Airport Memories." It has notes and photos of the 1,400 airports Duane flew in and out of in his life. It is filled with great pictures of places some there, some gone. It has pictures of our instructor, Chuck Nelson, as a much younger man, hanging out with the Coles. Grace showed the book to Chuck after she bought it at a fly-mart. He had never seen a copy. He isn't a real nostalgic guy, but he did pause and look at the pictures for a long time without saying anything. The memories appeared to come back in a flood. ------------------------------- Books on flight that changed my perspective and made me think differently; On the human condition: Fate is the Hunter, Gann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_Is_the_Hunter on engineering: Slide rule, Nevil Shute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_Rule:_Autobiography_of_an_Engineer on WWI: Sagittarius Rising, Cecil Lewis (Doc loaned me this) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Arthur_Lewis On human creativity and ethics: Boyd, Robert Coram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist) ------------------------------------------------------- If I had to pick a single book who's contents I treasure and have improved my skills immeasurably, it is the 70 year old classic, Stick and Rudder. by Wolfgang Langewiesche. I wrote an article about it last year, contrasting it with modern books on flying by authors like Rod Machado. The story below also contains a visual test so everyone can see how many historic characters out of eight, they can identify. Yes, I am aware that comparing Machado to Langewiesche is like comparing Dr Oz to Walter Reed, but it makes a point. Click on this link: http://flycorvair.net/2013/05/25/greatest-book-on-flying-ever-written-is-your-life-worth-16/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420707#420707 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
From: "Vasek" <bigon2(at)seznam.cz>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Recently I had a guy here who wanted to take a look, and when he came I told him "this is going to be a replica of S.E.5a" ..and he believed ..it really looks like S.E.5a :) I am now wondering about length of the landing gear - the V on the side - how long it should be. Currently it has about 70cm, but I found out that this length is designed for Piper wheels. I am going to use wire wheels. So I am worried that I will have to make the V on both sides again, shorter. What do you think? Can anyone with wire wheels (on airplane please :D ) measure the length of the front tube (on the V, which connects the wheel with sides of fuselage). Thank you! -------- My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Vasek, You can do this yourself! Estimate the height of the tail with the tailwheel arrangement that you will have. Prop up the tail to that point. Next, raise the front on sawhorses and blocks until you attain a suitable 'deck angle' ( the angle of the upper longerons, measured over level ground). I started with 13=81=B0, but fle that was too much. I=99m now at 11=81=B0 and much more comfortable. Once the deck angle is set, you can see if the wheels you have will work, or know which size wheels to look foror rework your gear. Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vasek Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:17 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project bigon2(at)seznam.cz> Recently I had a guy here who wanted to take a look, and when he came I told him "this is going to be a replica of S.E.5a" ..and he believed ..it really looks like S.E.5a :) I am now wondering about length of the landing gear - the V on the side - how long it should be. Currently it has about 70cm, but I found out that this length is designed for Piper wheels. I am going to use wire wheels. So I am worried that I will have to make the V on both sides again, shorter. What do you think? Can anyone with wire wheels (on airplane please :D ) measure the length of the front tube (on the V, which connects the wheel with sides of fuselage). Thank you! -------- My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: =C3=A2=CB=86=C2=BC Read this topic online here: <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: books
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Ck out "Flight of Passage". Great "coming of age" adventure book about two kids flying a cub across America in the sixties. Very fun. Douwe ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: books
From: "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Don't forget the water bag..... -------- 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=420730#420730 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Vasek, Your steel tube fuselage looks great! I have attached a link to a previous posting I made showing my steel tube fuselage with the door option for the front seat- http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=100890&highlight I would love to say that I designed it, but I did not. However, the highly capable William Wynne did. You might want to look at the tubes he added to reinforce the fuselage and see if you might need similar reinforcement. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420732#420732 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 21, 2014
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
I setup my gear more or less as Gary describes. Position the plane with it sitting on its tail wheel, raise the nose until you achieve your desired deck angle, fit/locate main landing gear. If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. Michael Perez Pietenpol HINT Videos KaretakerAero www.karetakeraero.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com>
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Date: Mar 21, 2014
For what it=99s worth, my Pietenpol has a 13=C2=B0 deck angle and I wish I had a bit less =93 maybe 12=C2=B0. The problem with 13=C2=B0 is, the wing is nearly fully stalled in the 3-point position, which means you=99ve got to be very accurate in timing your flare on landing. The Pietenpol at such an AOA has so much drag that the time between when you get it to the 3-point position (13=C2=B0) and when it stalls is very short (feels like a second or less. If you flare a bit high, it will stall and =9Cdrop in=9D. A shallower deck angle allows you to flare it slightly high and let it float down to the runway as it bleeds off speed. 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 Gary Boothe Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 8:34 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project Vasek, You can do this yourself! Estimate the height of the tail with the tailwheel arrangement that you will have. Prop up the tail to that point. Next, raise the front on sawhorses and blocks until you attain a suitable 'deck angle' ( the angle of the upper longerons, measured over level ground). I started with 13=81=B0, but fle that was too much. I=99m now at 11=81=B0 and much more comfortable. Once the deck angle is set, you can see if the wheels you have will work, or know which size wheels to look foror rework your gear. Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vasek Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:17 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project bigon2(at)seznam.cz> Recently I had a guy here who wanted to take a look, and when he came I told him "this is going to be a replica of S.E.5a" ..and he believed ..it really looks like S.E.5a :) I am now wondering about length of the landing gear - the V on the side - how long it should be. Currently it has about 70cm, but I found out that this length is designed for Piper wheels. I am going to use wire wheels. So I am worried that I will have to make the V on both sides again, shorter. What do you think? Can anyone with wire wheels (on airplane please :D ) measure the length of the front tube (on the V, which connects the wheel with sides of fuselage). Thank you! -------- My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: =C3=A2=CB=86=C2=BC Read this topic online here: <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: larharris2 Harris <larharris2(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Michael=2C I have your set of videos=2C but I am watching them on pace with my construction progress. I haven't gotten to the part about landing gear yet if you discuss some of the location questions. This thread has explored setting the height of the gear. But have you any insight into the fore/aft location of the axle relative to the airplane CG? I have asked this questi on here before & gotten some good opinions. Any new thoughts? Lorenzo I setup my gear more or less as Gary describes. Position the plane with it sitting on its tail wheel=2C raise the nose until you achieve your desired deck angle=2C fit/locate main landing gear. Michael Perez =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 21, 2014
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Lorenzo, I don't believe I have any NEW thoughts, but I'll tell you my logi c for building mine.- I believe most of your questions will be answered i n the DVD, however, as with the entire series, they detail how I am buildin g my plane and don't reflect the various ways it can be done.=0A=0AThere we re some extensive tests done and articles written to the news letter about landing gear locations and CG. Those came out after I had my gear built, bu t still, I am glad I made mine the way I did. If you don't have these artic les, it would be well worth the effort to acquire them.=0A=0APietenpols are known for being tail heavy. I have been building mine with that in mind an d try to keep it light and keep it "balanced" (nose heavy, if you will...) I have talked with Mike Cuy and he informed me that he moved his gear, (woo d with the wire wheels)- 3" aft from the plans. Mike's plane is extremely nice and has been flying for 15+ years, so I had no issues copying his ide as. Going from memory, that moves the axle about 20" from the firewall. He explained that this allowed the tail to leave the ground early, potentially reducing ground friction and allowing him to get a clear view of the runwa y out front sooner. I moved my gear back the same 3". With this new locatio n, I set my deck angle to about a 10 deg.,- maybe less. As Jack noted, I wanted a little higher landing speed to have some better control authority and a shallow approach angle so I can see the runway longer into the landin g.- =0A=0AMoving the gear back changes the CG, but having built my plane as I have, I don't feel I will have any CG issues at all. I still expect to have near vertical cabanes...=0A-=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...switch seats.=0AMichael Perez=0APietenpol HINT Videos=0AKaretakerAero=0Awww.kareta keraero.com=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 21, 2014
From: Lawrence Williams <lnawms(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: verbosity
How about if we all remember that Air Campers were flying safely long, long before Bingelis, EAA, Matronics, FAA, Corvairs and epoxy. I'm not advocating casien glue and cardboard but let's not get carried away by thinking that without our superior intellect and latest technology our creations will be somehow deadly. I am having a hard time keeping fiery barbs quivered just now so I'll end here. Larry Williams The abominable slowman (and curmudgeon emeritus) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: larharris2 Harris <larharris2(at)msn.com>
Subject: CG vs Wheels Location
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Thanks=2C Michael. I have heard from others about "this is what I did." I v ery much appreciate the all the input from everyone. I'm still waiting for the WW Wt&Bal articles to arrive which may shed some more light on my quest ioning. And perhaps the curmudgeons will heap abuse on me for even consider ing deviating from the plans. But I'm looking for some general design guida nce on how (where) to locate the gear for a taildragger. Design guidance is pretty standard for allowable CG range=2C given the Cent er-of-Lift of the wing (%MAC). I'm beginning to believe that locating the g ear may be a matter of trial and error=2C though. You can't have the wheels too far out ahead of the CG or you will have controllability problems on l anding. On the other hand=2C if you get the wheels too far back=2C close to the CG=2C you nose over at the first application of brakes. I understand t hat others have had just this problem. I think building to the plans will not work for me because I intend to incl ude a wheel brake system. I'd like to hear if there is some range of design limits that I might start with. Or maybe I'll just pick a point others hav e tried with success & not worry about it. Lorenzo Date: Fri=2C 21 Mar 2014 10:08:01 -0700 From: speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project Lorenzo=2C I don't believe I have any NEW thoughts=2C but I'll tell you my logic for building mine. I believe most of your questions will be answered in the DVD=2C however=2C as with the entire series=2C they detail how I am building my plane and don't reflect the various ways it can be done. There were some extensive tests done and articles written to the news lette r about landing gear locations and CG. Those came out after I had my gear b uilt=2C but still=2C I am glad I made mine the way I did. If you don't have these articles=2C it would be well worth the effort to acquire them. Pietenpols are known for being tail heavy. I have been=0A building mine with that in mind and try to keep it light and keep it "bala nced" (nose heavy=2C if you will...) I have talked with Mike Cuy and he inf ormed me that he moved his gear=2C (wood with the wire wheels) 3" aft from the plans. Mike's plane is extremely nice and has been flying for 15+ year s=2C so I had no issues copying his ideas. Going from memory=2C that moves the axle about 20" from the firewall. He explained that this allowed the ta il to leave the ground early=2C potentially reducing ground friction and al lowing him to get a clear view of the runway out front sooner. I moved my g ear back the same 3". With this new location=2C I set my deck angle to abou t a 10 deg.=2C maybe less. As Jack noted=2C I wanted a little higher landi ng speed to have some better control authority and a shallow approach angle so I=0A can see the runway longer into the landing. Moving the gear back changes the CG=2C but having built my plane as I have =2C I don't feel I will have any CG issues at all. I still expect to have n ear vertical cabanes... If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. Michael Perez Pietenpol HINT Videos Karetaker Aero www.karetakeraero.com =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: verbosity
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Larry, I am taking your comments as some type of joke, because I am not sure why else anyone who has earned an ATP would make the kind of comment you just did. "Flying Safely" isn't the kind of term that I would choose to use. Since you have an ATP, I assume that at work you use the term Risk Management, and understand that while Pietenpols flew 80 years ago at a then acceptable level of risk, that it is perfectly OK for todays builders to look for a lower level of risk in their own plane today. In 1930's ATP's of that era flew DC-3s with flammable 5606 hydraulic fluid and extinguishers filled with Carbon Tetrachloride. Should DC-3 owners today abandon Skydrol and Halon? New guys reading this list see ATP after your name and have an expectation of valid risk management advice. Speaking out against discussing small, but important improvements, is not a particularly funny joke to me. I worked long and hard on the W&B project as an important risk management tool for builders. Perhaps this should buy a little credibility. Please share what contribution to your fellow builders you are working towards with your comments, I like to understand.-ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420787#420787 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
You are wise to wait at least until you have read the W&B articles before making any hard decisions about your gear placement. I would take the analysis and recorded data of the articles over any empirical analysis backed up with "it has flown for years that way". When William Wynne was working on my steel tube fuselage, one of the main concerns he had was the fact that the gear was set as it would have been in the 1930's (pre-brakes era), and the gear geometry needed to be reset in order to prevent any chance of nose over on hard braking. You are wise to consider the change. Any curmudgeonly arrows thrown over an issue that you bring up (ultimately the safety of pilot and passenger) should be disregarded. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420789#420789 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 21, 2014
From: jim hyde <jnl96(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: verbosity
he just did.. build it by the plans...otherwise make it longer, wider, encl ose the cockpit, add brakes, skydrol so you have to wear rubber soles, put an elect. systemn i, use metal ribs, and spars, cover it with AL. add an al l glass cockpit, put a PT6 in the nose, long range fuel tanks, a wet bar, m ake room for a copilot, rocket launchers, alone with a tilt wing, etc.=0A =0Athis plane was designed for poor boys what love aviation, want to go slo w , feel the wind, have fun building it, show it off, etc. anything more th an that is a waste of time and money. this guy- needs to build what he wa nts and others should mind their own business-including me.-=0A=0Ajim h yde- m20e taylorcraft, bc12d, Cessna 150 and aircamper owner..-cfi, atp , 737, Cessna citation 747, 747 400 a and p- instructor for future mechan ics, receiver of the Orville and Wilber Wright award. none of which means a nything..=0A=0Abuild it by the plans, use any good glue, put an airworthy A IRPLANE- motor in the nose, use good fabric and paint, -fly it, enjoy i t-and show it off. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Lorenzo, Everything that you are asking is actually covered in the articles in great depth. Where the axle and where the wing go are not a guess nor a rough estimation, they are now a calculation When building, use this set of steps: 1) Find a plane in the weight and balance data with the same fuselage length and engine you are going to use. 2) Make a calculated mathematical correction to adjust for you specific plane, ie max pilot weight, etc. to make sure that your wing/fuselage relationship keeps the CG between 15" and 20" aft of the leading edge at all loadings. 3) Then, locate the axle from 0 to 3" behind the leading edge if you are using brakes. No Matter what anyone tells you, If you do the above, you are actually Following the plans. My weight and Balance work did not establish any new limits nor axle locations. All I did was follow the data that BHP published in the 1960s. I have had it since getting it with my drawing set from Don P. in 1989. People with brakes, building with the 1930's axle location are actually not following the plans, nor any of the data BHP later developed and published. I have a pile of engineering books and stacks of drawing of classic aircraft. Almost every single bit of data for planes with brakes that have high wings and tail wheels indicated they all have the axle close to the leading edge. Luscombe, Aeronca, Piper, Taylorcraft, Cessna, all of them run it forward, and so did BHP once he got brakes. ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Perez: Keep in mind, I say things plain when safety is in question. Your comments in the letter tell me you are making a mistake, and do not know it. Bluntly, no one needs to move the axle backward. I could not tell from your website what engine you are using, but if is lighter than a 235 Lycoming or you weigh more than 110 pounds dressed, you are creating a plane that will have a terrible aft CG location. Consider ceasing to advise people on what is OK on CG. You may have built your gear already, but if you willfully ignore the content of my W&B data, you will regret it. You offer a lot of DVD's for sale for a guy who is yet to fly his plane. Some people hold that God created the universe, and thus also created Physics, Chemistry and Gravity. They also hold that he is never absent, as long as they are at work. Play by their rules, they are the best and most reliable protection you can get. Try to get around them, and they are merciless. These same people uphold that it is disrespectful to ask to be physically saved by divine intervention when you got in trouble by breaking the rules of the forces God created. Some people believe in luck, but can offer no evidence of it. I have seen many airplane accidents, and every one offers complete proof of Physics Chemistry and Gravity. Some people se it as wreckage, others see it as what happens when people tell God they don't believe in the forces he created. Take your pick. ------------------------------------------------- If a plane needs the axle moved back to lift the tail under power, in all likely hood, what you are seeing is a plane with a seriously aft CG. This is covered in the W&B articles. If a plane is flying at 20" the tail will be heavier for any gear location than one flying in the middle of the range. Aft gear is an invitation to a nose over, but the only thing that makes this rare is the same plane having an aft CG. You don't fix one mistake with a second. The gear on my pit was at the leading edge, the plane could stay in CG with a 290# pilot, I could stand on the brakes with the Corvair at full throttle and lift the tail with a 165# pilot. I started with an 8 degree deck angle and later went to 13. The plane could be 3 pointed 10 mph slower. I Often pilots who report weak ailerons at low speed are forgetting to use enough rudder. Looking over the nose on landing is a very poor technique. Keep in mind that my instructor trained more than 2,000 pilots between 1952 and 2008. Almost all of this was in tail wheels, 2,500 hours of it in Pitts's. He has 12,000 hours...of instruction. If you want to practice for your Piet, learn how to 3 point a J-3 from the rear seat. If your instructor wants to only teach wheel landings, he is giving you only part of a tool set you will need all of one day. -ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420798#420798 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: verbosity
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Jim, Very nice resume. Sounds like you have been around planes for a long time. I have not seen that BHP ever had an engine other than a Ford or a Corvair in his personal Air campers, other than a single photo of one that briefly had a Villie radial. Your comment "put an airworthy AIRPLANE motor in the nose" strikes me as interesting. Are you saying BHP didn't build his own plane the right way? He bought his first Corvair engine in 1960. It cost about $500. My guess is that a used $500 A-65 in 1960 frequently could be had with a free used Cub airframe bolted to it as a package deal. I think the man wanted to use a Corvair, I don't think he was trying to save money. He built two new planes in the next decade, both with Corvairs. If someone builds an exact replica of the "Last original", I think he is building arguably by the last and most up to date set of plans. You can't get more original than that.-ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420800#420800 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
From: airlion2(at)gmail.com
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Hi Terry, I know what USMC, USMCR , and ATP stand for but what does BVD, DVD, PDQ and BBQ mean? Gardiner Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2014, at 6:22 PM, "jarheadpilot82" wrote: > > > You are wise to wait at least until you have read the W&B articles before making any hard decisions about your gear placement. I would take the analysis and recorded data of the articles over any empirical analysis backed up with "it has flown for years that way". > > When William Wynne was working on my steel tube fuselage, one of the main concerns he had was the fact that the gear was set as it would have been in the 1930's (pre-brakes era), and the gear geometry needed to be reset in order to prevent any chance of nose over on hard braking. You are wise to consider the change. Any curmudgeonly arrows thrown over an issue that you bring up (ultimately the safety of pilot and passenger) should be disregarded. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry Hand > Athens, GA > > USMC, USMCR, ATP > BVD DVD PDQ BBQ > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420789#420789 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
From: airlion2(at)gmail.com
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Now I think you are pulling my leg. Gardiner Sent from my iPad > On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:59 PM, airlion2(at)gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Terry, I know what USMC, USMCR , and ATP stand for but what does BVD, DVD, PDQ and BBQ mean? Gardiner > > > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Mar 21, 2014, at 6:22 PM, "jarheadpilot82" wrote: >> >> >> You are wise to wait at least until you have read the W&B articles before making any hard decisions about your gear placement. I would take the analysis and recorded data of the articles over any empirical analysis backed up with "it has flown for years that way". >> >> When William Wynne was working on my steel tube fuselage, one of the main concerns he had was the fact that the gear was set as it would have been in the 1930's (pre-brakes era), and the gear geometry needed to be reset in order to prevent any chance of nose over on hard braking. You are wise to consider the change. Any curmudgeonly arrows thrown over an issue that you bring up (ultimately the safety of pilot and passenger) should be disregarded. >> >> -------- >> Semper Fi, >> >> Terry Hand >> Athens, GA >> >> USMC, USMCR, ATP >> BVD DVD PDQ BBQ >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420789#420789 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris" <catdesigns(at)att.net>
Subject: CG vs Wheels Location
Date: Mar 21, 2014
The excellent article by Ryan Mueller and William Wynne published in the January 2013 newsletter referenced the correct landing gear placement saying, "The late model plans specify that the axle should only be 0.5" behind the leading edge"(fourth paragraph of the article). This is not on the plans. It is found on an 8.5x11 piece of paper I received with my plans set. This sheet shows the weight and balance computations for a "1966 Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine". On this it says "D is 0.5 inches back of weighing point" and D is the distance from the main wheel to the datum (leading edge). The fuselage measurement and vintage suggest this is a long fuselage. Also, when I received my plans, I received a 6 page document entitled "Converting the Corvair Engine" by Mr. Pietenpol. On page 1 Mr. Pietenpol lists the empty weight of this airplane using the modified Corvair engine at 622 pounds, which happens to be the same weight as the one on the weight and balance sheet mentioned above. On page two Mr. Pietenpol list the modifications to this plane. The important ones for this discussion are: -fuselage lengthened 9 inches (the genesis of the LONG fuselage) -wings slanted back 3 inches -wheels moved forward 7 inches so that a modified J3 Cub landing gear and brakes could be fitted. Using a little math, if the split axel landing gear legs were built per the plans the axel would be 19 inches from the long fuselage firewall (17 inches for the standard plans fuselage plus 2 inches more for the LONG fuselage extension of the first bay). Then moving the axel forward 7 inches would put it at 19-7= 12 inches back from the firewall. The wing was at 7.5 inches on the standard fuselage plus 2 inches (extension of the first bay) puts the wing at 9.5 inches behind the firewall plus the 3 inch slant puts the wing at 12.5 inches from the firewall. This brings us back to the 0.5 inch measurement but in this case its axel in front of the wing. I'm guessing the J# gear had a slightly different sweep to the gear legs. This modified airplane Mr. Pietenpol speaks of must be the same as the "1966 Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine" airplane shown on the weight and balance sheet. However, Mr. Pietenpol goes on to say on page 2 that 7 inches was too much. He recommends splitting the difference which would mean the axel should be at 12+3.5=15.5 inches behind the firewall or 3 inches behind the leading edge of this aircrafts wing. Remember he is talking about a long fuselage. Note that this location is behind this particular plane's leading edge. The important factor in the location of the axel that is not mentioned is the CG. If you make sure you operating within the recommended CG envelope I believe the advice would be that your axel placement should not be any farther back than the 3 inches behind the leading edge that Mr. Pietenpol recommends. Background research on landing gear placement shows: -The 1933-34 "Improved Air Camper" plans, no brakes: show the axel to be 17 inches behind the firewall and the wing 7.5 inches behind the firewall. This puts the axel 9.5 inches behind the wings leading edge. -The LONG fuselage adds 2 inches to the first bay so if using the landing gear form the 1933-34 plans it should be at 19 inches behind the firewall and the wing should be at 7.5+2 or 9.5 inches from the firewall. - In the plans: the fuselage drawing with the sample weight and balance shown on the supplemental plan sheet (also showing the tube fuselage) appears to be a 1933-34 plans fuselage but with brakes. Here the axle is shown at 16.5 inches behind the firewall and 5.25 inches behind the leading edge of the wing. -There is no advice for the axel placement on the supplemental plans for the LONG fuselage without brakes. However Chris Bobka did some research and guesswork to figure it should be at 21 inches behind the firewall with no brakes. He did the analysis to help Greg and Dale with their LONG fuselage Pietenpol. Chris reported during flight tests that the placement was right on. I believe Gary Boothe has his long fuselage axel located per the split axel plans. Wing back 4 inches. (Correct me if I am wrong Garry) And it seems to behave fine. - The 4th Quarter 1984 Brodhead Pietenpol newsletter they quote Mr. Pietenpol as saying, the plane is OK with the gear as far forward as it is now, with a note saying he was talking about the last two Corvair powered ships. But unfortunately it does not say where the axel is. Looking at modern high wing planes with tail wheel seem to show main wheel at about the leading edge of the wing. Lastly, in an article about landing gear design published in Sport Aviation by Ladislao Pazmany, he states "The main gear should contact the ground at least 15 degrees ahead of the most forward center of gravity with the aircraft in level attitude." This center of gravity is the CG of the plane and on a parasol plane it is somewhere below the wing. Unfortunately, I don't know where this point is on a Pietenpol. Some have suggested it is about the center of the instrument panel but that is just a guess. As an aside I also found in "Aeronautical Engineering and Airplane Design" published in 1918, the landing gear should be at 13 degrees 10 minutes. It also assumes the CG is the same height as the propeller. Chris T. Sacramento, Ca Westcoastpiet.com From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of larharris2 Harris Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 2:47 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: CG vs Wheels Location Thanks, Michael. I have heard from others about "this is what I did." I very much appreciate the all the input from everyone. I'm still waiting for the WW Wt&Bal articles to arrive which may shed some more light on my questioning. And perhaps the curmudgeons will heap abuse on me for even considering deviating from the plans. But I'm looking for some general design guidance on how (where) to locate the gear for a taildragger. Design guidance is pretty standard for allowable CG range, given the Center-of-Lift of the wing (%MAC). I'm beginning to believe that locating the gear may be a matter of trial and error, though. You can't have the wheels too far out ahead of the CG or you will have controllability problems on landing. On the other hand, if you get the wheels too far back, close to the CG, you nose over at the first application of brakes. I understand that others have had just this problem. I think building to the plans will not work for me because I intend to include a wheel brake system. I'd like to hear if there is some range of design limits that I might start with. Or maybe I'll just pick a point others have tried with success & not worry about it. Lorenzo _____ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:08:01 -0700 From: speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net <mailto:speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project Lorenzo, I don't believe I have any NEW thoughts, but I'll tell you my logic for building mine. I believe most of your questions will be answered in the DVD, however, as with the entire series, they detail how I am building my plane and don't reflect the various ways it can be done. There were some extensive tests done and articles written to the news letter about landing gear locations and CG. Those came out after I had my gear built, but still, I am glad I made mine the way I did. If you don't have these articles, it would be well worth the effort to acquire them. Pietenpols are known for being tail heavy. I have been building mine with that in mind and try to keep it light and keep it "balanced" (nose heavy, if you will...) I have talked with Mike Cuy and he informed me that he moved his gear, (wood with the wire wheels) 3" aft from the plans. Mike's plane is extremely nice and has been flying for 15+ years, so I had no issues copying his ideas. Going from memory, that moves the axle about 20" from the firewall. He explained that this allowed the tail to leave the ground early, potentially reducing ground friction and allowing him to get a clear view of the runway out front sooner. I moved my gear back the same 3". With this new location, I set my deck angle to about a 10 deg., maybe less. As Jack noted, I wanted a little higher landing speed to have some better control authority and a shallow approach angle so I can see the runway longer into the landing. Moving the gear back changes the CG, but having built my plane as I have, I don't feel I will have any CG issues at all. I still expect to have near vertical cabanes... If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. Michael Perez Pietenpol HINT Videos Karetaker Aero www.karetakeraero.com <http://www.karetakeraero.com> ========== st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ========== http://forums.matronics.com ========== ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ========== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: larharris2 Harris <larharris2(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
Date: Mar 21, 2014
WW=2C I very much appreciate your input. I eagerly await the arrival of the articles you authored. You are correct that proper CG location is critical to good controllability in the finished airplane. That's why I have been s uch a pest on the issue. I suspect that you are also right in that many fin ished=2C and unused=2C planes are that way because they scare their owners. I value the DVDs that Michael Perez has put together. I have my set of plan s to use for dimensions=2C etc. And my own standards for workmanship. But M ichael's videos show his perspective on work sequence=2C materials techniqu es=2C and quality of workmanship. I don't do everything the same as he does =2C but=2C lacking a local group to 'show-and-tell' with=2C it is nice to s ee how someone else has approached construction of certain components. Quote from someone else: There are Rules and there are Laws. Rules can be broken=2C Laws (of physics) cannot. ie. The Rule says that you cannot fly under the bridge. If you do fly under the bridge just be sure that you don 't run into it. "If you want to practice for your Piet=2C learn how to 3 point a J-3 from the rear seat." How about a no-flap from the back seat of a T-38? If that counts=2C I'm good to go. :) Lorenzo > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Good grief! Please don't over complicate this! Either build the plane without brakes and keep the gear as is or add brakes and move the axle an inch or two forward. It's really that simple!! Now go get your hack saw and light up your torch! Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420811#420811 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2014
Don, While Chris does have a long paragraph there, it is some really good research, When we wrote the series, I made note of assistance from a very well researched builder. For the record, it was Chris. His notes here are all numbers, not old stories, thus are useful in the big picture. No builder needs to know all of them, they just need one path that suits their plane. It isn't that complicated. If it takes 1,000 trips to the shop to build your plane, devoting maybe one of them to making a good CG plan makes sense to me. BTW, I think just moving the axle an inch or two is 4" short of BHP's recommendation. Chris, I did a W&B on the last Original in 2007. The axle is near the leading edge. The only 'cub' parts to the gear are the wheels, axle size, and tires. I am pretty sure it does not have brakes. I would like to do it and the plane at Pioneer (the 1966) again this year. I think they are physical examples of how BHP thought the design was 'optimal.' -ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420813#420813 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: CG vs Wheels Location
Date: Mar 21, 2014
".I believe Gary Boothe has his long fuselage axel located per the split axel plans. Wing back 4 inches. (Correct me if I am wrong Gary) And it seems to behave fine.." You're correct. Plane behaves fine.It's me who behaves badly. Gary Boothe NX308MB From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:06 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: CG vs Wheels Location The excellent article by Ryan Mueller and William Wynne published in the January 2013 newsletter referenced the correct landing gear placement saying, "The late model plans specify that the axle should only be 0.5" behind the leading edge"(fourth paragraph of the article). This is not on the plans. It is found on an 8.5x11 piece of paper I received with my plans set. This sheet shows the weight and balance computations for a "1966 Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine". On this it says "D is 0.5 inches back of weighing point" and D is the distance from the main wheel to the datum (leading edge). The fuselage measurement and vintage suggest this is a long fuselage. Also, when I received my plans, I received a 6 page document entitled "Converting the Corvair Engine" by Mr. Pietenpol. On page 1 Mr. Pietenpol lists the empty weight of this airplane using the modified Corvair engine at 622 pounds, which happens to be the same weight as the one on the weight and balance sheet mentioned above. On page two Mr. Pietenpol list the modifications to this plane. The important ones for this discussion are: -fuselage lengthened 9 inches (the genesis of the LONG fuselage) -wings slanted back 3 inches -wheels moved forward 7 inches so that a modified J3 Cub landing gear and brakes could be fitted. Using a little math, if the split axel landing gear legs were built per the plans the axel would be 19 inches from the long fuselage firewall (17 inches for the standard plans fuselage plus 2 inches more for the LONG fuselage extension of the first bay). Then moving the axel forward 7 inches would put it at 19-7= 12 inches back from the firewall. The wing was at 7.5 inches on the standard fuselage plus 2 inches (extension of the first bay) puts the wing at 9.5 inches behind the firewall plus the 3 inch slant puts the wing at 12.5 inches from the firewall. This brings us back to the 0.5 inch measurement but in this case its axel in front of the wing. I'm guessing the J# gear had a slightly different sweep to the gear legs. This modified airplane Mr. Pietenpol speaks of must be the same as the "1966 Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine" airplane shown on the weight and balance sheet. However, Mr. Pietenpol goes on to say on page 2 that 7 inches was too much. He recommends splitting the difference which would mean the axel should be at 12+3.5=15.5 inches behind the firewall or 3 inches behind the leading edge of this aircrafts wing. Remember he is talking about a long fuselage. Note that this location is behind this particular plane's leading edge. The important factor in the location of the axel that is not mentioned is the CG. If you make sure you operating within the recommended CG envelope I believe the advice would be that your axel placement should not be any farther back than the 3 inches behind the leading edge that Mr. Pietenpol recommends. Background research on landing gear placement shows: -The 1933-34 "Improved Air Camper" plans, no brakes: show the axel to be 17 inches behind the firewall and the wing 7.5 inches behind the firewall. This puts the axel 9.5 inches behind the wings leading edge. -The LONG fuselage adds 2 inches to the first bay so if using the landing gear form the 1933-34 plans it should be at 19 inches behind the firewall and the wing should be at 7.5+2 or 9.5 inches from the firewall. - In the plans: the fuselage drawing with the sample weight and balance shown on the supplemental plan sheet (also showing the tube fuselage) appears to be a 1933-34 plans fuselage but with brakes. Here the axle is shown at 16.5 inches behind the firewall and 5.25 inches behind the leading edge of the wing. -There is no advice for the axel placement on the supplemental plans for the LONG fuselage without brakes. However Chris Bobka did some research and guesswork to figure it should be at 21 inches behind the firewall with no brakes. He did the analysis to help Greg and Dale with their LONG fuselage Pietenpol. Chris reported during flight tests that the placement was right on. I believe Gary Boothe has his long fuselage axel located per the split axel plans. Wing back 4 inches. (Correct me if I am wrong Garry) And it seems to behave fine. - The 4th Quarter 1984 Brodhead Pietenpol newsletter they quote Mr. Pietenpol as saying, the plane is OK with the gear as far forward as it is now, with a note saying he was talking about the last two Corvair powered ships. But unfortunately it does not say where the axel is. Looking at modern high wing planes with tail wheel seem to show main wheel at about the leading edge of the wing. Lastly, in an article about landing gear design published in Sport Aviation by Ladislao Pazmany, he states "The main gear should contact the ground at least 15 degrees ahead of the most forward center of gravity with the aircraft in level attitude." This center of gravity is the CG of the plane and on a parasol plane it is somewhere below the wing. Unfortunately, I don't know where this point is on a Pietenpol. Some have suggested it is about the center of the instrument panel but that is just a guess. As an aside I also found in "Aeronautical Engineering and Airplane Design" published in 1918, the landing gear should be at 13 degrees 10 minutes. It also assumes the CG is the same height as the propeller. Chris T. Sacramento, Ca Westcoastpiet.com From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of larharris2 Harris Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 2:47 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: CG vs Wheels Location Thanks, Michael. I have heard from others about "this is what I did." I very much appreciate the all the input from everyone. I'm still waiting for the WW Wt&Bal articles to arrive which may shed some more light on my questioning. And perhaps the curmudgeons will heap abuse on me for even considering deviating from the plans. But I'm looking for some general design guidance on how (where) to locate the gear for a taildragger. Design guidance is pretty standard for allowable CG range, given the Center-of-Lift of the wing (%MAC). I'm beginning to believe that locating the gear may be a matter of trial and error, though. You can't have the wheels too far out ahead of the CG or you will have controllability problems on landing. On the other hand, if you get the wheels too far back, close to the CG, you nose over at the first application of brakes. I understand that others have had just this problem. I think building to the plans will not work for me because I intend to include a wheel brake system. I'd like to hear if there is some range of design limits that I might start with. Or maybe I'll just pick a point others have tried with success & not worry about it. Lorenzo _____ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:08:01 -0700 From: speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project Lorenzo, I don't believe I have any NEW thoughts, but I'll tell you my logic for building mine. I believe most of your questions will be answered in the DVD, however, as with the entire series, they detail how I am building my plane and don't reflect the various ways it can be done. There were some extensive tests done and articles written to the news letter about landing gear locations and CG. Those came out after I had my gear built, but still, I am glad I made mine the way I did. If you don't have these articles, it would be well worth the effort to acquire them. Pietenpols are known for being tail heavy. I have been building mine with that in mind and try to keep it light and keep it "balanced" (nose heavy, if you will...) I have talked with Mike Cuy and he informed me that he moved his gear, (wood with the wire wheels) 3" aft from the plans. Mike's plane is extremely nice and has been flying for 15+ years, so I had no issues copying his ideas. Going from memory, that moves the axle about 20" from the firewall. He explained that this allowed the tail to leave the ground early, potentially reducing ground friction and allowing him to get a clear view of the runway out front sooner. I moved my gear back the same 3". With this new location, I set my deck angle to about a 10 deg., maybe less. As Jack noted, I wanted a little higher landing speed to have some better control authority and a shallow approach angle so I can see the runway longer into the landing. Moving the gear back changes the CG, but having built my plane as I have, I don't feel I will have any CG issues at all. I still expect to have near vertical cabanes... If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. Michael Perez Pietenpol HINT Videos Karetaker Aero www.karetakeraero.com ========== st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ========== http://forums.matronics.com ========== ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ========== http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2014
From: Lawrence Williams <lnawms(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: verbosity
since the list has degenerated from Piet building to favorite books, one of my favorite books has a quote that I have used only sparingly but seems to fit here: "It is not advisable, James to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener." My hand is just now hovering over my quiver...... L. Williams Abominable slowman and semi-retired Top Curmudgeon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Kenney <brian.kenney(at)live.ca>
Subject: CG vs Wheels Location
Date: Mar 22, 2014
This is not a simple problem and it is hard to give correct advice and it i s the classic example that everything is compromise. The following are variables that effect the gear position. If you are wonde r "what the heck: then I will give an example of why some of these are impo rtant. VARIABLES the empty c.g. the loaded c.g. the expected c.g range the fuel placement the maximum weight of the pilot=2C the minimum weight of the pilot the assumed wing position=2C the final wing position the strength of the brakes the diameter of the wheels the total height of the c.g above the ground. WHAT THE VARIABLES EFFECT The weight on the tail when empty whether the tail will stay down while empty in a wind the strength of the tail wheel spring and structure the ability to stop with brakes the ability to hold the aircraft on run up the overturn tendency with brakes the directional stability (ground looping tendency) the tendency for the tail to drop hard on landing (if not three pointed) the tendency to porpoise the ground handling what the government says about c.g. Here is an example - I will use my example so not to offend anyone. My aircraft has wooden gear=2C motorcycle wheels with brakes =2C and perpen dicular cabanes. It is an improved fuselage from the 1933 plans and the sto ck 1931 wooden gear. The fuel is behind the firewall. I am happy with arrangement but it has limitations and it could easily crit icized as wrong=2C but being wrong has some advantages. As built my airplane has the following advantages -the load on the tail is very light and the structure is light helping the aft c.g. tendency - the gear is back in comparison to many giving improved handling and stabi lity on landing this means the tail is not forcefully driven down if you land hard . -the tail comes up very easily on the take off roll. -it has had thousands of landings over 27 years and it has never been damag ed in a landing incident. This aircraft is not squirrelly at all the large wheels reduce rolling resistance=2C and reduces takeoff distance. - large wheels move the contact point of the wheels in the three point atti tude to the rear making it more directional stable. -the fuel in the fuselage reduces the weight transfer back to the tail as t he tail drops in comparison to fuel in the wing. My gear position has the following disadvantages -If I had stronger brakes it would be a danger to flip over - I am very hap py with my brakes however - they won't hold on a runup buy I don't think th at would be a good idea anyway. -my tail is so light when empty that if you lift the tail past horizontal t he airplane will fall on its nose - never has=2C but don't lose hold -I operate at and around the aft cg limit. If I were to put weight on the n ose to make the recommended c.g. limits for aircraft built in Canada=2C I could not get out of the aircraft as it would fall on its nose. Where I ope rate the c.g. is as recommended for a Pietenpol and there is not a problem. It may improve the climb performance. -As I age and get heavier the c.g. is getting more aft and adding weight to the nose would make the gear position worse in the rear direction - it is not really a problem and I can have full fuel and a metal prop instead of a wood one. I really added this to show how the pilot max weight effects the setup. -if a very light pilot used my brakes very hard the tail would come up far easier Remember too that many Piets end up with aft cgs and they move the wing bac k once built. This moves the wheels forward. Best laid plans quickly change . One of my favourite saying is - you can be good or you can be lucky but it is always best to be lucky. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
From: danhelsper(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Yesterday I got an emergency call from the great T.C. emeritus while wander ing on a remote desert path. I hadn't looked at the list in a few days....Y IKES! All the oxygen is being sucked out of the room. I am glad it wasn't like this when I was first building. I would have given up, eyes completely glazed over. I though y'all were building an old airplane from a set of old plans. Dan Helsper Puryear, TN -----Original Message----- From: Don Emch <EmchAir(at)aol.com> Sent: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 7:51 pm Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: CG vs Wheels Location Good grief! Please don't over complicate this! Either build the plane wit hout brakes and keep the gear as is or add brakes and move the axle an inch or t wo forward. It's really that simple!! Now go get your hack saw and light up your torch! Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420811#420811 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Exactly Dan! I'm really starting to appreciate that fact that I built most of mine before the Internet was really up and running. It's such a simple and fun design. Just go build it and have fun!! Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420821#420821 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: W&B, Axle Loc., Cabanes and fuel lines
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Builders, There are only four things in Piet building I would like to make builders aware of, and let them choose to use if they wish: 1) I want to show people that it is easy to build and fly a Piet in the published 15 -20" CG range, even if the engine is as light as an A-40 or as heavy as an O-235, with pilot weights from 120-320 pounds. We did the testing, I will assist builders with the math, it doesn't cost any more nor take any more time to build a plane in CG. 2) I want builders to know that there are published locations for where to locate the axle with and without brakes, and data on this directly from BHP. You don't need to guess. This info is with the W&B articles. When building, it doesn't cost anything to put the axle in a better spot, nor take any more time. 3) I give examples of better ways of building the cabanes, making them more like BHP did in the 1960s rather than the 1930s. The original plane had one set of crossed wires and no diagonals. No one does that, I am only suggesting leap frogging the 1930s light diagonals to the stronger 1960s ones. Again, when building it doesn't take any more time nor cost more than $5 more in up sized tubing. 4) I would like builders to be aware that a hard aluminum fuel line, run from the tank to the firewall is likely to get severed, even in a very small accident. A better option is using a braided steel jacketed flex line. The material for this costs $20 more than the 5052 hard tubing. It is actually easier to make, and does not require flaring tools. ------------------------------------------------------ That is it, it is the sum total of my advice to Piet builders. Note that I am not telling anyone to take even another 5 hours to build a plane, and the money I am speaking of is $25, maybe 1/400th of the cost of building a low cost Piet. --------------------------------------------------- Please note: I don't tell people what engine to use, what airfoil, what kind of wheels, what cover their plane in, what color to paint it, how to paint it nor how nor where to fly it. I don't have an opinion on 'what is a real Piet' or any of that. It is very odd to me that a guy who tells people "who the plane is for" or what engine to use, or that some kinds of covering are 'wrong' is not perceived as telling people what to do, but the four points I bring up above, are sometimes perceived as "Telling people what kind of plane they have to build". I strongly hold that it is your plane, and you have a right to build it anyway you want. I don't even care if you follow the four ideas above. All I want is builders to be aware they exist, and the only people who I have heartburn over are the people who claim that the data doesn't exist, it is too much work to do correctly or it costs to much or somehow ruins the spirit of fun flying to fly in the CG range. Again, those people are trying to tell others what to do with their planes, I just want builders to understand and choose for themselves. --------------------------------------------------------- While some people hold that it is a "waste of time and money" to build a Pietenpol with any type of modification, or adaption or even things like brakes or electric start, It is my option that it is your time, and your money to waste. I don't like being told what to do with my time and money, I don't care what people choose to do with theirs. Operative word in the last paragraph is Choose. That implies that the builder got to read about the options, ask questions, hear about it and then picked for himself. The one thing I do think of as a colossal waste of money and time is building a plane that is just OK, and 'works' and then flying it to Brodhead and finding out that a guy who took the same time building his plane and spent $25 more, can fly with a pilot that weighs 75 pounds more, land slower, and fully use his brakes, and doesn't worry about a small mishap dislodging his wing or rupturing a fuel line. My point is that each builder can either choose to be the guy with the better plane or the guy looking at it. It is a fee world, take your pick.-ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420823#420823 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: A Couple of Welding Questions
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
I have a couple of welding questions that I hope some of you can help me answer. Here is the situation - a friend of mine in my EAA Chapter has all of his now passed grandfather's tools (he was Mechanic at Delta Air Lines for over 35 years) My friend is building an RV-10 so he has little use for the welding equipment, so he has offered it to me. I have read some but have no one to really guide me on the following questions, so your help is appreciated. 1. The tanks have some level of Oxygen and Acetylene in them but the tanks have not been tested in who knows when (I have not really looked for the last date stamped onto them. Is it safe to use them ntl empty? Or should I take them in and swap them for other, newer, full tanks? 2. The hoses appear to be okay (no cracks), but I have not yet pressurized them and sprayed them with soapy water to check for any leaks. Should I just go ahead and buy new ones? I am guessing the hoses have been coiled up easily 6 or 8 years since last used. 3. The torch it self is a Smith and I have tip sizes 200, 203, and 205. I replaced the o-rings on the tips. Should I take the torches somewhere to have them inspected? Can they be rebuilt, if needed? 4. The regulator is the 2-stage type. Do I need to have them inspected as well? Can they be inspected and repaired if needed? Obviously, I am trying to ensure the equipment is in good working order before using them. Thanks for the advice. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420824#420824 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Dan, Here is a positive suggestion: What don't you, Don and Mike Cuy, who all have flying planes that you like, Take a few minutes to walk out to your planes, get the weight and balance form out and type it in here, do I can all it to the data base we have for planes. Please include your axle and tailwheel location, and your pilot weight. If you guys like your planes, then share the data with everyone and let them directly copy your set up if they choose to. Brian sent in a lot of data, but I need to know the weights to put it in the data base. Jack Phillips sent me an email saying his plane is actually in the CG range with his pilot weight and set up, It is useful to others to pick which path to follow if we can get it in the data set. If you don't like the numerical information, just ignore it. A new builder doesn't need to understand every line that Chris and Brian wrote in. I will do the math for them, it is not an issue, I know you guys as pilots can do weight and balance calculations, don't make it sound hard to new guys, it is a simple format with 6th grade math. I don't think flying around out of CG adds to the romance of flight, nor do I see how having a better fuel line ruins every sunset flight.-ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420825#420825 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Dan, I would more refer to it as a breath of fresh air. I know that William doesn't need anyone to speak for him but I think putting safety and risk management as a priority is never a bad thing. And I think that that is all that William is trying to point out. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420826#420826 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net>
Subject: W&B, Axle Loc., Cabanes and fuel lines
Date: Mar 22, 2014
To some, the "sound" of WW's 'voice' must be like fingernails on a chalkboard! I note that the most experienced pilots, and the pilots who have flown their Piets for a long time are the most critical of his suggestions. Although, William doesn't currently fly a Piet, I know of no one, including Doc, who has paid a higher price to be part of this group! Interesting how his comments draw such ire and fire, while Chris Tracy's mathematical and historic recount of the same subject draw none. As Dad liked to say, "What's right is right...and everything else is wrong." I, for one, thought I was "just following plans", but being a poor study, I now realize that I made mistakes. All appear to come out, in the wash, but those mistakes are still there. Maybe I'll be 'lucky', as one lister suggests, but my early adventures in flying, some 40 years ago, tell me that I have already used up a lot of luck! My axle is not placed right, nor is the wheel base as wide as it should be. Those things remain 'post-it' notes on my desk...items to get to someday. I'll be flying this plane for a long time, I hope, and foresee other little projects. Building the gear the first time was not a big deal, and will be even easier the second time through, and I'm not going to try to say to anyone that it's OK, just because it hasn't caused a wreck yet. I wish this subject had come up a year or two before it did! To the 'old-timers' here, keep in mind that we don't all share your level of experience. You may find this hard to believe, but I find this airplane to be completely different than anything else I flew...T-craft, C-170, Aeronca Sedan, Mini-Cab Hawk. I have an A&P, rebuilt 2 antiques and had about 280 hrs when my Piet was finished...all ancient history. If I were still 20, and in the prime of my short flying experience, I have no doubt that my feelings about the plane would be different. There are some here who are just now learning to fly and have no tailwheel time at all... Some who have not experienced the sink rate when the throttle is closed...Some who are building for the first time...Some who have not felt the weight of a 200lb passenger...Some who have not had their first emergency landing... ...I think cautionary advise is appropriate. Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Wynne Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:16 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: W&B, Axle Loc., Cabanes and fuel lines --> Builders, There are only four things in Piet building I would like to make builders aware of, and let them choose to use if they wish: 1) I want to show people that it is easy to build and fly a Piet in the published 15 -20" CG range, even if the engine is as light as an A-40 or as heavy as an O-235, with pilot weights from 120-320 pounds. We did the testing, I will assist builders with the math, it doesn't cost any more nor take any more time to build a plane in CG. 2) I want builders to know that there are published locations for where to locate the axle with and without brakes, and data on this directly from BHP. You don't need to guess. This info is with the W&B articles. When building, it doesn't cost anything to put the axle in a better spot, nor take any more time. 3) I give examples of better ways of building the cabanes, making them more like BHP did in the 1960s rather than the 1930s. The original plane had one set of crossed wires and no diagonals. No one does that, I am only suggesting leap frogging the 1930s light diagonals to the stronger 1960s ones. Again, when building it doesn't take any more time nor cost more than $5 more in up sized tubing. 4) I would like builders to be aware that a hard aluminum fuel line, run from the tank to the firewall is likely to get severed, even in a very small accident. A better option is using a braided steel jacketed flex line. The material for this costs $20 more than the 5052 hard tubing. It is actually easier to make, and does not require flaring tools. ------------------------------------------------------ That is it, it is the sum total of my advice to Piet builders. Note that I am not telling anyone to take even another 5 hours to build a plane, and the money I am speaking of is $25, maybe 1/400th of the cost of building a low cost Piet. --------------------------------------------------- Please note: I don't tell people what engine to use, what airfoil, what kind of wheels, what cover their plane in, what color to paint it, how to paint it nor how nor where to fly it. I don't have an opinion on 'what is a real Piet' or any of that. It is very odd to me that a guy who tells people "who the plane is for" or what engine to use, or that some kinds of covering are 'wrong' is not perceived as telling people what to do, but the four points I bring up above, are sometimes perceived as "Telling people what kind of plane they have to build". I strongly hold that it is your plane, and you have a right to build it anyway you want. I don't even care if you follow the four ideas above. All I want is builders to be aware they exist, and the only people who I have heartburn over are the people who claim that the data doesn't exist, it is too much work to do correctly or it costs to much or somehow ruins the spirit of fun flying to fly in the CG range. Again, those people are trying to tell others what to do with their planes, I just want builders to understand and choose for themselves. --------------------------------------------------------- While some people hold that it is a "waste of time and money" to build a Pietenpol with any type of modification, or adaption or even things like brakes or electric start, It is my option that it is your time, and your money to waste. I don't like being told what to do with my time and money, I don't care what people choose to do with theirs. Operative word in the last paragraph is Choose. That implies that the builder got to read about the options, ask questions, hear about it and then picked for himself. The one thing I do think of as a colossal waste of money and time is building a plane that is just OK, and 'works' and then flying it to Brodhead and finding out that a guy who took the same time building his plane and spent $25 more, can fly with a pilot that weighs 75 pounds more, land slower, and fully use his brakes, and doesn't worry about a small mishap dislodging his wing or rupturing a fuel line. My point is that each builder can either choose to be the guy with the better plane or the guy looking at it. It is a fee world, take your pick.-ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420823#420823 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
William, I think that's a great idea. I think it would be very helpful for builders to get an idea of what a certain set up may look like when it comes to Weight and Balance time. This afternoon I will try to scan my W&B sheet I made up for my Pilot's Manual and post it. It's nothing fancy and hand drawn, so no laughing! :-) Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420830#420830 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
From: Rick <lmforge(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Don, Would you include your fuselage length, wing LE position and axle location? This information would be much appreciated. Rick Schreiber Valparaiso, IN Sent from my iPad On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:38 AM, "Don Emch" wrote: > > William, > > I think that's a great idea. I think it would be very helpful for builders to get an idea of what a certain set up may look like when it comes to Weight and Balance time. This afternoon I will try to scan my W&B sheet I made up for my Pilot's Manual and post it. It's nothing fancy and hand drawn, so no laughing! :-) > > Don Emch > NX899DE > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420830#420830 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
From: "tkreiner" <tkreiner(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Terry, I just went over most of your questions with my EAA chapter here in the Houston area; where were you? Never mind... Since we don't know the vintage of your Smith torch, perhaps you should take it to your local welding supply house, and have them take a look. If the torch mixes gases within the handle - and not inside the tip itself - crush it in a vise and start anew with a torch that only mixes in the tip. Why, you ask? My best childhood friend lost a portion of his hand when a Smith torch from the 60's blew up while holding it - and it took him 2 years to regain 75% use of the hand... Assuming it's a tip - mixer, add check valves between the hoses and the torch handle - they are about $20 ea. and will prevent gases from mixing within the hoses and/or regulators. Due to the ability of oil to migrate into anything and everything, and the possibility of Oxygen and oil creating an explosion, everything on the torch should be washed down with fresh clean Acetone. Lowe's has it for cheap. If I were you, perhaps I'd even investigate having a pro clean the entire system for me. You haven't stated the size of your tanks, and there are numerous sizes available. If they are the really large ones (can't remember the size) there could be a demurrage charge against them without receipts stating ownership. Check into that when you go to a welding supply house. Generally, I tell my students and EAA guys that it's a lot cheaper to take the tanks and refill them prior to expiration of certification than to get stuck spending an extra $35 per tank to re-cert. So, know the date of your tanks and act accordingly. Even if you throw away $20 in a full tank of gas, you're better off than spending more to re-cert, and re-fill. Just my $.02 and 40 years of experience... -------- Tom Kreiner Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420833#420833 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2014
From: goffelectric(at)comcast.net
Subject: Fwd: Motor mount fittings
Guys, =C2- It will be awhile before I need to cover but I would like to know how every one covered this area around the motor mount brackets. The strips on each s ide of the bracket is 1/4" tall so it seems like it would be hard to make t he fabric around the bracket look good. Do you glue a piece of 1/4"=C2- w ood around the top on the bracket to keep it on the same level? =C2- Thanks, Keith Goff =C2- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Goff Electric" <goffelectric(at)comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:48:37 AM Subject: Motor mount fittings [image/jpeg:photo 1.JPG] [image/jpeg:photo 2.JPG] Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
You can use the bottles till empty safely. It's a matter of economics whether it's a good idea or not, not safety. Some places will charge you a prorate on the hydro cert date anyway, so no real reason to not use till empty even if it will put you past the cert date. Welding suppliers and user owned bottles is REALLY a random game. The hoses are sort of nebulous. I've got OLD hoses that are still great, though a little bit checked. I've got NEW ones that SUCK. Cracked BADLY and I threw them away months after I got them. If you do decide they need replacement, get the best american made ones you can find. The chinese ones just don't last at all. GREAT advice on the treatment of the torch and regulators. By the way, the regulators are probably good and USUALLY ARE rebuildable and preferrable to, again, imported ones. Most good welding suppliers will take them and forward to their local rebuilder. I think Victors and Smiths have a lifetime warranty, which means stuff that is now obsolete will get you half off retail at a place that honors the warranty. Half off retail is usually a tad cheaper than you can find online and helps your local supplier. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420835#420835 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Tom, Are the tips interchangeable, or do I need new ones as well if it is the type you mentioned? Thanks again for your advice. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420836#420836 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
I don't have all the exact data here, but hopefully somewhat useful. NX2RN, built by Dick N, is a short wood fuse, wing moved back 4 1/2 inches, A65 plane. The WB sheet he did showed the CG calculated at around 19.5 inches, with him in the plane, he's maybe 10 or 20 lbs heavier than I. So I flew it without checking. However, when it came time to teach my son to fly it, wasn't sure if it would be in balance with him being 50 plus pounds lighter than I. So I got GOOD digital race car scales, blocked the plane up level and checked it all empirically, ie with us in the plane to be sure. Turns out it was 19 inches with me, about 17.5 with Scott and VERY suprisingly 16.5 inches with ME in the FRONT cockpit. In other words, it showed to be safe soloing from the front! I really thought the plane was more finicky than it turned out to be. Though it's not real stable (ie doesn't return to original position after an upset - gust of wind, control input, etc - quickly), it does fly well and predictably. Not an incredibly easy plane to learn to fly, it does handle a variety of conditions well. Certainly handles more conditions than really needed, it's a fun fly plane, not a reliable get you there plane. It requires more headwork than pilot skills. I think it's best to NOT have trim in this plane, as you can't afford to not be constantly thinking about the condition of flight. It is a little like a jet, predictable and fundamentally easy. If you find yourself in a bad situation, the decision that got you there was (comparatively) long ago and you missed it. You do really have to be ahead of this plane to fly it safely. Wouldn't think that is the case at 60 mph... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420837#420837 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: cable guides
From: "dgaldrich" <dgaldrich(at)embarqmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Your choices are fairleads or pulleys. AC43-13 limits fairleads to an angle change that I don't have at my fingertips but it's like 3 or 5 degrees. Pulleys for anything else. AC 43-13 is not regulatory for homebuilts BUT it's where Mike's Uncle Tony got a LOT of his information and those who blatantly disregard it should rethink their life insurance options. Fairleads can be built from almost any material that won't abrade the cables. Hardwoods and plastic lead the choices. The easiest would be to call up your favorite supply store and ask for Piper Cub split plastic ones. They are easily replaced, pretty slippery, a bolt-on mount (like an Adel clamp without the rubber cushion -- a plus for tab mounting) is available, and have a proven record of working well with cables. I'm using them for the aileron cables within the wings and the rudder cables within the fuselage. They're a little pricey but ease of maintenance wins the battle. Dave Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420839#420839 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Cross strut size
From: "john francis" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Can anyone tell me what size the cross struts are that are attached to the stiffeners? John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420840#420840 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/crossstruts_113.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com>
Subject: W&B Spreadsheet (was CG vs Wheel Location..emergency situation)
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Pieters, If I can get a couple of hours, I will post the Excel spreadsheet that I made for calculating W&B on my Pietenpol. I'll need to modify it so that each builder can input the "constants" of their airplane (Fuselage length, wing position, etc), but once it is ready, people will be able to just plug in their data and calculate the CG easily, as well as see the effects of passenger weight, pilot weight, baggage compartment loading (if any) and fuel burn. William Wynne and I have had a few emails discussing such. As Gary Boothe said, William is raising good points and taking a lot of flak for it. Every pilot is supposed to know how to calculate weight & balance, and how to use the W&B envelope provided with any certificated airplane to determine whether or not their situation is inside the envelope. In my experience as an instructor, few remember how (if they ever knew once they passed their private pilot checkride). It is one of the things I do whenever I give a Biennial Flight Review (BFR) - I tell the pilot we are going to take his airplane, load the two of us, two friends of 210 and 165 lbs, and 100 lbs of luggage on a 600 mile trip in the winter (heavier clothes) and ask him how many fuel stops we'll need to make. If he doesn't start with the W&B envelope we spend quite a bit of time on that before we ever get in the airplane. There are a lot of people now building Pietenpols that are not yet licensed pilots, and have never had to develop proficiency in determining weight & balance, nor do they necessarily understand why it is so critical. An airplane with a center of gravity too far aft is simply uncontrollable, no matter how skilled the pilot. You older hands (particularly those with flying Pietenpols) don't need this information as much, but it never hurts to review it. I'll try to get that spreadsheet done in the next day or two. Of course, then I'll have to figure out how to post a spreadsheet on Matronics, or some kind of dropbox where people can download it. 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 Rick Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:49 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation Don, Would you include your fuselage length, wing LE position and axle location? This information would be much appreciated. Rick Schreiber Valparaiso, IN Sent from my iPad On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:38 AM, "Don Emch" wrote: > > William, > > I think that's a great idea. I think it would be very helpful for builders to get an idea of what a certain set up may look like when it comes to Weight and Balance time. This afternoon I will try to scan my W&B sheet I made up for my Pilot's Manual and post it. It's nothing fancy and hand drawn, so no laughing! :-) > > Don Emch > NX899DE > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420830#420830 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com>
Subject: Fwd: Motor mount fittings
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Keith, I modified the wooden strip that holds the fabric off the plywood to fit over and around the engine mount brackets as shown below: When the fabric went on, you could net tell where the engine mount bolts were, as shown below: Just make sure that you cover the bolt heads (and anything elese that the fabric might chafe against) with pinked edge tape or a pinked edge patch to protect the fabric. It's amazing to long alonside the fuselage in flight and see how much drumming takes place with the fabric. If left unreinforced, any chafing will quickly wear holes right through it. 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 goffelectric(at)comcast.net Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:56 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fwd: Motor mount fittings Guys, It will be awhile before I need to cover but I would like to know how everyone covered this area around the motor mount brackets. The strips on each side of the bracket is 1/4" tall so it seems like it would be hard to make the fabric around the bracket look good. Do you glue a piece of 1/4" wood around the top on the bracket to keep it on the same level? Thanks, Keith Goff _____ From: "Goff Electric" <goffelectric(at)comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:48:37 AM Subject: Motor mount fittings [image/jpeg:photo 1.JPG] [image/jpeg:photo 2.JPG] Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cross strut size
From: "curtdm(at)gmail.com" <curtdm(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
It's on the plans. Look to the right. ;) -------- Curt Merdan Flower Mound, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420844#420844 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_938.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cross strut size
From: "john francis" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Thanks Curt. -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420845#420845 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick N" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Tools That was a great assesment of the Piet. You do have to find the cruise rpm and the decent rpm and the climb rpm. These are more important than any trim controls. Then as you say stay ahead of the plane. Also listen closely to Will Wynne, I am very grateful Will is posting here. Dick N. ----- Original Message ----- From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:34 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation > > I don't have all the exact data here, but hopefully somewhat useful. > > NX2RN, built by Dick N, is a short wood fuse, wing moved back 4 1/2 > inches, A65 plane. > > The WB sheet he did showed the CG calculated at around 19.5 inches, with > him in the plane, he's maybe 10 or 20 lbs heavier than I. So I flew it > without checking. > > However, when it came time to teach my son to fly it, wasn't sure if it > would be in balance with him being 50 plus pounds lighter than I. > > So I got GOOD digital race car scales, blocked the plane up level and > checked it all empirically, ie with us in the plane to be sure. > > Turns out it was 19 inches with me, about 17.5 with Scott and VERY > suprisingly 16.5 inches with ME in the FRONT cockpit. In other words, it > showed to be safe soloing from the front! > > I really thought the plane was more finicky than it turned out to be. > > Though it's not real stable (ie doesn't return to original position after > an upset - gust of wind, control input, etc - quickly), it does fly well > and predictably. Not an incredibly easy plane to learn to fly, it does > handle a variety of conditions well. Certainly handles more conditions > than really needed, it's a fun fly plane, not a reliable get you there > plane. > > It requires more headwork than pilot skills. > > I think it's best to NOT have trim in this plane, as you can't afford to > not be constantly thinking about the condition of flight. It is a little > like a jet, predictable and fundamentally easy. If you find yourself in a > bad situation, the decision that got you there was (comparatively) long > ago and you missed it. You do really have to be ahead of this plane to > fly it safely. Wouldn't think that is the case at 60 mph... > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420837#420837 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Ya, me too! Awesome critical thinking. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420848#420848 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cross strut size
From: "curtdm(at)gmail.com" <curtdm(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
You're welcome. -------- Curt Merdan Flower Mound, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420850#420850 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Don Emch W&B Data, aka Cure for Insomnia
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Well just in case any of you are having a tough time falling asleep tonight.... or if you want to laugh at a very amateurish hand drawn Weight and Balance sheet.... here it is. For quick background. Essentially it is a "plans built" (according to Don Emch, Ha!) airframe. Long fuselage with plans built steel split axle gear. I followed the plans the best I could with the exception of brakes, small tailwheel, nose tank, slanting the cabanes back 3.5" and cheating slightly on the A-65 engine mount by extending it about 1". As far as I know that is about all I did. (Hopefully I can still sit on the Top Curmudgeon Board). According to my measurements here, my wing leading edge is 6" forward of the axle. Which if you look at the plans and note that I moved the wing back 3.5" then you'll see that the axle is located according to plans. I really think that moving the wing back is key for both weight and balance and being able to keep the axle at plans location while using brakes. A lot more is accomplished versus extending the engine mount. My seat, baggage, and fuel "arms" were derived by actually putting fuel, baggage and people in those locations while on the scales and working the math backwards to get accurate arm lengths. A couple of scenarios are given as samples in flight conditions too. You can see with me at about 185 lbs. and running the tank dry I approach the aft limit... but then I'll probably have a few other things on my mind at that point. Interestingly, It feels the nicest in flight when the C.G. is hovering around the 17" - 18" aft of leading edge area. I think that wing likes it there. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420853#420853 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_weight_and_balance_data_456.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Don Emch W&B Data, aka Cure for Insomnia
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
One more thing... As far as the brakes go, they are just 5" drum brakes. They will kinda hold for run up. A low run up while on pavement and a healthier run up if on grass. I've never felt the need to use them on landing. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420854#420854 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: Motor mount fittings
From: Goff Electric <goffelectric(at)comcast.net>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Thanks jack, great explanation and pictures. Keith Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:10 PM, "Jack Phillips" wr ote: > > Keith, > > I modified the wooden strip that holds the fabric off the plywood to fit o ver and around the engine mount brackets as shown below: > > > When the fabric went on, you could net tell where the engine mount bolts w ere, as shown below: > > > > Just make sure that you cover the bolt heads (and anything elese that the f abric might chafe against) with pinked edge tape or a pinked edge patch to p rotect the fabric. It=99s amazing to long alonside the fuselage in fl ight and see how much drumming takes place with the fabric. If left unreinf orced, any chafing will quickly wear holes right through it. > > 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 goffelectric(at)comcast.net > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:56 AM > To: Pietenpol List > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fwd: Motor mount fittings > > > > Guys, > > It will be awhile before I need to cover but I would like to know how ever yone covered this area around the motor mount brackets. The strips on each s ide of the bracket is 1/4" tall so it seems like it would be hard to make th e fabric around the bracket look good. Do you glue a piece of 1/4" wood aro und the top on the bracket to keep it on the same level? > > Thanks, > Keith Goff > > From: "Goff Electric" <goffelectric(at)comcast.net> > To: goffelectric(at)comcast.net > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:48:37 AM > Subject: Motor mount fittings > > > > > > [image/jpeg:photo 1.JPG] > > > > > > > [image/jpeg:photo 2.JPG] > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
From: "tkreiner" <tkreiner(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Terry, Generally, the tips will only fit a specific brand and/or series of torch. In case you haven't looked at torches lately, there a large number of victor knock offfs out there, but I dont know whether the tips are identical or if they fit. My victor set is 30+ yrs old and it never fails me. The hoses lasted 25 years, and it seems their life depends on how you care for them. On that note, if your hoses aren't oily, cracked, crazed, whatever, they are probably OK. Over the years i picked up every tip available for the torch including rosebud and cutting torch on ebay or used tool stores. As far as tanks gi, Tools is right, if your tank is full of gas its ok to keep it full beyond cert date. On a purely economic level, I jot down the tank dates and refill prior to expiration, whether theyre empty or full. I got burned with the $70 to recert along with the $40 refill charge, and i dont want to spend the extra for nothing. If the tank cert runs out at their shop, they recert as their business expense, and you dont pay for it. -------- Tom Kreiner Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420857#420857 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Tom and Tools, Many thanks for the information. I will take the torch over to the local welding supply on Monday and let them give me the good or bad news. Thanks again! -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420858#420858 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Don Emch W&B Data, aka Cure for Insomnia
From: airlion2(at)gmail.com
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Don,I have the jig now and in the process of figuring out how to make it 2 inches wider. Gardiner Sent from my iPad > On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:21 PM, "Don Emch" wrote: > > > Well just in case any of you are having a tough time falling asleep tonight.... or if you want to laugh at a very amateurish hand drawn Weight and Balance sheet.... here it is. > > For quick background. Essentially it is a "plans built" (according to Don Emch, Ha!) airframe. Long fuselage with plans built steel split axle gear. I followed the plans the best I could with the exception of brakes, small tailwheel, nose tank, slanting the cabanes back 3.5" and cheating slightly on the A-65 engine mount by extending it about 1". As far as I know that is about all I did. (Hopefully I can still sit on the Top Curmudgeon Board). According to my measurements here, my wing leading edge is 6" forward of the axle. Which if you look at the plans and note that I moved the wing back 3.5" then you'll see that the axle is located according to plans. I really think that moving the wing back is key for both weight and balance and being able to keep the axle at plans location while using brakes. A lot more is accomplished versus extending the engine mount. My seat, baggage, and fuel "arms" were derived by actually putting fuel, baggage and people in those loca! > tions while on the scales and working the math backwards to get accurate arm lengths. A couple of scenarios are given as samples in flight conditions too. You can see with me at about 185 lbs. and running the tank dry I approach the aft limit... but then I'll probably have a few other things on my mind at that point. > > Interestingly, It feels the nicest in flight when the C.G. is hovering around the 17" - 18" aft of leading edge area. I think that wing likes it there. > > Don Emch > NX899DE > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420853#420853 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_weight_and_balance_data_456.pdf > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
I've seen shops go both ways on the recert thing. USUALLY taking them in early does the trick. It's one of those things, pretty sure I've gotten by once in a while because I didn't mention the date at all... like argon a few weeks ago. Didn't get by with it with CO2 at another shop a few months before that. Believe it or not, simply how the bottle looks makes a huge difference. The guy at the front desk wouldn't take a bottle once because it was owned by a company now defunct... wouldn't hydro it, exchange it, nothing. And it was awful rusty looking. When at the dock exchanging a couple others, the guy asked about the one 02 bottle I wasn't exchanging, told him the story. He said wire wheel it, paint it blue and try again. I did, same guy, few months later didn't give it a second glance. Weird. So if one place gives you a hard time, try another. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420863#420863 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Don Emch W&B Data, aka Cure for Insomnia
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Can you just go to the outside of the angle iron? Would that get it close to where you wouldn't need to actually change the fixture? Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420864#420864 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
I think that my biggest concern at this point is the torch itself. So, what brand do you recommend? Buehler? Buehler? Anyone? Anyone? -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420865#420865 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Don Emch W&B Data, aka Cure for Insomnia
From: airlion2(at)gmail.com
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Thanks don, I will try that tomorrow, Gardiner Sent from my iPad > On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:08 PM, "Don Emch" wrote: > > > Can you just go to the outside of the angle iron? Would that get it close to where you wouldn't need to actually change the fixture? > > Don Emch > NX899DE > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420864#420864 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2014
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
--WW,=0A=0A"Your comments in the letter tell me you are making a mistake, and do not know it."- =0APerhaps. However, my plane is quite similar to Mike Cuy's plane. Same fuselage length, same engine, same fuel tank size, s ame fuel tank location, etc., etc.-After talking to him and flying in his plane, I-was confident in doing what he did as far as landing gear place ment. =0A=0A"Bluntly, no one needs to move the axle backward."=0AI never sa id the axel needs to be moved.=0A=0A"I could not tell from your website wha t engine you are using, but if is lighter than a 235 Lycoming or you weigh more than 110 pounds dressed, you are creating a plane that will have a ter rible aft CG location."=0AI would venture a guess that there are hundreds o f things that you could not tell about my plane,-solely from looking at m y website. That would include all the things that may, in fact, render a ve ry nice, as built, CG. =0A=0A"Consider ceasing to advise people on what is OK on CG." =0AI'm not advising anyone. I was directly asked a question, my answer was to explain what I did and why. =0A=0A"...but if you willfully ig nore the content of my W&B data, you will regret it."=0AAgain, perhaps. I a m not saying your intel. in not valid...as I stated in the original post, I think it wise for everyone to have that documentation on hand; (You're wel come) I just don't agree with the "Do it my way or else." feel of the comme nt.=0A=0A"You offer a lot of DVD's for sale for a guy who is yet to fly his plane."=0AOnly 8 DVDs. All covering how I am constructing my plane. It's a documentary series. If you would actually like to view one or more of my D VDs, I can hook you up.=0A=0AI appreciate your comments as much as I do com ments and suggestions by most on this list. I am very close to completion o f my plane. So far I am pleased with the outcome and confident in my proces ses. When finished, flown and proven, (or not) I intend to disclose a full debrief on the entire process...the good, the bad, the ugly. The right, the wrong, the better, the worse, etc.- =0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...swit ch seats.=0AMichael Perez=0APietenpol HINT Videos=0AKaretaker Aero=0Ahttp:/ /www.karetakeraero.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: glenschweizer(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Its been my experience the victor would get my recommendation. Accessories, tips etc. are readily available. Please stay away from the Asian crap. Harbor freight is good for many tools(including mig welders) but I've tried using their torches owned by a friend and they're trash. Glen Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:10 PM, "jarheadpilot82" wrote: > > > I think that my biggest concern at this point is the torch itself. So, what brand do you recommend? > > Buehler? Buehler? Anyone? Anyone? > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry Hand > Athens, GA > > USMC, USMCR, ATP > BVD DVD PDQ BBQ > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420865#420865 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: running lean
From: "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Timed the fuel flow in the 3-point attitude today. Filled a quart container in 21 seconds, so it's not fuel flow. Adjusted the damper blade in the air box to shut tightly when carb heat is off, then warmed up the engine and ran it up. It still will not take throttle above 1500 RPM without carb heat on, and will not run up to full static power without it. So it's not the carb heat box. I'm thinking more and more that it's an obstructed passageway or something in the carb. I'm rebuilding a core Stromberg and when it's ready, I'll swap it out with the one that's on the engine and we'll see if that's it. Meanwhile, I'm encouraged that the engine starts very readily and idles well. As soon as it's running right, it will be ready for annual. -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420873#420873 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location
From: Ryan Mueller <ryan(at)rmueller.org>
I am sure that of the over 1,000 words marketing your DVDs on your HINT videos page, the 30 that are tacked on to the end of the second paragraph: "These DVDs are a video log of the way I am building my plane and for entertainment only. None of the changes or modifications have been flight tested or proven" ....are fully read and understood by everyone purchasing your videos. Your customers assuredly have full realization of the fact that this is the first airplane you have ever built, that you are not an engineer, nor are you a pilot, and that these DVDs are not instructing them on how they should build their airplane; that this 12 and 3/4 hour, 8 DVD set that costs $70 more than the plans to build the airplane itself is solely intended as a documentary for entertainment purposes. Uh huh.... Ryan On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Michael Perez wrote: > -WW, > > "Consider ceasing to advise people on what is OK on CG." > I'm not advising anyone. I was directly asked a question, my answer was to > explain what I did and why. > > "You offer a lot of DVD's for sale for a guy who is yet to fly his plane." > Only 8 DVDs. All covering how I am constructing my plane. It's a > documentary series. If you would actually like to view one or more of my > DVDs, I can hook you up. > > I appreciate your comments as much as I do comments and suggestions by > most on this list. I am very close to completion of my plane. So far I am > pleased with the outcome and confident in my processes. When finished, > flown and proven, (or not) I intend to disclose a full debrief on the > entire process...the good, the bad, the ugly. The right, the wrong, the > better, the worse, etc. > > > Michael Perez > Pietenpol HINT Videos > Karetaker Aero > http://www.karetakeraero.com/ > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2014
From: santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: Motor mount fittings
Here is another idea=0A=0ASantiago ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation
Date: Mar 22, 2014
Attached is the spreadsheet I use for calculating CG on NX18235. It is an Excel 2007 file. I can enter any combination of weights and it spits out the CG location. Interesting to see how little the CG changes with varying fuel and passenger weights. The numbers briefly: Empty wt. 616 lbs Cabanes angled back approx. 3 1/2" from vertical Axle located 6 1/2" aft of the leading edge. This works well, NX18235 was built without brakes. It should be noted that this spreadsheet is unique for NX18235 only. Greg Cardinal Minneapolis ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA(at)aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:52 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: CG vs Wheels Location..emergency situation


March 15, 2014 - March 22, 2014

Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ni