---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 12/07/02: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:24 AM - Re: Cabane attach points (DJ Vegh) 2. 05:26 AM - Re: Wheels-Tires (DJ Vegh) 3. 05:42 AM - Re: Cabane attach points (flyboy_120@webtv.net (Ed G.)) 4. 08:27 AM - Re: Cabane attach points (Ted Brousseau) 5. 08:35 AM - 65HP climb rate (Oscar Zuniga) 6. 02:12 PM - Re: 65HP climb rate (John Dilatush) 7. 02:41 PM - Re: 65HP climb rate (Mike Hardaway) 8. 07:49 PM - Re: 65HP climb rate (John Dilatush) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:24:40 AM PST US From: "DJ Vegh" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cabane attach points --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" what you do it cut a notch to allow the inside cabane fittings to slide in and attach. You actually end up cutting through the cross sticks completely. Then once the plates are installed you make an "L" bracket from some .040 steel that attaches the cross stick to the sides to stiffen it all back up again. I just did this to my GN-1 last week. Works great! I can snap a pic or two if you'd like to see. DJ Vegh www.raptoronline.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Brousseau" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cabane attach points > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" > > I am building a short fuselage Pietenpol. I am getting ready to install my > lower cabane fittings on the fuselage. Here is my question. I assume the > fittings a bolted through the top longeron and the strut on each side. On > top of these are 1/8" ply stiffners with cross struts. My cross struts meet > the longeron exactly where the upright strut does too. Is that how others > did too? If so, do you cut the cross struts at each end so the cabane > fitting can be bolted on? > > On a slightly (but maybe the real problem) different note. I bought this > fuselage partially completed. It came with plans. I have been working on > everything but the fuselage since. I just pulled some measurements and > compare them to the plans. They don't all match. I have fuselage plans #1 > dated 1-19-33. The dimension from the front of the firewall to the #3 > upright strut is 14 1/2" on the plans but only 12" on my fuselage. The rest > of the stations seem to more or less match. I am now wondering if I > shouldn't have a different plan for at least the fuselage? Maybe that would > also solve the question I posed above. > > Thanks, > > Ted Brousseau > Naples, FL > Where it finally has started to cool down. > > This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit . ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:26:57 AM PST US From: "DJ Vegh" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels-Tires --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" I got my wheels brakes and tires from AS&S. They are 5x5 Groves with the heavy duty calipers. Basically they are Cleveland Clones. They look beautiful ... silver powdercoated and the calipers are milled aluminum. sharp looking. Price was about $580 I think... spendy but damn I like 'em! DJ Vegh www.raptoronline.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels-Tires > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com > > In a message dated 12/5/02 9:21:22 PM Central Standard Time, BARNSTMR@aol.com > writes: > > << Hello Chuck Gantzer, > > How's your Piet flying? > > Hey I am finally getting back to work on my project. Finally found a place > to work on it here in TX. Please send me the supplier source for the wheels > and tires you used on your Piet. What did you pay? What was the assembled > weight for each? > > Happy Holidays. > Terry B. >> > > Hey Terry !! > It's great to hear you're getting back in to building your plane !! Remember > the day you helped me start covering my wing? If it wasn't for your help, my > wing wouldn't have turned out as good as it did. Thank You !! She's flying > pretty good, but the engine has been the scurge of the project. As well as > it just doesn't climb as well as I had hoped, and I'm in the process of > re-powering 'er with a Continental A65. The supplier and source for my > wheels was a guy out at Benton, that put different brakes on his Aercoupe, > and they were free !! Couldn't argue about the price. As for the type and > weight, I keep all that info in my construction log book: > Wheels - Goodyear 6.00 X 6 pt#530659 cap. 1200 lbs > Wheel Bearings - Timken #13889 > Tires - Titan Tube Type - 8.00 X 6 4 ply, max infla. 24 psi Turf Glide, > from Wicks; I started out running 10 psi, but now I run closer to 15 > psi. > Hub Caps - AS&S Economy Wheel Cover 6.00 X 6 pt#06-03710 > The weight of each wheel / tire combo, is about 12 1/2 pounds. > > Chuck Gantzer > NX770CG > > This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:16 AM PST US From: flyboy_120@webtv.net (Ed G.) Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cabane attach points --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: flyboy_120@webtv.net (Ed G.) Ted my 1932 Flying & Glider manual shows 12 1/2" to the thrird upright so your fuse must have been built to the earlier plans. there are 1/4" differences in two other bays and the reat looks the same. Ed ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:27:22 AM PST US From: "Ted Brousseau" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cabane attach points --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" Thanks, I never thought to pull out those plans and take a look. Maybe I better start rereading those articles too. Been winging it long enough without reading the instructions. . Guess it's a guy thing. I was kind of on autopilot building the wings. Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed G." Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cabane attach points > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: flyboy_120@webtv.net (Ed G.) > > Ted my 1932 Flying & Glider manual shows 12 1/2" to the thrird > upright so your fuse must have been built to the earlier plans. there > are 1/4" differences in two other bays and the reat looks the same. > Ed > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:35:46 AM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65HP climb rate --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" John writes: >we would predict a rate of climb of 1056 fpm! >Yet he gets only max rate of climb of 700 fpm and sometimes less >This might indicate that his horsepower ratings are somewhat >optimistic. Well, I didn't want to over-inflate the claims that William makes, but they are there for the world to see on his website at http://www.flycorvair.com. Based on the actual, measured static RPM and actual, measured thrust that William's plane was getting, it developed more like 110 HP. The point was, as Mike Cuy explained, you need to know your plane's limitations based on what engine you have bolted to the firewall because there are things you just can't do with 65 or less horsepower up there. I will also point out that the climb rates that William stated were with passengers, in the busy traffic pattern at SNF. You really don't want to be climbing out at best climb in traffic or with passengers if there aren't any obstacles to clear, due to reduced visibility over the nose and speeds nearer to stall. Given that the plane was not being operated at best climb, the stated climbs were pretty good. William quoted some climb numbers higher than this to me but I didn't use them in my post because the point was made without them. To the rest of the folks on this list, be aware that John is running a turbocharged Subaru with a redrive, so his Piet will have truly stellar climb performance and if I were him I would challenge that Warner-powered Piet to a climb contest! And if I may again state my innermost feelings about the quintessential Piet image, it is of a plane that has a radiator out in front and an inline Ford 4-cylinder driving the prop! Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:12:31 PM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65HP climb rate --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65HP climb rate > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" ++++++++++++++++++++ Oscar, I don't mean that :YOU have made these claims for horsepower and performance, I know that these are the figures that Wynne comes up with. To me, they just don't check out. I have heard that he is running direct drive at a fairly high rpm, but where do the curves show the horsepower at THIS rpm, not at the top of the curve? I't just that his quoted performance and claimed horsepower numbers don't add up. I for one, would like to see the actual curves published on his web site, not just his claims. I have always felt that a Corvair engine is a fine engine and very suited to use in a airplane, and I would certainly not hesitate to use one. But I don't believe that one in his enthusiasm for the engine should overrate it's output at the ACTUAL RPM'S that are used to turn a prop in a plane. I would worry that someone not too knowlegable would attempt to put an over-rated Covair into an air frame that is designed for, say a 100 hp Lycoming and then find that the performance is disappointing . Probably would spend the rest of his days bad mouthing auto conversions! As for your suggestion that I would challenge anyone to a climb contest, I would not pit my 111 hp engine against a 145 hp engine. There is no question that the 145 hp engine would win! Both engines are working at their peak power with props designed for the engine at that rpm and properly matched to the airframe. And it is actual, not guessed at, horsepower that will determine the rate of climb. But put my plane against a CLAIMED 110 hp Corvair Pietenpol and I'll be willing to bet the farm that my plane would win! John +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > John writes: > > >we would predict a rate of climb of 1056 fpm! > >Yet he gets only max rate of climb of 700 fpm and sometimes less > >This might indicate that his horsepower ratings are somewhat > >optimistic. > > Well, I didn't want to over-inflate the claims that William makes, but they > are there for the world to see on his website at http://www.flycorvair.com. > Based on the actual, measured static RPM and actual, measured thrust that > William's plane was getting, it developed more like 110 HP. The point was, > as Mike Cuy explained, you need to know your plane's limitations based on > what engine you have bolted to the firewall because there are things you > just can't do with 65 or less horsepower up there. I will also point out > that the climb rates that William stated were with passengers, in the busy > traffic pattern at SNF. You really don't want to be climbing out at best > climb in traffic or with passengers if there aren't any obstacles to clear, > due to reduced visibility over the nose and speeds nearer to stall. Given > that the plane was not being operated at best climb, the stated climbs were > pretty good. William quoted some climb numbers higher than this to me but I > didn't use them in my post because the point was made without them. > > To the rest of the folks on this list, be aware that John is running a > turbocharged Subaru with a redrive, so his Piet will have truly stellar > climb performance and if I were him I would challenge that Warner-powered > Piet to a climb contest! And if I may again state my innermost feelings > about the quintessential Piet image, it is of a plane that has a radiator > out in front and an inline Ford 4-cylinder driving the prop! > > Oscar Zuniga > San Antonio, TX > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 02:41:22 PM PST US From: Mike Hardaway Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65HP climb rate --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike Hardaway John, That 145Hp Warner may take you in the first 5000' but your next 10,000' would help him tell time better (clean his clock). Your turbo changes a lot of things, as your (very trustworthy) performance figures out of your Rocky Mountain lair indicate. Mike John Dilatush wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" > Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65HP climb rate > As for your suggestion that I would challenge anyone to a climb contest, I > would not pit my 111 hp engine against a 145 hp engine. There is no > question that the 145 hp engine would win! Both engines are working at > their peak power with props designed for the engine at that rpm and properly > matched to the airframe. And it is actual, not guessed at, horsepower that > will determine the rate of climb. But put my plane against a CLAIMED 110 hp > Corvair Pietenpol and I'll be willing to bet the farm that my plane would > win! > > John ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:48 PM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65HP climb rate --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hardaway" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65HP climb rate > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike Hardaway +++++++++++++++++++ Mike, Thanks for your kind words. I am still debugging and testing the plane, only have about 25 hrs on it so all the performance figures are not yet complete. I can tell you this though: All numbers are at a gross weight of 1073 (aprox) lbs: Rate of climb from 10 to 11,000 ft - in excess of 1100 fpm. From 11 to 12,000 ft still greater than 1000 fpm I can pull 43 inches of manifold pressure at 10,000'. Have had the plane to 14,000' and was still climbing strongly, got too cold to record any more numbers. Cruises at 26 inches and 70mph indicated at 10,000' This equates to about 4200 engine rpm and 1787 prop rpm true air speed is about 82 mph Take off is startling, can really feel the push in my back, onlookers say the plane is off the paved runway and climbing strongly in less than 600 ft. Fuel consumption is about 5 gph, maybe a little less. At this point, the plane is performing about like a 180 hp Super Cub at this altitude and I am most pleased with it. Added a tow hook today. Think I'll wait 'til spring before doing any more serious testing. John +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > John, > That 145Hp Warner may take you in the first 5000' but your next 10,000' would > help him tell time better (clean his clock). Your turbo changes a lot of > things, as your (very trustworthy) performance figures out of your Rocky > Mountain lair indicate. > Mike > > John Dilatush wrote: > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65HP climb rate > > > As for your suggestion that I would challenge anyone to a climb contest, I > > > would not pit my 111 hp engine against a 145 hp engine. There is no > > question that the 145 hp engine would win! Both engines are working at > > their peak power with props designed for the engine at that rpm and properly > > matched to the airframe. And it is actual, not guessed at, horsepower that > > will determine the rate of climb. But put my plane against a CLAIMED 110 hp > > Corvair Pietenpol and I'll be willing to bet the farm that my plane would > > win! > > > > John > >