Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:21 AM - Re: NC storms (Jack Phillips)
2. 04:26 AM - Re: Wood landing gear (Jack Phillips)
3. 04:57 AM - Re: Cabane attach points (Skip Gadd)
4. 12:30 PM - Re: Cabane attach points (Gene Rambo)
5. 05:06 PM - Thanks for the soldering help.... ()
6. 05:47 PM - Adjustable Trim (Ken & Lisa Rickards)
7. 05:57 PM - Re: Adjustable Trim (Jack Phillips)
8. 06:04 PM - Re: Adjustable Trim (DJ Vegh)
9. 06:21 PM - Re: Wood landing gear (Gene Rambo)
10. 06:26 PM - Re: Adjustable Trim (Isablcorky@aol.com)
11. 06:30 PM - in defense of the Corvair (Oscar Zuniga)
12. 07:12 PM - Re: What size soldering iron? (Christian Bobka)
13. 07:12 PM - Re: What size soldering iron? (Christian Bobka)
14. 08:39 PM - Re: in defense of the Corvair (DJ Vegh)
15. 08:44 PM - Re: Adjustable Trim (Owen Davies)
16. 08:46 PM - Re: in defense of the Corvair (del magsam)
17. 09:13 PM - Over- rated Convairs (John Dilatush)
18. 09:46 PM - Over-rated Corvairs (John Dilatush)
19. 09:47 PM - Re: Adjustable Trim (Gary Gower)
Message 1
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips@earthlink.net>
Hi Mike, Piet List.
Finally got power and phones back this morning, after being without since
Wednesday. We lost a lot of trees. Had about 3/4" of ice on top of 1-1/2"
of snow. We've got a generator and kerosene heaters so we were able to
survive and stay in the house, but our generator is too small to run the
water heater or the heat pump, or any but the smallest power tools. This
was the weekend I had scheduled my buddy with the TIG welder to come over
and weld my exhaust system. Gotta reschedule that one.
I did spend some of the time working on the Pietenpol. Got most of the
aileron cables run, and otherwise did a lot of little cleanup items in
preparation for covering.
It was really frustrating to have enough power to run the computer, but no
phones so I had no internet access. You don't realize how much you use
something like that until you lose it.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael D
Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: NC storms
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Jack Phillips-----it looks like a mess down there on the news. You guys ok
? Power outages, wrecks,
trees and power lines down, accidents. Whew. Hopefully the power stayed
on so and the roads were too
back to commute to work so you could work on your plane all day:)
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Mike C.
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Wood landing gear |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips@earthlink.net>
Thanks for the credit, Gene. To me, this was the single most difficult task
in the entire project. It took me over a month to figure out the angle
problem, so I'm glad I was able to pass my solution on to help you and
others.
I did essentially what you did, Gene. I did have my tailwheel in place and
mounted my axle (actually a "dummy" axle) through 2x4's clamped to the
fuselage and then built the struts and V blocks around that.
I have some pictures of the process that I can email to any that are
interested.
Jack
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
OK, I am home now with a glass of wine in hand. Before I start, I didn't
make any of this up, but was told about it by Jack Phillips, I believe. It
really works!!!!! Keep in mind, this is how I did it, not that it is THE
correct way or THE only way.
First, I positioned the fuselage. I did some measuring and looking over the
plans and located the proper position for the axle given my wheel size
(distance aft of the firewall and distance down from the upper longeron). I
discovered that I could position the lower ash blocks for the gear correctly
by placing the tailpost on the floor and clamping two 2x4's vertically to
the firewall. With the fuselage like this, the ash blocks rested on the
floor at the correct angle in relation to the fuselage. (Actually, I placed
the ash blocks on a piece of particle board, with a small scrap the same
thickness under the tailpost. This way, I could screw down small blocks to
hold the ash pieces in place, and could draw a center line and axle line on
the board.) A plumb bob off of the center of the firewall and a string
pulled from the tailpost gave my centerline so I could place the ash blocks
at the correct width. (If I was to do this again, I would take two 1x4's,
drill a 1-1/4" hole in both, run my axle tubing through the holes, and clamp
the boards to the sides of the fuselage so that the axle is positioned
properly and cannot move. Then the axle can rest on the ash blocks and the
tail on the floor at the proper angle)
I then marked the locations on the fuselage side where the side braces would
attach. I marked the front and rear side of both side braces. I taped four
pieces of string to the four marks right on the lower corner of the
fuselage. Tape the four strings to the outboard edge of the ash block in
their correct locations. Then, you can back up and sight down the strings.
You twist the ash block until all four strings line up. What you have done
is make the outboard faces of the side braces (which, of course, are flat)
line up perfectly. They also, by chance, point directly toward the
tailpost.
With the strings pulled tight, you can take an angle measuring tool and
measure the angles inboard/outboard and fore/aft for the angle cuts. Using
a miter chop saw, the angles are a breeze to cut (except that the rear leg
is too flat an angle to cut on the saw, which only goes up to 90 degrees and
you have to do some fancy math and use a wedge block to make it, but you'll
figure it out) Using short pieces of your wood, make the angle cuts until
the piece will fit and line up with the strings. Then clamp the ends
together with a piece in the middle for length and you have your pattern! I
only did one side and made the mirror image for the opposite.
The more I write, the more I realize I sound like a raving lunatic, but
believe me, it is much easier than it sounds. If I can clear any of it up,
please ask.
Gene
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Cabane attach points |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Skip Gadd" <csfog@earthlink.net>
Ted,
I built a couple fuselages to the F&G plans, there are several differences
that you may want to change if your fuse was built to these plans.
One difference is the vertical distance from top to bottom longeron is 25",
this is not a problem unless you were going to half a 4X8 peice of ply to
cover the side.
The other differences I decided to improve, as in 1934 improved plans.
The diagonal in the pilot pit goes the wrong way, that is opposite to the
34 plans.
The long gusset's at the lower longeron aft of the pilot pit are missing on
the F&G plans as is the large gusset at the tail post.
As was noted the F&G fuse is about 2" shorter than the 34 plans fuse and
almost all of the difference is in the first bay, this means you have to be
extra dillagent building the aft of CG part of the fuse lighter because you
have a 2" shorter lever forward of CG to balance the tail. Probably means
the engine will have to be atleast 2" further forward.
Hope this helps
Skip
> [Original Message]
> From: Ted Brousseau <nfn00979@naples.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 12/6/02 11:03:59 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cabane attach points
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau"
<nfn00979@naples.net>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
--- Skip + Cinda Gadd
--- csfog@earthlink.net
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Cabane attach points |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
Also, keep in mind that the F&G plans do not have the ash pieces across the
floorboard between the gear attach points, but only a 1x1 piece. This only
matters if you are building the spreader-bar "Jenny" type landing gear. You
have to use onlt the 1x1 if you are going to build the fittings to the
plans.
Gene Rambo
----- Original Message -----
From: Skip Gadd <csfog@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Cabane attach points
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Skip Gadd" <csfog@earthlink.net>
>
> Ted,
> I built a couple fuselages to the F&G plans, there are several differences
> that you may want to change if your fuse was built to these plans.
> One difference is the vertical distance from top to bottom longeron is
25",
> this is not a problem unless you were going to half a 4X8 peice of ply to
> cover the side.
> The other differences I decided to improve, as in 1934 improved plans.
> The diagonal in the pilot pit goes the wrong way, that is opposite to the
> 34 plans.
> The long gusset's at the lower longeron aft of the pilot pit are missing
on
> the F&G plans as is the large gusset at the tail post.
> As was noted the F&G fuse is about 2" shorter than the 34 plans fuse and
> almost all of the difference is in the first bay, this means you have to
be
> extra dillagent building the aft of CG part of the fuse lighter because
you
> have a 2" shorter lever forward of CG to balance the tail. Probably means
> the engine will have to be atleast 2" further forward.
> Hope this helps
> Skip
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Ted Brousseau <nfn00979@naples.net>
> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: 12/6/02 11:03:59 PM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cabane attach points
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau"
> <nfn00979@naples.net>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --- Skip + Cinda Gadd
> --- csfog@earthlink.net
>
>
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Thanks for the soldering help.... |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
This has been great!!
Thanks VERY much for all the very helpful suggestions. I just love the way I get
to learn new things with everyone's help on my Piet project!
I've tried some sheet metal forming and some soldering and have a LONG way to go.......but
I'm in the right track now thanks to everyone's pointers.
Jim in Plano TX
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914@cogeco.ca>
Has anyone installed adjustable trim on their Piet or GN1? If so, was it from
plans, or, parden the pun, did you just wing it? looking for any details before
I get going on my elevators.
Ken
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips@earthlink.net>
HI Ken,
I installed a spring type system similar to the one Mike Cuy designed. I
haven't flown yet so can't say how it works, but Mike uses his and has good
results with it. It consists of a pair of springs that pull on the elevator
bellcrank. Moving a lever changes the tension on the springs, thus changing
the loading on the stick.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken & Lisa
Rickards
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Adjustable Trim
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ken & Lisa Rickards"
<KL0914@cogeco.ca>
Has anyone installed adjustable trim on their Piet or GN1? If so, was it
from plans, or, parden the pun, did you just wing it? looking for any
details before I get going on my elevators.
Ken
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Adjustable Trim |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper@imagedv.com>
I plan on using a less conventional trim system... not an external tab but
internal "stick force reducer" using bungee and high power electric servo.
I saw a drawing of one at some point cant find it now.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914@cogeco.ca>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Adjustable Trim
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ken & Lisa Rickards"
<KL0914@cogeco.ca>
>
> Has anyone installed adjustable trim on their Piet or GN1? If so, was it
from plans, or, parden the pun, did you just wing it? looking for any
details before I get going on my elevators.
>
> Ken
>
>
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 <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wood landing gear |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
Just because the tailwheel has shock absorbing capabilities, whatever the
design, I opted to do the rigging with it off just so nothing can move.
Other than that, it is the same.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips <jackphillips@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wood landing gear
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips"
<jackphillips@earthlink.net>
>
> Thanks for the credit, Gene. To me, this was the single most difficult
task
> in the entire project. It took me over a month to figure out the angle
> problem, so I'm glad I was able to pass my solution on to help you and
> others.
>
> I did essentially what you did, Gene. I did have my tailwheel in place
and
> mounted my axle (actually a "dummy" axle) through 2x4's clamped to the
> fuselage and then built the struts and V blocks around that.
>
> I have some pictures of the process that I can email to any that are
> interested.
>
> Jack
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Adjustable Trim |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
Pieters,
Several days ago Tom Travis was over here in Shreveport from Dallas and we
were looking over my Piet at Lucien Field. We were casually dicussing a few
little changes I made, not severe. I pointed out to Tom that if I had any
part to do over again I would try to come up with a ground adjustable
horizontal stabilizer. It could be easily achieved by making the fuse side
rudder hinge adjustable (lower one). That way you could avoid the bending of
the stab as we were required to do. Just a thought but strong enough that I
thought it needed mentioning.
Corky still in La
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | in defense of the Corvair |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
John writes:
>I have heard that he is running direct drive at a fairly high rpm
Yes, that's correct. There has only been one Corvair flown with a redrive
recently (the Rinker gearbox, on Dave Stroud's formerly Subaru-powered
Christavia), and in the normal application the engine is run direct drive at
between 3000 and 3400 RPM depending on prop used. But William advertises
the engine output as 100 HP @ 3200 RPM and continuous output of 90 HP @ 3000
RPM, torque of 160 ft-lb @ 2800 RPM.
>but where do the curves show the horsepower at THIS rpm, not at the
>top of the curve?
For one, they are posted on Mark Langford's website at
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/specs.html if you'll scroll down a
bit you'll find the graph for the stock 2700 cc engine with OT-10 cam, which
is what William was running. The plots are from a program that simulates
operation, but have been found to be quite accurate and validate William's
claimed output values. William did not ever put his engine on a dyno... his
numbers (published in his manual and on the website long before Mark ever
ran the simulation on Dyno) were based on measured thrust and static RPM
with known props. Anyway, you'll find the cited values of HP and torque on
this graph as close as my eye can see 'em, anyway.
>I for one, would like to see the actual curves published on his web
>site, not just his claims.
There has been talk of putting the engine on a dyno and generating actual
curves, but it hasn't been done yet.
>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 don't believe he's overrated its output at the actual RPMs used to turn a
prop. He flew the airplane for quite some time and demonstrated its
performance, and has further demonstrated the engine's claims time and time
again turning the same pitch and diameter prop turned by known engines to
measure thrust and static RPM to directly compare the engines. Obviously he
can't use the exact same prop because the Corvair turns counter to the
direction of Lyc/Continentals, but using the same manufacturer's prop with
same pitch and diameter.
>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.
Has this happened to someone you know? And what is an "over-rated" Corvair?
An airframe designed and flown with a 100HP Lycoming will never know any
difference if it's flown with a 100HP Corvair or with a 100HP Subaru. It
has to be matched with the correct prop, but that's part of the equation
whether we're talking Subaru, Corvair, Lyc, or Warner, isn't it?
>Probably would spend the rest of his days bad mouthing auto
>conversions!
And that's what we're trying to avoid.
>I would not pit my 111 hp engine against a 145 hp engine.
Darn. I still think you'd give him a run for his money.
>And it is actual, not guessed at, horsepower that will determine the
>rate of climb.
Yep. There is no fooling actual performance. Paper and calculations are
one thing, but real-world performance can't be faked.
>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!
Well, alright!!!!!!! Now we've got something fun to look forward to when
guys like D.J. gets his in the air. Anybody else with Corvair power willing
to toe the line with John? I wish William's Piet were still alive today,
but the airframe is toast (the engine is alive and well, though). Even
though you claim your Subaru produces 111 HP, we wouldn't handicap you
against our 110 HP ;o)
Guys, this is fun. This is what makes for good hangar talk and for
challenging competitions at fly-ins. And like I said, the proof will be in
the pudding no matter what the numbers say.
Oscar Ziga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | What size soldering iron? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Jim,
The radiator shops all solder sheet metal. They have a hot table that takes
the whole radiator up to near the melting point of solder and then the iron
or propane or even acetylene torch does the rest.
That is why terneplate solders so nicely because it is lead coated steel.
Galvanized should be solderable or you could use brass sheet.
Also, roofing guys that do the copper might be able to solder as well. My
cousin does in NJ.
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Markle
Subject: Pietenpol-List: What size soldering iron?
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim
Markle"<jim_markle@mindspring.com>
OK, I've called EVERY sheet metal/HVAC shop in Dallas and everyone uses a
flame, NO ONE solders sheet metal!!!
And I want to solder my 26ga center section fuel tank, basically the way
Larry
Williams (and others) have in the past.....
And I'm pretty sure my 30w pencil iron ain't gonna cut it!
Anyone with experience doing this have a recommendation? Will a 120w iron
do
the job? Do I need one of those big 300w + soldering irons?
Jim in Plano
(anxious to get back to cutting/gluing WOOD....I'm tired of that "machine
oil"
smell in my WOODWORKING SHOP!!!)
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | What size soldering iron? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
Roofers use terneplate.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Hubbard,
Eugene
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: What size soldering iron?
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
Jim,
Where did you find a source of ternplate? Is that what you're using? If
not, make sure whatever you have will solder well. I may be wrong, but my
memory is that it's hard to solder galvanized sheet.
If I had to solder something large like that, I'd use a propane torch, like
in plumbing. Solid-core tin/lead solder and lots of paste flux. That way I
would KNOW that everything got good and hot, and that the solder would flow
and coat everything evenly.
After that, clamp up everything just like you were welding it, but you don't
get to fill gaps with solder--it has to fit. Also, remember that everything
you solder up has to have flat face-to-face contact--remember that the
solder joint doesn't have anywhere near the strength of the underlying
metal--there has to be lots of contact area. I expect that the old (from
the '30s and '40s) construction handbooks have some useful information on
the subject.
I toyed with the idea of soldering up my tanks out of copper sheet
(available and fairly inexpensive), but finally decided that I didn't want
to take that big of an excursion from the main project. On the other hand,
I don't have my tank back from the welder yet, and a bit traditional-looking
tank is sort of appealing.
Let us know how it turns out!
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Markle [mailto:jim_markle@mindspring.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: What size soldering iron?
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim
Markle"<jim_markle@mindspring.com>
OK, I've called EVERY sheet metal/HVAC shop in Dallas and everyone uses a
flame, NO ONE solders sheet metal!!!
And I want to solder my 26ga center section fuel tank, basically the way
Larry
Williams (and others) have in the past.....
And I'm pretty sure my 30w pencil iron ain't gonna cut it!
Anyone with experience doing this have a recommendation? Will a 120w iron
do
the job? Do I need one of those big 300w + soldering irons?
Jim in Plano
(anxious to get back to cutting/gluing WOOD....I'm tired of that "machine
oil"
smell in my WOODWORKING SHOP!!!)
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: in defense of the Corvair |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper@imagedv.com>
I'm up for that challenge! My Corvair is being built to strict WW
standards. It "should" put out 110 hp when it's all said and done.
now... just gimme a year or so to finish the plane :-)
DJ Vegh
www.raptoronline.com
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
>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!
Well, alright!!!!!!! Now we've got something fun to look forward to when
guys like D.J. gets his in the air
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 <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Adjustable Trim |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Owen Davies" <owen5819@adelphia.net>
Ken Rickards asked:
> Has anyone installed adjustable trim on their Piet or GN1? If so, was it
from plans, or, parden the pun, did you just wing it? looking for any
details before I get going on my elevators.
I can't swear to this, but have a vague memory of once seeing a Piet with a
small accessory vane on each side of the fuselage, under the horizontal
stab, like they used on the early T-craft. Could be just something I
thought of doing myself--I've been pondering a Piet for a long time!--but it
ought to work.
Owen Davies
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: in defense of the Corvair |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: del magsam <farmerdel@rocketmail.com>
Oh, oh... I think your goose is cooked. but you still
have time to back out before these hot rod vairs take
to the air....
--- DJ Vegh <aircamper@imagedv.com> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh"
> <aircamper@imagedv.com>
>
> I'm up for that challenge! My Corvair is being
> built to strict WW
> standards. It "should" put out 110 hp when it's all
> said and done.
>
> now... just gimme a year or so to finish the plane
> :-)
>
> DJ Vegh
> www.raptoronline.com
>
>
> From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
>
> >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!
>
> Well, alright!!!!!!! Now we've got something fun to
> look forward to when
> guys like D.J. gets his in the air
>
>
> 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
> <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> generous
> _->
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
>
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel@rocketmail.com"
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Over- rated Convairs |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
OK fellows,
Bring 'em on, your 100+ hp Corvairs. Any time, any place!
Also bring your scales so that we can have equal gross weights. Same airport,
same time, climb to 10,000 feet above sea level. Altimeters to be yellow tagged,
set to same barometric pressure and three judges in a chase plane.
Brodhead next year perhaps?
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida, Colorado
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Over-rated Corvairs |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
Oscar,
A simulated set of curves comparing one engine's performance, even using the same
prop does not give you the standard measurement for horsepower. It only gives
you a set of comparative values. What if the engine that you are using for
comparison has over or understated it's horsepower? Or perhaps the comparison
engine is developing it's stated horsepower at a different rpm? You are only
comparing one engine against another.
There is only one way to measure horsepower and that is on a dyno (water brake
or other) which will measure the foot pounds of torque produced by the engine
at different rpm's using a wide open throttle setting. Then one can use the standard
formula which is: Horsepower torque times rpm and this result divided
by 5252. This result has to be corrected for standard temperature and pressure
then. Only when this is done, can the horsepower and torque curves be plotted.
When I was designing and racing sport cars, many many years ago, I had a dyno in
the shop and tested a fair number of engines. I found that in some cases even
the manufacturers overstated their outputs (a couple were conservative, probably
to fool the competition). It is only human nature to exaggerate the numbers
a little bit if the product is their pride and joy.
I am only saying that Wynne's numbers don't add up, or else he would actually have
a better rate of climb than he says. A Corvair is a good engine, no question
about that, it simply needs to be presented to the users in a thoughtful and
well documented manner.
John
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Adjustable Trim |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Yes I also saw it in a EAA Experimenter... a few years ago, in the
article where they show strange (maybe not the correct word) things in
S&F and Oshkosh gaderings.
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Owen Davies <owen5819@adelphia.net> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Owen Davies"
> <owen5819@adelphia.net>
>
> Ken Rickards asked:
>
> > Has anyone installed adjustable trim on their Piet or GN1? If so,
> was it
> from plans, or, parden the pun, did you just wing it? looking for any
> details before I get going on my elevators.
>
> I can't swear to this, but have a vague memory of once seeing a Piet
> with a
> small accessory vane on each side of the fuselage, under the
> horizontal
> stab, like they used on the early T-craft. Could be just something I
> thought of doing myself--I've been pondering a Piet for a long
> time!--but it
> ought to work.
>
> Owen Davies
>
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|