Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:25 AM - Re: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. (Weights) (kirk)
2. 08:59 AM - Re: Continental 65 (ZigoDan@aol.com)
3. 10:38 AM - Re:White Ash (catdesigns@juno.com)
4. 10:57 AM - flight testing at gross (Oscar Zuniga)
5. 10:58 AM - Re:White Ash (kirk)
6. 03:33 PM - Latex Paint UV Test (The Huizenga's)
7. 05:21 PM - Re: does anyone really test their Piet at full gross? (Jim Malley)
8. 05:25 PM - Re: Continental 65 (Les Schubert)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. (Weights) |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: kirk <kirkh@unique-software.com>
I second this weighing. I did the same a while back and was right
around 70lbs (minus the instrument panels and firewall), but with the
extended fuselage.
Kirk
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
>
>Alex and Group,
>
>Today we weighed the wooden Pietenpol fuselage using an old
>bathroom scale and it seems to be about 70 pounds complete
>with turtle deck, fairings, seats, instrument panels and firewall.
>
>Spruce and birch plywood was used (except for the seat bottoms
>which were mahogany plywood). Ash crosspieces at the landing
>gear/ lift strut attachment locations are in place. This fuselage faith-
>fully follows the 1933 short fuselage plans and is varnished. The
>workmanship is good.
>
>One of these days I'll calculate the weight of a steel tube fuselage
>using weight per foot figures for the different tubing sizes. Then I'll
>estimate the weight of seat supports and stuff like that to come up
>with a comparable figure for the steel fuselage.
>
>So figure on about 70 pounds for the wood in a typical Piet fuselage
>ready for metal fittings, etc. and you will be reasonably close.
>
>Graham Hansen
>( In Camrose, Alberta, Canada---where it is COLD today.)
>
>
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: | Re: Continental 65 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: ZigoDan@aol.com
Some one wrote
"Chuck and the rest of you: one thing about the hard chrome cylinders you
should
know. Hard Chrome is porous and provides NO additional corrosion protection."
I believe this incorrect because of my experience engine parts. Once I
bought a project that had been left out in the rain and weather, four
cylinders had been removed, two were chromed, two were not. The plain steel
cylinders were junk, the chromed cylinder were rust free in the bore, the
only rust was on the outside, and on the unprotected flange. Just thought I
might pass this along, so you guys with chrome would not worry to much.
Dan
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: catdesigns@juno.com
I have seen Oak used in place of the White Ash on several planes. Check with a
local wood working club or supplier and see if they know of a local wood that
compares to ash. You don't need to use ash, you just need something with similar
properties to ash. I know I saw a recent airplane magazine that had an article
on substituting wood (I think it was Custom Planes magazine. Any one else
see this?).
Chris
Sacramento, CA
---------- "rod wooller" <rodwooller@hotmail.com> writes:
From: "rod wooller" <rodwooller@hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: White Ash
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "rod wooller" <rodwooller@hotmail.com>
Group,
I am nearly ready to join the two fuselage sides together and note that the
plans call for two floor cross-braces of white ash where the landing gear
locates. ( I will be using the cub style gear ).
I can't find a supplier of white ash locally and was wondering if there are
alternatives that can be used successfully. ( I can get oak and native
hardwoods).
Thanks,
Rod Wooller
Chidlow
Australia
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
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: | flight testing at gross |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Walt;
I have never test-flown a homebuilt. However, Marvin Barnard, the designer
and builder of the prototype M-19 "Flying Squirrel", tested his airplane to
the full limits of its design gross using sandbag ballast and other weights
properly secured. During the flight test phase he moved (and secured) the
weights around to simulate loading at the forward and aft limits of C.G.,
approaching each limit carefully and noting changes in flight
characteristics.
Call it personal preference, but in my mind I would like to know how my
airplane handles in all areas of its flight envelope and I intend to do
that. Doing that under controlled conditions, during flight test ops, is
the best time, because more than likely the day will come that you will have
your plane at a fly-in and somebody rich and famous like Paul Poberezny will
take a shine to your plane and ask for a flight. You'll do a quick mental
check and determine that with the fuel onboard, you'll be near or at gross
and you sure don't want to turn down Mr. Poberezny so you'll want to know
that the plane is a little different on the controls at full gross, or
whatever the case... rather than find out in uh-oh mode that it's heavy on
elevator in the flare, or whatever the case. You'll want to make a squeaker
landing with Paul in that front 'pit, too.
I'd say go for it with the dummy ballast. It might keep your "ash" out of a
crack sometime ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: kirk <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Try http://www.grizzlyoutlet.com/ go to Wood Products and then to
Wood (Lumber) then click on Ash -
Grizzly used to have lots of lumber, but they seem to be getting away
from that and only have one size now.
Ash - 3' Long, Thickness & Width: 8/4(1-13/16") x 4"
Kirk
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: catdesigns@juno.com
>
>I have seen Oak used in place of the White Ash on several planes.
>Check with a local wood working club or supplier and see if they
>know of a local wood that compares to ash. You don't need to use
>ash, you just need something with similar properties to ash. I know
>I saw a recent airplane magazine that had an article on substituting
>wood (I think it was Custom Planes magazine. Any one else see
>this?).
>
>Chris
>Sacramento, CA
>
>
>---------- "rod wooller" <rodwooller@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>From: "rod wooller" <rodwooller@hotmail.com>
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: White Ash
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:35:06 +0800
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "rod wooller" <rodwooller@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Group,
>
>I am nearly ready to join the two fuselage sides together and note that the
>plans call for two floor cross-braces of white ash where the landing gear
>locates. ( I will be using the cub style gear ).
>
>I can't find a supplier of white ash locally and was wondering if there are
>alternatives that can be used successfully. ( I can get oak and native
>hardwoods).
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rod Wooller
>Chidlow
>Australia
>
>
>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Latex Paint UV Test |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "The Huizenga's" <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Well, I finally connected with my friend and did some testing of the
UV protection of latex paint. I won't go into details yet as I want
to get the data into a format that I can share easily, but a simple
answer is that latex paints (at least the ones I tested) are very
good at blocking light in the UV and visible wavelengths.
I will give specifics soon to the list. As a teaser, color of paint
doesn't seem to matter, one brushed layer provides fairly substantial
protection, white may be a better than black in UV protection...
Kirk
--
Kirk Huizenga and Bryan Eastep's Aircamper and Corvair Project
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList.cfm?Menu=PhotoGallery
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: does anyone really test their Piet at full gross? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Malley <jgmalley@comcast.net>
After about 25 hours, I strapped in a 60lb bag of sand and repeated many of
my flight routines; I then did the same with 2 bags and later with 3 (lots
of rope). It was interesting to note the increased takeoff runs, slower
climb, better balance and extended landings. While there were no great
surprises, the exercise does instill confidence. Jim Malley
----- Original Message -----
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: does anyone really test their Piet at full gross?
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walter evans"
<wbeevans@worldnet.att.net>
>
> All through my building process, I just figured that I'd be putting a
"dummy" passenger in the front seat that weighs in at 180# or so, and
putting the plane thru some big "G's" in steep turns or whatever, trying to
break something (wearing a chute).
> Does anyone really do this? Or do we count on the design to be good in
spite of our mistakes?
> What has everyone REALLY done.
> I'd like to put my mind at ease, not having to do that stuff.
> walt
> NX140DL
> (north N.J.)
>
>
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: Continental 65 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
Dan
That was your experience and that is great. I just don't want someone
to expect it. I have seen some very bad pitting on hard chrome surfaces
that were left out in the weather, much deeper than on the none chromed
surfaces. I am not trying to scare any one just don't think that hard
chrome is like bumper chrome. It is not.
Les
At 11:57 AM 13/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: ZigoDan@aol.com
>
>Some one wrote
>
>"Chuck and the rest of you: one thing about the hard chrome cylinders you
>should
>know. Hard Chrome is porous and provides NO additional corrosion protection."
>
>I believe this incorrect because of my experience engine parts. Once I
>bought a project that had been left out in the rain and weather, four
>cylinders had been removed, two were chromed, two were not. The plain steel
>cylinders were junk, the chromed cylinder were rust free in the bore, the
>only rust was on the outside, and on the unprotected flange. Just thought I
>might pass this along, so you guys with chrome would not worry to much.
>
>Dan
>
>
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! --
|