---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 01/29/03: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:27 AM - Re: can corperate jets "see" me? (TomTravis@aol.com) 2. 01:29 AM - Re: can corperate jets "see" me? (TomTravis@aol.com) 3. 04:27 AM - Re: can corperate jets "see" me? (COZYPILOT@aol.com) 4. 06:38 AM - Class B smoking section in Cleveland (Michael D Cuy) 5. 12:06 PM - does smoke oil make a mess? (walter evans) 6. 12:42 PM - Re: aileron connections; was strut bracing (Alan James) 7. 12:43 PM - Re: does smoke oil make a mess? (Michael D Cuy) 8. 04:32 PM - Re: aileron connections; was strut bracing (Les Schubert) 9. 05:15 PM - Re: can corperate jets "see" me? (Michael Conkling) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:27:43 AM PST US From: TomTravis@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: can corperate jets "see" me? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: TomTravis@aol.com Walt, All airliners and most corporate aircraft have Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS) on board. These systems only "see" airplanes that are transponder equipped and get resolution alerts from those with at least a Mode C transponder (Altitude reporting). Having spent over 35 years as an airline pilot and 18 of those years as a check airman I can tell you airline crews typically spend very little time looking outside. That drove me nuts. I'm now a corporate pilot and my experience has been that they (we) are even worse than airline crews about keeping a good traffic watch. I just got in from a trip tonight and my copilot had his head buried inside the cockpit almost the whole time. I have to cut him a little slack because he's brand new and was just along for the experience and was totally lost. The point is corporate and airline crews have the tools to detect transponder equipped airplanes but don't expect them to be looking outside much. We're on our own in our Piets. Actually I feel pretty safe in mine right now as long as it doesn't fall off the sawhorses in the garage. The suggestions to stay low and keep a sharp lookout are the best advice I've seen. Hope this helps. Tom ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 01:29:05 AM PST US From: TomTravis@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: can corperate jets "see" me? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: TomTravis@aol.com Walt, P.S. I fly in and out of Teterboro a lot and will be looking for you. Tom ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:27:19 AM PST US From: COZYPILOT@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: can corperate jets "see" me? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: COZYPILOT@aol.com They can only see you if you have a mode C transponder. Scary Huh!!!!!!!!!!!! ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:38:07 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: Class B smoking section in Cleveland --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy Flying under Cleveland's Class B airspace for quite a few years, us non-electric planes (which we have quite a few of) fly all the time with no transponders or encoders. It's very common to be at the same altitude as airliners and commuters on the approach to Cleveland and we just have to be vigilant on VFR days. One thing that the smoke system is REALLY good for is as a collision avoidance tool if you have no radio. Just a puff or two of smoke and anyone looking out the cockpit of a nearby plane can see you. I use it quite often when approaching a fly-in where there are lots of planes in the pattern. (course everyone wants to know when I'm going to fix the rings on my pistons when I land:) Going into Goshen, IN a few years ago I was on a long approach to the east and for some reason looked over my shoulder. A Gulfstream corporate jet was about a mile behind me. I shifted about 1,000 feet to the right and he tooled on by me and made the landing ahead of me. I landed behind him, turned off and taxied to the gas pumps while he was still back-taxiing to the terminal. It's a non-tower airport so no radio required. I talked with the pilots and they thanked me for moving over. I asked if they could see me and they said yes, very clearly and were just going to make a pass to my left to overtake me since there was plenty of time ahead of us. Was funny how I drooled of the Gulfstream and they drooled over the Pietenpol ! Mike C. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:06:42 PM PST US From: "walter evans" Subject: Pietenpol-List: does smoke oil make a mess? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walter evans" Mike Cuy and all. This smoke thing is interesting, but does the smoke have to be kept well clear of the fuse? I'm just assuming that wherever the smoke goes, there's some kind of residue on the plane. I built my pipes out to the side (A-65), and if there were "slime" left, mine would be a mess in no time. thanks walt NX140DL (north N.J.) ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:42:08 PM PST US From: "Alan James" Subject: Re: aileron connections; was Pietenpol-List: strut bracing --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alan James" Hi Ted, Yes, its a quick connect. As you offer the wing up to the centre section, 2 levers come face to face to complete a control loop to the aileron. Apart from making it a little quicker to assemble, I believe it was also intended to get around the need for duplicate control inspections as required by the PFA. Jim also came up with some quick-release bracing cables (between the lift struts). Personally, I would not bother with this mod unless you intend assembling and dis-assembling the machine every other weekend. After all, its only three cables that need joining -one on each side of the aileron torque/control arm and a break in the balance cable in the centre section. Regards Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Brousseau" Subject: Re: aileron connections; was Pietenpol-List: strut bracing > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" > > Alan, > > Please tell us more about that auto-aileron connect facility. Is that a > quick connect? > > Ted > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan James" > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: strut bracing > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alan James" > > > > > Gene, > > Most UK Piets have been built to a slightly modified drawing by Jim Wills > > and approved by our PFA who oversee such things. The main differences > > include: > > 1. A three piece wing with (optional) auto-aileron connect facility. > > 2. Built-up spars and 'D' box leading edge of 1/16" ply. > > 3. Heavier than original lift struts. > > As a consequence, the max weight has been increased from the original > 1050lb > > to 1200lb. Stress calculations made at the time suggested that jury struts > > were not necessary and this is how I first flew G-BUCO back in '92. > However, > > it soon became apparent that at certain angles of attack and rpm settings > > the front struts would start vibrating. I first experienced this over The > > Solent, a stretch of water that separates England from The Isle of Wight. > > This happened on at least 2 of the 5 UK Piets finished at the time and was > > not good for the nerves! Fixes included setting the strut at an angle to > the > > slipstream but the PFA decided on a mandatory modification of adding jury > > struts to the front only. > > I hope this clears things up. > > Good luck with your Piet. > > Alan James > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: strut bracing > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: ZigoDan@aol.com > > > > > > Gene, > > > > > > I have not looked at my plans in a long time. All I am saying is that > > don't > > > by any means delete something just for convince. Adding parts like jury > > > struts, better AN hardware is an improvement in my opinion. Thanks for > > > correcting me on my oversight. > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:43:35 PM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: does smoke oil make a mess? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy Walt ! YES. The smoke oil does leave some residue on my right gear legs and the belly ( I have Aeronca stacks) but nothing too bad. (It makes the wood shine:) If you are at idle and accidentally hit the smoke oil, it will not vaporize at all and will come out just like Wesson oil and make the appropriate mess. Long as you have good heat/higher rpm's it's not too bad. You might cause more mess on the fuse side though with your stack arrangement. Plus there is no need to route the oil to multiple cylinders. (unless you are Shawn Tucker or Julie Clark) One thing that the smoke oil will do is eventually make the rubber strands in your bungee cords get a bit stiff/brittle. Nothing major, but when I replaced my bungees a while back I noticed the smoking side was not quite as pliable as the non-smoking side of the gear. The smoke is a hoot, really. Well worth any mess in my mind. Mike C. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 04:32:57 PM PST US From: Les Schubert Subject: Re: aileron connections; was Pietenpol-List: strut bracing --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert Alan any chance of a picture of how this works. It sounds quite interesting. I am still building and was pondering how to connect the control cables for the 3 piece wing. Les At 08:42 PM 29/01/2003 +0000, you wrote: >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alan James" > > >Hi Ted, >Yes, its a quick connect. As you offer the wing up to the centre section, 2 >levers come face to face to complete a control loop to the aileron. Apart >from making it a little quicker to assemble, I believe it was also intended >to get around the need for duplicate control inspections as required by the >PFA. Jim also came up with some quick-release bracing cables (between the >lift struts). Personally, I would not bother with this mod unless you intend >assembling and dis-assembling the machine every other weekend. After all, >its only three cables that need joining -one on each side of the aileron >torque/control arm and a break in the balance cable in the centre section. > >Regards >Alan > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ted Brousseau" >To: >Subject: Re: aileron connections; was Pietenpol-List: strut bracing > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" > > > > > Alan, > > > > Please tell us more about that auto-aileron connect facility. Is that a > > quick connect? > > > > Ted > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alan James" > > To: > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: strut bracing > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alan James" > > > > > > > > Gene, > > > Most UK Piets have been built to a slightly modified drawing by Jim >Wills > > > and approved by our PFA who oversee such things. The main differences > > > include: > > > 1. A three piece wing with (optional) auto-aileron connect facility. > > > 2. Built-up spars and 'D' box leading edge of 1/16" ply. > > > 3. Heavier than original lift struts. > > > As a consequence, the max weight has been increased from the original > > 1050lb > > > to 1200lb. Stress calculations made at the time suggested that jury >struts > > > were not necessary and this is how I first flew G-BUCO back in '92. > > However, > > > it soon became apparent that at certain angles of attack and rpm >settings > > > the front struts would start vibrating. I first experienced this over >The > > > Solent, a stretch of water that separates England from The Isle of >Wight. > > > This happened on at least 2 of the 5 UK Piets finished at the time and >was > > > not good for the nerves! Fixes included setting the strut at an angle to > > the > > > slipstream but the PFA decided on a mandatory modification of adding >jury > > > struts to the front only. > > > I hope this clears things up. > > > Good luck with your Piet. > > > Alan James > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: > > > To: > > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: strut bracing > > > > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: ZigoDan@aol.com > > > > > > > > Gene, > > > > > > > > I have not looked at my plans in a long time. All I am saying is that > > > don't > > > > by any means delete something just for convince. Adding parts like >jury > > > > struts, better AN hardware is an improvement in my opinion. Thanks >for > > > > correcting me on my oversight. > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:36 PM PST US From: "Michael Conkling" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: can corperate jets "see" me? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Michael Conkling" You can use a sailboat radar reflector ( an aluminized "kite" affair) inside the fuselage -- maybe between the back seat & the walking beam. Or use "window" to announce your position ( Dad said they had that on the B-26's in WW2 --it was shredded Alum foil that was dropped out to "fog" the German radar with the reflections!!) This stuff will show up on radar -- I don't know if there is an emergency ELT-like transponder for light planes -- it's too easy to just require a real life transponder. 500 ft to 1000 ft cruse altitude should get you below 99% of the in route traffic -- for us the other 1% will be the Air Guard going over at 400 ft AGL & our neighbor in his spray plane (but only if it's "dead calm"!!) Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS WW@mmnopounce ----- Original Message ----- From: "clif" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: can corperate jets "see" me? > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: clif > > As for radar, don't forget you're flying a wood frame > and fabric little mosquito. As Dan says, communicate.