Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:49 AM - Re: Re: Model A camshaft (Les Schubert)
2. 10:32 AM - Re: Re: Model A camshaft (Christian Bobka)
3. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: Model A camshaft (Christian Bobka)
4. 11:27 AM - Re: Re: Model A camshaft (rambog@erols.com)
5. 02:11 PM - Re: Re: Model A camshaft (Les Schubert)
6. 03:14 PM - long fuse gear (Richard Navratril)
7. 03:32 PM - Sat. Both sad and happy (Isablcorky@aol.com)
8. 03:49 PM - Re: Sat. Both sad and happy (flyboy_120@webtv.net (Ed G.))
9. 04:17 PM - Re: Re: Model A camshaft (Christian Bobka)
10. 05:20 PM - Re: Thanks guys, keep them coming (Doug413@aol.com)
11. 05:30 PM - Re: Sat. Both sad and happy (Kip & Beth Gardner)
12. 05:35 PM - Re: Thanks guys, keep them coming (Dave and Connie)
13. 05:39 PM - Re: long fuse gear (Christian Bobka)
14. 05:41 PM - Re: Thanks guys, keep them coming (Christian Bobka)
15. 06:04 PM - Re: long fuse gear (Kip & Beth Gardner)
16. 07:28 PM - Re: long fuse gear (Waytogopiet@aol.com)
17. 08:14 PM - Question about Gross Weight (Jon Botsford)
18. 08:35 PM - Re: Question about Gross Weight (Christian Bobka)
19. 08:43 PM - Re: long fuse gear (Richard Navratril)
20. 08:56 PM - Re: long fuse gear (Christian Bobka)
21. 09:25 PM - Press. oiled A (lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan))
22. 09:43 PM - Re: Press. oiled A (ZigoDan@aol.com)
23. 09:55 PM - Re: Press. oiled A (Christian Bobka)
24. 10:25 PM - Model A Firewall Fwd. for sale (Rcaprd@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model A camshaft |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
Gene
Do you have any specs on Dan Price's cam shaft. Stepped up likely means more
lift and duration for more power at flying speed. Does he have a web site
giving
more info and perhaps a comparison with stock.
Les
At 05:00 PM 30/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
>Does anyone have an opinion (boy, wrong question here!) on the merits of
>using a reground camshaft that can be purchased from Bratton's for $50
>versus Dan Price's new ones for $250?
>
>Obviously new versus used is a consideration, but if it's not a weak point,
>does it justify the price difference? Also, Price cams are "stepped up,"
>whatever that means, still don't know if it's worth it.
>
>
>Gene Rambo
>
>
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: Model A camshaft |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
As Les said, longer duration and higher lift. Longer duration will mean
longer overlap. This means the intake valve will open sonner and the
exhaust valve will close later. This is good for high RPM operation but is
really bad for idling. Idling means a lot to us because the biggest brake,
both in the air and on the ground, we have on the ship is the engine idling
the propeller at low speed. We don't want the engine to idle at 800 rpm as
we need 400-600 rpm. We don't want it to quit on final either.
High lift is usually where you can pick up meaningful low end torque which
is what we want. The downside of high lift is the springs are worked harder
and more likely to fail. The good side is that with an L head, the spring
breaking will not allow the valve to fall into the cylinder which we know is
really bad. The higher lift means more rapid acceleration of the valve
train on opening and closing. This is not a big deal for us because at the
Piet's rpms, inertia is not a big deal.
To recap, short duration and high lift is generally what we want in the low
rpm band that we operate the A. A little extra lift will go a long way.
This will maximize torque at the low end and have good idling. Hope this
helps.
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les
Schubert
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
Gene
Do you have any specs on Dan Price's cam shaft. Stepped up likely means more
lift and duration for more power at flying speed. Does he have a web site
giving
more info and perhaps a comparison with stock.
Les
At 05:00 PM 30/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
>Does anyone have an opinion (boy, wrong question here!) on the merits of
>using a reground camshaft that can be purchased from Bratton's for $50
>versus Dan Price's new ones for $250?
>
>Obviously new versus used is a consideration, but if it's not a weak point,
>does it justify the price difference? Also, Price cams are "stepped up,"
>whatever that means, still don't know if it's worth it.
>
>
>Gene Rambo
>
>
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: | Re: Model A camshaft |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
I forgot to add that most aftermarket cams will be designed with racing in
mind. Racing means high rpm and we don't care for high rpm. With that, I
would say the stock cam is better than an aftermarket.
In addition, the standards used to measure overlap and duration (they are
directly related) differs from cam manufacturer to cam manufacturer so the
numbers cannot necessarily be readily compared unlessyou are looking at two
cams made by the same manufacturer.
Also, a cam designed for use in a GPU application or something similar, will
be designed to optimally run at the design RPM, which for an A in a GPU type
applicationm would be around 1900-2000 rpm. If it was a cam in an A that
was used on some piece of farm equipment that ran at 1900 rpm all day long,
then that would be a good cam design because it is trying to maximize the
torque at that RPM.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
Bobka
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
As Les said, longer duration and higher lift. Longer duration will mean
longer overlap. This means the intake valve will open sonner and the
exhaust valve will close later. This is good for high RPM operation but is
really bad for idling. Idling means a lot to us because the biggest brake,
both in the air and on the ground, we have on the ship is the engine idling
the propeller at low speed. We don't want the engine to idle at 800 rpm as
we need 400-600 rpm. We don't want it to quit on final either.
High lift is usually where you can pick up meaningful low end torque which
is what we want. The downside of high lift is the springs are worked harder
and more likely to fail. The good side is that with an L head, the spring
breaking will not allow the valve to fall into the cylinder which we know is
really bad. The higher lift means more rapid acceleration of the valve
train on opening and closing. This is not a big deal for us because at the
Piet's rpms, inertia is not a big deal.
To recap, short duration and high lift is generally what we want in the low
rpm band that we operate the A. A little extra lift will go a long way.
This will maximize torque at the low end and have good idling. Hope this
helps.
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les
Schubert
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
Gene
Do you have any specs on Dan Price's cam shaft. Stepped up likely means more
lift and duration for more power at flying speed. Does he have a web site
giving
more info and perhaps a comparison with stock.
Les
At 05:00 PM 30/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
>Does anyone have an opinion (boy, wrong question here!) on the merits of
>using a reground camshaft that can be purchased from Bratton's for $50
>versus Dan Price's new ones for $250?
>
>Obviously new versus used is a consideration, but if it's not a weak point,
>does it justify the price difference? Also, Price cams are "stepped up,"
>whatever that means, still don't know if it's worth it.
>
>
>Gene Rambo
>
>
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: Model A camshaft |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "rambog@erols.com" <rambog@erols.com>
I put this posting on a week ago and only got responses today, is there
that much of a lag here? I understand the mods Price makes, but I also
found out that he merely re-grinds your cam, they are not new. Instead,
yesterday I went to Jack McCarthy's and got a freshly reground cam from
him, and lots of advice. He's got quite a bit of time on his A model by
now and did lots of the rebuilding himself.
Gene
do not archive
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Christian Bobka bobka@charter.net
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
I forgot to add that most aftermarket cams will be designed with racing in
mind. Racing means high rpm and we don't care for high rpm. With that, I
would say the stock cam is better than an aftermarket.
In addition, the standards used to measure overlap and duration (they are
directly related) differs from cam manufacturer to cam manufacturer so the
numbers cannot necessarily be readily compared unlessyou are looking at two
cams made by the same manufacturer.
Also, a cam designed for use in a GPU application or something similar, will
be designed to optimally run at the design RPM, which for an A in a GPU type
applicationm would be around 1900-2000 rpm. If it was a cam in an A that
was used on some piece of farm equipment that ran at 1900 rpm all day long,
then that would be a good cam design because it is trying to maximize the
torque at that RPM.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
Bobka
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
As Les said, longer duration and higher lift. Longer duration will mean
longer overlap. This means the intake valve will open sonner and the
exhaust valve will close later. This is good for high RPM operation but is
really bad for idling. Idling means a lot to us because the biggest brake,
both in the air and on the ground, we have on the ship is the engine idling
the propeller at low speed. We don't want the engine to idle at 800 rpm as
we need 400-600 rpm. We don't want it to quit on final either.
High lift is usually where you can pick up meaningful low end torque which
is what we want. The downside of high lift is the springs are worked harder
and more likely to fail. The good side is that with an L head, the spring
breaking will not allow the valve to fall into the cylinder which we know is
really bad. The higher lift means more rapid acceleration of the valve
train on opening and closing. This is not a big deal for us because at the
Piet's rpms, inertia is not a big deal.
To recap, short duration and high lift is generally what we want in the low
rpm band that we operate the A. A little extra lift will go a long way.
This will maximize torque at the low end and have good idling. Hope this
helps.
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les
Schubert
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
Gene
Do you have any specs on Dan Price's cam shaft. Stepped up likely means more
lift and duration for more power at flying speed. Does he have a web site
giving
more info and perhaps a comparison with stock.
Les
At 05:00 PM 30/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
>Does anyone have an opinion (boy, wrong question here!) on the merits of
>using a reground camshaft that can be purchased from Bratton's for $50
>versus Dan Price's new ones for $250?
>
>Obviously new versus used is a consideration, but if it's not a weak point,
>does it justify the price difference? Also, Price cams are "stepped up,"
>whatever that means, still don't know if it's worth it.
>
>
>Gene Rambo
>
>
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: | Re: Model A camshaft |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
Gene
I guess I was waiting for someone who new about Mr Price's cam to comment.
When nobody responded then I got curious myself as I am looking to go Ford
power (although I am looking to use a T block with a drilled pressure oiled
A crank, pretty much the same displacement but lighter weight and more
reliable with the pressure oiling). I have not decided on a cam yet. Can you
tell us about the cam and advice you got from Jack McCarthy? lift? duration?
Incidentally drilling the A crank and going full pressure is not real hard,
takes
about 2 hours on a Bridgeport mill with a long sharp (new)5/32" drill bit.
The trick to not breaking the drill is to not drill out the far end, stop
just as
the metal starts to push out, the bit wants to grab otherwise as you come out
at a angle and this way you avoid it. Then you turn the crank over and drill
down with a centre bit to open up the hole. I have done 3 now with no
problems. You don't need to go for a lot of oil pressure, 25 psi makes a big
difference in cooling the bearing and providing oil film.
Les
At 02:27 PM 02/02/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "rambog@erols.com" <rambog@erols.com>
>
>
>I put this posting on a week ago and only got responses today, is there
>that much of a lag here? I understand the mods Price makes, but I also
>found out that he merely re-grinds your cam, they are not new. Instead,
>yesterday I went to Jack McCarthy's and got a freshly reground cam from
>him, and lots of advice. He's got quite a bit of time on his A model by
>now and did lots of the rebuilding himself.
>
>
>Gene
>do not archive
>
>
>Original Message:
>-----------------
>From: Christian Bobka bobka@charter.net
>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:55:11 -0600
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
>
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
>
>Gene,
>
>I forgot to add that most aftermarket cams will be designed with racing in
>mind. Racing means high rpm and we don't care for high rpm. With that, I
>would say the stock cam is better than an aftermarket.
>
>In addition, the standards used to measure overlap and duration (they are
>directly related) differs from cam manufacturer to cam manufacturer so the
>numbers cannot necessarily be readily compared unlessyou are looking at two
>cams made by the same manufacturer.
>
>Also, a cam designed for use in a GPU application or something similar, will
>be designed to optimally run at the design RPM, which for an A in a GPU type
>applicationm would be around 1900-2000 rpm. If it was a cam in an A that
>was used on some piece of farm equipment that ran at 1900 rpm all day long,
>then that would be a good cam design because it is trying to maximize the
>torque at that RPM.
>
>Chris Bobka
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
>Bobka
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
>
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
>
>Gene,
>
>As Les said, longer duration and higher lift. Longer duration will mean
>longer overlap. This means the intake valve will open sonner and the
>exhaust valve will close later. This is good for high RPM operation but is
>really bad for idling. Idling means a lot to us because the biggest brake,
>both in the air and on the ground, we have on the ship is the engine idling
>the propeller at low speed. We don't want the engine to idle at 800 rpm as
>we need 400-600 rpm. We don't want it to quit on final either.
>
>High lift is usually where you can pick up meaningful low end torque which
>is what we want. The downside of high lift is the springs are worked harder
>and more likely to fail. The good side is that with an L head, the spring
>breaking will not allow the valve to fall into the cylinder which we know is
>really bad. The higher lift means more rapid acceleration of the valve
>train on opening and closing. This is not a big deal for us because at the
>Piet's rpms, inertia is not a big deal.
>
>To recap, short duration and high lift is generally what we want in the low
>rpm band that we operate the A. A little extra lift will go a long way.
>This will maximize torque at the low end and have good idling. Hope this
>helps.
>
>chris bobka
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les
>Schubert
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
>
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
>
>Gene
>Do you have any specs on Dan Price's cam shaft. Stepped up likely means more
>lift and duration for more power at flying speed. Does he have a web site
>giving
>more info and perhaps a comparison with stock.
>Les
>
>At 05:00 PM 30/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
> >
> >Does anyone have an opinion (boy, wrong question here!) on the merits of
> >using a reground camshaft that can be purchased from Bratton's for $50
> >versus Dan Price's new ones for $250?
> >
> >Obviously new versus used is a consideration, but if it's not a weak point,
> >does it justify the price difference? Also, Price cams are "stepped up,"
> >whatever that means, still don't know if it's worth it.
> >
> >
> >Gene Rambo
> >
> >
>
>
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: "Richard Navratril" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
Hey All
I seem to remember some past discussion about moving the position of axel on the
long fuselage. I dont see it indicated on the supplemental plans. Are there
any thoughts from long fuse builders?
A very snowy day in Minnesota
Dick N.
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: | Sat. Both sad and happy |
christinedigsjazz@shaw.ca, wayfollower@cox.net,
claudiabartlett@austin.rr.com, T_FIN@Compuserve.com, hmposer@charter.net,
Howdyhilary@aol.com, fleece@cox-internet.com, NewtonIvy@webtv.net,
jamestownesimmons@yahoo.com, jbrainis@sport.rr.com, LCJELKS@aol.com,
JimNikls@aol.com, Herzog807@msn.com, Jajouett@aol.com, Leeortho@aol.com,
LGililland@msn.com, Linda@huarch.com, tvlux@cox.net, MAGSOUR@aol.com,
Marionle35@aol.com, Mvphipps39@aol.com, rchapman@andersonsmith.com,
RobertBeachbum@aol.com, nfn00979@naples.net, TomTravis@aol.com,
wbeevans@worldnet.att.net, craigwilcox@peoplepc.com
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
Pieters and Friends,
Yesterday began very sad for our country and some space participants and
their families. This we all regret deeply.
Yesterday, my test pilot Mr. Edwin Johnson, finally agreed to let me fly in
my airplane. Sounds funny doesn't it. He had test flown the first 25 hrs and
36 minutes as required by the FAA before carrying a passenger ( that's me).
Earlier in the afternoon I had cranked up N41CC and taxied up and down the
runway waiting for him. The tailwheel didn't answer to helm as I wanted it so
I came in and made some changes. Finally he arrived and said he would ride
front hole and I would fly from the rear, where else? It took him 2 prop
swings before it started. ( I started it on the first swing earlier). We
talked about our signals etc before we taxied out for run up. Finally I went
to the north end of Lucien and did a few vrooms eased the throttle forward
and felt that 65 Continental try to force me through the seat back. Didn't
even forget to pressure the rudder to the right when the tail lifted. Didn't
know when we left the ground as it was so quick. Kicked in a little right
crab, ( SW wind), and she climbed like an angel on her way home. Made my left
climbing turn and the ball stayed centered. Man, I was livin. Went up to 1K,
130 deg, to go chase hundreds of white pelicans down on the roaring Red. A
beautiful bird, most people have never seen them from above to see the
beautiful black-top wing tips. Anyway my front holer directed me to Desoto
Parish Airport for some attempts to land this airplane. I had failed to tell
him that I had not landed a tail wheel airplane since 1972. Oh well, he would
soon find out. I made my usual Kamakazi approach as he just sat up there
stunned. Came on down to 18 and leveled off to land as if I had been landing
a big bird. Was pretty high and did I ever spread the gears, ( dropped in). I
was embarrased. We went around again and on base he took it to show me how
well a Piet would slip. On final I slipped it and it was like the old L-16 in
'51. He applauded this landing. Hell, any landing would have beat that first
one. We left Desoto. Forgot to mention that between the Pelicans and Desoto
we went up to 2500 for some steeeeeeeep turns, sslooooooooooow flying and
some stalls, power on and half on.
All went well. I felt right at home.
Next we went to a sod duster operation strip. First landing, kinda bad, again
flairing out too high. Next one he applauded me once again. By then the sun
had set and it was beginning to cool down in 41CC so we came home. Landed at
Lucien, again kinda high but ground control was OK. That Lucien runway can't
be any wider 12 or 15 feet.
I guess you might say this was part of what they call a bi-annual. His only
comment was that we need to do it again as soon as we can get another
beautiful day. As all of you noted, the skies in East Texas and Western La
yesterday were as clear as I ever remember.
I ended the day feeling like a popsickle but very pleased to have piloted our
own creation. Joe Czalicka and I. Those building Piets, don't stop, it's
worth all the work.
Corky in La
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: Sat. Both sad and happy |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: flyboy_120@webtv.net (Ed G.)
Wow!!! Congratulations Corky.....It's about time you got to fly that
critter....That had to be a hoot....I'm sure it was rough watching Edwin
fly off the 25 hours...Now for that Sport pilot rule and your all set.
Ed G.
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: Model A camshaft |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene, you put it up at 5:00pm on 1/30. that is two and a half waking days
to think about this very good question. Plus I was flying for two days and
got in last night at 9 pm.
Chris
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
rambog@erols.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "rambog@erols.com" <rambog@erols.com>
I put this posting on a week ago and only got responses today, is there
that much of a lag here? I understand the mods Price makes, but I also
found out that he merely re-grinds your cam, they are not new. Instead,
yesterday I went to Jack McCarthy's and got a freshly reground cam from
him, and lots of advice. He's got quite a bit of time on his A model by
now and did lots of the rebuilding himself.
Gene
do not archive
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Christian Bobka bobka@charter.net
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
I forgot to add that most aftermarket cams will be designed with racing in
mind. Racing means high rpm and we don't care for high rpm. With that, I
would say the stock cam is better than an aftermarket.
In addition, the standards used to measure overlap and duration (they are
directly related) differs from cam manufacturer to cam manufacturer so the
numbers cannot necessarily be readily compared unlessyou are looking at two
cams made by the same manufacturer.
Also, a cam designed for use in a GPU application or something similar, will
be designed to optimally run at the design RPM, which for an A in a GPU type
applicationm would be around 1900-2000 rpm. If it was a cam in an A that
was used on some piece of farm equipment that ran at 1900 rpm all day long,
then that would be a good cam design because it is trying to maximize the
torque at that RPM.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
Bobka
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
As Les said, longer duration and higher lift. Longer duration will mean
longer overlap. This means the intake valve will open sonner and the
exhaust valve will close later. This is good for high RPM operation but is
really bad for idling. Idling means a lot to us because the biggest brake,
both in the air and on the ground, we have on the ship is the engine idling
the propeller at low speed. We don't want the engine to idle at 800 rpm as
we need 400-600 rpm. We don't want it to quit on final either.
High lift is usually where you can pick up meaningful low end torque which
is what we want. The downside of high lift is the springs are worked harder
and more likely to fail. The good side is that with an L head, the spring
breaking will not allow the valve to fall into the cylinder which we know is
really bad. The higher lift means more rapid acceleration of the valve
train on opening and closing. This is not a big deal for us because at the
Piet's rpms, inertia is not a big deal.
To recap, short duration and high lift is generally what we want in the low
rpm band that we operate the A. A little extra lift will go a long way.
This will maximize torque at the low end and have good idling. Hope this
helps.
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les
Schubert
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A camshaft
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
Gene
Do you have any specs on Dan Price's cam shaft. Stepped up likely means more
lift and duration for more power at flying speed. Does he have a web site
giving
more info and perhaps a comparison with stock.
Les
At 05:00 PM 30/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
>Does anyone have an opinion (boy, wrong question here!) on the merits of
>using a reground camshaft that can be purchased from Bratton's for $50
>versus Dan Price's new ones for $250?
>
>Obviously new versus used is a consideration, but if it's not a weak point,
>does it justify the price difference? Also, Price cams are "stepped up,"
>whatever that means, still don't know if it's worth it.
>
>
>Gene Rambo
>
>
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: Thanks guys, keep them coming |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Doug413@aol.com
Chris,
I have found and purchased Taylorcraft 96542 s/n 8842. It still looks very
good since the covering you did in 87 or so. I have all the records and
receipts etc. Nice job.
Doug Bryant, Wichita, Ks
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: | Re: Sat. Both sad and happy |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
At 6:31 PM -0500 02/02/03, Isablcorky@aol.com wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
>
>Pieters and Friends,
>Yesterday began very sad for our country and some space participants and
>their families. This we all regret deeply.
>I ended the day feeling like a popsickle but very pleased to have piloted our
>own creation. Joe Czalicka and I. Those building Piets, don't stop, it's
>worth all the work.
>
>Corky in La
Corky,
Congratulations on getting airborne! Sorry you had to 'share' the day with
a national tragedy. One of the members of my graduating High School class
is a mission specialist - he & I were the 2 'science nerds' in our class -
& he could easily have been on this flight. I'm glad he wasn't.
I hope that your next flight will be on a thouroughly uneventful day! Just
don't make it on or around Feb. 22. One of my other friends, who works in
Washington & is very much involved in national security issues, says
that's the day the War supposedly starts.
On that cheerful note, I'm going back to work on my project - need to stay
optimistic about the future, in spite of the news.
Regards,
Kip Gardner
Do Not Archive
North Canton, OH
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: | Re: Thanks guys, keep them coming |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Dave and Connie <dmatthe1@rochester.rr.com>
At 08:18 PM 2/2/03 -0500, you wrote:
Doug,
Welcome to the club. Now you need to join up with the Taylorcraft Owners
Club and the Taylorcraft Foundation. Also figure out how far it is to
Barber Airport in Alliance, Ohio. I expect to see you there the weekend
after July 4 along with Kip. See http://www.taylorcraft.org for more info.
BTW, why did you buy such a new plane? Pre-war is faster :-). Mine is Sn
3045.
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Doug413@aol.com
>
>Chris,
>
>I have found and purchased Taylorcraft 96542 s/n 8842. It still looks very
>good since the covering you did in 87 or so. I have all the records and
>receipts etc. Nice job.
>
>Doug Bryant, Wichita, Ks
>
>
>_-
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Dick,
I had to drive from Apple Valley down to Faribault and it took 90 minutes
for a 35 minute trip.
From the archives:
Match: #165 Message: #16157 From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Subject: Re: Landing gear question... Date: Jan 13, 2002
Gary,
This aircraft is Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy and I talked to him about the
landing gear at Brodhead a few years ago.
There are three fuselages that Bernard published a drawing for. One is the
one shown in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual for the Air Camper (not the
"new and improved"). It has a wooden Jenny-style gear.
The second is for the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper with the cub style
steel tube landing gear (really the cub style gear copies the piet since the
piet was first).
The third is the fuselage Bernard Pietenpol developed for the corvair
powered piet. No landing gear is shown for this fuselage. It is perfectly
acceptable to mount any acceptable engine on this fueslage. You are not
limited to the corvair. I will refer to this fuselage as the "long
fuselage". It is desireable to use the long fueslage because it is about 7
inches longer than the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper and the 1932 Air
Camper. You fit better in the longer cockpit. Frank Pavliga used the long
fuselage for sky gypsy and it originally had a Model A Ford but now has a
Continental A-65.
The problem is that the long fuselage shifts the loaded center of gravity
aft quite a bit. Aerodynamically, this is compensated for by shifting the
wing aft. There is no problem here. The problem is that if you take
the1932 wood gear and put it on the long fuselage, the wheels are too far
forward. Frank Pavliga did not realize this or otherwise ignored this fact
for the first set of gear made for the sky gypsy. The wheels were so far
forward that he had much difficulty in getting the tail to raise on takeoff.
The airplane ON THE GROUND was far too tail heavy. He built a second set of
wooden gear legs that shifted the axle back (maybe 5 or 6 inches) and this
distributed the weight more appropriately forward and aft of the axle so
that the plane handled better on the ground. This can be clearly seen when
comparing the photo you posted with the 1932 gear drawings.
As an aside, there is a big old lead weight that is tied to one of sky
gypsy's motor mount tubes indicating that it was easier to intstall the
wieght than to mess with tweaking the rigging of the wings if it is there
for aerodynamic purposes or making a new set of gear legs if it is there for
wieght distribution for ground handling.
Maybe some of the local Ohio boys on the list like Mike Cuy can clue you in
better than me since they are more familiar with sky gypsy since it lives in
Ohio.
Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson have moved the axle on their wooden gear aft
on their yet to fly long fuselage A-65 powered ship. Dale has the number at
his fingertips and hopefully will post a note here with the figure.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel@mykitplane.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear question...
<gmcneel@mykitplane.com>
>
> I am interested in the landing gear on the Pietenpol. I like the gear as
> seen in this picture:
>
> http://www.mykitplane.com/pietenpolGear.cfm. Is this the design that comes
> with the original plans?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gary P. McNeel, Jr.
> MyKitPlane.com
> EAA 665957
> gmcneel@mykitplane.com
> http://www.mykitplane.com
>
And another archive:
Match: #167 Message: #16172 Date: Jan 14, 2002 From: "Greg Cardinal"
<gcardinal@startribune.com> Subject: Re: Landing gear question...
The axel on our plane is 19" aft of the firewall.
Greg Cardinal
>>> bobka@charter.net 01/13 11:48 AM >>>
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: | Thanks guys, keep them coming |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Yes Doug. Chuck Gantzer told me earlier today. Small world. I wouldn't
mind calling you on the phone to talk about the old girl.
I sold it to Hiram Douglas. He sold it to a kid, I think Jeff Lynn was his
name. Who else owned it?
she must be getting tired by now.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Doug413@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Thanks guys, keep them coming
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Doug413@aol.com
Chris,
I have found and purchased Taylorcraft 96542 s/n 8842. It still looks very
good since the covering you did in 87 or so. I have all the records and
receipts etc. Nice job.
Doug Bryant, Wichita, Ks
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
At 8:39 PM -0500 02/02/03, Christian Bobka wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
>
>Dick,
>As an aside, there is a big old lead weight that is tied to one of sky
>gypsy's motor mount tubes indicating that it was easier to intstall the
>wieght than to mess with tweaking the rigging of the wings if it is there
>for aerodynamic purposes or making a new set of gear legs if it is there for
>wieght distribution for ground handling.
>
>Maybe some of the local Ohio boys on the list like Mike Cuy can clue you in
>better than me since they are more familiar with sky gypsy since it lives in
>Ohio.
>
>Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson have moved the axle on their wooden gear aft
>on their yet to fly long fuselage A-65 powered ship. Dale has the number at
>his fingertips and hopefully will post a note here with the figure.
>
>Chris Bobka
Chris, Dick, Gary,
We are all pretty well 'locked down' here in Northeast OH due to crummy
weather, but I see Frank out at Barber Field fairly often & I can go look
over 'Sky Gypsy' any time I want to, since it lives there. Kind of nice to
have a 'reference plane' so close by!
I can ask him for details or make measurements for anyone that wants them.
BTW, Frank is finishing up the restoration/construction of a Taperwing Waco
biplane, almost a 'scratch' plane - I think part of one wing is original. I
helped him put the wings on about 2 months ago. I believe he's planning on
selling it if anyone is interested. Also, once that's done, 'Sky Gypsy' is
due for re-covering.
North Canton, OH
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: long fuse gear |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Waytogopiet@aol.com
In a message dated 2/2/2003 8:04:58 PM Central Standard Time,
kipandbeth@earthlink.net writes:
> I can ask him for details or make measurements for anyone that wants them
Kip,
I would very much appreciate any info in this regard that Frank can pass
along. I have the long fuselage with the Model A and the solid wood gear, the
same as his. I had built and installed the gear before the thread began on
this subject. Of course that gear was intended for the original FGM version.
I positioned mine in the location of the second version ("new, improved")
which is probably equally wrong but I wanted to resist making any changes
before doing my w&b and seeing what my tailwheel weight was. There may be
meaningful differences dpending on whether Frank used fir or spruce on his
fuselage. I did make a concerted effort to keep mine light in the
tailfeathers and used spruce throughout. I'm fully covered, painted and
complete and hopefully will be doing my final w&b this weekend. Thanks agin
for the offer. Don Hicks
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: | Question about Gross Weight |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jon Botsford" <botsford7@hot.rr.com>
Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for an aircraft?
Jon Botsford
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: | Question about Gross Weight |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Jon,
For an experimental, it is whatever you want it to be. Believe it or not.
You set the rules. No kidding.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
Botsford
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jon Botsford" <botsford7@hot.rr.com>
Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for an
aircraft?
Jon Botsford
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: long fuse gear |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Richard Navratril" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
We were no shows at the Alan Jackson / Joe Nichols concert in Mankato
tonight.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: long fuse gear
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<bobka@charter.net>
>
> Dick,
>
> I had to drive from Apple Valley down to Faribault and it took 90 minutes
> for a 35 minute trip.
>
> >From the archives:
>
> Match: #165 Message: #16157 From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
> Subject: Re: Landing gear question... Date: Jan 13, 2002
>
>
> Gary,
>
> This aircraft is Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy and I talked to him about the
> landing gear at Brodhead a few years ago.
>
> There are three fuselages that Bernard published a drawing for. One is
the
> one shown in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual for the Air Camper (not the
> "new and improved"). It has a wooden Jenny-style gear.
>
> The second is for the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper with the cub
style
> steel tube landing gear (really the cub style gear copies the piet since
the
> piet was first).
>
> The third is the fuselage Bernard Pietenpol developed for the corvair
> powered piet. No landing gear is shown for this fuselage. It is
perfectly
> acceptable to mount any acceptable engine on this fueslage. You are not
> limited to the corvair. I will refer to this fuselage as the "long
> fuselage". It is desireable to use the long fueslage because it is about
7
> inches longer than the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper and the 1932 Air
> Camper. You fit better in the longer cockpit. Frank Pavliga used the
long
> fuselage for sky gypsy and it originally had a Model A Ford but now has a
> Continental A-65.
>
> The problem is that the long fuselage shifts the loaded center of gravity
> aft quite a bit. Aerodynamically, this is compensated for by shifting the
> wing aft. There is no problem here. The problem is that if you take
> the1932 wood gear and put it on the long fuselage, the wheels are too far
> forward. Frank Pavliga did not realize this or otherwise ignored this
fact
> for the first set of gear made for the sky gypsy. The wheels were so far
> forward that he had much difficulty in getting the tail to raise on
takeoff.
> The airplane ON THE GROUND was far too tail heavy. He built a second set
of
> wooden gear legs that shifted the axle back (maybe 5 or 6 inches) and this
> distributed the weight more appropriately forward and aft of the axle so
> that the plane handled better on the ground. This can be clearly seen
when
> comparing the photo you posted with the 1932 gear drawings.
>
> As an aside, there is a big old lead weight that is tied to one of sky
> gypsy's motor mount tubes indicating that it was easier to intstall the
> wieght than to mess with tweaking the rigging of the wings if it is there
> for aerodynamic purposes or making a new set of gear legs if it is there
for
> wieght distribution for ground handling.
>
> Maybe some of the local Ohio boys on the list like Mike Cuy can clue you
in
> better than me since they are more familiar with sky gypsy since it lives
in
> Ohio.
>
> Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson have moved the axle on their wooden gear
aft
> on their yet to fly long fuselage A-65 powered ship. Dale has the number
at
> his fingertips and hopefully will post a note here with the figure.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel@mykitplane.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear question...
>
>
> <gmcneel@mykitplane.com>
> >
> > I am interested in the landing gear on the Pietenpol. I like the gear as
> > seen in this picture:
> >
> > http://www.mykitplane.com/pietenpolGear.cfm. Is this the design that
comes
> > with the original plans?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gary P. McNeel, Jr.
> > MyKitPlane.com
> > EAA 665957
> > gmcneel@mykitplane.com
> > http://www.mykitplane.com
> >
>
>
> And another archive:
>
> Match: #167 Message: #16172 Date: Jan 14, 2002 From: "Greg Cardinal"
> <gcardinal@startribune.com> Subject: Re: Landing gear question...
>
>
> The axel on our plane is 19" aft of the firewall.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
> >>> bobka@charter.net 01/13 11:48 AM >>>
>
>
Message 20
| 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: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Actually, Dick, once you got to the Highway 19 exit on I-35, it was clear.
Chris
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard
Navratril
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: long fuse gear
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Richard Navratril"
<horzpool@goldengate.net>
We were no shows at the Alan Jackson / Joe Nichols concert in Mankato
tonight.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: long fuse gear
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<bobka@charter.net>
>
> Dick,
>
> I had to drive from Apple Valley down to Faribault and it took 90 minutes
> for a 35 minute trip.
>
> >From the archives:
>
> Match: #165 Message: #16157 From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
> Subject: Re: Landing gear question... Date: Jan 13, 2002
>
>
> Gary,
>
> This aircraft is Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy and I talked to him about the
> landing gear at Brodhead a few years ago.
>
> There are three fuselages that Bernard published a drawing for. One is
the
> one shown in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual for the Air Camper (not the
> "new and improved"). It has a wooden Jenny-style gear.
>
> The second is for the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper with the cub
style
> steel tube landing gear (really the cub style gear copies the piet since
the
> piet was first).
>
> The third is the fuselage Bernard Pietenpol developed for the corvair
> powered piet. No landing gear is shown for this fuselage. It is
perfectly
> acceptable to mount any acceptable engine on this fueslage. You are not
> limited to the corvair. I will refer to this fuselage as the "long
> fuselage". It is desireable to use the long fueslage because it is about
7
> inches longer than the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper and the 1932 Air
> Camper. You fit better in the longer cockpit. Frank Pavliga used the
long
> fuselage for sky gypsy and it originally had a Model A Ford but now has a
> Continental A-65.
>
> The problem is that the long fuselage shifts the loaded center of gravity
> aft quite a bit. Aerodynamically, this is compensated for by shifting the
> wing aft. There is no problem here. The problem is that if you take
> the1932 wood gear and put it on the long fuselage, the wheels are too far
> forward. Frank Pavliga did not realize this or otherwise ignored this
fact
> for the first set of gear made for the sky gypsy. The wheels were so far
> forward that he had much difficulty in getting the tail to raise on
takeoff.
> The airplane ON THE GROUND was far too tail heavy. He built a second set
of
> wooden gear legs that shifted the axle back (maybe 5 or 6 inches) and this
> distributed the weight more appropriately forward and aft of the axle so
> that the plane handled better on the ground. This can be clearly seen
when
> comparing the photo you posted with the 1932 gear drawings.
>
> As an aside, there is a big old lead weight that is tied to one of sky
> gypsy's motor mount tubes indicating that it was easier to intstall the
> wieght than to mess with tweaking the rigging of the wings if it is there
> for aerodynamic purposes or making a new set of gear legs if it is there
for
> wieght distribution for ground handling.
>
> Maybe some of the local Ohio boys on the list like Mike Cuy can clue you
in
> better than me since they are more familiar with sky gypsy since it lives
in
> Ohio.
>
> Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson have moved the axle on their wooden gear
aft
> on their yet to fly long fuselage A-65 powered ship. Dale has the number
at
> his fingertips and hopefully will post a note here with the figure.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel@mykitplane.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear question...
>
>
> <gmcneel@mykitplane.com>
> >
> > I am interested in the landing gear on the Pietenpol. I like the gear as
> > seen in this picture:
> >
> > http://www.mykitplane.com/pietenpolGear.cfm. Is this the design that
comes
> > with the original plans?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gary P. McNeel, Jr.
> > MyKitPlane.com
> > EAA 665957
> > gmcneel@mykitplane.com
> > http://www.mykitplane.com
> >
>
>
> And another archive:
>
> Match: #167 Message: #16172 Date: Jan 14, 2002 From: "Greg Cardinal"
> <gcardinal@startribune.com> Subject: Re: Landing gear question...
>
>
> The axel on our plane is 19" aft of the firewall.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
> >>> bobka@charter.net 01/13 11:48 AM >>>
>
>
Message 21
| 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: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Les: When you drill and pressure oiled the crank, did you stay with the
babbit, or go with insert bearings? Leon S Hutchinson Ks.
Message 22
| 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: Press. oiled A |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: ZigoDan@aol.com
I assume you guys are going to turn up the heat in your A powered ships. The
pressured oil supply is not needed if turning Pietenpols recommended RPM.
But I understand that it is nice to have. The engine is able to produce more
power than designed for. Better breathing is what I have understood to help
the most, increase the intake CFMS. The insert bearings I have seen
available use a center thrust, is this the norm? If so it would not seem to
be a good idea, since the thrust loads need to stay were they are for
aircraft use.
P.S. I have an A engine with most machine work done, and new bearings for
$550.00 anyone interested email me at zigodan@aol.com.
Dan
Message 23
| 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: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Dan,
I might be interested. Can you send me pictures.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
ZigoDan@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Press. oiled A
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: ZigoDan@aol.com
I assume you guys are going to turn up the heat in your A powered ships.
The
pressured oil supply is not needed if turning Pietenpols recommended RPM.
But I understand that it is nice to have. The engine is able to produce
more
power than designed for. Better breathing is what I have understood to help
the most, increase the intake CFMS. The insert bearings I have seen
available use a center thrust, is this the norm? If so it would not seem to
be a good idea, since the thrust loads need to stay were they are for
aircraft use.
P.S. I have an A engine with most machine work done, and new bearings for
$550.00 anyone interested email me at zigodan@aol.com.
Dan
Message 24
| 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: | Model A Firewall Fwd. for sale |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
Included is the Model A engine, Slick Mag, Dan Price Aluminum Head, radiator,
hoses, mounts & fittings, engine mount, cowling, prop. The engine needs
rebuilt. I suggest drilling the crankshaft for pressure oiling, forged
pistons, and an alternative induction system. $1500 for all. I have
pictures. E-mail me direct for pictures or questions.
Chuck Gantzer
rcaprd@aol.com
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! --
|