Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:31 AM - List Fund Raiser - Wow, Have You Seen The Free Gifts? (Matt Dralle)
2. 03:05 AM - FW: ribs, spars... (Drago Vejnovic)
3. 06:57 AM - Re: was insurance, now, flying with stones? (Kip & Beth Gardner)
4. 07:01 AM - Re: first passenger yesterday (At7000ft@aol.com)
5. 07:17 AM - Re: Pietenpol accident research (At7000ft@aol.com)
6. 07:21 AM - Re: was insurance, now, flying with stones? (shad bell)
7. 07:23 AM - for some of the newer Pietenpol folks on the list (Michael D Cuy)
8. 08:36 AM - Re: Pietenpol accident research (Hodgson, Mark O)
9. 08:45 AM - Insurance (Michael D Cuy)
10. 09:05 AM - Re: insurance (At7000ft@aol.com)
11. 11:26 AM - Tradition (Michael Fisher)
12. 02:44 PM - Re: Insurance (John Dilatush)
13. 03:54 PM - projects (LAWRENCE WILLIAMS)
14. 05:29 PM - Re: projects (Jack Phillips)
15. 07:14 PM - Re: Tradition (dave rowe)
16. 07:32 PM - Wood (dave rowe)
17. 08:02 PM - Re: Insurance (Richard Navratil)
18. 08:06 PM - Re: insurance (Jim Ash)
19. 08:51 PM - Accident reports (Rcaprd@aol.com)
20. 08:56 PM - Re: first passenger yesterday (Rcaprd@aol.com)
21. 09:13 PM - Re: Wood (Kip & Beth Gardner)
22. 10:16 PM - Re: Accident reports (dave rowe)
23. 10:20 PM - Hello, and a few questions (Mike Whaley)
24. 10:27 PM - Re: Wood (Clif Dawson)
25. 11:01 PM - Re: FW: ribs, spars... (Clif Dawson)
26. 11:08 PM - Re: Hello, and a few questions (dave rowe)
27. 11:19 PM - Re: Hello, and a few questions (Peter W Johnson)
28. 11:24 PM - Re: Wood (dave rowe)
29. 11:28 PM - Re: Wood (dave rowe)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser - Wow, Have You Seen The Free Gifts? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
The List Fund Raiser is going well so far this year and I wanted to say
"Thank You" to everyone that has made a Contribution already this year!
Though the generous support of Andy Gold and the Builders Bookstore (
http://www.buildersbooks.com ), I'm able to offer some truly awesome gifts
with qualifying Contributions this year. There's quite a line up and a
rather diverse set of options - certainly something for every taste and
personality. Here's a list of this year's fine options:
* List Archive CD
* Aircraft Builder's Log
* Pilot Flashlight System
* Pro Pilot Logbook
* FAR/AIM on CD
* Jeppesen Flight Bag
* Aviation History Book
* Techstar Flight Computer
Please support your Email List Community AND pick up a really slick Gift at
the same time! The SSL Secure Contribution web site can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Once again, I would like to thank everyone that has so generously supported
the continued operation and upgrade of the Lists Services here on the
Matronics servers!!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
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: | FW: ribs, spars... |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Drago Vejnovic <vejnovic@inecco.net>
Dear Pieters,
Thank you for welcoming!
here grows Bosnian Spruce (some kind of european (Norway) spruce). Best
parts of lumber is used for resonator in musical instruments. Identical
density as sitka but sitka is 20% stronger. Compressive strenght for
european spruce is 4350 psi(Source: MATWEB-material property data
http://www.matls.com/search/SearchSubcat.asp )I bought (after few months
searching) some woods in "Illegal mills", enough for ribs and
fuselage(spliced longerons).
Thanks to all,
Drago Vejnovic
Vojvode Momcila 14
78000 Banja Luka
Bosnia and Herzegovina
vejnovic@inecco.net
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: was insurance, now, flying with stones? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
Group,
I just spent (for the second time in 16 months) the nicest weekend we've
had in NE Ohio this Fall in the hospital being treated for a non-passing
kidney stone.
In addition to mundane issues like insuring my contraption, I was wondering
if any of you out there have had to deal with stones as an issue when
applying for your medical? With any luck, I'll be getting my student
pilot's ticket sometime later this year & so this will soon be an issue for
me.
I don't want to get into details of my medical history, but I'm beginning
to think that these things are going to be an ongoing problem - I can't
drink enough water (or pee enough, or change my diet enough) to keep stones
from forming. From what I've read, the FAA's 'minimum' standard for
issuing a medical to someone with a history of stones is demonstartion of
being 'stone free' at tyhe time of the application, but we all know what
they tend to think of 'minimums'.
It has always been my intention to get a regular ticket, but if the medical
issue becomes too big a hassle, I'll have to settle for Sport Pilot and
keep track of my own health - I get about a 2-week warning before one
becomes a major problem, but I suspect that's not going to good enough for
Uncle to issue me a medical without some high-octane medical backup from my
Doc.
Any comments?
Thanks!
Kip Gardner
(back to cold & rainy now that I'm home - figures)
North Canton, OH
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: first passenger yesterday |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com
Congrats on your passenger flight Walt. And concerning flying our Pietenpols
with 2 fat guys (refering to myself of course, not you Walt), I am planning on
using a 110 HP Corvair in mine and I live in Colorado with airport density
altitudes up to 8000 ft. Do you guys think I would have enough power with this
setup? (I know 'enough power' can mean different things to different people, I
think enough would be at least a steady 400-500 fpm minimum).I know of one
Pietenpol here is Colorado with a turbo-ed Subaru which I believe does fine with
a passenger.
Rick Holland
Guess I was really paranoid on taking a second.
All went well.
Any other tips from you old timers on things to expect with someone in the
front???
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: Pietenpol accident research |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com
Please email me a copy of the file also if you would.
Rick Holland
at7000ft@aol.com
I would like to see them if you want to send them directly outside the list.
Barry
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: | Re: was insurance, now, flying with stones? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
Kip,
i know all to well about the kidney stone issue. I had
to deal with that when i was in highschool, and the
next year or so after. I got denied my 3rd class
medical because of a stone, (i tried to lie about it
but they found blood in my urine) it took me about 2
years to finnaly get my medical. They did however
find out what my stones were...Cystine, and have been
on medicine ever since with out any trouble. Its been
about 5 years now and seem to have it licked, but
every time i go in for a faa phisical they ned a
K.U.B. X-ray to prove i'm still "stone free". My
advise would be to keep it quiet and see if they find
it, if not great, if so just keep trying they'll give
you a medical cert. even if it's special issuance. If
i can be of any other help let me know.
Shad Bell
getting close to cover dad's piet!!!
__________________________________
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: | for some of the newer Pietenpol folks on the list |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Group-- as obvious as this sounds to most of us, one of the greatest
sources of Piet info on the web is still up and running and put into
service by former Piet news editor Grant MacLaren: Check this out if you
can--- loads and loads of info: http://users.aol.com/bpanews/www.html
PS- Grant is onto other things and does not update the web site or stay
active in the Piet movement very much anymore----but the work he's done in
the past is all there and extremely valuable if you click on all the nooks
and crannies of this huge, huge, Piet web site.
ALSO---- if you are looking for plans for the Pietenpol and additional
information, the Pietenpol Family Web site has that for you
here: http://www.pressenter.com/~apietenp/
Mike C.
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: Pietenpol accident research |
UPPERCASE_25_50
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson@bu.edu>
Don,
A search on the NTSB data base, on the string "Pietenpol" for reported
amateur-built airplanes accidents in G.A. since 1962 yields the
following 34. I suspect your file is somehow derived from this d.b.
Rep't
Type Date Probable
Cause Released Location Make / Model Regist.
Number Severity Type of Air Carrier Operation
and Carrier Name (Doing Business As)
Prel <brief.asp?ev_id=20030805X01266&key=1> 8/3/03 Peru,
IN
Young Pietenpol Air Camper N81171 Fatal(1) Part 91: General
Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20020617X00895&key=1> 6/13/02 1/16/03
Bainbridge, GA Harrison Pietenpol Air Camper N7224X Fatal(1)
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20020417X00530&key=1> 4/9/02 4/18/03
Rocky Comfort, MO Bozeman Pietenpol Aircamper N96EB Fatal(2)
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20010521X00973&key=1> 5/16/01 2/5/02
Tulsa, OK Kirchner Pietenpol Aircamper N25157 Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22078&key=1> 9/23/00 5/18/01
RAYMOND, WA Rowe PIETENPOL N5079R Nonfatal Part
91: General
Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21691&key=1> 8/27/00 10/23/01
ANDOVER, MN Widner PIETENPOL AIRCAMPER N89JW Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X20787&key=1> 4/23/00 5/17/01
BOONE, IA Cunningham PIETENPOL AIRCAMPER N899TC Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19169&key=1> 7/28/99 6/22/00
OSHKOSH, WI Burns PIETENPOL AIR CAMPER N350MB Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19350&key=1> 7/26/99 8/3/00
COLLINS, OH Troy PIETENPOL N6286A Nonfatal Part
91: General
Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11558&key=1> 12/2/98 2/22/01
ENGLAND, AR HOLIMAN PIETENPOL AIRCAMPER N396S Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X08319&key=1> 7/5/97 4/24/98
LAKE VILLAGE, IN Niquette PIETENPOL GN-1 N46844 Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001207X04606&key=1> 9/11/95 4/29/96
REDMOND, OR PIETENPOL AIR-CAMPER N18GH Nonfatal
Part 91:
General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X01561&key=1> 6/7/94 11/14/94
BLYTHE, CA HAYES/PIETENPOL AIR CAMPER N76TC Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X13074&key=1> 8/21/93 9/30/94
EATON RAPIDS, MI BRADFORD PIETENPOL SKYSCOUT N4301D Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X13104&key=1> 8/12/93 12/19/94
PONTIAC, MI R.D. BELL/PIETENPOL AIRCAMPER N194BB Nonfatal
Part 91: General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X44345&key=1> 8/6/83 SHELTON,
WA PIETONPOL-IMRIE AIRCAMPER CFACV Fatal(1) Part
91:
General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=25799&key=0> 8/17/81
BLAKESBURG, IA PIETENPOL AIRCMP N12939 Nonfatal
Part 91
General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=25278&key=0> 7/26/81 EMMA, MO
PIETENPOL A'CAMP N68064 Fatal(1) Part 91 General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=25469&key=0> 7/26/81 FRIDAY
HARBOR, WA PIETENPOL GN-2 N6210 Nonfatal Part 91
General
Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=29441&key=0> 9/28/80 MARION,
IN PIETENPOL GN-1 N4933 Fatal(1) Part 91 General
Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=29913&key=0> 9/6/80 PATTERSON,
LA
PIETENPOL AIRCMP N4272 Nonfatal Part 91 General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=34237&key=0> 9/21/79
MINNEAPOLIS, MN PIETENPOL AIRCMP N25157 Nonfatal
Part 91 General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=35337&key=0> 7/8/79 MESA, AZ
PIETENPOL AIRCAM N3586 Fatal(1) Part 91 General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=41773&key=0> 6/28/78 TACOMA,
WA PIETENPOL BOWERS N688Y Nonfatal Part 91 General
Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=44403&key=0> 10/31/77
ALBUQUERQUE, NM PIETENPOL AIRCAM N83893 Nonfatal
Part 91 General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=45578&key=0> 8/6/77 MANKATO, MN
PIETENPOL-A SCOUT N5987 Nonfatal Part 91 General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=53856&key=0> 7/2/76 ALBANY, OR
PIETENPOL S.A.M. N5748 Nonfatal Part 91 General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=49502&key=0> 8/10/75
LATTASBURG, OH PIETENPOL GN-1 N3148 Nonfatal Part
91 General
Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=84700&key=0> 10/23/73
LAKEWOOD, NJ PIETENPOL AIRCAM N5392 Nonfatal Part
91
General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=60409&key=0> 6/19/71
MENOMONEE FLS, WI PIETENPOL GN-1 N4705G Nonfatal
Part 91
General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=9061&key=0> 1/11/69
SPANAWAY, WA PIETENPOL PARASL N9258 Nonfatal Part
91
General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=20480&key=0> 3/23/68 WACO, TX
PIETENPOL CAMPER N3916 Nonfatal Part 91 General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=21983&key=0> 12/4/66
HOMESTEAD, FL PIETENPOL CAMPER N4632S Nonfatal
Part 91
General Aviation
Final <brief.asp?ev_id=21930&key=0> 11/7/66
PLYMOUTH, MI PIETENPOL CAMPER N4062C Nonfatal Part
91
General Aviation
Sorry about the formatting but I put it in Courier New, 8 pt. in Rich
Text Format with the hopes that it would send OK. Any other approach
would require an attachment and take up too much space anyway. You can
check individual narratives by searching on the given tail numbers, and
they come back very quickly. The site is:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
Of course, having a ready-made file to search through is a lot easier.
A possibly disturbing although not necessarily meaningful observation is
that the last 3 in the d.b. are fatals, and you have to go back to 1983
to find any prior to that.
Mark Hodgson
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
carrying 1 mil $ liability only on my Air Camper costs about $300/year and
I've switched to EAA's new carrier (since Avemco bailed
out) http://www.falconinsurance.com
Not sure what the additional hull insurance would be but I'd suspect for
about $800 or so you should be able to get liab. and hull to value at
around $15,000.
Mike C.
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 |
|
BAYES_70 (2.3 points) BODY": Bayesian.classifier.says.spam.probability.is.70.to.80@[score:0.7647]
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com
Any idea what the cost would be for liablility only insurance for that?
I dont recall seeing past discussion on insurance rates for the Piet. I just
got a qoute from AOPA with a $14,000 value for $1550. Is this comparable to
others? AOPA says they have had very few quotes done for the Piet.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael Fisher <mfisher@gci.net>
Dear seat of the pants flying enthusiasts,
A Ford powered Pietenpol is an American tradition - - a way for a scrappy maverick
to say: I am not dependent on Cessna/Raytheon/Lycoming/Continental. I have
a 1.9 liter engine from a 1993 Ford Escort. Everything about it says: Pietenpol
Scout. My plan is to invert the engine to get a low center of gravity with
high thrust line. This will require extensive modifications to the lubrication,
fuel, and cooling systems. A scavenge pump should not be necessary. Constant
flow, variable pressure, multi-port injection will deliver the fuel. The
propeller flange will be bolted to the crankshaft flange - - no belts or gears.
Extra pressure oil will be provided to the thrust bearing.
This installation should come in a bit lighter than the original Ford, while providing
perhaps 15% more thrust. Modern liquid cooled, fuel injected engines
can enable economy and range not attainable with air cooling. Thirty horsepower
applied to a long, slow turning Prop. should cruise a Scout at seventy MPH.
Fuel flow at this power setting will be less than 2.2 GPH A light wooden propeller
turning at about 2400 RPM will minimize precessive loads on the crankshaft.
Inverting an automobile engine for aircraft use is nothing new. Steve
Wittman did it years ago with a Tailwind.
Why am I doing this? In thirty five years of training pilots, I have observed
a severe deterioration in basic airmanship skills. The modern curriculum devotes
so much time to regulatory compliance and electronics that precious little
is left for stick and rudder. When experienced, role model pilots are seen
flying simple, basic airplanes with skill and gusto, a valuable message is sent
out: "I can do this too." is the thought which has inspired many great careers.
I am interested in a plans-built Pietenpol Scout, firewall back, as a test bed
for my engine. Some damage would be acceptable.
Happy landings, Mike Fisher
P. O. Box 347
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
(907) 733-2356
Alternate e-mail: michaeljpoisson@yahoo.com
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Insurance
===============================
Mike and other Pieters,
I have tried several times to get insurance on my Piet and if not been
outright refused, ignored.
The excuse is that since the plane is powered with an auto engine, the
companies don't want to touch it!
Are there any owners out there with converted auto engines that have been
able to get insurance? I would sure like to hear from you!
John
================================
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> carrying 1 mil $ liability only on my Air Camper costs about $300/year
and
> I've switched to EAA's new carrier (since Avemco bailed
> out) http://www.falconinsurance.com
>
> Not sure what the additional hull insurance would be but I'd suspect for
> about $800 or so you should be able to get liab. and hull to value at
> around $15,000.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
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 |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:54:14 -0500
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms@msn.com>
I was thumbing through all my old BPANewsletters and what really stood out was
how many projects were reported as "almost finished", "ready for covering" or
other statements indicating that another Pietenpol was about ready to take to
the air. The thing that kept me poring over the later newsletters and my recent
recollections was how almost NONE of them were ever heard from again.
I'm at a loss to know why the sky isn't darkened with Piets! If the projects were
as far along as they stated, finishing them would seem highly likely. If they
thought enough to keep GEM updated on their progress, they would surely have
written in with all the details on their first flights and maybe even shown
up at B'head or OSH.
Do we have squadrons of Piets (and all the other homebuilt types) hiding in basements,
hangars and garages across the country? Where are they and why don't we
hear about them?
Larry
ps. had a 2 hr flight with TP drops Monday morning in perfectly blue skies, no
wind and 70 degrees. I had just put in the Prestone anti-freeze for the winter
and had to check the system for leaks
Anyone have info on skis?
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Some of us are just slow.
Jack Phillips
Nearly 8 years into NX899JP, which got the last piece of fabric glued on
last night
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LAWRENCE
WILLIAMS
Subject: Pietenpol-List: projects
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms@msn.com>
I was thumbing through all my old BPANewsletters and what really stood out
was how many projects were reported as "almost finished", "ready for
covering" or other statements indicating that another Pietenpol was about
ready to take to the air. The thing that kept me poring over the later
newsletters and my recent recollections was how almost NONE of them were
ever heard from again.
I'm at a loss to know why the sky isn't darkened with Piets! If the projects
were as far along as they stated, finishing them would seem highly likely.
If they thought enough to keep GEM updated on their progress, they would
surely have written in with all the details on their first flights and maybe
even shown up at B'head or OSH.
Do we have squadrons of Piets (and all the other homebuilt types) hiding in
basements, hangars and garages across the country? Where are they and why
don't we hear about them?
Larry
ps. had a 2 hr flight with TP drops Monday morning in perfectly blue skies,
no wind and 70 degrees. I had just put in the Prestone anti-freeze for the
winter and had to check the system for leaks
Anyone have info on skis?
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: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
I don't suppose you would ship it up here, I'd be glad to test it for a
few years, and I won't charge a penny! Best of luck, keep us informed.
Michael Fisher wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael Fisher <mfisher@gci.net>
>
> Dear seat of the pants flying enthusiasts,
>
> A Ford powered Pietenpol is an American tradition - - a way for a scrappy maverick
to say: I am not dependent on Cessna/Raytheon/Lycoming/Continental. I have
a 1.9 liter engine from a 1993 Ford Escort. Everything about it says: Pietenpol
Scout. My plan is to invert the engine to get a low center of gravity
with high thrust line. This will require extensive modifications to the lubrication,
fuel, and cooling systems. A scavenge pump should not be necessary.
Constant flow, variable pressure, multi-port injection will deliver the fuel.
The propeller flange will be bolted to the crankshaft flange - - no belts or
gears. Extra pressure oil will be provided to the thrust bearing.
>
> This installation should come in a bit lighter than the original Ford, while
providing perhaps 15% more thrust. Modern liquid cooled, fuel injected engines
can enable economy and range not attainable with air cooling. Thirty horsepower
applied to a long, slow turning Prop. should cruise a Scout at seventy MPH.
Fuel flow at this power setting will be less than 2.2 GPH A light wooden
propeller turning at about 2400 RPM will minimize precessive loads on the crankshaft.
Inverting an automobile engine for aircraft use is nothing new. Steve
Wittman did it years ago with a Tailwind.
>
> Why am I doing this? In thirty five years of training pilots, I have observed
a severe deterioration in basic airmanship skills. The modern curriculum devotes
so much time to regulatory compliance and electronics that precious little
is left for stick and rudder. When experienced, role model pilots are seen
flying simple, basic airplanes with skill and gusto, a valuable message is sent
out: "I can do this too." is the thought which has inspired many great careers.
>
> I am interested in a plans-built Pietenpol Scout, firewall back, as a test bed
for my engine. Some damage would be acceptable.
>
> Happy landings, Mike Fisher
> P. O. Box 347
> Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
> (907) 733-2356
> Alternate e-mail: michaeljpoisson@yahoo.com
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
I would just like to throw something out for all to ponder, and give me
your feedback. Currently, Sitka Spruce seems to be the choice of
aircraft builders. The first aircraft I am building right now, the
Santa Anna, by Paul Ralph of Victoria BC (tiswildeair.com), was designed
specifically with Yellow Cedar in mind. For those not from the Pacific
Northwest, Yellow Cedar is indiginous to this coast, and was originally
incidentally harvested with red cedar, and often discarded. Our
Japanese friends discovered its potential however, and have been buying
huge quantities, forcing mills here to start reclaiming Yellow Cedar
from the woods, lakes etc. It has never been replanted, as it's slow
growth doesn't make it as profitable as other species. Property wise,
it's slightly heavier than Sitka Spruce, but stronger, more flexible,
and is extrememly rot-resistant and bugs HATE IT!!
In discussions with others, I've heard of Douglas Fir (YUK), and Hemlock
being used as well. I use Hemlock myself for gunwhales for cedar-strip
canoes and kayaks that I build, and I do like it. You can see photos of
the two planes I am building at mykitplanes.com, to get an idea of what
Yellow Cdear looks like. So here it is. Why aren't more people looking
at Yellow Cedar? Currently in Victoria, Sitka Spruce, select but not
graded, is about $8-10 per board foot. Premium Yellow Cedar, I'm
talking crystal clear, perfectly straight grained stuff, in anywhere
from 2X4 to 4X12 dimensions, and up to 20' lengths, I can get for $3.00
per board foot. I actually purchased a truckload of off-cuts from a
local mill for $25.00, all of it was less than 3/4" thick, up to 12"
wide, and 11' long! After planing, thinking I would make it into 1/4 X
3/4 strips for canoes, I was startled to find that about 80% of it was
suitable for aircraft! All of my Pietenpol wing ribs and tail section
are made from it, and I laminated up pieces for fuselage cross-braces as
well. Please tell me what you think.
Also, if you are looking for perfect wing rib material, I cut way more
than I need, I can probably supply enough for a couple of wings worth
from what I have cut right now, and I still have quite a bit that I
haven't even cut yet. I would have to check with Customs to see about
sending any south of the border, but I can't see it being a problem. If
you're looking for spar or fuselage longeron pieces, I could check into
it, but shipping may be a problem. This is not intended as a business,
I'm full time Airforce (Sea King Helicopters, hence my love of flying
antiques) and would only charge what it cost to purchase the wood, and
ship it, and a dollar or two for the saw blade fund. My planer is in
for servicing at the moment, but once it's back safe and sound I can
provide planed 4 sides in any dimensions. Again, please fire away with
your thoughts, crticisms, etc. Thanks, Dave Rowe, Victoria, BC
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
John
Are you an EAA or AOPA member? It may make a difference.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Insurance
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Insurance
> ===============================
> Mike and other Pieters,
>
> I have tried several times to get insurance on my Piet and if not been
> outright refused, ignored.
>
> The excuse is that since the plane is powered with an auto engine, the
> companies don't want to touch it!
>
> Are there any owners out there with converted auto engines that have been
> able to get insurance? I would sure like to hear from you!
>
> John
> ================================
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
> >
> > carrying 1 mil $ liability only on my Air Camper costs about $300/year
> and
> > I've switched to EAA's new carrier (since Avemco bailed
> > out) http://www.falconinsurance.com
> >
> > Not sure what the additional hull insurance would be but I'd suspect for
> > about $800 or so you should be able to get liab. and hull to value at
> > around $15,000.
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net>
I don't believe hull valuation figures into liability. Call them back and
get a liability-only quote.
Jim Ash
At 11/5/2003 10:23 AM -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com
>
>Any idea what the cost would be for liablility only insurance for that?
>I dont recall seeing past discussion on insurance rates for the Piet. I just
>got a qoute from AOPA with a $14,000 value for $1550. Is this comparable to
>others? AOPA says they have had very few quotes done for the Piet.
>
>
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: | Accident reports |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 11/4/03 11:20:21 AM Central Standard Time,
Carbarvo@aol.com writes:
<< Chuck...You've hit a nerve with me. Your investigation of Pietenpol
accidents
is extremely valuable to all of us. I am particularly interested in
accidents
caused by the failure of wire wheels. Would you scribble my name down on an
old lunch meat wrapper so that when you get through with your research you
could let me know? I'd appreciate that very much...Carl Vought >>
Carl,
The FAA / NTSB require a report to be filed when extensive damage has
occured, or an injury has occured. The failure of a wire wheel / ground loop,
probably wouldn't end up being reported. I'm sure there are plenty of incidents,
even off field landings, that are not reported. However, I'll be sure to send
you my report when I get it done. I've had to scroll through the NTSB file,
month by month, because I couldn't get the site to bring anything up when I
tried to use 'Pietenpol' as the key word. Very time consuming.
Chuck G.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: first passenger yesterday |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 11/5/03 9:02:52 AM Central Standard Time, At7000ft@aol.com
writes:
<< (I know 'enough power' can mean different things to different people, I
think enough would be at least a steady 400-500 fpm minimum) >>
Rick,
I'm lucky to get that much solo, with a fresh Continental A65, and a density
altitude of less than 3000'.
Chuck G.
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: Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
At 10:32 PM -0500 11/05/03, dave rowe wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
>
>I would just like to throw something out for all to ponder, and give me
>your feedback. Currently, Sitka Spruce seems to be the choice of
>aircraft builders. The first aircraft I am building right now, the
>Santa Anna, by Paul Ralph of Victoria BC (tiswildeair.com), was designed
>specifically with Yellow Cedar in mind. For those not from the Pacific
>Northwest, Yellow Cedar is indiginous to this coast, and was originally
>incidentally harvested with red cedar, and often discarded. Our
>Japanese friends discovered its potential however, and have been buying
>huge quantities, forcing mills here to start reclaiming Yellow Cedar
>from the woods, lakes etc. It has never been replanted, as it's slow
>growth doesn't make it as profitable as other species. Property wise,
>it's slightly heavier than Sitka Spruce, but stronger, more flexible,
>and is extrememly rot-resistant and bugs HATE IT!!
>
>In discussions with others, I've heard of Douglas Fir (YUK), and Hemlock
>being used as well. I use Hemlock myself for gunwhales for cedar-strip
>canoes and kayaks that I build, and I do like it. You can see photos of
>the two planes I am building at mykitplanes.com, to get an idea of what
>Yellow Cdear looks like. So here it is. Why aren't more people looking
>at Yellow Cedar? Currently in Victoria, Sitka Spruce, select but not
>graded, is about $8-10 per board foot. Premium Yellow Cedar, I'm
>talking crystal clear, perfectly straight grained stuff, in anywhere
>from 2X4 to 4X12 dimensions, and up to 20' lengths, I can get for $3.00
>per board foot. I actually purchased a truckload of off-cuts from a
>local mill for $25.00, all of it was less than 3/4" thick, up to 12"
>wide, and 11' long! After planing, thinking I would make it into 1/4 X
>3/4 strips for canoes, I was startled to find that about 80% of it was
>suitable for aircraft! All of my Pietenpol wing ribs and tail section
>are made from it, and I laminated up pieces for fuselage cross-braces as
>well. Please tell me what you think.
>
>Also, if you are looking for perfect wing rib material, I cut way more
>than I need, I can probably supply enough for a couple of wings worth
>from what I have cut right now, and I still have quite a bit that I
>haven't even cut yet. I would have to check with Customs to see about
>sending any south of the border, but I can't see it being a problem. If
>you're looking for spar or fuselage longeron pieces, I could check into
>it, but shipping may be a problem. This is not intended as a business,
>I'm full time Airforce (Sea King Helicopters, hence my love of flying
>antiques) and would only charge what it cost to purchase the wood, and
>ship it, and a dollar or two for the saw blade fund. My planer is in
>for servicing at the moment, but once it's back safe and sound I can
>provide planed 4 sides in any dimensions. Again, please fire away with
>your thoughts, crticisms, etc. Thanks, Dave Rowe, Victoria, BC
Dave,
I have several references that suggest Port Orford Cedar (C. lawsoniana)
and Alaska Yellow Cedar (C. nootkatensis) are suitable aircraft woods, but
at the time(s) of their publication indicated that they might be hard to
find due to market & logging practice considerations. I assume you are
speaking about one of these? I could be very interested in spar material,
and maybe some 1x1 for general usage.
Can you give us a few more details in the context of the specifications
(rings per inch, pitch pockets, grain slope, etc.) for aircraft grade wood?
Back when I lived in coastal VA, I spent a year doing biological survey
work in the coastal swamps. Down there, they have remnant populations of
another related species, Atlantic White Cedar. This stuff was highly sought
for boat building back at the turn of the 20th century. It's real pretty &
I always thought it had potential as aircraft wood. But most of the stands
were cut for shipbuilding & it requires very specific fire conditions to
reseed a stand, so it's largely a lost resource. We used to come across
12-18 inch logs that had been down, in swamp muck, for 50 or 60 years and
were still intact - decay resistant for sure!
Your stuff sounds like it might be a really good alternative. Thanks for
bringing it up.
Cheers,
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
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: Accident reports |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
I think all of us would greatly benefit from this, if you require any
assistance, I'm sure we can lend a hand. Understanding accident
patterns is critical to avoiding past mistakes, we in the airforce have
a flight safety program because of this.
Rcaprd@aol.com wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 11/4/03 11:20:21 AM Central Standard Time,
> Carbarvo@aol.com writes:
>
> << Chuck...You've hit a nerve with me. Your investigation of Pietenpol
> accidents
> is extremely valuable to all of us. I am particularly interested in
> accidents
> caused by the failure of wire wheels. Would you scribble my name down on an
> old lunch meat wrapper so that when you get through with your research you
> could let me know? I'd appreciate that very much...Carl Vought >>
>
> Carl,
> The FAA / NTSB require a report to be filed when extensive damage has
> occured, or an injury has occured. The failure of a wire wheel / ground loop,
> probably wouldn't end up being reported. I'm sure there are plenty of incidents,
> even off field landings, that are not reported. However, I'll be sure to send
> you my report when I get it done. I've had to scroll through the NTSB file,
> month by month, because I couldn't get the site to bring anything up when I
> tried to use 'Pietenpol' as the key word. Very time consuming.
>
> Chuck G.
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Hello, and a few questions |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
Hello everyone,
Guess I should introduce myself since I'm new to the list. My name is Mike
Whaley, I live in Melbourne FL, and I'm planning on building a Pietenpol Air
Camper with a Corvair engine using William Wynne's conversion manual. It
might also have a slightly-expanded cockpit (I'm tall enough that I had
difficulty getting my legs under the panel in the standard-sized one I tried
on at Sun N Fun, and later I heard a story at the forum about what happens
when you don't build a cockpit mockup before building the plane!) I'm not a
pilot (yet) and am at the stage of collecting articles as fast as I can find
them. I do have Mike Cuy's great video, very inspiring! Should have the
plans pretty soon and hope to start building after we settle into a new
house soon. My aviation experience so far comes from a lifelong interest in
R/C and free-flight models, and just finding ways to be around aircraft as
much as possible. I'm currently employed as Steen Aero Lab's webmaster (we
sell the Skybolt, Pitts S1/Model 14, Knight Twister, Great Lakes, Brunton's
flying wires, and Hoffmann props among other things) and I'm also a founding
member and webmaster for the OV-10 Bronco Association. I've always followed
homebuilt planes closely, and the Piet seems to be a great combination of
ease of construction, good support, low cost, and practicality. Not to
mention the fun factor seems way, way up there. Around the time I met
William Wynne, I realized that a Corvair-powered Piet was just the kind of
plane I had been looking for, and I wouldn't need to worry about not being
able to find good help when the inevitable problems arose in something.
I do have a couple of questions for which I couldn't find answers in the
archives... guess I'll ask all you experts out there. :)
How feasible would it be to build a Piet in a one-car garage? My wife and I
are looking to buy a house, hopefully we can find a 2-car garage but so far
it's been slim pickin's on that front. I know that folks have managed to
build airplanes inside porta-johns and jail cells and the like... and
obviously the more room you have, the better... but what advice do you folks
have on building in a not-too-large space? I suspect in this situation one
should build the flattest parts first so they can be stored elsewhere.
Secondly, I'm trying to collect info on the feasability of obtaining my
sport pilot license in a (my) Piet. Has anyone out there actually learned to
fly in a Pietenpol? Again, I know that it is theoretically possible, but
would like to gather opinions on the idea from those who have either done
it, tried it, or who can offer supportable reasons not to try it.
Finally, has anyone devised a way to fold the wings on a regular basis for
transport? Hangar space here is scarce, and it certainly ain't cheap!
Thanks, and sorry for the basic questions I'm sure many of you have heard
before.
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <cdawson5854@shaw.ca>
Alaska yellow is the same wood. Port Orford cedar
is very limited in its growing area but is the strongest
of the three( spruce, Alaska, PO. )
In the chart I've got, one of the US Forest Service lab's
research documents, the woods are tested at 12%
moisture so at 6% they are even stronger.
Spruce-compression-4500 lb/sq in.
Yellow- " " -5210 " "
Orford- " " -5890 " "
Other strength factors have the same relationship.
Spruce and yellow are listed at31 lb/cube foot, PO is 29
The only possible negative is that yellow cedar is a little
less crush resistant. Easily compensated for.
VERY nice to work with. Doug Fir is a real pain. Since the
hardness varies so greatly between the winter and summer
rings, it's difficult to drill a hole exactly were you want it.
Not so with the cedars. Also doug fir splits at the slightest
wim. It's not even a true fir.
Pitch pockets can turn up ( and will ) at any place without
any warning at all in doug. This is not a concern in the others.
Or in true firs for that matter. There can be unknown pitch
pockets in your 3/4" spars ( unless you X-ray them.)
Clif
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Kip & Beth Gardner
<kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
>
> At 10:32 PM -0500 11/05/03, dave rowe wrote:
> >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
> >
> >I would just like to throw something out for all to ponder, and give me
> >your feedback. Currently, Sitka Spruce seems to be the choice of
> >aircraft builders. The first aircraft I am building right now, the
> >Santa Anna, by Paul Ralph of Victoria BC (tiswildeair.com), was designed
> >specifically with Yellow Cedar in mind.
> >In discussions with others, I've heard of Douglas Fir (YUK), and Hemlock
> >being used as well. I use Hemlock myself for gunwhales for cedar-strip
> >canoes and kayaks that I build, and I do like it. You can see photos of
> >the two planes I am building at mykitplanes.com, to get an idea of what
> >Yellow Cdear looks like. > >
> >your thoughts, crticisms, etc. Thanks, Dave Rowe, Victoria, BC
>
> Dave,
>
> I have several references that suggest Port Orford Cedar (C. lawsoniana)
> and Alaska Yellow Cedar (C. nootkatensis) are suitable aircraft woods, but
> at the time(s) of their publication indicated that they might be hard to
> find due to market & logging practice considerations. I assume you are
> speaking about one of these? I could be very interested in spar material,
> and maybe some 1x1 for general usage.
>
> Can you give us a few more details in the context of the specifications
> (rings per inch, pitch pockets, grain slope, etc.) for aircraft grade
wood?
> >
> Your stuff sounds like it might be a really good alternative. Thanks for
> bringing it up.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> North Canton, OH
>
Message 25
| 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: FW: ribs, spars... |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <cdawson5854@shaw.ca>
I think you have a couple of choices in using this then.
You could use it in appropriate dimensions as cap
material with the ply web.
You could make the traditional 1" wide spars and
rout them as per the plans. The strength should be
comparable to the newer 3/4" spars.
What do the rest of you think?
Clif
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Drago Vejnovic <vejnovic@inecco.net>
>
>
> Dear Pieters,
>
> Thank you for welcoming!
>
> here grows Bosnian Spruce (some kind of european (Norway) spruce). Best
> parts of lumber is used for resonator in musical instruments. Identical
> density as sitka but sitka is 20% stronger. Compressive strenght for
> european spruce is 4350 psi(Source: MATWEB-material property data
> http://www.matls.com/search/SearchSubcat.asp )I bought (after few months
> searching) some woods in "Illegal mills", enough for ribs and
> fuselage(spliced longerons).
>
> Thanks to all,
>
> Drago Vejnovic
>
> Vojvode Momcila 14
> 78000 Banja Luka
> Bosnia and Herzegovina
>
> vejnovic@inecco.net
>
Message 26
| 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: Hello, and a few questions |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
Welcome to the group, I'm building two planes in a double car garage, so
one in one should work fine, I think the key is being neat and organized
(I'm neither). The wing ribs are a great place to start, and can hang
from the wall when done, so can the tail feathers. If you do one wing
section at a time, then hang them, followed by the fuse last? Should
work out. The folding wing thing is one of the FAQs on the Pietenpol
Association site, doesen't sound too positive about that, but the outer
sections are pretty light, not too difficult to place them beside the
fuse on a wider flatbed, also have seen them in the box of a truck.
Your RC/free flight building experience will really help, the Pietenpol
is a really big telemaster, or guillow's kit, only much easier to work
with. Of course you want to build the best aircraft possible, but the
nice thing to think of when you go from models to full scale is this:
On a peanut scale, if one wing were built 1/4" longer than the other,
you'd be in big trouble. on a Piet, you'd never notice. Best of luck,
unfortunately have no idea about US regs, someone else can tackle that
one. Dave Rowe
Mike Whaley wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Guess I should introduce myself since I'm new to the list. My name is Mike
> Whaley, I live in Melbourne FL, and I'm planning on building a Pietenpol Air
> Camper with a Corvair engine using William Wynne's conversion manual. It
> might also have a slightly-expanded cockpit (I'm tall enough that I had
> difficulty getting my legs under the panel in the standard-sized one I tried
> on at Sun N Fun, and later I heard a story at the forum about what happens
> when you don't build a cockpit mockup before building the plane!) I'm not a
> pilot (yet) and am at the stage of collecting articles as fast as I can find
> them. I do have Mike Cuy's great video, very inspiring! Should have the
> plans pretty soon and hope to start building after we settle into a new
> house soon. My aviation experience so far comes from a lifelong interest in
> R/C and free-flight models, and just finding ways to be around aircraft as
> much as possible. I'm currently employed as Steen Aero Lab's webmaster (we
> sell the Skybolt, Pitts S1/Model 14, Knight Twister, Great Lakes, Brunton's
> flying wires, and Hoffmann props among other things) and I'm also a founding
> member and webmaster for the OV-10 Bronco Association. I've always followed
> homebuilt planes closely, and the Piet seems to be a great combination of
> ease of construction, good support, low cost, and practicality. Not to
> mention the fun factor seems way, way up there. Around the time I met
> William Wynne, I realized that a Corvair-powered Piet was just the kind of
> plane I had been looking for, and I wouldn't need to worry about not being
> able to find good help when the inevitable problems arose in something.
>
> I do have a couple of questions for which I couldn't find answers in the
> archives... guess I'll ask all you experts out there. :)
>
> How feasible would it be to build a Piet in a one-car garage? My wife and I
> are looking to buy a house, hopefully we can find a 2-car garage but so far
> it's been slim pickin's on that front. I know that folks have managed to
> build airplanes inside porta-johns and jail cells and the like... and
> obviously the more room you have, the better... but what advice do you folks
> have on building in a not-too-large space? I suspect in this situation one
> should build the flattest parts first so they can be stored elsewhere.
>
> Secondly, I'm trying to collect info on the feasability of obtaining my
> sport pilot license in a (my) Piet. Has anyone out there actually learned to
> fly in a Pietenpol? Again, I know that it is theoretically possible, but
> would like to gather opinions on the idea from those who have either done
> it, tried it, or who can offer supportable reasons not to try it.
>
> Finally, has anyone devised a way to fold the wings on a regular basis for
> transport? Hangar space here is scarce, and it certainly ain't cheap!
>
> Thanks, and sorry for the basic questions I'm sure many of you have heard
> before.
>
> -Mike
>
> Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
> Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
> http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
>
Message 27
| 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: | Hello, and a few questions |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka@yahoo.com>
Mike,
Welcome to the list.
Jim Wills (1 Humber Road, Blackheath, London SE3 7LT, UK) produces a set of
UK PFA approved plans of the Piet including a three piece wing with an
aileron quick connect system. The quick connect consists of a metal plate in
the center section and a matching plate in the wing section (times two for
port & starboard). When the wings are put on the center section these plates
match up with close tolerance. The control cables from the alieron control
horn on the cockpit torque tube attach to the center section plate. The
control cables from the aileron horn on the wing sections attach to the
plate at the butt rib end of the wing. The control cables are all pre
adjusted and its just a matter of butting the wing sections to the center
section, connecting the struts and jury struts and away you fly. It is meant
to take about half an hour to setup. There are also fittings that allow the
Piet to be trailered on the main wheels using the tail wheel as a tow hitch.
The wings stow along the fuselage. There are some modifications to the butt
ribs which I have incorporated in my ribs. I am still not sure whether I
shall use the quick connect system. Additional weight of the steel in the
butt ribs and additional complexity for the half hour setup time may not be
needed if I hanger the aircaft somewhere, which is what I am hoping to do.
Hope that helps, you've picked a good airplane and a very knowlegeable group
of guys, I am learning heaps.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
http://cpc-world.cable.nu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Whaley
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hello, and a few questions
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike Whaley"
--> <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
Hello everyone,
Guess I should introduce myself since I'm new to the list. My name is Mike
Whaley, I live in Melbourne FL, and I'm planning on building a Pietenpol Air
Camper with a Corvair engine using William Wynne's conversion manual. It
might also have a slightly-expanded cockpit (I'm tall enough that I had
difficulty getting my legs under the panel in the standard-sized one I tried
on at Sun N Fun, and later I heard a story at the forum about what happens
when you don't build a cockpit mockup before building the plane!) I'm not a
pilot (yet) and am at the stage of collecting articles as fast as I can find
them. I do have Mike Cuy's great video, very inspiring! Should have the
plans pretty soon and hope to start building after we settle into a new
house soon. My aviation experience so far comes from a lifelong interest in
R/C and free-flight models, and just finding ways to be around aircraft as
much as possible. I'm currently employed as Steen Aero Lab's webmaster (we
sell the Skybolt, Pitts S1/Model 14, Knight Twister, Great Lakes, Brunton's
flying wires, and Hoffmann props among other things) and I'm also a founding
member and webmaster for the OV-10 Bronco Association. I've always followed
homebuilt planes closely, and the Piet seems to be a great combination of
ease of construction, good support, low cost, and practicality. Not to
mention the fun factor seems way, way up there. Around the time I met
William Wynne, I realized that a Corvair-powered Piet was just the kind of
plane I had been looking for, and I wouldn't need to worry about not being
able to find good help when the inevitable problems arose in something.
I do have a couple of questions for which I couldn't find answers in the
archives... guess I'll ask all you experts out there. :)
How feasible would it be to build a Piet in a one-car garage? My wife and I
are looking to buy a house, hopefully we can find a 2-car garage but so far
it's been slim pickin's on that front. I know that folks have managed to
build airplanes inside porta-johns and jail cells and the like... and
obviously the more room you have, the better... but what advice do you folks
have on building in a not-too-large space? I suspect in this situation one
should build the flattest parts first so they can be stored elsewhere.
Secondly, I'm trying to collect info on the feasability of obtaining my
sport pilot license in a (my) Piet. Has anyone out there actually learned to
fly in a Pietenpol? Again, I know that it is theoretically possible, but
would like to gather opinions on the idea from those who have either done
it, tried it, or who can offer supportable reasons not to try it.
Finally, has anyone devised a way to fold the wings on a regular basis for
transport? Hangar space here is scarce, and it certainly ain't cheap!
Thanks, and sorry for the basic questions I'm sure many of you have heard
before.
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 28
| 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: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
Although I have downloaded it, I haven't read all of ANC-18, which is a
very comprehensive document on suitability of various woods for
aircraft. For example, it lists fir as being stronger than spruce in
all aspects save shear strength (4% weaker), and 18% heavier. Bending
strength for sitka spruce is listed as 9400psi, 10,800 for red pine,
10,900 for fir, 11,000 for hemlock, 10,200 for Port Orford cedar, etc.
I believe overall, Port Orford rates highest, Yellow Cedar a close
second, and spruce is somewhere down there. I mentioned to Cliff Dawson
a while back, that the Brits built their great Man O Wars from oak for
one simple reason. It was there. Oak is a lousy wood for boats, with
very poor tolerance to shock, rot, etc, but at the time, it was the best
stuff they had. The EAA book, wood aircraft building techniques, lists
the fol:
Grade A wood - structural/stressed parts, min density 24 lbs. cu ft,
10-17% moisture, grain slope 1/15, and
Grade B wood - secondary parts, 22-24 density, slope 1/12, same moisture
content. Min number of annular rings per inch is listed as 6 or 8
depending on the wood. All of the Yellow Cedar I've used, has more than
8 per quarter inch, I'll attach a photo to give you an idea. Pitch or
bark pockets are to be no greater than "not deeper than 1/8 W, nor wider
than 1/4 in. or 1/8 W, whichever is the lesser, and no longer than 2 in.
or four times the distance to the spar corner, whichever is the lesser:
and it keeps going. I just simply don't use wood with any pitch or
pockets whatsoever, and it's not difficult to find. Much of the Yellow
Cedar here has no defects, and no slope. For some reason when I first
started building I thought the min std was 1 in 44 inches for slope, and
I set aside anything less, and still had plenty of wood. I have done
18' strips on large canoes with perfectly straight grain the entire
length!!
I will get off my butt and check on the ins and outs of shipping to the
US, and all the legal crap, as I said, I won't do it as a business, but
definately will help in any way possible for fellow wooden aircraft
enthusiasts. Keep in touch, I will post any shipping info as soon as I
get it. Dave Rowe
> I have several references that suggest Port Orford Cedar (C. lawsoniana)
> and Alaska Yellow Cedar (C. nootkatensis) are suitable aircraft woods, but
> at the time(s) of their publication indicated that they might be hard to
> find due to market & logging practice considerations. I assume you are
> speaking about one of these? I could be very interested in spar material,
> and maybe some 1x1 for general usage.
>
> Can you give us a few more details in the context of the specifications
> (rings per inch, pitch pockets, grain slope, etc.) for aircraft grade wood?
>
> Back when I lived in coastal VA, I spent a year doing biological survey
> work in the coastal swamps. Down there, they have remnant populations of
> another related species, Atlantic White Cedar. This stuff was highly sought
> for boat building back at the turn of the 20th century. It's real pretty &
> I always thought it had potential as aircraft wood. But most of the stands
> were cut for shipbuilding & it requires very specific fire conditions to
> reseed a stand, so it's largely a lost resource. We used to come across
> 12-18 inch logs that had been down, in swamp muck, for 50 or 60 years and
> were still intact - decay resistant for sure!
>
> Your stuff sounds like it might be a really good alternative. Thanks for
> bringing it up.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> North Canton, OH
>
Message 29
| 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: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
You said it so much better and shorter than I did. What cliff says. .
Clif Dawson wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <cdawson5854@shaw.ca>
>
> Alaska yellow is the same wood. Port Orford cedar
> is very limited in its growing area but is the strongest
> of the three( spruce, Alaska, PO. )
>
> In the chart I've got, one of the US Forest Service lab's
> research documents, the woods are tested at 12%
> moisture so at 6% they are even stronger.
>
> Spruce-compression-4500 lb/sq in.
> Yellow- " " -5210 " "
> Orford- " " -5890 " "
>
> Other strength factors have the same relationship.
>
> Spruce and yellow are listed at31 lb/cube foot, PO is 29
>
> The only possible negative is that yellow cedar is a little
> less crush resistant. Easily compensated for.
>
> VERY nice to work with. Doug Fir is a real pain. Since the
> hardness varies so greatly between the winter and summer
> rings, it's difficult to drill a hole exactly were you want it.
> Not so with the cedars. Also doug fir splits at the slightest
> wim. It's not even a true fir.
>
> Pitch pockets can turn up ( and will ) at any place without
> any warning at all in doug. This is not a concern in the others.
> Or in true firs for that matter. There can be unknown pitch
> pockets in your 3/4" spars ( unless you X-ray them.)
>
> Clif
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Kip & Beth Gardner
> <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
> >
> > At 10:32 PM -0500 11/05/03, dave rowe wrote:
> > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
> > >
> > >I would just like to throw something out for all to ponder, and give me
> > >your feedback. Currently, Sitka Spruce seems to be the choice of
> > >aircraft builders. The first aircraft I am building right now, the
> > >Santa Anna, by Paul Ralph of Victoria BC (tiswildeair.com), was designed
> > >specifically with Yellow Cedar in mind.
> > >In discussions with others, I've heard of Douglas Fir (YUK), and Hemlock
> > >being used as well. I use Hemlock myself for gunwhales for cedar-strip
> > >canoes and kayaks that I build, and I do like it. You can see photos of
> > >the two planes I am building at mykitplanes.com, to get an idea of what
> > >Yellow Cdear looks like. > >
> > >your thoughts, crticisms, etc. Thanks, Dave Rowe, Victoria, BC
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > I have several references that suggest Port Orford Cedar (C. lawsoniana)
> > and Alaska Yellow Cedar (C. nootkatensis) are suitable aircraft woods, but
> > at the time(s) of their publication indicated that they might be hard to
> > find due to market & logging practice considerations. I assume you are
> > speaking about one of these? I could be very interested in spar material,
> > and maybe some 1x1 for general usage.
> >
> > Can you give us a few more details in the context of the specifications
> > (rings per inch, pitch pockets, grain slope, etc.) for aircraft grade
> wood?
> > >
> > Your stuff sounds like it might be a really good alternative. Thanks for
> > bringing it up.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kip Gardner
> >
> > North Canton, OH
> >
>
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! --
|