Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Wed 11/12/03


Total Messages Posted: 25



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:54 AM - wooden struts (Douwe Blumberg)
     2. 07:24 AM -  (Douwe Blumberg)
     3. 09:37 AM - Good Fuselage?? (Eric Williams)
     4. 09:37 AM - intake air filter material  (Michael D Cuy)
     5. 10:37 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (John Dilatush)
     6. 10:44 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Hubbard, Eugene)
     7. 10:57 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (John Ford)
     8. 11:01 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (DJ Vegh)
     9. 11:57 AM - Re: wooden struts (w b evans)
    10. 12:11 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (BARNSTMR@aol.com)
    11. 12:23 PM - Re: intake air filter material (BARNSTMR@aol.com)
    12. 12:36 PM - Re: intake air filter material (Michael D Cuy)
    13. 01:01 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Hubbard, Eugene)
    14. 01:33 PM - Re:  (w b evans)
    15. 03:02 PM - Re:  (Fred Weaver)
    16. 04:11 PM - Re: wooden struts (del magsam)
    17. 04:29 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (hjarrett)
    18. 04:39 PM - Re:  (hjarrett)
    19. 04:46 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Alex Sloan)
    20. 06:03 PM - Re: wooden struts (w b evans)
    21. 07:39 PM - Helmets - open cockpit equipment (owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com)
    22. 07:46 PM - Re:  (Jim Ash)
    23. 08:18 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Jim Ash)
    24. 08:53 PM - Piet accidents (Sanders, Andrew P)
    25. 10:17 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Eric Williams)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:54:10 AM PST US
    From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
    Subject: wooden struts
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> I bought my plane as a project. The builder was a skillfull woodworker who made everything he could from wood...including the lift/cabane and jury struts. I saw the article in the backissues he followed. He sandwhiched a quarter inch piece of marine plywood between two pieces of spruce and bolted long strap type fittings to the end... like a WWI plane. I'm sure they're a bit heavier. I've seen few shots in the backissues showing guys using these, and I can't figure out why they wouldn't be safe, but thought I'd ask everybody's opinion since... everybody's got one! Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions are people using and where is the best place to get the stock? Douwe douweblumberg@earthlink.net


    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
    Time: 07:24:55 AM PST US
    From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
    Subject:
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> Okay, another mind bender. What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else?


    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
    Time: 09:37:36 AM PST US
    From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
    Subject: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions on. While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder). I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor, a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces. The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1" member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less material than had they been built using 1x1 stock. I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he had used West System epoxy to construct it. Thanks for your input. Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over


    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
    Time: 09:37:36 AM PST US
    From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
    Subject: intake air filter material
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> do not archive Guys-- a little off topic, but just throwing this out since so many of you are so experienced and knowledgeable in so many areas I had to ask. Say you have an airplane w/ a Zenith carb (like the Ford engines have) and operate out of a grass strip and normally fly in the 'bug zone' of 0 to 1500 agl, would an automotive paper/rubber gasket type filter be acceptable if you got caught in say some light to moderate rain showers ? I know now I have a Brackett oiled foam filter on the Continental so the rain won't break that down. I do want some kind of filter on the Zenith carb for fear that a piece of grass or big bug will get in there and plug something up. I hear some aerobatic planes use no filter. Thanks ! Mike C. in Ohio where it's 64 beauutiful degrees. Not hot and sticky like lousy Louisiana ! (just kidding Corky)


    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
    Time: 10:37:48 AM PST US
    From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
    Subject: Re: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? ================================= Eric, Welcome to the list! Your reasoning about the area of the longerons is correct. It is true that Douglas Fir is about 25% stronger, but then the area can only be reduced by about 20%. Adding a strip to the existing longerons will not really add that much strength except in tension. It should be noted that the Pietenpol fuselage is an extremely strong unit because the Piets have been powered with engines from 40 to 145 hp that I am aware of. I would think your decision should be based on the engine and the type of flying you intend to do.(no aerobatics for instance) Hope this helps, John > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> > > Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been > lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate > any comments or suggestions on. > > While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many > airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project > that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder). > I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed > fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor, > a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces. > > The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing > that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared > to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were > loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and > since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he > had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The > problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply > 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area > of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1" > member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less > material than had they been built using 1x1 stock. > > I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the > usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did > sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and > there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few > engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some > 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he > had used West System epoxy to construct it. > > Thanks for your input. > > Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over > >


    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
    Time: 10:44:57 AM PST US
    From: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
    Subject: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com> Eric, First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons. You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including Douglas fir. On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4 inch fir. Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way, I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over 1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal. Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific). Let us know how you decide to go. Gene Hubbard San Diego -----Original Message----- From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805@msn.com] Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions on. While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder). I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor, a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces. The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1" member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less material than had they been built using 1x1 stock. I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he had used West System epoxy to construct it. Thanks for your input. Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over


    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
    Time: 10:57:24 AM PST US
    From: "John Ford" <Jford@indstate.edu>
    Subject: Re: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Ford" <Jford@indstate.edu> I have not begun building yet, so take this for what it's worth. You did the math and it doesn't look good. I would build a new fuselage using the existing one for 3-D reference if need be. Then I would be inclined to either destroy the original (because of the liability if someone should one day decide to build with it) or convert it to some sort of plaything for the kids/grandkids. An aquaintance has an airplane of questionable structural integrity (it had been wrecked) and has an extremely difficult time fighting the temptation to make it "flyable" again when it should have gone straight to the scrap yard. His situation is in many ways a lot like yours, and it scares the heck out of me to think someone I care about (or anybody) might one day try to fly something which is likely to break apart (as if by design) once it gets airborne. Maybe with a passenger too. Maybe one of the kids. You get the picture. I can see the logic behind overbuilding something, but to use a fuselage which is demonstrably below-spec seems like a bad idea to me. John John Ford john@indstate.edu 812-237-8542 >>> ewilliams805@msn.com Wednesday, November 12, 2003 12:37:15 PM >>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions on. While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder). I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor, a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces. The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1" member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less material than had they been built using 1x1 stock. I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he had used West System epoxy to construct it. Thanks for your input. Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over


    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
    Time: 11:01:17 AM PST US
    From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper@imagedv.com>
    Subject: Re: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper@imagedv.com> for point of reference.... my dad's Fisher Celebrity (open cockpit biplane) is made from 5/8 sq. spruce longerons. Design/Construction methods are very similar to a Piet. His plane has a gross wt. of about 1100lb and is stressed to +4 -2 as I recall. My initial thoughts are that your Piet will be strong enough, although I'd keep the power to something like 65-85hp. DJ ----- Original Message ----- From: Hubbard, Eugene Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com> Eric, First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons. You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including Douglas fir. On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4 inch fir. Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way, I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over 1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal. Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific). Let us know how you decide to go. Gene Hubbard San Diego -----Original Message----- From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805@msn.com] Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions on. While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder). I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor, a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces. The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1" member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less material than had they been built using 1x1 stock. I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he had used West System epoxy to construct it. Thanks for your input. Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over = This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:57:40 AM PST US
    From: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
    Subject: Re: wooden struts
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> Douwe, In the rafters of the nearest old airport hanger. In the past the various AD's make it manditory to change struts on many G.A. types. And it seems that anyone that took them off never threw them out. A friend at a nearby airport told me about the ones there. It was amazing,,,Zillions of them! (Well , maybe 100) Being a guy who is honest to a fault, I talked to the airport owner, and paid , I think, $10.00 apiece. Picked four that matched. The rear J3 strut. The man said that if I found any unusable, to come back and get a good one. Problem with the strut on the GA aircraft, was moisture would rot the bottom. So when you cut off the top and bottom, the inside can be inspected. All of mine still had the oil inside. My AP gave me the OK, and saved a bundle. I think the new streamlined tubing goes for about $15.00 per foot. walt evans NX140DL > > Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions are people using and where is the best place to get the stock? > > Douwe > douweblumberg@earthlink.net > >


    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
    Time: 12:11:01 PM PST US
    From: BARNSTMR@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com Using the logic that the structure is over-built to begin with, I'd keep the fuselage and add some plywood gussets (or doublers) in selected high stress areas. If you do some homework you should be able to identify those areas. The landing gear and cabane attach points, engine mount points, fuel tank anchor points, and tailpost come to mind. Some eyeball engineering can go a long way to distributing loads away from the high stress areas into other parts of the airframe. Terry L. Bowden ph 254-715-4773 fax 254-853-3805


    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
    Time: 12:23:18 PM PST US
    From: BARNSTMR@aol.com
    Subject: Re: intake air filter material
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com Mike I read an SAE report once on engine contaminants. It pointed out that some airplanes are designed to operate with alternate air OPEN (unfiltered), except during takeoff and landing when dust and debris are most likely to be a factor. This allowed optimum power during climb. I have certified air filters on various airplanes. The #1 criteria is always to ensure that the filter has a high capacity (will hold a lot of dirt and still allow the air flow you need). Take a look at the '94 Ford Mustang filter. It is a cone shape with many many pleats and is known to be a very high capacity filter. Its basic design philosophy of the cone shape is about the best you can get for a small filter. The air flow for a Model A or 65 cont. is a lot less than for a ford mustang. So a smaller filter of the same basic design would be good. I have noticed such filters on some of the Rotax engines. What are you gonna put this Zenith carburetor on? Your A65? Terry L. Bowden


    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
    Time: 12:36:29 PM PST US
    From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
    Subject: Re: intake air filter material
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> Thanks for the good info, Terry ! do not archive 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
    Time: 01:01:40 PM PST US
    From: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
    Subject: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com> Eric, First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons. You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including Douglas fir. On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4 inch fir. Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way, I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over 1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal. Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific). Let us know how you decide to go. Gene Hubbard San Diego -----Original Message----- From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805@msn.com] Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions on. While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder). I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor, a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces. The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1" member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less material than had they been built using 1x1 stock. I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he had used West System epoxy to construct it. Thanks for your input. Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over


    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
    Time: 01:33:34 PM PST US
    From: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
    Subject: Re:
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> I don't think it would run hotter. There is no more power in high octane fuel than low octane fuel. walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> > > Okay, another mind bender. > > What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else? > >


    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
    Time: 03:02:31 PM PST US
    From: "Fred Weaver" <mytyweav@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re:
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" <mytyweav@earthlink.net> But there is a lot more lead in 100 LL than there is in auto fuel.... With low compression like the Model A has, it could lead to plug fouling and/or sticky valves.. We used to add TCP from Alcor to eliminate these issues but we can't seem to find it anymore....... Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> > > I don't think it would run hotter. There is no more power in high octane > fuel than low octane fuel. > walt evans > NX140DL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> > To: "pietenpolgroup" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Douwe Blumberg" > <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> > > > > Okay, another mind bender. > > > > What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on > modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else? > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 04:11:02 PM PST US
    From: del magsam <farmerdel@rocketmail.com>
    Subject: Re: wooden struts
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: del magsam <farmerdel@rocketmail.com> so on a j3 there are two big ones and 2 small ones, which ones did you use? Del w b evans <wbeevans@verizon.net> wrote: --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" Douwe, In the rafters of the nearest old airport hanger. In the past the various AD's make it manditory to change struts on many G.A. types. And it seems that anyone that took them off never threw them out. A friend at a nearby airport told me about the ones there. It was amazing,,,Zillions of them! (Well , maybe 100) Being a guy who is honest to a fault, I talked to the airport owner, and paid , I think, $10.00 apiece. Picked four that matched. The rear J3 strut. The man said that if I found any unusable, to come back and get a good one. Problem with the strut on the GA aircraft, was moisture would rot the bottom. So when you cut off the top and bottom, the inside can be inspected. All of mine still had the oil inside. My AP gave me the OK, and saved a bundle. I think the new streamlined tubing goes for about $15.00 per foot. walt evans NX140DL > > Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions are people using and where is the best place to get the stock? > > Douwe > douweblumberg@earthlink.net > > Del-New Richmond, Wi "farmerdel@rocketmail.com" ---------------------------------


    Message 17


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:29:33 PM PST US
    From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net>
    Subject: Re: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net> I have heard many good suggestions but how about just doing a proof load test on it? You have nothing to loose if it breaks (you wouldn't have wanted to fly it anyway if it fails and it will burn easier in smaller pieces). If it passes a proof load you know it is safe and the rest of the group has more than flapping lips to show that the original design was "over designed" (which I personally do believe). Even with a detailed stress analysis I wouldn't fly it without a proof load anyway. Hank Jarrett ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> > > Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been > lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate > any comments or suggestions on. > > While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many > airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project > that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder). > I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed > fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor, > a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces. > > The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing > that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared > to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were > loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and > since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he > had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The > problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply > 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area > of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1" > member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less > material than had they been built using 1x1 stock. > > I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the > usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did > sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and > there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few > engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some > 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he > had used West System epoxy to construct it. > > Thanks for your input. > > Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over > >


    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
    Time: 04:39:28 PM PST US
    From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net>
    Subject: Re:
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net> High octane fuel actually has LESS energy than low octane fuel. It also burns SLOWER. The whole point of increasing the octane level is to stop detonation and control the burn in the combustion chamber. This allows higher compression ratios which lets you pack more air and fuel in each chamber and THAT gives you more power. There are more pounds of less efficient fuel being burned so you get less HP per pound but get more total power by burning more fuel. If you try and use low octane fuel in a high compression engine it will knock itself apart. If you use fuel with high lead in a low compression engine the lead can't blow out the exhaust and deposits in the combustion chamber. ALWAYS use the fuel your engine is designed for or learn to live with the problems (engines destroyed by detonation or lead fouling). Hank Jarrett ----- Original Message ----- From: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> > > I don't think it would run hotter. There is no more power in high octane > fuel than low octane fuel. > walt evans > NX140DL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> > To: "pietenpolgroup" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Douwe Blumberg" > <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> > > > > Okay, another mind bender. > > > > What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on > modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else? > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 04:46:46 PM PST US
    From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
    Subject: Re: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net> It seems to me I recall Bill Rewey telling me he made his with 3/4" sq. longerons. You can give him a call at 608-833-5839 and verify this. He has been flying for a number of years. Alex Sloan ----- Original Message ----- From: <BARNSTMR@aol.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com > > Using the logic that the structure is over-built to begin with, I'd keep the fuselage and add some plywood gussets (or doublers) in selected high stress areas. If you do some homework you should be able to identify those areas. The landing gear and cabane attach points, engine mount points, fuel tank anchor points, and tailpost come to mind. Some eyeball engineering can go a long way to distributing loads away from the high stress areas into other parts of the airframe. > Terry L. Bowden > ph 254-715-4773 > fax 254-853-3805 > >


    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
    Time: 06:03:11 PM PST US
    From: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
    Subject: Re: wooden struts
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> Like I mentioned in the mail,,The rear J3 strut. The forward one is really big. walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "del magsam" <farmerdel@rocketmail.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wooden struts > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: del magsam <farmerdel@rocketmail.com> > > so on a j3 there are two big ones and 2 small ones, which ones did you use? > Del > > w b evans <wbeevans@verizon.net> wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" > > Douwe, > In the rafters of the nearest old airport hanger. > In the past the various AD's make it manditory to change struts on many G.A. > types. And it seems that anyone that took them off never threw them out. A > friend at a nearby airport told me about the ones there. It was > amazing,,,Zillions of them! (Well , maybe 100) > Being a guy who is honest to a fault, I talked to the airport owner, and > paid , I think, $10.00 apiece. Picked four that matched. The rear J3 > strut. The man said that if I found any unusable, to come back and get a > good one. > Problem with the strut on the GA aircraft, was moisture would rot the > bottom. So when you cut off the top and bottom, the inside can be > inspected. All of mine still had the oil inside. My AP gave me the OK, and > saved a bundle. I think the new streamlined tubing goes for about $15.00 > per foot. > walt evans > NX140DL > > > > Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions > are people using and where is the best place to get the stock? > > > > Douwe > > douweblumberg@earthlink.net > > > > > > > Del-New Richmond, Wi > "farmerdel@rocketmail.com" > > --------------------------------- > >


    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
    Time: 07:39:40 PM PST US
    From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
    Subject: Helmets - open cockpit equipment
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hello!, I suggest you try this site http://www.flightsuits.com/open.html it shows "open cockpit equipment", good luck! Carlos Manuel Gonzalez


    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
    Time: 07:46:12 PM PST US
    From: Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re:
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net> High octane fuel has a higher ignition point temperature, which is how it reduces detonation in high compression engines. I've heard some voodoo engineering that the absence of the lead in 100LL will cause exhaust valves to run hotter and burn up older engines prematurely. I run a quarter cup of marvel per 12 gallons of fuel to soften the blow. Jim Ash At 11/12/2003 07:42 PM -0500, you wrote: >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net> > >High octane fuel actually has LESS energy than low octane fuel. It also >burns SLOWER. The whole point of increasing the octane level is to stop >detonation and control the burn in the combustion chamber. This allows >higher compression ratios which lets you pack more air and fuel in each >chamber and THAT gives you more power. There are more pounds of less >efficient fuel being burned so you get less HP per pound but get more total >power by burning more fuel. If you try and use low octane fuel in a high >compression engine it will knock itself apart. If you use fuel with high >lead in a low compression engine the lead can't blow out the exhaust and >deposits in the combustion chamber. ALWAYS use the fuel your engine is >designed for or learn to live with the problems (engines destroyed by >detonation or lead fouling). >Hank Jarrett > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> >To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> > > > > I don't think it would run hotter. There is no more power in high octane > > fuel than low octane fuel. > > walt evans > > NX140DL > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> > > To: "pietenpolgroup" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Douwe Blumberg" > > <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> > > > > > > Okay, another mind bender. > > > > > > What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on > > modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else? > > > > > > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 08:18:18 PM PST US
    From: Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net> This issue comes up when scaling 'live' engineering to different dimensions. Scaling itself is a collection of compromises. Scaling dimensions changes any area-based engineering by a squared relationship, and volume-based calculations change by a cubed relationship. Obviously the original builder didn't know this, so I would question what else he didn't know. Personally, this is not the kind of project where you can beef-up the parts that don't 'look' up to snuff, for two reasons. The first is that this is a truss-based system and you'd be surprised which members are under how much tension or compression, depending on the load applied at the time. Some of it is admittedly obvious, but some isn't. It's been 25 years since I've studied (or used) statics, and I wouldn't attempt this type of analysis without running back to my old text books first. The second reason is that an airplane is a collection of structural systems, each with its limits. When you beef-up one of them, you may be moving the natural weak points to other systems that shouldn't be subjected to them. In this case the argument goes the other way. We're talking failure analysis here. I don't have any idea how much failure analysis, if any, BHP did, but even if the Piet is over-built by design, you're cutting into safety margins and playing with the unknown with these structural members being under-sized. It's really swell to say you're only going to fly straight and level on still days, but I want my plane to be able to withstand the stresses when I've got a double-wide passenger in the front seat and the weather gets rough or I hit clear-air turbulence. Jim Ash At 11/12/2003 03:09 PM -0500, you wrote: >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com > >Using the logic that the structure is over-built to begin with, I'd keep >the fuselage and add some plywood gussets (or doublers) in selected high >stress areas. If you do some homework you should be able to identify >those areas. The landing gear and cabane attach points, engine mount >points, fuel tank anchor points, and tailpost come to mind. Some eyeball >engineering can go a long way to distributing loads away from the high >stress areas into other parts of the airframe. >Terry L. Bowden >ph 254-715-4773 >fax 254-853-3805 > >


    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
    Time: 08:53:18 PM PST US
    Subject: Piet accidents
    From: "Sanders, Andrew P" <andrew.p.sanders@boeing.com>
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Sanders, Andrew P" <andrew.p.sanders@boeing.com> Starting with the list posted here a few days ago, I did some additional research in the NTSB & FAA databases. I've found 39 Pietenpol Aircamper & Scout, or Grega accidents listed since 1966. The 39 can be divided into these categories: Loss of control/impact: 25, 64% Failure Engine: 7, 18% Failure Airframe: 5 Fuel: 2 Loss of control/impact: 25, 64% Stall/Spin: 13, 33% Maneuvering: 6, 15% Takeoff: 4, 10% Landing: 3, 8% Impact: 8, 20% Maneuvering: 3, 8% Landing 4, 10% Takeoff: 1, 3% Loss of control: 5, 13% Takeoff: 2, 5% Landing: 2, 5% Other: 1, 3% Pilot & Copilot each thought the other had the controls. Failure Engine: 7, 18% Corvair: 4, 10% Carb ice, Oil thermostat valve stuck, cylinder failure, (forgot the last one). Ford: 2, 5% Model "A": 1, 3% Sheared prop bolts and lost prop. Model "B": 1, 3% Mag failure on single mag engine. Continental: 1, 3% Stuck carb needle. Airframe Failure: 4, 10% Elevator control rod failed, elevator bellcrank support tube failed, improper turnbuckle barrel, bad landing gear weld. Fuel: 2, 5% Exhaustion: 1, 3% Water: 1, 3% Not all the reports listed the type of engine. From the 23 that were listed: Continental: 11, 48% A/C-65: 6, 26% -75: 1, 4% -80: 1, 4% -85: 1, 4% Other: 1, 4% GM: 6, 26% Corvair: 4, 17% Other: 2, 9% Ford: 4, 17% Model "A": 2, 8% Model "B": 1, 4% Other: 1, 4% Franklin: 1, 4% Lycoming: 1, 4% Please not that in some cases I had to do some interpretation and make a judgment call it there were more than a single causation listed. The percentages are rounded and may not add up to 100% Since the engine was not listed in all cases and wasn't necessarily a factor in the accidents when listed, I'm not sure that the inclusion of their numbers adds anything to the accident analysis, but is an interesting point of trivia. Keep the speed up, keep it in fuel, be proficient. That would have eliminated 3/4 of the accidents. Andrew Woodinville, Wa. Piet wannabe Andrew Sanders Boeing 7E7 LSSPD Project Manager


    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
    Time: 10:17:27 PM PST US
    From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
    Subject: Re: Good Fuselage??
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com> I want to say that I really appreciate all the opinions and suggestions you guys have given on this topic. Honestly there have been some really good, thoughtful ideas here. I think I'm going to print them all out and make them a permanent part of my official builders log. After considering what you all have said, and listening to my own gut feelings, I think I will probably end up building a new fuselage. I think laminating strips to the longerons to bring up the dimension would work if it could be done in one long continuous piece. The problem there is that many of the gussets and cross braces would be in the way and would have to be removed to allow for one nice long strip to be added. At that point we're into disassembling this fuse and I see that getting messy. Also, this one is the short version and was built following the original Flying and Glider manual plans which gives it some different dimensions and curvatures. I would prefer to build the long version and for it to follow exactly the more up to date plans so I'm not trying to mix two sets of dimensions together at some point. Lastly, this is one of those big "lifetime" projects that I really want to feel good about and have confidence in. I would hate to go through the whole building process and be afraid to fly it. As soon as I started describing to my wife how I might be able to salvage it with all these extra pieces glued in here and there, she reminded me that I've been down this road before with other projects and I always end up saying "I wish I had just done it the right way from the beginning". But still, even with all that said... there's a completed fuselage in my garage... and man it bugs me not to use it. I guess I'd better get busy and build the next one so I can quit whining about it. Again, thanks for the help guys. Eric MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search... http://shopping.msn.com




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   pietenpol-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Pietenpol-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --