---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 11/13/03: 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:26 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Clif Dawson) 2. 02:52 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Jack Phillips) 3. 06:03 AM - Good Fuselage?? (Sayre, William G) 4. 06:24 AM - Sun'n'Fun Forums (Doc Mosher) 5. 06:36 AM - doing it right (Michael D Cuy) 6. 06:59 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (At7000ft@aol.com) 7. 07:05 AM - Re: Sun'n'Fun Forums (Isablcorky@aol.com) 8. 07:35 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Gadd, Skip) 9. 07:39 AM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Ed Grentzer) 10. 08:17 AM - Re: Sun'n'Fun Forums (John Dilatush) 11. 07:52 PM - Pietenpol item eBay Item #2203296111 (Jim Markle) 12. 07:55 PM - Re: wooden struts (Ted Brousseau) 13. 07:55 PM - Re: one car garage (Ted Brousseau) 14. 07:55 PM - Re: EAA's "Experimenter" magazine (Ted Brousseau) 15. 10:32 PM - Re: doing it right (Fred Weaver) 16. 10:37 PM - Re: Piet accidents (Fred Weaver) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:26:14 AM PST US From: Clif Dawson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson Welcome to the list Eric. Good decision. Anything else gets realy messy and the basic fuselage structure is quite simple and easy except maybe for the effort in ensuring the thing is straight and square. Also my understanding was that Rewey used 1" X 3/4", not 3/4" square. Is that right? Clif > 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 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 02:52:41 AM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" Eric I agree with Gene Hubbard and Jim Ash on this fuselage. A couple of points that haven't been made (or I missed reading them) is that unlike most truss fuselages, the Piet has no interbay diagonal bracing - there are no diagonals running in the plane parallel to the firewall, which resist torsion in the fuselage. On mine I added small corner blocks at all the vertical and horizontal members to add a little bit of torsional stiffness , but most of the torsional rigidity of the fuselage actually comes from the torsional stiffness of the longerons themselves. Using such thin longerons make make the fuselage very springy in torsion, which might produce some unpleasant effects rolling into and out of turns, or in turbulance. One other point that I don't think has been mentioned is that building the fuselage is one of the more rewarding parts of building a Pietenpol, and is not difficult. Good luck with your decision. Jack Phillips NX899JP - getting the last finishing tapes on the fuselage this weekend, then heading for the paint booth. -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Williams Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" 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 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:03:19 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? From: "Sayre, William G" --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Sayre, William G" Eric Williams wrote; "and man it bugs me not to use it." Keep in mind that many items may be salvageable like seats, turtle-deck, panels and others. Also, if it is to be destroyed, some members could be cut out, reshaped if necessary and added to your ship, saving you the price of new pieces (keeping in mind the material differences). Although I personally feel 3/4 square would have worked, I admire you and your wife's decision. "I wish I had just done it the right way from the beginning". So True! With an attitude like that, I think you are well prepared to create, fly and most of all -enjoy- one of the truly great experiences in life. I look forward to hearing your comments and following your progress but remember, it's just my opinion and worth just what you paid for it. Hmmm. Maybe less. Bill ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:24:18 AM PST US From: Doc Mosher Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sun'n'Fun Forums --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Doc Mosher I have received a request letter for time slots for Pietenpol Forums from Bob Curtis, the Sun'n'Fun Forums coordinator. The 2004 Sun'n'Fun will run from Tuesday April 13 thru Monday April 19. At Sun'n'Fun in Florida in April and at AirVenture in Oshkosh in July, the Piet people always seem to pretty much find each other by checking in at the Woodworking area - thanks, guys! Probably our Matronics exchange has a lot to do with this. Thanks, Matt! We also seem to meet each other at one or both of the Piet Forums. Experience shows that having two Piet Forums during the week seems to work very well. In the past we have often had one person present the Forum. When we had a problem to have a person present it, several times we simply announced the Forum time and place, and had four or five people each present 10 or 15 minutes. This seemed to work very well, and met with good audience reaction. I have talked with Bill Rewey in the last week or so. He suggested that the multi-presenter style seems to be good, and that he would be happy to be one of the presenters. In order to get two good times for Piet Forums, I have told the Sun'n'Fun coordinator, Bob Curtis, that we request Wednesday April 14th at 10:00 am and Saturday April 17th, also at 10:00 am. I realize that these are both prime time slots, but if we get our requests in early, we may get what we ask for. I figured that Tuesday and Saturday would allow the folks that come early to participate and also serve the weekenders. Let me know if you want to change - or want to have only one Forum. The reason for quickly replying to SNF is to get two good time slots for Forums. We can always change. I will be happy to be a central point to clear information in the early stages. Right now we need an individual to be the Cordinator for Tuesday and another Cordinator for Saturday. The SnF people need to have a name to print on the programs. Now let's get some commitments from you presenters. No big burden for any one person. Just 10 or 15 minutes of sharing some info with each other. Bring touchable items, bring clear photos, bring paper handouts. Bill Rewey, for example, usually has a couple of sheets of Frequently Asked Questions, complete with answers, which people can take home. Doc Mosher Oshkosh USA ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:36:35 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: doing it right --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy Eric-- there were so many little things that I had to re-do or re-make during the construction of my Piet because of what you too feel as tho you need to do it right instead of like 'other projects'. I made up my mind that if I didn't like the way a part turned out or I had a bad gut feeling about it's integrity, I'd re-do it til I got it right. You'll feel better about everything when flying your plane if you build with that kind of attitude. Not like the dreaded Fisherman who was on this list for a while who thought you could build a safe Piet w/ everything from Home Depot. Well, you could I guess but then who would want to go with you for a ride ? My approach applied toward cosmetic things too because I didn't want to look at those bumps under the fabric (ie--bolt heads, wood that should have been sanded smooth......) or sloppy glue joints later and say "ugh, I hate when I look at that". On the other hand, part of me loves the look of those hard-flown, greasy & rough-around-the-edges planes that they fly at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in New York. Go figure. You can always use your old fuselage as a test bed for instrument layouts, seat height/slant choices, cable routing, etc. The longer fuselage will give you 2" more leg room in both the front and rear cockpits should you build the 1966 version. At 44 my near vision wishes my instrument panel was a bit further from my face than it is now in the short or 1933 version fuselage. (but drug store reading glasses are still pretty reasonable:) Glad you are on the list. Stay with it and don't give up. There is nothing sweeter than to see guys like Corky, Walt E. , Chuck Gantzer, and soon Jack Phillips showing up at pancake breakfast fly-in's and shows with their Piets. "yep....I built it..." Cool ! Mike C. with winds out of the south gusting to 45-55 mph. Let's fly !!!!! ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:59:54 AM PST US From: At7000ft@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com Jack, the fuselage plans call for spruce wedges at the corners of the fuselage vertical and diagonal struts. You did more than this? Rick Holland On mine I added small corner blocks at all the vertical and horizontal members to add a little bit of torsional stiffness , but most of the torsional rigidity of the fuselage actually comes from the torsional stiffness of the longerons themselves. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:53 AM PST US From: Isablcorky@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sun'n'Fun Forums --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com Doc, I have an FAQ. When are you people at EAA planning to cease being the nice guys, afraid to hurt FAA's feelings, and begin kicking some beaurocratic ___es and get this Sport Pilot issue completed. Who was the genius who decided to hold up on the Pilot issue until the problems of the Sport Plane were resolved. TMALSS, I'm ready, I think, to fill the tank of 41CC, lay it on 110 degrees, and head for the citrus land in April. Hell, I might even get there. Soooooooooooooo please get some action on FAA so old Corky can have a little fun before it's too late. Thanks Corky in La looking for a little fun ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:35:14 AM PST US From: "Gadd, Skip" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gadd, Skip" Jack, If what you are talking about is the same as what I call "match boxing"? I think the pilots seat back and the firewall help stop this action. Skip, In Atlanta where Harry Hooper and I just trued my spoke wheels and mounted the tires. The spokes were a lot easier than I thought, the tires a lot harder. > the Piet has no interbay diagonal bracing - there are no diagonals running in the plane >parallel to the firewall, which resist >torsion in the fuselage. >Jack Phillips ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:39:01 AM PST US From: "Ed Grentzer" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed Grentzer" I always thought that the tortional stiffness of the Piet fuselage came from the diagonal struts that run between the longerons and the vertical struts on all four sides of the fuselage and from the plywood "box". In order for the fuselage to twist the diagonals would have to stretch or compress which just is not going to happen. All components should be in tension or compression. I also thought the spruce wedges were used at the struts and diagonals only at the ash crossmembers. But there I go thinking again. I'd say 3/4" fir would probably be ok but I don't think Id bet my Butt on it. Jack's right....building the fuselage is a awesome experience. Good luck with your Piet and welcome. Ed G. >From: At7000ft@aol.com >Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:59:30 EST > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com > >Jack, the fuselage plans call for spruce wedges at the corners of the >fuselage vertical and diagonal struts. You did more than this? > >Rick Holland >On mine I added small corner blocks at all the >vertical and horizontal members to add a little bit of torsional stiffness >, >but most of the torsional rigidity of the fuselage actually comes from the >torsional stiffness of the longerons themselves. > > Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.) ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:17:07 AM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sun'n'Fun Forums --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sun'n'Fun Forums > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com =================================== Go for it Corky! To heck with the bureaucrats, by the way, what is TMALSS? John =================================== > > Doc, > > I have an FAQ. When are you people at EAA planning to cease being the nice > guys, afraid to hurt FAA's feelings, and begin kicking some beaurocratic ___es > and get this Sport Pilot issue completed. Who was the genius who decided to > hold up on the Pilot issue until the problems of the Sport Plane were resolved. > TMALSS, I'm ready, I think, to fill the tank of 41CC, lay it on 110 degrees, > and head for the citrus land in April. Hell, I might even get there. > Soooooooooooooo please get some action on FAA so old Corky can have a little > fun before it's too late. > Thanks > > Corky in La looking for a little fun > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:52:08 PM PST US From: "Jim Markle" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol item eBay Item #2203296111 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim Markle" Interesting item on eBay....... > To view the item, go to: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2203296111 > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:22 PM PST US From: "Ted Brousseau" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wooden struts --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" Douwe, I am going all wood. I will let you know if it doesn't work. Still a couple of months away from getting off the ground. Ted Brousseau ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douwe Blumberg" Subject: Pietenpol-List: wooden struts > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Douwe Blumberg" > > 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 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:26 PM PST US From: "Ted Brousseau" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: one car garage --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" Come on Mike, tell him the rest of the story. About how you weren't married and the fuselage was in the dining room and the tail feathers stuck through into the living room. I am married and so far everything is in a one car garage. I hang the wings from the rafters to work on the fuselage. That will all come to an end when the wings go on permanently. Ted In Naples, FL with the AC still on. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael D Cuy" Subject: Pietenpol-List: one car garage > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy > > Mike Whaley--- welcome to the list ! Both Steve Eldrege and myself built > our planes and only had one car garages at the time. My entire Piet > stored nicely in that one car garage with the wings and tail sections > off. (oh...that would be a three pce wing not the 29 foot long one piece > wing) > > Mike C. > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:26 PM PST US From: "Ted Brousseau" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: EAA's "Experimenter" magazine --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" Doc, Any chance of getting a picture of that main wheel dolly? Sounds interesting. Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doc Mosher" Subject: Pietenpol-List: EAA's "Experimenter" magazine > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Doc Mosher > > By the way, the tailwheel dolly (works great on a tailskid, too) shown by > Bob Whittier's photo does happen to be a wood disk. What we use here is > more mundane. We use a 2x6 plank maybe 8 inches long with three casters > under it, and build a little receptacle box on top to accept the tailwheel > or skid. We also have such dollys for the main wheels, so we can move the > airplanes sideways. > > > Doc Mosher > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:32:36 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: doing it right From: Fred Weaver --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Fred Weaver Mike.... You crack me up! Love the line about the winds..... Weav On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 06:36 AM, Michael D Cuy wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy > > > Eric-- there were so many little things that I had to re-do or re-make > during the construction of my Piet because of what you too feel as tho > you > need to do it right instead of like 'other projects'. I made up my > mind > that if I didn't like the way a part turned out or I had a bad gut > feeling > about it's integrity, I'd re-do it til I got it right. You'll feel > better > about everything when flying your plane if you build with that kind of > attitude. Not like the dreaded Fisherman who was on this list for a > while > who thought you could build a safe Piet w/ everything from Home > Depot. Well, you could I guess but then who would want to go with > you > for a ride ? My approach applied toward cosmetic things too because I > didn't want to look at those bumps under the fabric (ie--bolt heads, > wood > that should have been sanded smooth......) or sloppy glue joints > later > and say "ugh, I hate when I look at that". On the other hand, part > of me > loves the look of those hard-flown, greasy & rough-around-the-edges > planes > that they fly at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in New York. Go figure. > > You can always use your old fuselage as a test bed for instrument > layouts, > seat height/slant choices, cable routing, etc. The longer fuselage > will > give you 2" more leg room in both the front and rear cockpits should > you > build the 1966 version. At 44 my near vision wishes my instrument > panel > was a bit further from my face than it is now in the short or 1933 > version > fuselage. (but drug store reading glasses are still pretty > reasonable:) Glad you are on the list. Stay with it and don't give > up. There is nothing sweeter than to see guys like Corky, Walt E. , > Chuck > Gantzer, and soon Jack Phillips showing up at pancake breakfast > fly-in's > and shows with their Piets. "yep....I built it..." Cool ! > > Mike C. with winds out of the south gusting to 45-55 mph. Let's fly > !!!!! > > > _- > ======================================================================= > _-> _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:37:13 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet accidents From: Fred Weaver --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Fred Weaver Thanks for the effort to present the info.... Some of us appreciate the time it takes.... Weav On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 08:52 PM, Sanders, Andrew P wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Sanders, Andrew P" > > > 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 > > > _- > ======================================================================= > _-> _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > > > >