---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 12/09/03: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:51 AM - Mitchel Field (rhartwig11@juno.com) 2. 05:37 AM - Re: Naming of Mitchel Field (Gene Rambo) 3. 07:59 AM - Full size rib plans (At7000ft@aol.com) 4. 08:34 AM - Rib profile (John Dilatush) 5. 09:07 AM - Multiple copies of Re: Good Fuselage?? (Hubbard, Eugene) 6. 12:48 PM - Re: Naming of Mitchel Field (w b evans) 7. 05:52 PM - Chainsaw Art (Michael Fisher) 8. 09:10 PM - New shop (Mike B.) 9. 10:08 PM - Survey (Clif Dawson) 10. 10:14 PM - Re: while we're off the subject..... (Clif Dawson) 11. 10:25 PM - Re: New shop (Catdesign) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:51:25 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mitchel Field From: rhartwig11@juno.com --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com OK, Chris.......enough trivia, but I can't resist answering this one. Mitchel Field Long Island is named after John Purroy Mitchel who was a New York City Mayor and a flyer. Mitchell (two L's) Field in Milwaukee is named after Brigadier General Billy Mitchell. Dick Hartwig do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:37:35 AM PST US From: "Gene Rambo" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" The first blind flight by Doolittle was from College Park Airport in DC. ----- Original Message ----- From: "w b evans" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" > > Used to hear it called Billy Mitchel field, and think it was the one that > the first blind flight was made from by Jimmy Dolittle. > (My Dad worked at the place that made the instruments, in NJ) > walt evans > NX140DL > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Bobka" > To: > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" > > > > > Dick, > > > > Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named > > after? > > > > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com > > > > > > Chris, > > > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it > > > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little > > > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next, > > > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for > Wright > > > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the > > > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB. > > > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the > > > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above, > > > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman > > > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB. > > > So, what is the correct answer? > > > Dick Hartwig > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:59:01 AM PST US From: At7000ft@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Full size rib plans --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com After discovering that the "Full size rib plans" ordered from Don Pietenpol don't match the 34 plans I searched the archives and read about many peoples solution to the problem. They range from "throw the rib plans in the trash and plot the point from the main plans" to "just use the full size plans, a quarter inch here and there doesn't make any difference". So I would just like to know is their is a consensus of opinion on this. Are the full size plans a improved design from the original (I also noticed vertical braces were added next to the spars on the full size plans), or just a tracing of someones rib using a very dull pencil and very wrinkled paper? I know that the paper the plans are printed on can shrink and expand but that alone doesn't account for all the differences. Thanks Rick Holland Colorado ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:34:49 AM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib profile --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft@aol.com To: dilatush@amigo.net Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8:00 AM Subject: Thanks again Rick, You're welcome, we will look forward to your visit this spring. Re: the rib profile. Just loft the plans from the figures given. You will still find maybe 1/16 to 1/8 differences in a few spots, just blend these in with a batten. (stick of wood about like the cap strips used, 1/2 x 1/4). Remember the fabric still doesn't follow the profile in between the ribs, so nothing is exact anyway. Make sure that you have an adaquate radius on the leading edge, it might improve the stall characteristics a little. See you when it warms up at 14,000 feet - the view is terrific! Cordially, John NX114D Salida, Colorado John Just wanted to thank you again for your time talking about the Pietenpol. I would definitely like to take you up on your offer to come up to beautiful Salida this Spring and see your plane and ask a few more questions I will have by then. Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:07:54 AM PST US From: "Hubbard, Eugene" Subject: Multiple copies of RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" Sorry about the duplicates. It seems to be an Outlook problem that sends about a day and a half of messages every time I reboot. My IT person thinks he's found the problem (again). No evidence of a virus--just a strange configuration. I hate to say it, but you'll be among the first to know if it's really fixed. Again, please accept my apologies--I'm tired of reading it too. Gene -----Original Message----- From: w b evans [mailto:wbeevans@verizon.net] Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" yes, I concur. what's up with that? walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" > > Gene, aren't you getting a little tired of sending the same old email? > > Jack > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hubbard, > Eugene > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 8:34 PM > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" > > 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] > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:48:36 PM PST US From: "w b evans" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" Gene, It was on Long Island at Mitchell field. Got a picture around here that my father had gotten from work. It was their instruments, and showed Jimmy Dolittle standing next to this big biplane. The plane had a canvas "bonnet" that could be pulled over him, and the safety pilot in the front (I guess) held his hands up so the spectators could see that it was Jimmy flying blind. You can go here and read the paragraph ( the one above the colored pic of the seaplane) http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/main.html walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene Rambo" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" > > The first blind flight by Doolittle was from College Park Airport in DC. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "w b evans" > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" > > > > Used to hear it called Billy Mitchel field, and think it was the one that > > the first blind flight was made from by Jimmy Dolittle. > > (My Dad worked at the place that made the instruments, in NJ) > > walt evans > > NX140DL > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Christian Bobka" > > To: > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" > > > > > > > > Dick, > > > > > > Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named > > > after? > > > > > > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: > > > To: > > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field > > > > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com > > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but > it > > > > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little > > > > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next, > > > > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for > > Wright > > > > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then > the > > > > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB. > > > > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the > > > > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the > above, > > > > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman > > > > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB. > > > > So, what is the correct answer? > > > > Dick Hartwig > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:52:46 PM PST US From: Michael Fisher Subject: Pietenpol-List: Chainsaw Art --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael Fisher Here are a few thoughts about the fir fuselage mentioned by Eric Williams. If plans dimensioned, it should measure 161 inches from firewall to tailpost. A true to plan Pietenpol Skyscout fuselage should be 153.75 inches in this dimension. The trusses are almost the same, except for a short extra bay in the Aircamper. The two structures, if plans built, should be within 16# of the same weight. A fuselage, with a .75 inch square fir truss, should weigh very close to a plans constructed Scout with .875 inch square spruce truss. Gross takeoff weights are very important. Some of those Aircampers out there are coming in at well over 700# empty. With two big guys and fuel, takeoff weights can edge up toward 1300#. This is heavier than B. H. P. ever intended, but somehow they do it (with more horsepower). A Scout with a small engine and six gallons of fuel could be flown at about 800# gross with much less stress on everything. I am primarily an engine development tinkerer,looking for an engine test bed. Light weight and good workmanship are more important to me than rigid specification compliance. There is what I believe to be a very fine plans built Scout fuselage available, but I have a couple reasons for not following up on the purchase. It might delay the completion of a Ford Model T engined Scout. This would be a very rare bird - - probably of heritage quality from a well known builder. Secondarily, I don't want to make substantial airframe commitments prior to engine testing which could be in a couple months. I just bolted on a four inch Ford crankshaft to SAE #2 propeller flange extension/adaptor. It weighs 3# 6oz and has a P. Ratt and Who? Itney look. I like it. My plan is to carve out a crude test club by attacking a railroad tie sized piece of Alaska black cottonwood ( a close cousin to yellow poplar, a recognized aircraft structural wood, see Part 43) with a chainsaw and a sidewinder. I can just picture my woodworker friends shuddering and and hiding their cabinet scrapers and spokeshaves. If I go too deep and need to lamimate, perhaps I'll use moose hoof glue. Best holiday wishes, Mike Fisher P. O. Box 347 Talkeetna, Alaska 99676 (907) 733-2356 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:10:33 PM PST US From: "Mike B." Subject: Pietenpol-List: New shop --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike B." I'm building a new 30'x40'x13' shop (slab should be pured next week.) I was wondering if there are things that I should consider while building the structure (of my design. Yikes!) I thought this would be a good opportunity to avoid any "I wish I had installed a such-n-such" situations. What kind of airplane-building specific things might I consider before I get started? Most importantly, what kind of things that can't be done once the building is finished should I consider? -Mike. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:08:53 PM PST US From: Clif Dawson Subject: Pietenpol-List: Survey --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson Has anyone else recieved a request to fill out an attached survey regarding the use of epoxy in aircraft construction from a William R Liston of the V O Baker company? I don't want to open an attachment from an unknown source. It may be perfectly legit. He has provided phone numbers but that doesn't really mean anything. Clif ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:02 PM PST US From: Clif Dawson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: while we're off the subject..... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson They obviously didn't have anything to compare their lifestyle with. And just who is that other guy, anyway? Clif ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael D Cuy" Subject: Pietenpol-List: while we're off the subject..... > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy > > Has anyone ever seen a photo of either of the Wright brothers with a smile > on thier faces ???? > My point is that neither of them ever married, they tinkered their whole > lives making a decent living and > travelling the world without being hen pecked or pushed around by some > whining woman and you never > see a smile on their faces. I don't get it. > > Oh yeah, and how did Punksatawny Phil get his name ? > > Mike C. > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:44 PM PST US From: "Catdesign" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New shop --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Catdesign" Insulation, heat/cool system, lots of 115V and a few 220V plugs and lots of light. I don't have any of these but I wish I did. Chris T. Sacramento, Ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike B." Subject: Pietenpol-List: New shop > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike B." > > > I'm building a new 30'x40'x13' shop (slab should be pured next week.) I > was wondering if there are things that I should consider while building > the structure (of my design. Yikes!) > > I thought this would be a good opportunity to avoid any "I wish I had > installed a such-n-such" situations. What kind of airplane-building > specific things might I consider before I get started? Most importantly, > what kind of things that can't be done once the building is finished > should I consider? > > -Mike. > >