---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 01/15/04: 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:02 AM - airfoils (Oscar Zuniga) 2. 07:40 AM - Re: taildraggers (At7000ft@aol.com) 3. 07:53 AM - corvair engine gripe (Robert Haines) 4. 08:30 AM - Re: corvair engine gripe (DJ Vegh) 5. 08:30 AM - Headsets - intercom (BARNSTMR@aol.com) 6. 08:37 AM - Re: corvair engine gripe (BARNSTMR@aol.com) 7. 08:50 AM - Re: FW: 6 peteskis (Isablcorky@aol.com) 8. 08:58 AM - Re: airfoils (Isablcorky@aol.com) 9. 09:21 AM - Re: airfoils (Fred Weaver) 10. 09:44 AM - Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper (Hodgson, Mark O) 11. 09:51 AM - Corvair trip to AL & Scanned Piet Article... (Jim Markle) 12. 10:10 AM - Shawn on skis (Michael D Cuy) 13. 10:30 AM - Re: Tailwheel training, was : Buying spruce for AirCamper (John Ford) 14. 10:33 AM - Re: Engine mount and tailfeathers (walt evans) 15. 12:02 PM - Re: landings, airfoils, no snow (Christian Bobka) 16. 12:17 PM - Re: taildraggers (Christian Bobka) 17. 12:43 PM - Re: wing & fabic/paint weights (Carl Loar) 18. 01:47 PM - Re: airfoils (Christian Bobka) 19. 03:12 PM - Re: Re: Tailwheel training, was : Buying spruce for AirCamper (Alex Sloan) 20. 03:17 PM - Re: Landing Gear Location (Alex Sloan) 21. 03:18 PM - Re: FW: 6 peteskis (Craig Wilcox) 22. 05:08 PM - Re: corvair engine gripe (dave rowe) 23. 05:27 PM - Re: Landing Gear Location (Michael Conkling) 24. 08:37 PM - forged pistons (rod wooller) 25. 08:52 PM - Excellent article on W&B (Jim Markle) 26. 11:27 PM - Re: taildraggers (Clif Dawson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:02:43 AM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: airfoils --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" Weav wrote- >Now, don't you think the wing section [23012] would make a good Piet >airfoil? This airfoil has gotten kicked around quite a bit on the KRNet, in discussing it as a possible good one for KRs. The crux of the discussion was that the wing has an abrupt stall characteristic, as seen by the sharp break in the lift coefficient curve. Some of this effect can be moderated by using wing washout so the stall progresses from root to tip rather than having the whole wing stop flying at once, but that complicates the wing rigging and decreases the wing efficiency. The EAA Biplane uses this airfoil, so does the T'Craft, the Beech Bonanza, and a host of others... but there are ones with better stall characteristics. It sure would be interesting to get the Piet airfoil tested in a wind tunnel and get some characteristic curves to study! But until then, there will always be hangar discussions about possible airfoils, won't there? Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:40:28 AM PST US From: At7000ft@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers Really, back in my day we just screamed and yelled at each other. Rick H --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" awwww come on! you used headsets in a Tcraft?!!! :-) ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:53:54 AM PST US From: "Robert Haines" Subject: Pietenpol-List: corvair engine gripe --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" Last night, I was trying to clean up the garage a bit and the plan was to remove all the cooling tin from the Corvair engines I just got so they would neatly fit into the corner. Just to pull the tins off, I used every wrench from 1/4" to 5/8", it was nuts! I've pulled whole engines apart with less wrenches. Anyway, I was going to snap a picture of the cute little buggers lined up in the corner and attach it, but that may be just silly. Also, the question periodically arises about where a person should start an airplane project. The following is a section taken from an email that I sent to another gentleman, here are my thoughts: My opinion is that you should start with the engine first. Some people say the tail feathers or the wing ribs, and it's too easy to quit after just building those. I think it would be hard to futz around for a few years building inexpensive parts, and then try to justify the most expensive component on the aircraft. If you are willing to build the engine first, build a test stand, strap on a prop, and run the damn thing, just the presence of that assembly in the shop would provide the pressure to continue. Additionally, the engine complete won't consume anywhere near the floorspace as it sits and waits for the completion of the rest of the project, unlike a set of wings or a fuselage. Robert Haines Du Quoin, Illinois ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:30:25 AM PST US From: "DJ Vegh" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: corvair engine gripe I somewhat agree with the logic of building the engine first. I did not do it that way myself but I did build the engine pretty early in the project. I'm about 50% done with the airframe and I just finished my engine. Here's my logic and why I did it that way. Start with something small... ribs or rudder, etc. and get a feel for how to work with the materials. Them move onto the fuse. Get the fuse up on the wheels. By this point you have probably been working on the project for about a year or so and are probably in the downward swing of motivation (like I was). THEN build yourself the engine! It takes a couple months to get it done but when your done and you have fired that baby up you are pumped and overflowing with massive amounts of motivation. Building the engine is a rejuvinating experience. It will pull you right out of that slump that you seem to get in at the 50% mark. I haven't seriously touched my airframe for months and months. I built my Corvair back in September-November and now I'm juiced and going strong on the airframe again. In fact I'm hoping to have continuity to the elevators and rudder in the next week and then it's time for wings. You could build the engine first but I think after it sitting in the shop for a couple years it would loose it's luster and exitement factor. DJ ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Haines Subject: Pietenpol-List: corvair engine gripe --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" Last night, I was trying to clean up the garage a bit and the plan was to remove all the cooling tin from the Corvair engines I just got so they would neatly fit into the corner. Just to pull the tins off, I used every wrench from 1/4" to 5/8", it was nuts! I've pulled whole engines apart with less wrenches. Anyway, I was going to snap a picture of the cute little buggers lined up in the corner and attach it, but that may be just silly. Also, the question periodically arises about where a person should start an airplane project. The following is a section taken from an email that I sent to another gentleman, here are my thoughts: My opinion is that you should start with the engine first. Some people say the tail feathers or the wing ribs, and it's too easy to quit after just building those. I think it would be hard to futz around for a few years building inexpensive parts, and then try to justify the most expensive component on the aircraft. If you are willing to build the engine first, build a test stand, strap on a prop, and run the damn thing, just the presence of that assembly in the shop would provide the pressure to continue. Additionally, the engine complete won't consume anywhere near the floorspace as it sits and waits for the completion of the rest of the project, unlike a set of wings or a fuselage. Robert Haines Du Quoin, Illinois = 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 . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:30:41 AM PST US From: BARNSTMR@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Headsets - intercom --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com On the subject of headsets... About 6 months ago, I bought a used pair of headsets with a portable 9v battery powered DC intercom system with plans to use the system in the open cockpit Piet whenever its finished. I have since started flying quite a bit in my father-in-law's T-craft BC-65. Most of my flights are buddy rides (whenever the president is not vacationing at the Crawford Ranch) and I spend a lot of flights training my father-in-law, who has yet to solo. Though I am not a CFI, I am helping him with the basic skills so that whenever he finds a tailwheel instructor he'll be ahead of the game. Anyway, the headsets are GREAT for that purpose. We have no radio, so the headsets are strictly used to talk between ourselves. Wow - what a difference. I have a lot of hours flying in old airplanes without headsets. At times, I have literally become horse trying to communicate with my passengers. Headsets change all that. It is especially gratifying to actually interact with my kids when taking them up for sightseeing. Its a whole bunch better than yelling at them. They get enough of that from me at home. Anyway, I am also looking forward to teaching them to fly in a few years. The headsets and intercom are the way to go. One adverse effect though, is that it took me quite a while to get used to flying with headsets on. They do a good job of dampening noise. But this can be detrimental if you are like me and rely on all of your senses to fly the airplane. Our airstrip is short with obstacles at both ends and sometimes (hot calm weather) it can be tricky to land the Taylorcraft there. As much as the T-craft floats, side slipping all the way to flare is a must at our place. You have to have the flare speed nailed just right or you'll float all the way down the strip. I found that whenever I am having difficulty with this technique it is best to go around and lose the headsets. I am used to them now and hardly notice them. Still, sometimes I am able to make better landings when I toss the headsets so I am able to listen to the wind noise on short final thru flare. I guess I am a seat of the pants kind of guy. Terry L. Bowden Trapped inside the Crawford TFR for the past 2 weekends...looking forward to flying this weekend if the weather clears. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:37:32 AM PST US From: BARNSTMR@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: corvair engine gripe --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com It doesen't matter where you start...just GET CRACKING! As in my case...I need to KEEP CRACKING! Terry L. Bowden ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:50:08 AM PST US From: Isablcorky@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis Corky has been in the hospital for 3 days for tests. We hope he may be home in a couple of days. Isablcorky ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:58:30 AM PST US From: Isablcorky@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: airfoils Corky has been in the hospital for 3 days for tests as his left leg seems to go to sleep so I am going in today at 11:30 to check the test results. He feels fine but is staying in bed. Isablcorky @aol.com--his wife at home at this time. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:21:57 AM PST US From: "Fred Weaver" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: airfoils --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" The reason I like the 23012 section is less drag with plenty of lift. Nasty stall characteristics??? I don't think so. It's a forgiving airfoil that slides through the air easier than most. What's with all the graphs and curves anyway? How about good old practical flying? Besides, what do you want anyway? A faster airplane or one that "Stalls Better"? Weav ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: airfoils > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" > > Weav wrote- > > >Now, don't you think the wing section [23012] would make a good Piet > >airfoil? > > This airfoil has gotten kicked around quite a bit on the KRNet, in > discussing it as a possible good one for KRs. The crux of the discussion > was that the wing has an abrupt stall characteristic, as seen by the sharp > break in the lift coefficient curve. Some of this effect can be moderated > by using wing washout so the stall progresses from root to tip rather than > having the whole wing stop flying at once, but that complicates the wing > rigging and decreases the wing efficiency. The EAA Biplane uses this > airfoil, so does the T'Craft, the Beech Bonanza, and a host of others... but > there are ones with better stall characteristics. > > It sure would be interesting to get the Piet airfoil tested in a wind tunnel > and get some characteristic curves to study! But until then, there will > always be hangar discussions about possible airfoils, won't there? > > Oscar Zuniga > San Antonio, TX > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > _________________________________________________________________ > Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. > http://wine.msn.com/ > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:44:27 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper From: "Hodgson, Mark O" --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" A few points: 1) I did unusual attitude/upset recovery training in a Super Decathlon, and the instructor pointed out that with 180 hp it was actually easier to land/takeoff than a lower-powered taildragger. I wasn't going for a tailwheel endorsement at the time, but landing it just didn't seem all that hard, either. 2) For some reason, wheel landings have come much easier to me than 3 point, proceeding well even under what the instructor called "very challenging" wind conditions at times. I had a tough time earlier on with the gradual pulling back on the stick for the 3 point. 3) The FBO lost a Citabria to a renter last September when a parked Mustang got in the way of a particularly low go-around (after the second bounce); the right wheel caught the driver's side window and pulled the car over on its side, with the plane sticking up like it had been planted in the car. Pilot and nephew allegedly walked away, but the plane was sold to someone in Indiana. 4) Don't know if I'll EVER get the endorsement, but the instructor, an ex-sky-writer, is simply one of the best I've ever had and I learn knew tricks with every lesson--we've landed and taken off from an uphill grass strip that can barely be seen from pattern altitude, in serious cross-winds on a short paved strip between a river, some woods, and a hill at the departure end, and numerous other small adventures that have made it worthwhile to me considering my relatively low time. Thank you all for the comments on the list in the past couple of days, Mark Hodgson ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:51:00 AM PST US From: "Jim Markle" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair trip to AL & Scanned Piet Article... First, that trip I was going to make to Alabama to pick up Corvair parts is off. Never heard from the guy.....(Robert must have cleaned him out!!!) In the meantime, I received 3 good leads for 110's after one email to the local Corvair club. Ain't technology grand! I've found one, but also followed up on the others for the sake of several of you that asked me to check on bringing something back from Alabama for them. I'll let you know when/if I hear back from these others...... I just scanned and posted an article from the May 1956 issue of Experimenter. (Another cool benefit of having an old timer for a tech counselor, especially one that has saved every EAA Experimenter/Sport Aviation/etc publication from the beginning....and has a Corvair 110 in his garage waiting for a home.) Anyway, this article has several pages of interesting Pietenpol info - plus a note from Bernard Pietenpol....interesting reading. If anyone wants the larger file versions (mykitplane reduces the size of files to a more manageable web site size), just let me know and I'll email direct..... Jim in Plano......working on one of the most important parts of my successful Pietenpol completion......my wife's new kitchen cabinets..... ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:24 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: Shawn on skis Great photo in AvWeb Shawn !!! Congratulations. Stay warm up thar in Canada, Mike C. PS: For those who missed this photo, go the way to the bottom and look for the yeller Piet climbing out on snow skis. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:30:07 AM PST US From: "John Ford" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tailwheel training, was : Buying spruce for AirCamper --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Ford" I have taken Tailwheel training in a 65 horsepower Cessna 120 and a 150 horsepower Cessna 152 Texas Taildragger at different times (and states), and have not yet gotten my TW endorsement. Most of the 65 horse training involved a narrow gravel road Southwest of Odessa, Texas, and the 150 horse training on a paved runway in Indiana. The 65 horses didn't require much compensation for torque or gyroscopics when raising the tail, whereas the 150 horses required a great deal of compensation. That said (or typed, as it were), 150 horses in a small plane gets you off the ground before you can say "runway lights." I never had any problems with 3-point landings, even in gusty crosswind conditions and could even do them as well as some of my instructors (I'm low time, but apparently it's the single thing I "get" and can do well in a airplane), but I never could stick a wheel landing without excessive speed, regardless of weight or horsepower. It is easier to get out of trouble (i.e. back in the air with a positive rate of climb) with more horsepower, but things seem to be a lot more graceful with less. Having said all that, for me it's still a tossup between a Model A, a Continental 65 or 85 or a Corvair. I am pretty sure budget will be the determining factor and I'll love whatever I get and pine for whatever I don't... John John Ford john@indstate.edu 812-237-8542 >>> mhodgson@bu.edu Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:19:56 PM >>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" A few points: 1) I did unusual attitude/upset recovery training in a Super Decathlon, and the instructor pointed out that with 180 hp it was actually easier to land/takeoff than a lower-powered taildragger. I wasn't going for a tailwheel endorsement at the time, but landing it just didn't seem all that hard, either. 2) For some reason, wheel landings have come much easier to me than 3 point, proceeding well even under what the instructor called "very challenging" wind conditions at times. I had a tough time earlier on with the gradual pulling back on the stick for the 3 point. 3) etc..... ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:33:31 AM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine mount and tailfeathers Max, Your P factor will be more pronounced with the engine not tipped down . walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: Andimaxd@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:12 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine mount and tailfeathers Hello to all: My project is coming right along. The engine mount is welded straight, in other words no one inch down and no half to one inch right or left. We are using a cont. 75 HP. Should I mount the vertical tail fin an inch or so over to one side or is it worth messing with? Also do I need to have more incidence in the left wing to compensate for torque and P factor? Any constructive criticisms are welcome. I have seen them all ways. Let the debates begin... Thanks in advance, Max L. Davis Arlington Tx ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 12:02:52 PM PST US From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: landings, airfoils, no snow --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" That was me with the tiedown ring story. You get two free lunches for tearing the ring out! Chris Bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lauritz Larsen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: landings, airfoils, no snow > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Lauritz Larsen" > > "tailhook incident" > > All the discussion about landings and scraping the aft tiedown ring brings > back memories. I was a member and a CFI ot the Navy Flying Club at NAS > Jacksonville. I was returning with a primary student in a Cessna 150 and in > accordance with my instructions he was maintaining a nose high attitude at > touchdown. At NAS Jax, the runways have carrier type arresting gear cables > on the runway. We caught the # 1 wire and made an arrested landing in the > 150; no problems other than the tie down ring was jerked out of the 150 and > I had to pay to have it replaced. It does make for a short landing rollout. > > Lou Larsen in chilly (45degrees) central Florida > > > --- Original Message ----- > From: "Oscar Zuniga" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:12 PM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: landings, airfoils, no snow > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" > > > > > Hello, low and slow fliers; > > > > This post has no substance so if you are looking for something useful, it > > ain't here. Hit now. I've been away for days and days and have > > been catching up on all the digests since the new year. I felt I had to > > comment on at least two things, the airfoil discussion and the landings > > discussion. > > > > Airfoils- because I was involved in the development of the airfoil that > was > > specifically designed for the KR series of homebuilts. Not directly, but > I > > did some of the mop-up work on bringing the airfoil to the public (see the > > story I compiled in Contact! magazine a while back). The KR is actually a > > design that can wear the "NX-" numbers, being a design dating back enough > > years, believe it or not. The original design uses the RAF48 airfoil, but > > there are always those wanting to tweak and improve. Bottom line is that > > it's just like the old beer commercial where the two groups incessantly > > argue, "less filling! more taste!". Both are right, but neither wants to > > give up their position. The new KR airfoil was developed by a graduate > > student working at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign in the wind > > tunnel, coupled with software analyses and CFD studies by various members > of > > the KRNet list. The new airfoil has flown and has met all of its stated > > goals. However... many continue to insist that the KR be built to the > plans > > in order to be a true KR, and the design owner does not offer the option > of > > any other design nor officially recognize it (this despite the fact that > > their 'poster child' KR-2S, built by Roy Marsh, uses the 23012!). I say, > > give up the argument and let each side happily build and fly. It will > make > > for good fodder around the grill at Brodhead, make for interesting > > competitions at fly-ins, and fuel endless discussions online and in the > > hangar! Engineering be hanged, just read what Mr. Pietenpol said about > not > > bothering with improved airfoils... he tried many and found his to be > best! > > (And I'm a for real engineer myself!) I'd be curious to see who actually > > builds an 'improved' Piet wing and flies it, but I'm not so sure I'd want > to > > be standing too close when he tells everybody it's a Pietenpol. A fight > > will likely break out, scoffers will scoff, and "less filling! more > taste!" > > will echo across the picnic table for hours. > > > > On the topic of landings, I really appreciated the narratives on > technique, > > as well as Chris Bobka's comments about dragging the tiedown ring. I > always > > thought I'd get whipped big time by the FBO if they ever knew who was > > scraping the tiedown ring on the 150's all the time. I converted several > > rings to open hooks! Day after day of boring touch and goes in the > pattern > > at Laredo, I got to where I could put the mains down on any part of the > > threshold I wanted to, or on any chevron or any part of the numbers... > > although I must admit to putting them on the leading edge of the pavement > a > > time or two, which makes for a bit of an abrupt nose-down. My problem is > > that I've always been the 95-pound weakling and my arms aren't gorilla > > types. What little time I have in things like Senecas and turbo 206's > > always led to sore arms the following day from having to hold that anchor > of > > a yoke back in my chest... my instructor was an old duster pilot who > > insisted on full stall all the time, and it takes all the strength I have > on > > some of those planes. But like Chris and John and others said- it's good > > training and leads to good technique. > > > > And my last topic- snow. There ain't none in south Texas! And for those > > looking for Piets here in Texas there is an air museum up near New > > Braunfels/Seguin that has a Scout as one of its displays. I still haven't > > been over to see it... > > > > do not archive > > > > Oscar Zuniga > > San Antonio, TX > > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com > > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the > max! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:17:28 PM PST US From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" For whoever asked, the stall spin on takeoff is related to horsing the ship off the ground before reaching flying airspeed. A little side slip and a snaproll ensues. I have done it with R/C ships. A weak tailwheel pilot, when about to lose control on the ground, will try to horse it off into the air where control is assumed to be available when in fact it is not, hence the relation to stall spin accidents with inadequately trained tailwheel pilots. Chris Bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael D Cuy" Subject: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy > > I personally know some tailwheel instructors are super-nit picky about > signing someone off in a taildragger just because of liability reasons and > that the person might be then renting that Cub or Citabria after > checkout. Sometimes an instructor can be too casual and sign you off too > early---case in point: A guy builds a Tailwind, gets a quickie checkout in > a Cub and then on the second flight in his Tailwind he stall spins on > takeoff. Saw it. Some people are just slow learners on tailwheels, > others adapt more readily. > The Citabria is really easy to see over the nose also like a Champ because > you can fly it from the front seat. That's great for a while to get used > to tailwheels, but then if you can for a Piet, ask the instructor if once > you get good at the front seat if he'll let you fly from the rear seat to > really see what it feels like. Course a Cub needs the pilot in the > back--most models. > More fodder. > > Mike C. > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 12:43:38 PM PST US From: "Carl Loar" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing & fabic/paint weights Rick,,, yes I did,, about three and half inches back if I recall correctly. but that's a piet,,, gn doesn't have that luxury. It's nice to be able to do,, really makes a difference Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:12 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing & fabic/paint weights Did you also need to move your wing back? Rick Holland DJ,,, I moved my corvair out 2 and a half inches and I'm sure glad I did. Besides my big butt not helping the w&b, it really gave me a little extra room from the firewall. It gets real crowded back there to boot. I know this is repetitious but don't ya just love that corvair engine? Man what a kick,,, your's really looks great. Carl ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 01:47:36 PM PST US From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: airfoils You can tell Corky that the problem with his leg falling asleep during the day is that it is then up all night! Chris Bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:58 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: airfoils Corky has been in the hospital for 3 days for tests as his left leg seems to go to sleep so I am going in today at 11:30 to check the test results. He feels fine but is staying in bed. Isablcorky @aol.com--his wife at home at this time. ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 03:12:49 PM PST US From: "Alex Sloan" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tailwheel training, was : Buying spruce for AirCamper --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" John, Making a first flight in a brand new RV-3 with 150 horses up front was a real kick. I had 2 hours total of trail dragger time when I did it and the landing was the best I ever made before or since. That was 1983. Since I have 500+ hours of tail wheel time in the RV-3 and then an RV-6. Only way to. Alex S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Ford" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tailwheel training, was : Buying spruce for AirCamper > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Ford" > > I have taken Tailwheel training in a 65 horsepower Cessna 120 and a 150 > horsepower Cessna 152 Texas Taildragger at different times (and states), > and have not yet gotten my TW endorsement. Most of the 65 horse > training involved a narrow gravel road Southwest of Odessa, Texas, and > the 150 horse training on a paved runway in Indiana. The 65 horses > didn't require much compensation for torque or gyroscopics when raising > the tail, whereas the 150 horses required a great deal of compensation. > That said (or typed, as it were), 150 horses in a small plane gets you > off the ground before you can say "runway lights." I never had any > problems with 3-point landings, even in gusty crosswind conditions and > could even do them as well as some of my instructors (I'm low time, but > apparently it's the single thing I "get" and can do well in a airplane), > but I never could stick a wheel landing without excessive speed, > regardless of weight or horsepower. It is easier to get out of trouble > (i.e. back in the air with a positive rate of climb) with more > horsepower, but things seem to be a lot more graceful with less. Having > said all that, for me it's still a tossup between a Model A, a > Continental 65 or 85 or a Corvair. I am pretty sure budget will be the > determining factor and I'll love whatever I get and pine for whatever I > don't... > John > > John Ford > john@indstate.edu > 812-237-8542 > > > >>> mhodgson@bu.edu Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:19:56 PM >>> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" > > > A few points: > 1) I did unusual attitude/upset recovery training in a Super > Decathlon, and the instructor pointed out that with 180 hp it was > actually easier to land/takeoff than a lower-powered taildragger. I > wasn't going for a tailwheel endorsement at the time, but landing it > just didn't seem all that hard, either. > 2) For some reason, wheel landings have come much easier to me > than > 3 point, proceeding well even under what the instructor called "very > challenging" wind conditions at times. I had a tough time earlier on > with the gradual pulling back on the stick for the 3 point. > 3) etc..... > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 03:17:51 PM PST US From: "Alex Sloan" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location Mike, I am having a lot of confusion trying to understand this angle thing. 12-14 degrees measured from where to where? I know how to find the C.G. horzontally but this vertical C.G. point is new to me. Can you clarify this point? Alex Sloan alexms1@bellsouth.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Conkling To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:49 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location My old copy (1965) of "Practical Lightplane Design & Construction" by Bill Fike listed the average landing angle as being 12 to 14 degrees -- with the fuselage level, the wheel axle was in-line with the leading edge of the wing (16 degrees down & forward of the CG point) -- for a "cub" like airplane with brakes. Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ----- Original Message ----- From: Christian Bobka To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:51 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location To clarify John's post below, the 16.5 degree angle is with the tail up and the ship level fore and aft using the top longerons at the cockpit for leveling. chris bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: John Dilatush To: Pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list Pieters, The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined by the CG of the plane. The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field operation. However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for ground looping upon landing. On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs. I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large for Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll be glad to try and send it directly to you. Hope all this helps. John Dilatush NX114D Salida, CO ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 03:18:14 PM PST US From: "Craig Wilcox" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis Isabel - Thanks for letting us know. I hope that he is OK; please keep us updated! I'll add him to our prayer list. Craig Wilcox Lake Worth, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:49 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis Corky has been in the hospital for 3 days for tests. We hope he may be home in a couple of days. Isablcorky ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:08:54 PM PST US From: dave rowe Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: corvair engine gripe --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe One concern about building an engine and then letting it sit in a shop for months is corrosion. For anyone who wishes to do this, please read up on the processes required to properly store a motor, is would really suck to bolt it on your new airplane, only to find it totally seized, and requiring a complete overhaul!!! barnstmr@aol.com wrote: > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com > > It doesen't matter where you start...just GET CRACKING! > > As in my case...I need to KEEP CRACKING! > > Terry L. Bowden > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 05:27:14 PM PST US From: "Michael Conkling" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location Alex, The 12-14 degrees would be measured between the upper longeron line and the ground line -- it's the angle your planes sits at when it in 3-point position. Vertical CG can be done the same as horizontal CG -- use the upper longeron as datum & use the same weights for the components -- distances would be plus (above?) or minus (below?) the datum -- probably won't be too far from the upper longeron ( a good "ball park" location would probably be your horizontal CG location at the upper longeron) Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Sloan To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location Mike, I am having a lot of confusion trying to understand this angle thing. 12-14 degrees measured from where to where? I know how to find the C.G. horzontally but this vertical C.G. point is new to me. Can you clarify this point? Alex Sloan alexms1@bellsouth.net ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:43 PM PST US From: "rod wooller" Subject: Pietenpol-List: forged pistons --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "rod wooller" Group, I have a set of +.030" forged pistons and I am about to have the barrells bored to suit. In the Corvair shop manual the piston to bore clearances are given as: Top land .022" to .031" and the skirt: .0011" to .0017". I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that forged pistons require greater clearances but I can't find where I read it. Could someone who has rebuilt their own Corvair using forged pistons (or anyone who has the knowledge) please clue me up on this. Many thanks, Rod Wooller Chidlow Australia Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 08:52:31 PM PST US From: Jim Markle Subject: Pietenpol-List: Excellent article on W&B --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Markle From an early British aircraft design book. Provided by Greg Cardinal and Chris Bobka. Greg found this info and it is the only place we have ever found it. You just weigh the aircraft in the tail up, level, position and then in the three point attitude, loaded of course, and then do the formula and it will tell you the vertical CG. No guesswork. I've added it to mykitplane.com Photo Gallery area..... I just wish it was something I needed right now but it's excellent information, and thanks Greg and Chris. Jim ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:38 PM PST US From: Clif Dawson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers That was before the divorce, right? ----- Original Message ----- Really, back in my day we just screamed and yelled at each other. Rick H