Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:20 AM - Re: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. (Gene Rambo)
2. 05:50 AM - why waste two spaces ? (Michael D Cuy)
3. 06:34 AM - Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk (Robert Haines)
4. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk (Christian Bobka)
5. 11:56 AM - Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk (Christian Bobka)
6. 04:49 PM - Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk (Cy Galley)
7. 05:15 PM - Wheels (dpaul)
8. 08:46 PM - Re: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. (Rcaprd@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
Why don't you guys just hard-line between the wing tank and fuselage tank,
but NOT have a filler opening on the fuselage tank. It would just be a
flow-through tank, but you would have the added capacity without having to
worry about overfilling the tank or plumbing each separately to the
gascolator.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd@aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story.
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 1/30/04 11:55:41 PM Central Standard Time,
> vk3eka@bigpond.net.au writes:
>
> << Thanks Chuck,
>
> I presume the cowl tank would have to have a level indicating the
capacity
> of the wing tank. This would allow the cowl tank to use enough fuel to
> enable the wing tank valve to be turned on and re-fill the cowl tank
without
> overflowing the cowl tank. Unless there was a float valve on the cowl
tank
> inlet from the wing tank.
>
> I think may be a better idea would be to have the fuel valves on each
tank
> seperatley feeding the gascolator. You would also need some sort of wing
> tank quantity guage.
>
> What do you think? >>
>
> Peter,
> The beauty of a Pietenpol is in it's simplicity. Keep it simple. If
it
> isn't there, it can't break or leak. Bernard Harold Pietenpol maintained
> this strategy throughout. He simply valved the line from the wing tank to
the
> cowl tank.
> Use 3/8" aluminum fuel lines and 37 flaired aircraft grade 'B' nuts
> throughout. You also need a 'Finger Screen' in the outlet of each tank.
This is
> your third line of defense against getting crap in the carb. First line
of
> defense is use clean fuel, during re-fuel operation, and during storage,
you
> also need to cap the L shaped vent, with a flag that says 'Remove Before
Flight'.
> For some reason, wasps and other bugs don't seem to mind the odor of
fuel.
> Fourth line of defense is the fine mesh screen in the gascolator, and
finally
> the Very Fine screen in the inlet of the carburetor.
> The Cowl tank is in fact the main tank. The Wing tank simply
replenishes
> the cowl tank, when you see the level of the wire / cork get low enough.
In
> flight, there is no need to see the quantity of the wing tank. This
system
> does, however, require fuel management during flight, because you can
overflow
> the cowl tank during an in flight re-fuel period. Ya gotta keep an eye on
the
> wire, during re-fuel.
> Pre-flight fuel quantity indicator is a dip stick, one end for the
cowl
> tank, the other end of the stick is for the wing tank. To make the stick,
have
> the plane on level ground, and tail down. Start out with an empty tank,
and
> add 1 gallon increments, dip and mark the quantity on the stick at each
> gallon line.
> During each pre-flight, record the 'Fuel Onboard' in your pre-flight
log,
> along with the time, date, hour meter, etc. Check all this again at post
> flight, and this enables you to determine your fuel burn rate.
> I have a flying story about this system:
> On my way back from Oshkosh last year, I was 30 miles southeast of Kansas
> City, and the wire in the cowl tank showed me I was low enough to add some
fuel.
> Any time you move any fuel valve in any airplane, you should be within
> gliding distance of an airport. I had a small airport within sight, so I
reached up
> and turned the wing tank valve on, and settled back to enjoy the scenery
and
> unparalleled beauty of flying an open cockpit plane. It takes over 6
minutes
> to empty my wing tank, and although I glanced at the wire as it came up, I
> thought the entire contents of the wing tank, would fit in the cowl tank.
NOT !!
> A 1/4" stream of fuel began squirting out of the cowl tank vent, and
> instantly covered my windshield with FUEL ! I squinted my eyes, reached
up and
> turned the valve off, went full power climb to try to use more fuel.
Ducked down
> in behind the windshield, with eyes squinted, I watched the left wing tip
to
> maintain wing level, and watched the airspeed to maintain a steep climb
rate.
> I was afraid of getting fuel in my eyes, which would have been
DISASASTEROUS
> !! It took about minute or so, before the fuel stopped covering my
windshield.
> Whew !! That was a close one !! Lesson Learned !!
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | why waste two spaces ? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Group-- My Piet holds 17 gallons in a nose fuel tank and the entire center
section is covered by a large, hinged, aluminum baggage compartment
door. The wing cutout helps to get your belly up tight against it (note
the cutout is just right for our bellies) and store all kinds of neat
things up there like tent, sleeping bag, tie down stakes and ropes, spare
oil, light tool kit and spare socks. The nose tank is SO much easier to
fuel !!! What a pain in the butt it must be to fuel a wing tank. Lots
of choices here with these issues. Also-- 17 gallons or even 15 gallons
is plenty in a Pietenpol unless you are running a 150 hp engine. My
longest leg was 2 hours 20 minutes but most run 2 hours and that is wayyyy
plenty enough.
Mike C.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Wet abrasive blasting, sounds effective but messy. :)
Yes, baking soda is alkaline (a base) and from what I've read (again, no
experience here so don't consider this gospel) baking soda discolors the
aluminum like an acid, etch cleaner, or oven cleaner would. I don't think
this would cause any structural or surface damage, only cosmetic. Also,
William Wynne pointed out in his conversion manual that sand blasting and
bead blasting does what you mentioned in your previous post, and the change
to the surface screws up things like the lifter bores. He noted that
cleaners and pressure washing was the way to go and the truth about that is
that it cleans with no abrasion. If you only need to get the dirt off, this
is preferable.
Although, some of us also want a little corosion removal and to provide a
little polishing action, this is not possible with pressure washing alone.
At that point, it appears to me that you have two options, one is to
mechanically polish with a small metal brush or a buffing wheel in a rotary
tool, and the second is a light abrasive blast. The metal brush is similar
to sand blasting in that it deforms the surface, which is no big deal to the
lifter bores (etc.) because you would never get the brush in there anyway.
The only other problems I have with the metal brush is that, one, it imbeds
the aluminum oxide formed on the surface down into the surface a little
which may cause problems with welding (but if you don't plan of welding, no
big deal) and, two, it takes a lot of work.
Again, this is only my opinion and the thought process I used to get me to
the decision on walnut shell blasting. I would like to note that DJ, who is
doing an excellent job on his project, cleaned with oven cleaner and a
pressure washer and then wire brushed and otherwise polished his engine. He
also then welded the intake runners on. So I may be a little overboard in
my thinking since it can be done satisfactorily to the contrary.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
> From: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
>
> Robert,
> I didn't personly use it, but in talking with our engineering P.E. (who
has
> since left and is with EASA) The sand grit actually hits and leaves a
"barb"
> since the sand is much harder that the steel/alum. And it could short out
> the laminations on an AC motor. Where the corn cob is softer and either
> doesn't touch/flattens the surface on the steel. {{We are one of the
> largest electric motor/pump facilities in the northeast (only one ISO 9001
> certified first time out)}}
> But actually now they've switched to using a high pressure water blaster
> that can also add backing soda to the mix for action. (the one where the
> operator wears "tim man" shin and foot covers to limit cutting off toes.)
> Don't know where cob, walnut shells, and baking soda compare, but just
> wanted to bring up another option.
> I imagine that if baking soda does the job ( and since it's not an
acid,but
> a base?)
> Like Chris Bobka suggested, it's probably the best way to go.
> Besides, when you're done, you can make buscuits. :
> )
> walt evans
> NX140DL
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Robert,
You are concerned with the safety of using baking soda as an abrasive but
yet you are willing to use OVEN CLEANER and a WIRE BRUSH to clean the
aluminum.
I learned in A & P school that one should never use a wire brush or spun
wool (unless it is an aluminum wire brush or spun wool) on aluminum as it
will embed tiny particles of iron (or brass in the case of using a brass
brush) in the aluminum which will then be the seed for dissimilar metals
corrosion.
On the other topic, I can drink baking soda but yet would find it
uncomfortable to drink oven cleaner!
Baking soda is so mild an abrasive that it will not take anodizing off of
aluminum. As the anodizing is an oxide coating, I doubt the baking soda
would remove the natural aluminim oxide that would form on the aluminum
after it is manufactured. Besides, we normally etch the aluminum with
phosphoric acid and then pickle it with chromic acid to form a "uniform
layer of corrosion (read as protective oxide layer)" to protect the
aluminum.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines"
<robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
>
> Wet abrasive blasting, sounds effective but messy. :)
>
> Yes, baking soda is alkaline (a base) and from what I've read (again, no
> experience here so don't consider this gospel) baking soda discolors the
> aluminum like an acid, etch cleaner, or oven cleaner would. I don't think
> this would cause any structural or surface damage, only cosmetic. Also,
> William Wynne pointed out in his conversion manual that sand blasting and
> bead blasting does what you mentioned in your previous post, and the
change
> to the surface screws up things like the lifter bores. He noted that
> cleaners and pressure washing was the way to go and the truth about that
is
> that it cleans with no abrasion. If you only need to get the dirt off,
this
> is preferable.
>
> Although, some of us also want a little corosion removal and to provide a
> little polishing action, this is not possible with pressure washing alone.
> At that point, it appears to me that you have two options, one is to
> mechanically polish with a small metal brush or a buffing wheel in a
rotary
> tool, and the second is a light abrasive blast. The metal brush is
similar
> to sand blasting in that it deforms the surface, which is no big deal to
the
> lifter bores (etc.) because you would never get the brush in there anyway.
> The only other problems I have with the metal brush is that, one, it
imbeds
> the aluminum oxide formed on the surface down into the surface a little
> which may cause problems with welding (but if you don't plan of welding,
no
> big deal) and, two, it takes a lot of work.
>
> Again, this is only my opinion and the thought process I used to get me to
> the decision on walnut shell blasting. I would like to note that DJ, who
is
> doing an excellent job on his project, cleaned with oven cleaner and a
> pressure washer and then wire brushed and otherwise polished his engine.
He
> also then welded the intake runners on. So I may be a little overboard in
> my thinking since it can be done satisfactorily to the contrary.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> > From: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans"
<wbeevans@verizon.net>
> >
> > Robert,
> > I didn't personly use it, but in talking with our engineering P.E. (who
> has
> > since left and is with EASA) The sand grit actually hits and leaves a
> "barb"
> > since the sand is much harder that the steel/alum. And it could short
out
> > the laminations on an AC motor. Where the corn cob is softer and either
> > doesn't touch/flattens the surface on the steel. {{We are one of the
> > largest electric motor/pump facilities in the northeast (only one ISO
9001
> > certified first time out)}}
> > But actually now they've switched to using a high pressure water blaster
> > that can also add backing soda to the mix for action. (the one where
the
> > operator wears "tim man" shin and foot covers to limit cutting off
toes.)
> > Don't know where cob, walnut shells, and baking soda compare, but just
> > wanted to bring up another option.
> > I imagine that if baking soda does the job ( and since it's not an
> acid,but
> > a base?)
> > Like Chris Bobka suggested, it's probably the best way to go.
> > Besides, when you're done, you can make buscuits. :
> > )
> > walt evans
> > NX140DL
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Cy,
I don't know the difference. I just remember that from the literature and
talking to Mike Thern. The term "industrial grade" was used.
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> What is the difference between baking soda and industrial grade BS? More
> for a cheaper per pound price?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
> <bobka@compuserve.com>
> >
> > If you use industrial grade baking soda, it does a good job and is water
> > soluable so that you rinse the engine out with water when you are done
and
> > all the abrasive is gone.
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:44 AM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines"
> > <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after the
> > fact,
> > > I hate that.
> > >
> > >
> > > To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested
that
> > > abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the
surfaces
> > > clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a
> > supplier
> > > of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb bag
> for
> > > $45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same
price
> > for
> > > all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer
> that
> > > sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
> > > different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
> > > (http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was
$15
> > > plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit card,
> and
> > > the bag arrived four days later.
> > >
> > > I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck I
> > needed
> > > 50lbs of walnut shells for.
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert Haines
> > > Du Quoin, Illinois
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
SWAG It might not be quite as pure as say food grade but is cheaper and
either will work as an abrasive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<bobka@compuserve.com>
>
> Cy,
>
> I don't know the difference. I just remember that from the literature and
> talking to Mike Thern. The term "industrial grade" was used.
>
> chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> > What is the difference between baking soda and industrial grade BS?
More
> > for a cheaper per pound price?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> >
> >
> > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
> > <bobka@compuserve.com>
> > >
> > > If you use industrial grade baking soda, it does a good job and is
water
> > > soluable so that you rinse the engine out with water when you are done
> and
> > > all the abrasive is gone.
> > >
> > > Chris Bobka
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
> > > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:44 AM
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines"
> > > <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after
the
> > > fact,
> > > > I hate that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested
> that
> > > > abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the
> surfaces
> > > > clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a
> > > supplier
> > > > of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb
bag
> > for
> > > > $45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same
> price
> > > for
> > > > all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer
> > that
> > > > sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
> > > > different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
> > > > (http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was
> $15
> > > > plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit
card,
> > and
> > > > the bag arrived four days later.
> > > >
> > > > I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck
I
> > > needed
> > > > 50lbs of walnut shells for.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert Haines
> > > > Du Quoin, Illinois
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
Hello,
I found some motorcycle wheels but didn't want to purchase them with consulting
with the list. They are 18" rear wheels from dirt bikes that measure about
24" with the tires on. The hubs are 5" wide which makes me think that I could
get away without having to create new 5 1/2 or 6" hubs. They have brake
drums but I'm not sure whether or not I could utilize them. I don't recall seeing
any Piets at Brodhead with this type of wheel or brake system. Opinions
would be appreciated.
Dave Paulsen - Missouri
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 2/3/04 6:21:29 AM Central Standard Time, rambog@erols.com
writes:
<< Why don't you guys just hard-line between the wing tank and fuselage tank,
but NOT have a filler opening on the fuselage tank. It would just be a
flow-through tank, but you would have the added capacity without having to
worry about overfilling the tank or plumbing each separately to the
gascolator. >>
Gene,
The drawbacks of eliminating the filler neck in the cowling tank are:
1) You couldn't monitor your fuel in flight, unless you added some type of
sealed float monitor in the cowl tank.
2) Re-fueling an almost empty system would require the time period to
re-fuel the cowl tank from the wing tank. On my system, this takes over 6 minutes.
I have a 9.8 gal wing tank, 10.7 gal cowling tank.
3) If the wing tank should ever develop a leak, I can always leave that
tank empty, and use only the cowl tank.
As Mike C. pointed out, the simplest and most efficient system would be
one tank, preferebly the 17 gal cowl tank location (plenty of fuel). As we all
know, there are pro's and con's for any system. One drawback for that much
fuel in the cowl tank, is the pitch trim change, as fuel is consumed.
Mike, I don't see how you squeezed that much fuel in your cowl tank (17
gal.). We both have the 'Short Fuselage', and I used every nook and cranny up
there, and could only get 10.7 gal.
For my plane, I started out with just the wing tank, then added the cowl
tank when I did the engine conversion last spring. I am completely satisfied
with how my system performs, and overflowing the cowling tank was my own
fault. It won't happen again !!
Another note of caution (while we're on the subject of fueling), is
refueling with one of those huge hoses, with the nozzels that doesn't shut off
when
the level touches the tip. Those things belch a HUGE quantity of fuel when
the handle is fully squeezed. Even dipping the tank to know how much fuel to
add, twice I've spilled fuel all over the cowling !!
Chuck G.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|