Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:46 AM - Re: fuel gauge (Kip and Beth Gardner)
2. 09:01 AM - Re: 5.00X5 Cleveland wheels (Woodflier@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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
At 8:45 PM -0600 3/4/04, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
>
>I've been following the discussion on the fuel gauges and agree that
>the "Stearman-type" gauge in the conventional location does have
>concerns. For those not familiar with how this typically ends up
>looking, you can see one at
>http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/Pb030014.jpg and readily note that
>it is in the area used by the passenger boarding from the port side
>(conventional setup).
>
>William Wynne, whose Corvair-powered Piet crashed a few years ago,
>was burned due to this very situation. The fuel fittings in the
>sump/outlet area broke off in the crash and spilled fuel into the
>cockpit area, where it ignited. William is now advocating a setup
>with either a breakaway flow-check fitting, or a different sump and
>fuel outlet connection since the tank itself remained intact in the
>crash of his Piet. Any improvement on the conventional outlet and
>gauge setup is a real plus.
>
>Oscar Zuniga
>San Antonio, TX
>mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Oscar,
You are right about William's concerns, but I'll add some detail. I
looked over & discussed his fuel tank setup with him about 8 months
before the crash. Two items: first, William's tank was integral with
his center section. In other words, he basically glassed-in the
center section to creat the tank, which, as I recall, was about 20
gal. Much bigger than a drop-in tank. This idea has a lot of appeal
to me because the Corvair burns more than an A-65 (about 4-5
gal./hr.) and like Chuck Gantzer, I have an iron butt & like to stay
in the air instead of landing every couple of hrs. for fuel.
I think this setup is quite interesting in light of the fact that the
tank did remain intact in the crash.
Secondly, because of this tank setup, William had two sumps, one at
the front & one at the back of the tank, both on the right side of
the center section. I don't recall how or where the lines joined,
but one of them ran along the underside of the center section & then
both of them went down one of the cabane struts. They probably tied
together at a fitting that also fed the primer; I don't remember. He
is recommending flow-check fittings located where these lines exit
the tank bottom.
The other thing he is recommending on Corvair-powered planes is some
sort of total 'kill-switch' to the electrical system. The fire
started because of a crash-induced short. He thinks that the
distributor-coil type ingnition system was responsible for this.
Kip Gardner
--
North Canton, OH
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: | Re: 5.00X5 Cleveland wheels |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Woodflier@aol.com
I put 5.00 X 5 wheels and brakes on my Piet with split axle gear, and, though
I haven't flown it, they look to be in proportion to the airplane. If a Piet
is too big for 5.00 X 5s, then I can't imagine what aircraft would be small
enough. I suspect they may bog down in soft ground a bit easier than the 6.00 X
6s but probably not by much.
Matt Paxton
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! --
|