---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 03/05/04: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:39 AM PST US From: Kip and Beth Gardner Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel gauge --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Kip and Beth Gardner At 8:45 PM -0600 3/4/04, Oscar Zuniga wrote: >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:01:42 AM PST US From: Woodflier@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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