Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:00 AM - Re: T-88 Temperature Limit (Jack Phillips)
2. 06:04 AM - Re: T-88 Temperature Limit (baileys)
3. 03:00 PM - Re: T-88 Temperature Limit (Christian Bobka)
4. 03:45 PM - Re: continental engines (Christian Bobka)
5. 04:16 PM - squirt holes (Christian Bobka)
6. 04:53 PM - More on A-75 props (Christian Bobka)
7. 05:22 PM - Re: squirt holes (Bert Conoly)
8. 05:39 PM - AN (DZUS) latches (Jim Cooper)
9. 06:10 PM - Re: squirt holes (Christian Bobka)
10. 06:24 PM - The A-75 is a production engine (Christian Bobka)
11. 06:30 PM - Re: AN (DZUS) latches (DJ Vegh)
12. 07:27 PM - Re: The A-75 is a production engine (Bert Conoly)
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: | T-88 Temperature Limit |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
That's one reason I used resorcinol
Jack Phillips, Raleigh, NC
Still spraying silver - getting close to putting color coats on
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of baileys
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88 Temperature Limit
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "baileys" <baileys@ktis.net>
According to the System Three Literature the upper service limit of T-88 is
160 degrees F. I would guess that the internal temperature of a dark
colored wing could exceed this especially when sitting still on the ground
in the summer time. Has anyone experienced (or heard of ) the adhesive
failing due to heat?
Just wondering,
Bob Bailey - Missouri
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: T-88 Temperature Limit |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "baileys" <baileys@ktis.net>
Thanks Cliff and Chuck,
I guess my next question would be; does the strength return after it cools
down or does it progressively get worse? In other words is the weaking
process cumulative? It will be interesting to see the response from System
Three on this.
Bob B.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: T-88 Temperature Limit
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
>
> I went through this concern as well as my understanding
> was that it lost 1/2 it's strength at that temp.
>
> From their site- lap shear strength in maple-1800 psi.
> The wood let go. Doesn't tell us anything.
>
> Tensile strength of the film-7000 psi.Variation with
> temp on glued aluminum; 2500 psi @ 67 to 1000
> psi @ 180 F. That's shear strength again but is that the
> shear strength of the glue? or simply the adhesion limit
> on aluminum?
>
> Shear strength for spruce is 1120 psi. So it appears
> that at 160 or so it would be a tossup as to which
> would let go, wood or glue. Up to that point the joint
> is going to be the same strength. Above it the glue
> becomes progressively weaker than the wood so it
> depends on what the specific load is on that joint. If it
> never sees more than 500 psi then it will do it's job until
> the glue weakens below that figure, at an even higher temp.
>
> What's the smallest gusset in the fuselage and where is it?
> If it was 5 square inches then the shear strength would be
> 5600 lb. If that joint will never see 1000 lb then it will
> probably be good at very high temps. If it sees 3000 lb
> then the failure temp will be lower but may still be well above
> anything that joint will experience.
>
> That's the way it looks to me anyway.
> Does it appear reasonable to you guys?
>
> Clif
>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: T-88 Temperature Limit
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 4/23/04 8:23:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
> baileys@ktis.net
> > writes:
> >
> > << Has anyone experienced (or heard of ) the adhesive failing due to
heat?
> >>
> >
> > Good question. I have never heard of any failures, but always wondered
> about
> > that, myself.
> >
> > Chuck G.
> >
>
>
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: T-88 Temperature Limit |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
That is why I use Aerolite.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: T-88 Temperature Limit
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips"
<pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>
> That's one reason I used resorcinol
>
> Jack Phillips, Raleigh, NC
>
> Still spraying silver - getting close to putting color coats on
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of baileys
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:23 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88 Temperature Limit
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "baileys" <baileys@ktis.net>
>
> According to the System Three Literature the upper service limit of T-88
is
> 160 degrees F. I would guess that the internal temperature of a dark
> colored wing could exceed this especially when sitting still on the ground
> in the summer time. Has anyone experienced (or heard of ) the adhesive
> failing due to heat?
> Just wondering,
> Bob Bailey - Missouri
>
>
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: continental engines |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Les,
A prop on a taperered shaft crank with the hub, as used on the A-50 through
A-80 in the A series and the C-75/85 in the C series, would not require the
bolt holes to be counterbored on the engine side of the propeller's hub (ie.
in the wood). The prop is held to the hub assembly by bolts with cotter
pinned nuts (that are on the forward face of the hub, BTW).
The integral flanged crankshaft, as used on the motors quoted above AND the
C-90 and O-200, have pressed in bushings that are threaded to recieved the
prop bolts that are safety wired in pairs. It is required that the prop
bolt holes be counterbored on the engine side to receive these bushings.
The bushings are not there to "drive" the prop but rather to provide enough
thread engagement for the prop bolts. It is the friction of the front plate
(used with a wood prop) and the crank flange provided by the proper tension
on the prop bolts that provides the abiltiy to transfer the torque from the
crank to the prop.
Old Sensenich props for the A series where designated, for example, W72C42.
The W for wood, the 72 for diameter, the 42 for pitch, and the C for a 4-3/8
x 6 bolt pattern with hp not to exceed 65 and the rpm not to exceed 2350.
This was later changed to a W72CK42 designation. The K is to designate that
the props are counterbored so to be able to be used on a flanged crankshaft.
If the W72CK42 prop is to be used on a tapered shaft crank with its separate
hub, then aluminum bushings are pressed into the holes to fill them up with
matter.
I hope this helps.
Best to do a google search on "sensenich wood propeller" and see their
website.
If a prop maker says he never has seen an A series with an integral flanged
crank, then find another prop builder.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Schubert" <leskarin@telus.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: continental engines
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
>
> Hi
> Can some one explain to me the differences internally between
> the 65, 75 and 85 continental engines. As near as I can see they
> all have the same bore and stroke and are just reved up more.
> I think I read once that the 75 had oil holes drilled in the rods
> to squirt oil on the opposing piston. I see there are various carburators
> listed for these engines but I have no specifications for them.
> Why do I want to know? Well I have a A65 in nice shape, at
> least that is what the tag on the crankcase says, but when I ordered
> the prop and said I had a crank with the integral flange the prop
> maker said he had never heard of a 65 having the integral flanged
> crank. I also see I have oil squirt holes in the connecting rods.
> Help????
> Les
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Les,
The squirt holes were originally used exclusively on the A-75 and A-80 to
provide cooling oil to the waffle pattern cast into the underside of the
piston dome. The squirt holes eventually became standard and replacement
rods from Continental in the later years all had them. It is better to have
them than not. Also, the A-75 pistons, as said earlier, have the waffle on
the underside but are otherwise identical to SOME of the A-65 pistons. If
you have these pistons in the A-65, as many engines do, then that is good
too.
If these to internal mods are present, then it is merely necessary to do
four more things to get 75 hp: rejet the carb, replace the venturi with a
larger one, reset the magneto timing, and install a propeller that can do
the following: it is rated at 75 hp (it won't be overstressed), it can be
spun at 2650 rpm (it won't be overstressed), and it will turn the minimum
static rpm for the engine prop combination which should be about 2400 rpm or
so. It is imperitive that the prop be sized to allow for 2650 rpm when you
are at wide open throttle at sea level on a standard day. If you don't turn
up the rpms, you will not develop the power. Many have done all the mods
except change the prop and are disappointed becuase the 65 hp prop will not
allow the rpms to be developed. To turn up the higher rpms, the prop must
be either less in diameter (discouraged) or less pitch (encouraged). With
the piet design and its slow speed, always try for the biggest diameter
possible for the best efficiency. 74 to 76 inches is not unreasonable.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Schubert" <leskarin@telus.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: continental engines
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
>
> Hi
> Can some one explain to me the differences internally between
> the 65, 75 and 85 continental engines. As near as I can see they
> all have the same bore and stroke and are just reved up more.
> I think I read once that the 75 had oil holes drilled in the rods
> to squirt oil on the opposing piston. I see there are various carburators
> listed for these engines but I have no specifications for them.
> Why do I want to know? Well I have a A65 in nice shape, at
> least that is what the tag on the crankcase says, but when I ordered
> the prop and said I had a crank with the integral flange the prop
> maker said he had never heard of a 65 having the integral flanged
> crank. I also see I have oil squirt holes in the connecting rods.
> Help????
> Les
>
>
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: | More on A-75 props |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Les,
I meant to say:
It is imperitive that the prop be sized to allow for 2650 rpm when you are
at wide open throttle at sea level on a standard day WHEN IN LEVEL FLIGHT.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: squirt holes
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<sbobka@charter.net>
>
> Les,
>
> The squirt holes were originally used exclusively on the A-75 and A-80 to
> provide cooling oil to the waffle pattern cast into the underside of the
> piston dome. The squirt holes eventually became standard and replacement
> rods from Continental in the later years all had them. It is better to
have
> them than not. Also, the A-75 pistons, as said earlier, have the waffle
on
> the underside but are otherwise identical to SOME of the A-65 pistons. If
> you have these pistons in the A-65, as many engines do, then that is good
> too.
>
> If these to internal mods are present, then it is merely necessary to do
> four more things to get 75 hp: rejet the carb, replace the venturi with a
> larger one, reset the magneto timing, and install a propeller that can do
> the following: it is rated at 75 hp (it won't be overstressed), it can be
> spun at 2650 rpm (it won't be overstressed), and it will turn the minimum
> static rpm for the engine prop combination which should be about 2400 rpm
or
> so. It is imperitive that the prop be sized to allow for 2650 rpm when
you
> are at wide open throttle at sea level on a standard day. If you don't
turn
> up the rpms, you will not develop the power. Many have done all the mods
> except change the prop and are disappointed becuase the 65 hp prop will
not
> allow the rpms to be developed. To turn up the higher rpms, the prop must
> be either less in diameter (discouraged) or less pitch (encouraged). With
> the piet design and its slow speed, always try for the biggest diameter
> possible for the best efficiency. 74 to 76 inches is not unreasonable.
>
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Les Schubert" <leskarin@telus.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:38 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: continental engines
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
> >
> > Hi
> > Can some one explain to me the differences internally between
> > the 65, 75 and 85 continental engines. As near as I can see they
> > all have the same bore and stroke and are just reved up more.
> > I think I read once that the 75 had oil holes drilled in the rods
> > to squirt oil on the opposing piston. I see there are various
carburators
> > listed for these engines but I have no specifications for them.
> > Why do I want to know? Well I have a A65 in nice shape, at
> > least that is what the tag on the crankcase says, but when I ordered
> > the prop and said I had a crank with the integral flange the prop
> > maker said he had never heard of a 65 having the integral flanged
> > crank. I also see I have oil squirt holes in the connecting rods.
> > Help????
> > Les
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: squirt holes |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly@earthlink.net>
Chris. On the A-75 engines, will the name plate be stamped with "A-75" or
will it be stamped with "A-65" and the mods were simply made afterward by
the dealer, FBO or owner to make it a 75 horse engine? That is was this a
production engine?
the reason I asked is that last week I bought another run out engine I was
told was an A-75. When I got it home, I found it was stamped on the
dataplate with "A-65". No problem, I don't really care one way or the
other. From what I am hearing from you (and some old-timers at my airport,)
there's no way to tell without checking the carb jets, pistons, and venturi.
It has a tapered shaft.
I'm betting it's an A-65.
Thanks,
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: squirt holes
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<sbobka@charter.net>
>
> Les,
>
> The squirt holes were originally used exclusively on the A-75 and A-80 to
> provide cooling oil to the waffle pattern cast into the underside of the
> piston dome. The squirt holes eventually became standard and replacement
> rods from Continental in the later years all had them. It is better to
have
> them than not. Also, the A-75 pistons, as said earlier, have the waffle
on
> the underside but are otherwise identical to SOME of the A-65 pistons. If
> you have these pistons in the A-65, as many engines do, then that is good
> too.
>
> If these to internal mods are present, then it is merely necessary to do
> four more things to get 75 hp: rejet the carb, replace the venturi with a
> larger one, reset the magneto timing, and install a propeller that can do
> the following: it is rated at 75 hp (it won't be overstressed), it can be
> spun at 2650 rpm (it won't be overstressed), and it will turn the minimum
> static rpm for the engine prop combination which should be about 2400 rpm
or
> so. It is imperitive that the prop be sized to allow for 2650 rpm when
you
> are at wide open throttle at sea level on a standard day. If you don't
turn
> up the rpms, you will not develop the power. Many have done all the mods
> except change the prop and are disappointed becuase the 65 hp prop will
not
> allow the rpms to be developed. To turn up the higher rpms, the prop must
> be either less in diameter (discouraged) or less pitch (encouraged). With
> the piet design and its slow speed, always try for the biggest diameter
> possible for the best efficiency. 74 to 76 inches is not unreasonable.
>
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Les Schubert" <leskarin@telus.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:38 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: continental engines
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
> >
> > Hi
> > Can some one explain to me the differences internally between
> > the 65, 75 and 85 continental engines. As near as I can see they
> > all have the same bore and stroke and are just reved up more.
> > I think I read once that the 75 had oil holes drilled in the rods
> > to squirt oil on the opposing piston. I see there are various
carburators
> > listed for these engines but I have no specifications for them.
> > Why do I want to know? Well I have a A65 in nice shape, at
> > least that is what the tag on the crankcase says, but when I ordered
> > the prop and said I had a crank with the integral flange the prop
> > maker said he had never heard of a 65 having the integral flanged
> > crank. I also see I have oil squirt holes in the connecting rods.
> > Help????
> > Les
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | AN (DZUS) latches |
My thanks to DJ Vegh for his prompt reply to my question regarding AN latches to
lock the "flop" in the down position. Yes, I would appreciate detailed pics
of the latches installed. I'll order them from Aircraft Spruce on Monday. Thanks
also for the stunning photos of your RC GN1 model! Jim Cooper in sunny South
Louisiana (Corky country!!)
Message 9
| 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: squirt holes |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Bert,
Exactly
"there's no way to tell without checking the carb jets, pistons, and
venturi"
These engines have been adulterated over the years and what should be there
and what is actually there differ greatly. Of course, for use on an
experimental, it does not really matter what the data plate says....
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: squirt holes
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly"
<bconoly@earthlink.net>
>
> Chris. On the A-75 engines, will the name plate be stamped with "A-75" or
> will it be stamped with "A-65" and the mods were simply made afterward by
> the dealer, FBO or owner to make it a 75 horse engine? That is was this a
> production engine?
>
> the reason I asked is that last week I bought another run out engine I was
> told was an A-75. When I got it home, I found it was stamped on the
> dataplate with "A-65". No problem, I don't really care one way or the
> other. From what I am hearing from you (and some old-timers at my
airport,)
> there's no way to tell without checking the carb jets, pistons, and
venturi.
> It has a tapered shaft.
>
> I'm betting it's an A-65.
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:14 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: squirt holes
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
> <sbobka@charter.net>
> >
> > Les,
> >
> > The squirt holes were originally used exclusively on the A-75 and A-80
to
> > provide cooling oil to the waffle pattern cast into the underside of the
> > piston dome. The squirt holes eventually became standard and
replacement
> > rods from Continental in the later years all had them. It is better to
> have
> > them than not. Also, the A-75 pistons, as said earlier, have the waffle
> on
> > the underside but are otherwise identical to SOME of the A-65 pistons.
If
> > you have these pistons in the A-65, as many engines do, then that is
good
> > too.
> >
> > If these to internal mods are present, then it is merely necessary to do
> > four more things to get 75 hp: rejet the carb, replace the venturi with
a
> > larger one, reset the magneto timing, and install a propeller that can
do
> > the following: it is rated at 75 hp (it won't be overstressed), it can
be
> > spun at 2650 rpm (it won't be overstressed), and it will turn the
minimum
> > static rpm for the engine prop combination which should be about 2400
rpm
> or
> > so. It is imperitive that the prop be sized to allow for 2650 rpm when
> you
> > are at wide open throttle at sea level on a standard day. If you don't
> turn
> > up the rpms, you will not develop the power. Many have done all the
mods
> > except change the prop and are disappointed becuase the 65 hp prop will
> not
> > allow the rpms to be developed. To turn up the higher rpms, the prop
must
> > be either less in diameter (discouraged) or less pitch (encouraged).
With
> > the piet design and its slow speed, always try for the biggest diameter
> > possible for the best efficiency. 74 to 76 inches is not unreasonable.
> >
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Les Schubert" <leskarin@telus.net>
> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:38 AM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: continental engines
> >
> >
> > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert
<leskarin@telus.net>
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > Can some one explain to me the differences internally between
> > > the 65, 75 and 85 continental engines. As near as I can see they
> > > all have the same bore and stroke and are just reved up more.
> > > I think I read once that the 75 had oil holes drilled in the rods
> > > to squirt oil on the opposing piston. I see there are various
> carburators
> > > listed for these engines but I have no specifications for them.
> > > Why do I want to know? Well I have a A65 in nice shape, at
> > > least that is what the tag on the crankcase says, but when I ordered
> > > the prop and said I had a crank with the integral flange the prop
> > > maker said he had never heard of a 65 having the integral flanged
> > > crank. I also see I have oil squirt holes in the connecting rods.
> > > Help????
> > > Les
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 10
| 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: | The A-75 is a production engine |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Bert,
To answer the first question, the A-75 is a production engine. The first
versions of it were fuel injected, the -8J, but this later gave way to the
carbed versions, the -8 being most common. Some of the A-75s have the -9
crankcase and accessory case allowing it to have a starter, either the
Hummer X which is a bungie stretched the length of the fuselage that is
literally geared to the crankshaft via an overriding clutch (wow) and
similar to the wind up the spring and release lawn mower engines, the
McDowell, which is tantamount to a pull start on a lawn mower, or an Eclipse
385 ( I think that number ) which is an electric starter run off of a
battery as the case does not have a provision for a generator.
The fuel injected engines, or formally fuel injected engines, would have a
boss forward of the intake spider where the injector pump would be driven
off of. It is identical to what was used on the O-200s to drive the vacuum
pump. A block off plate might be installed here. The -9 also came fuel
injected as the -9J. I believe that B and S makes a small dynamo that can
be mounted on a vacuum pump pad and this might be a simple way to have an
engine driven electrical system (although you might need a transponder then,
depending upon where you live).
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: squirt holes
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly"
<bconoly@earthlink.net>
>
> Chris. On the A-75 engines, will the name plate be stamped with "A-75" or
> will it be stamped with "A-65" and the mods were simply made afterward by
> the dealer, FBO or owner to make it a 75 horse engine? That is was this a
> production engine?
>
> the reason I asked is that last week I bought another run out engine I was
> told was an A-75. When I got it home, I found it was stamped on the
> dataplate with "A-65". No problem, I don't really care one way or the
> other. From what I am hearing from you (and some old-timers at my
airport,)
> there's no way to tell without checking the carb jets, pistons, and
venturi.
> It has a tapered shaft.
>
> I'm betting it's an A-65.
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:14 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: squirt holes
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
> <sbobka@charter.net>
> >
> > Les,
> >
> > The squirt holes were originally used exclusively on the A-75 and A-80
to
> > provide cooling oil to the waffle pattern cast into the underside of the
> > piston dome. The squirt holes eventually became standard and
replacement
> > rods from Continental in the later years all had them. It is better to
> have
> > them than not. Also, the A-75 pistons, as said earlier, have the waffle
> on
> > the underside but are otherwise identical to SOME of the A-65 pistons.
If
> > you have these pistons in the A-65, as many engines do, then that is
good
> > too.
> >
> > If these to internal mods are present, then it is merely necessary to do
> > four more things to get 75 hp: rejet the carb, replace the venturi with
a
> > larger one, reset the magneto timing, and install a propeller that can
do
> > the following: it is rated at 75 hp (it won't be overstressed), it can
be
> > spun at 2650 rpm (it won't be overstressed), and it will turn the
minimum
> > static rpm for the engine prop combination which should be about 2400
rpm
> or
> > so. It is imperitive that the prop be sized to allow for 2650 rpm when
> you
> > are at wide open throttle at sea level on a standard day. If you don't
> turn
> > up the rpms, you will not develop the power. Many have done all the
mods
> > except change the prop and are disappointed becuase the 65 hp prop will
> not
> > allow the rpms to be developed. To turn up the higher rpms, the prop
must
> > be either less in diameter (discouraged) or less pitch (encouraged).
With
> > the piet design and its slow speed, always try for the biggest diameter
> > possible for the best efficiency. 74 to 76 inches is not unreasonable.
> >
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Les Schubert" <leskarin@telus.net>
> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:38 AM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: continental engines
> >
> >
> > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert
<leskarin@telus.net>
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > Can some one explain to me the differences internally between
> > > the 65, 75 and 85 continental engines. As near as I can see they
> > > all have the same bore and stroke and are just reved up more.
> > > I think I read once that the 75 had oil holes drilled in the rods
> > > to squirt oil on the opposing piston. I see there are various
> carburators
> > > listed for these engines but I have no specifications for them.
> > > Why do I want to know? Well I have a A65 in nice shape, at
> > > least that is what the tag on the crankcase says, but when I ordered
> > > the prop and said I had a crank with the integral flange the prop
> > > maker said he had never heard of a 65 having the integral flanged
> > > crank. I also see I have oil squirt holes in the connecting rods.
> > > Help????
> > > Les
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 11
| 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: AN (DZUS) latches |
I'll snap some pics tomorrow and then post a link to them. That little RC GN-1
has been getting LOTS of flight time over the past few months. I swapped the
motor for one that uses less amps and produces more thrust. I'd estimate it has
about 60 flights on it so far. It looks really odd when I fly it inverted!
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
-
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Cooper
To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 5:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: AN (DZUS) latches
My thanks to DJ Vegh for his prompt reply to my question regarding AN latches
to lock the "flop" in the down position. Yes, I would appreciate detailed pics
of the latches installed. I'll order them from Aircraft Spruce on Monday. Thanks
also for the stunning photos of your RC GN1 model! Jim Cooper in sunny South
Louisiana (Corky country!!)
Message 12
| 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: The A-75 is a production engine |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly@earthlink.net>
Man! Now this is an example of good info we have at our fingertips. Thanks
Chris...
Bert
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: The A-75 is a production engine
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<sbobka@charter.net>
>
> Bert,
>
> To answer the first question, the A-75 is a production engine. ......
the rest is snipped
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! --
|