Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:40 AM - Re: welding (Al Latham)
2. 06:33 AM - Re: Horizontal stab question (John Dilatush)
3. 05:35 PM - Fw: New bill introduced? (Bert Conoly)
4. 08:24 PM - Fw: New bill introduced? (Michael McCarty)
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 |
|
Guys,
Maule Aircraft mig's all their 4130 and has for many years, I am not advocating
mig at all just making a statement. I told a welder friend that I wanted to learn
mig, because it looked easy and faster that the gas that I had done for 20
years. He cautioned me on novice mig welding and with that took two pieces of
steel plate sat them together like the roof of a house and ran a fantastic bead...
Slid it off the table and when it hit the floor it became three pieces,
two plates and the bead. I now own a Miller Syncrowave 250. I too would like
to have a mig for fixtures.
One note of interest, we lived about 40 miles from Maule and I have visited them
many times in the 12 years there. I've inspected probably about 40 crash damaged
Maule's that were returned to the factory for repair and never found a weld
failure. When I first learned that they mig'ed I asked their engineer about
normalizing the clusters post welding, he looked at me as if I'd lost my mind
and said they did no such thing.
Al Latham
----- Original Message -----
From: James Dallas
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: welding
David,
No. Most "MIG" wires are not compatible with 4130. They will make a pretty
weld that over time with vibration will crack out. The best way is gas (preferable)
or TIG.
Jim Dallas
----- Original Message -----
From: David Esslinger
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 7:26 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: welding
Is MIG welding acceptable for 4130 Steel?
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: Horizontal stab question |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft@speedtrail.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Horizontal stab question
==============================
Rick,
When you layout the position of right angle tabs that hold the forward base
part of the vertical fin to the stabilizer, you might want to consider
setting them about 1" further apart than the actual thickness of the fin.
By spreading them apart, you can then use spacers between the fin and tabs
on either side to adjust the offset of the fin during your initial flight
testing.
Hope this is helpfull, sounds like you are moving right along!
Cordially,
John
=================================
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rick Holland
<at7000ft@speedtrail.net>
>
> Hey guys, what holds the horizontal stab to the fuselage, just the two
> bolts through the 'main beam' through the top longerons and the wires?
> It and the vert stab are not glued to each other are they? Do most
> people use two blind nuts or regular stop nuts on the underside of the
> top longerons for the stab bolts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick Holland
>
>
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: | Fw: New bill introduced? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly@earthlink.net>
Have ya'll seen this? I don't know who sent it to me but it looks
ridiculous.
BC (All tied down, buttoned up, and awaiting a visit from IVAN the
Terrible.)
> Subject: Outrageous House Bill
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:40:03 +0000
> Message-Id:
<091120041340.23997.4143002F000ADD2C00005DBD2160280741ADBAABACAABDBBAAB1B4BC
@att.net>
> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Jul 19 2004)
> X-Authenticated-Sender: Q0xPVURCVVNURVJAYXR0Lm5ldA==
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-ELNK-AV: 0
>
>
> --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_23997_1094910003_0
>
>
> EAA URGES MEMBERS TO OPPOSE OUTRAGEOUS HOUSE BILL
> THAT WOULD SEVERELY RESTRICT GENERAL AVIATION
>
****************************************************************************
****
> **************
>
>
> The Experimental Aircraft Association is urging its members and all
aviation
> enthusiasts
> to contact their Congressional representatives and strongly oppose a newly
> introduced
> bill by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
>
> This bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Department of Homeland Security to
> create a
> method of screening all passengers and property on each flight of all
passenger
> aircraft in the U.S., including general aviation aircraft of all types.
It
> would also prohibit
> non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or
building,
> and prohibit
> non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1
> million or more.
> It would further require that pilots of all aircraft in U.S. airspace
remain in
> contact with the
> Federal Aviation Administration, presumably by radio, regardless of
altitude or
> location.
>
> "The extreme shortsightedness of this bill speaks for itself and
completely
> counters the
> government's own security experts, who have continually stated that
general
> aviation
> does not pose a significant security threat to the U.S.," said Doug
Macnair,
> EAA's Vice
> President of Government Relations. "It's sad that the solemn anniversary
of
> 9/11 terrorist
> attacks is being used to introduce this bill, which does nothing to
enhance
> security and smacks
> of election-year grandstanding."
>
> With 17,000 landing facilities and nearly 200,000 aircraft in the United
States,
> EAA maintains
> that it is inconceivable that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and FAA
> could ever
> fund and administer such a plan. DHS and the Transportation Security
> Administration have
> repeatedly indicated that general aviation does not warrant such levels of
> security when
> compared to other transportation modes and threats.
>
> "We as a nation need to focus our limited resources on the most serious
> vulnerabilities
> and threats to our security," Macnair added. "TSA has made extensive
studies of
> those
> threats and nowhere has that agency ever suggested such draconian measures
as
> those
> proposed in this bill."
>
> EAA members and others can express their opposition to this bill to their
> congressional
> representatives by finding their contact information at
http://www.house.gov.
> EAA
> immediately contacted members of the House Aviation Subcommittee to state
its
> extreme opposition to this legislation.
>
> For additional information please go to the EAA website at
http://www.eaa.org.
> --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_23997_1094910003_0
>
>
> <!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
> <style type='text/css'>
> p {
> margin: 0px;
> }
> </style>
>
> <!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
#1010ff 2px solid">
>
>
>
> <!-- START MESSAGE -->
EAA URGES MEMBERS TO OPPOSE
OUTRAGEOUS HOUSE BILL
> THAT WOULD SEVERELY RESTRICT GENERAL AVIATION
>
****************************************************************************
****
> **************
>
>
> The Experimental Aircraft Association is urging its members and all
aviation
> enthusiasts
> to contact their Congressional representatives and strongly oppose a newly
> introduced
> bill by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
>
> This bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Department of Homeland Security to
> create a
> method of screening all passengers and property on each flight of all
passenger
> aircraft in the U.S., including general aviation aircraft of all types.
It
> would also prohibit
> non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or
building,
> and prohibit
> non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1
> million or more.
> It would further require that pilots of all aircraft in U.S. airspace
remain in
> contact with the
> Federal Aviation Administration, presumably by radio, regardless of
altitude or
> location.
>
> "The extreme shortsightedness of this bill speaks for itself and
completely
> counters the
> government's own security experts, who have continually stated that
general
> aviation
> does not pose a significant security threat to the U.S.," said Doug
Macnair,
> EAA's Vice
> President of Government Relations. "It's sad that the solemn anniversary
of
> 9/11 terrorist
> attacks is being used to introduce this bill, which does nothing to
enhance
> security and smacks
> of election-year grandstanding."
>
> With 17,000 landing facilities and nearly 200,000 aircraft in the United
States,
> EAA maintains
> that it is inconceivable that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and FAA
> could ever
> fund and administer such a plan. DHS and the Transportation Security
> Administration have
> repeatedly indicated that general aviation does not warrant such levels of
> security when
> compared to other transportation modes and threats.
>
> "We as a nation need to focus our limited resources on the most serious
> vulnerabilities
> and threats to our security," Macnair added. "TSA has made extensive
studies of
> those
> threats and nowhere has that agency ever suggested such draconian measures
as
> those
> proposed in this bill."
>
> EAA members and others can express their opposition to this bill to their
> congressional
> representatives by finding their contact information at <A
"
el="http://www.house.gov">http://www.house.gov.
> EAA
> immediately contacted members of the House Aviation Subcommittee to state
its
> extreme opposition to this legislation.
>
> For additional information please go to the EAA website at <A
"
el="http://www.eaa.org">http://www.eaa.org.
>
>
>
> <!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
>
>
>
>
> --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_23997_1094910003_0--
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: | Fw: New bill introduced? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Michael McCarty" <mmccarty@zianet.com>
Rep. Weiner is a relatively young democrat from New York City who is trying to
make a name for himself. I remember him from a few years back when he
cheered the grounding of the Concorde jets. He felt that New Yorkers should
have been glad to get rid of those unsafe, noisy monstrosities.
This is a newly introduced bill, less than a week old, with no co-sponsors and
hasn't been talked at the Aviation Subcomittee yet. AOPA and EAA and others
are all over this. I wouldn't worry too much yet.
-Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly@earthlink.net>
Subject: **SPAM: Pietenpol-List: Fw: New bill introduced?
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly@earthlink.net>
>
> Have ya'll seen this? I don't know who sent it to me but it looks
> ridiculous.
>>
>> The Experimental Aircraft Association is urging its members and all
> aviation
>> enthusiasts
>> to contact their Congressional representatives and strongly oppose a newly
>> introduced
>> bill by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
>>
>> This bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Department of Homeland Security to
>> create a
>> method of screening all passengers and property on each flight of all
> passenger
>> aircraft in the U.S., including general aviation aircraft of all types.
> It
>> would also prohibit
>> non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or
> building,
>> and prohibit
>> non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1
>> million or more.
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! --
|