Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:38 AM - Fuel tank & parts (Bob Seibert)
2. 07:14 AM - Re: Sat in my first Peit today (Phillips, Jack)
3. 08:00 AM - Re: Sat in my first Peit today (Rick Holland)
4. 08:05 AM - Re: Horizontal and Vertical stab fittings (Rick Holland)
5. 08:38 AM - Re: Horizontal and Vertical stab fittings (Phillips, Jack)
6. 02:34 PM - rear cockpit solo (Oscar Zuniga)
7. 03:21 PM - Re: rear cockpit solo (Rcaprd@aol.com)
8. 03:44 PM - Re: rear cockpit solo (Bert Conoly)
9. 09:02 PM - Re: Fuel tank & parts (Catdesign)
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 |
|
s=test1; d=earthlink.net;
b=mD8HHx5mSMSTt7kZP20UU8F4FvHIfXqOTfrAKm7hhHPBbWBZQ0aw3cD402T56VlE;
| Subject: | Fuel tank & parts |
0.50 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
Well, I need to clean the hangar out and I have a pile of Piet parts that needs
to move.
I have an aluminum center section gas tank (12.5 gal.), a 1 gallon header tank
& shutoff valve, control stick assembly, and ALL the fabricated hardware for a
piet.
The hardware is all fabricated out of 4130 and has about 45 hours on it. The fuel
tank has a built in sight gage and is built like an RV gas tank with rivets
& pro-seal joints. The tank was built for a piet with a plans built 1 piece wing
and I do not know if it will fit in the center section of a 3 piece wing.
It all works just fine. It was taken off of my wind damaged (and ground looped)
piet.
I figure that $200 is a fair price for the many hours of labor that went into the
stuff. (That probably amounts to about 50 cent an hour :-)
The only problem is that the buyer has to pick it all up here near Austin, TX.
The fuel tank has residual fuel in it making shipping out of the question.
If anybody is interested, please contact me off list.
Bob Seibert
dsseibert@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
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: | Sat in my first Peit today |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
Mark,
Don't give up on the Pietenpol just yet. I'm 6' 2-1/2" and over 200
lbs. I built the long fuselage version, which gives more legroom in
both cockpits. I made the fuselage 1" wider, which helps a lot (I've
flown standard width Piets and that extra inch really helps), and I
raised the wing 2-3/4" higher than the plans indicate. The impact to
the structure is minimal - just make the centersection 1" wider so the
cabane struts will line up, and make the cabane struts enough longer to
raise the centersection to where you want it. I also raised my
turtledeck a couple of inches so you feel like you are riding in, rather
than on, the airplane.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
...I would need more than just more cockpit room. The wing would need
to
be raised for me to see and getting in the front would be a physical
impossiblity without some changes. I hoped someone had essentially a
different set of plans that had been reviewed and used for some time in
a number of airplanes.
Though it looks like fun a Piet may not be the right airplane for me.
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: Sat in my first Peit today |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
Order the long fuselage plans and first build a mock cockpit out of
scrap wood (as recommended by Bengelis). You can lean back the seat
back, build the seat lower in the fuselage, some even build the
fuselage a couple inches taller. People widen fuselages up to 4 inches
and raise the turtle decks also. Think of the fuselage a big slab of
clay you can mold to you needs (within limits).
I am building to the long fuselage plans, added 6" to the length in
front (as recommended by Bernie himself), lowered and leaned the rear
seat back a bit, raised the rear turtle deck 3" and the front 1".
Widened fuselage to 26" outside dimensions firewall to rear seat back.
Of course it hasn't flown yet so take this info for what little it is
worth.
Rick Holland
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:25:04 -0500, Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
> Well some things are just never what they seem. Im about 6ft or so and
> about 220, and shoe horned myself into a Peit this afternoon. I was
> simply too big to fit in the airplane. Knees hit the panel. Couldn't
> reach the heel brakes. Head was higher that it probably really needed
> to be for such an airplane and reaching the throttle required the same
> technique as driving with a window open and an arm hanging out the
> window in the breeze.
>
> Now building one of the stock ones is out of the question, but did
> anyone ever come up with plans based on the orginal that would be for a
> guy the size of Bernie?
>
> Mark
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
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: Horizontal and Vertical stab fittings |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
Dang, didn't think about spacing for the bottom rudder hinge. Wish you
were around Jim when I asked this question a couple months ago. My
hinge position is adjustable but the holes I drilled for it in the
fuselage are not. Will probably have to fill and redrill the holes
after covering.
Rick H
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 13:35:15 -0500, Jim Malley <jgmalley@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim Malley" <jgmalley@comcast.net>
>
> Due to the overlap of fabric along the edges and to the fabric tape which
> you will be placing over that overlap, the total thickness of the multiple
> layers of fabric is surprising. Fortunately, the only critical implication
> is the spacing of the bottom rudder hinge. The fin can be raised nearly 1/4
> inch by the fabric between it and the stab and the stab and the fuselage.
> While one washer as a spacer is a good start, you might want to double that
> and/or make your rudder hinges adjustable.
> Jim Malley
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft@gmail.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Horizontal and Vertical stab fittings
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > I asked the same question a couple months ago and didn't get an answer
> > so I just put a single thin washer between each fitting and the fin
> > when I measured to drill the hole in the horizontal stab. Won't know
> > if it was necessary until after I cover it.
> >
> > I am mounting all my tail fittings on top of the fabric including the
> > bottom tail wire fitting. Don't know if its the best way, just have
> > seen a lot of Piets done that way.
> >
> > Rick H
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 19:56:08 -0600, Richard Schreiber
> > <lmforge@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I know this was asked on this list once before, but I never found any
> > > replies. I am in the process of attaching the fittings on the horizontal
> and
> > > vertical stabilizers. Specifically the rear stabilizer fittings that
> attach
> > > the vertical stab to the horizontal stab and to the rear of the
> fuselage.
> > > My question is if I drill all of the holes and put the fittings in place
> > > before covering, won't all of the holes drilled through the wood be off
> by
> > > the thickness of the fabric if the fittings are on the outside of the
> fabric
> > > after final assembly? I realize that Bernard originally had these
> fittings
> > > under the covering fabric where this would be a non-issue, but if the
> > > fittings are on the outside what do you do to insure proper alignment?
> > >
> > > Also how about the lower tail brace wire fitting. How has everyone
> mounted
> > > this fitting? Above or below the fabric?
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard Schreiber
> > > lmforge@earthlink.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rick Holland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
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: | Horizontal and Vertical stab fittings |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
The fabric overlap on the fuselage should not be any more than on the
vertical fin, so I don't understand why you would need to adjust for
that. You just need to make sure all your hinges have a "fabric
allowance" built into them
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
Dang, didn't think about spacing for the bottom rudder hinge. Wish you
were around Jim when I asked this question a couple months ago. My
hinge position is adjustable but the holes I drilled for it in the
fuselage are not. Will probably have to fill and redrill the holes
after covering.
Rick H
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: | rear cockpit solo |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Howdy, folks;
Working through the weight & balance on 41CC and looking at extreme forward
and rearward C of G conditions in the spreadsheet (thanks, Bert and Nancy
Conoly!), I've noticed a couple of things.
1. There doesn't appear to be any loading that will bring the plane to max
gross without shifting out of the aft C of G allowable range. This is good
insofar as it will be nearly impossible to overload the airplane, but does
indicate some care is required to keep the aft C of G in range. With 170
lb. pilot and 210 lb. passenger, minimum fuel (2 gal.), and min. oil, it's
at maximum aft limit but still 183 lbs. under gross. I've shifted loads
around (in the spreadsheet) and this seems to be worst aft C of G case that
will still allow me to approach max. gross. Obviously, I can go up on the
passenger weight, but as an example- at my present weight of 150 lbs., the
spreadsheet says I can fit a 413 lb. passenger in the airplane and be at
gross and within aft C of G limit. Problem is, you can't physically
shoehorn a 413 lb. person into the passenger cockpit.
2. Again checking aft C of G, at a "running on fumes" condition of minimum
fuel and oil, the aft C of G is exceeded with a pilot any heavier than 175
lbs. unless there is a passenger aboard. This presents some operating
limitations that have to be respected as well, such as at the end of a long
3. Checking maximum forward limit, with a full tank of fuel (16 gal.) and
full oil, I need a minimum of a 107 lb. pilot to bring the C of G back to
the forward limit. This would mean that the aircraft should be placarded
"rear seat solo only" and should also have some sort of minimum pilot weight
allowed when flying solo.
Now, it would hardly make sense to try to solo the plane from the front hole
anyway, since there are no instruments and no carb heat control up there.
But just the same-! And as far as a minimum pilot weight, it is conceivable
that a youngster, or a slightly built man or woman, might be too light to
operate this aircraft within its forward C of G limit with full fuel. This
would mean possibly running out of elevator in the flare or rotation... and
a hard landing or an extended takeoff run.
Anybody come up with similar loading cases in their W&B's? Mind you, the
airplane still needs an official re-W&B after the rebuild is complete, but
I'm looking at what-ifs. I guess if I forget all the mother hen stuff, this
airplane can really handle a wide range of loading conditions and can safely
carry a pilot and passenger, but there are some conditions to watch for.
And I think I may just add a "rear seat solo only" placard to that lonely,
bare front panel. Does anyone else have theirs placarded that way (not you
Sky Scout guys)?
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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: rear cockpit solo |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
Oscar,
What is the gross weight ?
B.H.P. listed it at 1050 lbs.
Chuck G.
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 |
|
s=test1; d=earthlink.net;
b=NOkk6mHURnTpb15+GAnRnTtiEggIxDYmLRUVF5iqlZ5uKw7yMt3g1NwEbdvnJiKR;
| Subject: | Re: rear cockpit solo |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly@earthlink.net>
Oscar. My DAR required a "solo rear seat only" placard. He suggested
putting it on the REAR panel. Now, just think about that... If you are
soloing the plane from the back then do you need to be warned not to solo
from the front?
no
If some unknowing soul jumps in the FRONT seat to solo it, well, he's not
going to see the placard and .. well you know the rest.
So after I explained it, my DAR agreed it should be placarded in the front
pit.
So I think you're correct - it needs to be placarded and should be in the
front pit
Bert.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: rear cockpit solo
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga"
<taildrags@hotmail.com>
>
> Howdy, folks;
>
> Working through the weight & balance on 41CC and looking at extreme
forward
> and rearward C of G conditions in the spreadsheet (thanks, Bert and Nancy
> Conoly!), I've noticed a couple of things.
>
> 1. There doesn't appear to be any loading that will bring the plane to max
> gross without shifting out of the aft C of G allowable range. This is
good
> insofar as it will be nearly impossible to overload the airplane, but does
> indicate some care is required to keep the aft C of G in range. With 170
> lb. pilot and 210 lb. passenger, minimum fuel (2 gal.), and min. oil, it's
> at maximum aft limit but still 183 lbs. under gross. I've shifted loads
> around (in the spreadsheet) and this seems to be worst aft C of G case
that
> will still allow me to approach max. gross. Obviously, I can go up on the
> passenger weight, but as an example- at my present weight of 150 lbs., the
> spreadsheet says I can fit a 413 lb. passenger in the airplane and be at
> gross and within aft C of G limit. Problem is, you can't physically
> shoehorn a 413 lb. person into the passenger cockpit.
>
> 2. Again checking aft C of G, at a "running on fumes" condition of minimum
> fuel and oil, the aft C of G is exceeded with a pilot any heavier than 175
> lbs. unless there is a passenger aboard. This presents some operating
> limitations that have to be respected as well, such as at the end of a
long
> X-C flight.
>
> 3. Checking maximum forward limit, with a full tank of fuel (16 gal.) and
> full oil, I need a minimum of a 107 lb. pilot to bring the C of G back to
> the forward limit. This would mean that the aircraft should be placarded
> "rear seat solo only" and should also have some sort of minimum pilot
weight
> allowed when flying solo.
>
> Now, it would hardly make sense to try to solo the plane from the front
hole
> anyway, since there are no instruments and no carb heat control up there.
> But just the same-! And as far as a minimum pilot weight, it is
conceivable
> that a youngster, or a slightly built man or woman, might be too light to
> operate this aircraft within its forward C of G limit with full fuel.
This
> would mean possibly running out of elevator in the flare or rotation...
and
> a hard landing or an extended takeoff run.
>
> Anybody come up with similar loading cases in their W&B's? Mind you, the
> airplane still needs an official re-W&B after the rebuild is complete, but
> I'm looking at what-ifs. I guess if I forget all the mother hen stuff,
this
> airplane can really handle a wide range of loading conditions and can
safely
> carry a pilot and passenger, but there are some conditions to watch for.
> And I think I may just add a "rear seat solo only" placard to that lonely,
> bare front panel. Does anyone else have theirs placarded that way (not
you
> Sky Scout guys)?
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
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: Fuel tank & parts |
Bob, does this mean your yellow piet is no longer flying? What happened, I thought
you sold it?
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Seibert
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel tank & parts
Well, I need to clean the hangar out and I have a pile of Piet parts that needs
to move.
I have an aluminum center section gas tank (12.5 gal.), a 1 gallon header tank
& shutoff valve, control stick assembly, and ALL the fabricated hardware for
a piet.
The hardware is all fabricated out of 4130 and has about 45 hours on it. The
fuel tank has a built in sight gage and is built like an RV gas tank with rivets
& pro-seal joints. The tank was built for a piet with a plans built 1 piece
wing and I do not know if it will fit in the center section of a 3 piece wing.
It all works just fine. It was taken off of my wind damaged (and ground looped)
piet.
I figure that $200 is a fair price for the many hours of labor that went into
the stuff. (That probably amounts to about 50 cent an hour :-)
The only problem is that the buyer has to pick it all up here near Austin, TX.
The fuel tank has residual fuel in it making shipping out of the question.
If anybody is interested, please contact me off list.
Bob Seibert
dsseibert@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
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! --
|