---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 01/11/05: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:38:26 AM PST US s=test1; d=earthlink.net; b=mD8HHx5mSMSTt7kZP20UU8F4FvHIfXqOTfrAKm7hhHPBbWBZQ0aw3cD402T56VlE; From: "Bob Seibert" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:32 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Sat in my first Peit today From: "Phillips, Jack" --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:00:23 AM PST US From: Rick Holland Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sat in my first Peit today --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rick Holland 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 wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:05:24 AM PST US From: Rick Holland Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Horizontal and Vertical stab fittings --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rick Holland 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 wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim Malley" > > 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" > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:04 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Horizontal and Vertical stab fittings > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rick Holland > > > > 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 > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:38:59 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Horizontal and Vertical stab fittings From: "Phillips, Jack" --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:34:39 PM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: rear cockpit solo --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:21:21 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:44:28 PM PST US s=test1; d=earthlink.net; b=NOkk6mHURnTpb15+GAnRnTtiEggIxDYmLRUVF5iqlZ5uKw7yMt3g1NwEbdvnJiKR; From: "Bert Conoly" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: rear cockpit solo --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly" 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" Subject: Pietenpol-List: rear cockpit solo > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:02:26 PM PST US From: "Catdesign" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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.