Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:04 AM - Re: OT - Quad City Challenger II (Clif Dawson)
2. 03:38 AM - Re: OT - Quad City Challenger II (Kevin Holcomb)
3. 04:42 AM - Re: Aileron Horn Question (Phillips, Jack)
4. 04:47 AM - Re: Aileron Horn Question (FTLovley@aol.com)
5. 05:56 AM - Re: Aileron Horn Question (Textor, Jack)
6. 12:32 PM - a useful FAA web site ! (Michael D Cuy)
7. 01:24 PM - Re: a useful FAA web site ! (DJ Vegh)
8. 05:28 PM - walking beam attachment (Richard Schreiber)
9. 07:46 PM - Re: walking beam attachment ()
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: | Re: OT - Quad City Challenger II |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
Too many www's, Chuck. Check the addy when it comes up
in the address line and remove the extra http's and www's.
There is apparently an issue with vertical tail effectiveness when
the cockpit is fully enclosed. Most of the ones I've seen have
plexy fins added at the ends of the stab, about a square foot
each, just like the ones you see on float Beavers. I think in
Britain you're required to install an addition to the vertical fin.
There are a lot flying though.
Clif
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> DJ,
> I've never flown, and I don't think I've ever seen a Challenger II, but
I've
> heard of it somewhere...probably in one of the magazines. I'm always
> interested in anything that flys, but the link you listed didn't work for
me. Oh,
> well....kit planes are for Sissy's !! :) He he he !!
>
> Chuck G.
>
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: OT - Quad City Challenger II |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb@mindspring.com>
That Rotax may be loud, but trust me that is a good noise. I was gave a
friend a BFR in the really nice Kitfox that he had built himself last year.
That Rotax suddenly stopped making noise. It was shortly after takeoff
with approx 250 feet to work with. We landed straight ahead, or rather
right where we were because the airplane just doesn't glide very far. All
we had to work with was Citrus grove so into the trees we went. After a
real quick review of the situation, which with a Rotax does not take long,
there just is not much to look at (fuel, ignition, throttle, and you are
out of levers/buttons). The good news is that we demonstrated that if you
keep her under control, get her slow and do your best flare you have a
great chance of living. We did, I was unscratched, but rather bruised from
the seatbelts and from a tube from the landing gear that buckled and drove
itself up through the seat, thankfully the seat cushion was thick. My
friend needed surgery for a destroyed ankle; he is just now getting back to
walking. And of course the airplane is trash.
There was fuel onboard, in fact the left wing tank split open so there was
fuel everywhere. Only one prop blade was damaged so it wasn't turning at
the time of impact. The engine, a Rotax 532 had 71 hours since new and
about 2 hours since a teardown/inspection by Lockwood (the presumed
experts.) The teardown was not inspired by any particular event, it was
just the sort of careful over the top maintenance that my friend did on the
airplane he built. Needless to say I am not impressed with Rotax. It did
change the way I think while flying; where I would land is never far from
my mind. Reliability seems a lot more important than it ever did before,
and for myself I no longer have any interest in airplane engines without a
long, happy and established history in the field.
Friends don't let friends fly a Rotax,
Kevin
www.airminded.net
> [Original Message]
> From: Greg Bacon <gbacon67@direcway.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 2/14/2005 11:51:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: OT - Quad City Challenger II
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Greg Bacon <gbacon67@direcway.com>
>
> DJ,
>
> I met a Challenger II owner at the Brodhead fly-in last year. He
mentioned
> that he was selling his Challenger because it was "the most boring thing
he
> ever flew". You may want to get a ride in one before diving in.
>
> BTW, I did a little tail dragger training in a Kitfox with a 582 Rotax.
The
> noise and vibration of that two stroke was annoying and disconcerting. It
> took a lot of enjoyment out of the flight experience for me.
>
> Greg Bacon
> Prairie Home, MO
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Aileron Horn Question |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
Forrest is right - you don't actually bend the steel in a crease. You
want to make the leading edge rounded. I hammered the thin steel sheet
around a 1/2" steel rod to form the curve, then edge welded the two
halves together. One of the most fun parts to make on the whole
project. I can't understand why anyone would put up with the increased
weight of solid .090" thick steel horns when these are so light and so
much fun to make.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: FTLovley@aol.com
I don't know how thick it is...but I watched Bernard make those aileron
horns
and elevator horns from the mild steel tops from 5 gallon dope cans.
They
didn't have an actual bend in them...he just formed them so that after
brazing
they were airfoil shaped with the thick section near the front.
Forrest Lovley
Jordan MN
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: Aileron Horn Question |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: FTLovley@aol.com
Gary...actually, I believe that the dope cans back in the 30"s were probably
lighter material than today...I have some old ones from Berry Brothers and
they are pretty thin...no OSHA, hazardous shipping regulations, etc, etc...also,
they didn't have to be strong enough for uncaring shippers to mistreat. The
material is very ductile mild steel that is easy to form, and not prone to
cracks. And if you use them to build your airplane, it won't cost you anything
to
get rid of them...:>)
Forrest Lovley
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: | Aileron Horn Question |
Thanks to everyone for the great feedback!
Jack
Do not archive
_____
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: | a useful FAA web site ! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Hey guys-- I was stumbling around looking for something on the web and
found this site----VERY good for
bookmarking. http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/phl/IAREF.HTM
Mike C.
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: a useful FAA web site ! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
Wow! nice find.
I just went there and downloaded the safety belt attachment AC. 47 pages
of kick arse info!
tons of other goodies too!
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: a useful FAA web site !
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Hey guys-- I was stumbling around looking for something on the web and
> found this site----VERY good for
> bookmarking. http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/phl/IAREF.HTM
>
>
> Mike C.
>
>
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=SNpIZ4LsJcLMfJv0/iBTQyhbkjAAhrtbJ4RGaOwHHjzIY2Xp6XCincNi7nhEalZw;
| Subject: | walking beam attachment |
0.50 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
I'm ready to attach my walking beam for the elevator controls in my Aircamper
and I like to see how others have done it. The original plans and the 1932 Glider
manual show the bearings just attached the the vertical fuselage struts with
3/16" bolts. The Skyscout plans in the 1933 glider manual show the bearings
attached to 2'' x 5" spruce blocks bolted and glued to the inside of the vertical
struts. I have seen photos on the web with the spruce blocks, but they were
only glued an no additional bolts. I've also seen examples of the original
attacment method.
I am a little reluctant to drill the two 3/16" holes through the strut since if
the strut collapses I'll be in a heap of hurt. I'm assuming thats why Bernie
changed it on the '33 skyscout plans. What have most others done?
Thanks,
Rick
Richard Schreiber
lmforge@earthlink.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: walking beam attachment |
Drill the holes and don't worry about it. I doubt if one of those uprights has
ever broken because of the holes drilled through it.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Schreiber
To: pietenpol list
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: walking beam attachment
I'm ready to attach my walking beam for the elevator controls in my Aircamper
and I like to see how others have done it. The original plans and the 1932 Glider
manual show the bearings just attached the the vertical fuselage struts
with 3/16" bolts. The Skyscout plans in the 1933 glider manual show the bearings
attached to 2'' x 5" spruce blocks bolted and glued to the inside of the vertical
struts. I have seen photos on the web with the spruce blocks, but they
were only glued an no additional bolts. I've also seen examples of the original
attacment method.
I am a little reluctant to drill the two 3/16" holes through the strut since
if the strut collapses I'll be in a heap of hurt. I'm assuming thats why Bernie
changed it on the '33 skyscout plans. What have most others done?
Thanks,
Rick
Richard Schreiber
lmforge@earthlink.net
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! --
|