---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 03/13/05: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:02 AM - Re: sanding glue joints (Jack Phillips) 2. 05:41 AM - Re: sanding glue joints () 3. 08:52 AM - Re: Party Cove (Isablcorky@aol.com) 4. 08:52 AM - Re: Pietenpol Video Documentry (Galen Hutcheson) 5. 09:02 AM - Re: Pietenpol Video Documentry (Rick Holland) 6. 11:07 AM - Re: Pietenpol Video Documentry (Rcaprd@aol.com) 7. 03:03 PM - Sanding (rhartwig11@juno.com) 8. 06:43 PM - Re: Sanding (tmbrant1@netzero.com) 9. 07:10 PM - Different Piets (Mark Blackwell) 10. 07:25 PM - Re: Different Piets (walt evans) 11. 10:28 PM - Re: Different Piets (Galen Hutcheson) 12. 10:33 PM - Re: Pietenpol Video Documentry (Galen Hutcheson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:02:10 AM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: sanding glue joints --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" As Doc says, the best thing to do is to make some test joints and then break them. IF you get a clean break at the glue line, the joint is no good. If you get a messy break with lots of wood fibers broken, indicating the wood broke before the glue did, you can't ask for a stronger joint. My Piet was built mostly with resorcinol, with T-88 in some places. A few tips I learned along the way (through breaking test joints) are: When properly made, a resorcinol joint is incredibly strong When improperly made, a resorcinol joint is not very strong T-88 is more forgiving than resorcinol, but cleanup is messier T-88 is quite strong for butt joints. Resorcinol is not. When making plywood doublers for use with either type of glue, you get a better joint if you roughen the surface of the plywood with coarse sandpaper. This is especially true for birch plywood, which has a very smooth "sheen" that prevents good wetting by the glue. Good tight fitting joints are essential with resorcinol. T-88 can stand some (small) gap, but don't think it will let you get away with sloppy construction As for what the advisory circular says, I wonder if they were talking about the hard sheen you sometimes see after using a belt sander on softwood? In my experience, it is hard to get glue to penetrate such a sheen. I found that roughing parts up, particularly for butt joints like the uprights in a rib, gives a better joint. Just my two cents, but after finishing up the structural repairs of my Pietenpol from last fall's forced landing, I've had a lot of glue joints to have to break. I've been very pleased with the results, and with the overall structural integrity of the craft. Jack Phillips Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Galen Hutcheson Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 11:53 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: sanding glue joints * > Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson Tom, you are doing fine. Some will not agree, but glue two pieces of spruce (both sanded) as in a test joint and then cut through the joint and see just how far the glue absorbs into the wood. If you are using T-88 or evuivalent, then you will get good penetration whether you sand or not. I did mine both ways (sanded or saw mitered) and found no difference in the strength of the joints. Doc --- "tmbrant1@netzero.com" wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: > "tmbrant1@netzero.com" > > > In the advisory circular "acceptable methods.." > section 1-6 "preparation of wood surfaces for > bonding" it states that sandpaper must never be used > to smooth softwood surfaces that are to be bonded. > I built my fuselage by cutting the braces on the > table saw to a rough dimension and using a > stationary disc sander to get just the right fit. > Does this mean that I'm building an expensive 2-seat > piece of firewood? > > I did the same with the ribs I've been building. > > Any thoughts on this? > > Tom Brant > Brooklyn Park, MN > > > Contributions > any other > Forums. > > http://www.matronics.com/subscription > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm > http://www.matronics.com/archives > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists > > __________________________________ advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:41:47 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: sanding glue joints --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hi Tom, Don't throw away anything you've already built. I did test samples on both sanded and unsanded joints, including some using birch ply with the "manufacturing glaze" still intact. Tests included both T-88 and Aerolite. I even made some intentionally bad joints that fit poorly and didn't have 100% glue coverage. Not one single glue joint broke. Just follow "acceptable methods" for the rest of the project. Greg Cardinal Minneapolis ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Pietenpol-List: sanding glue joints > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: > "tmbrant1@netzero.com" > > > > In the advisory circular "acceptable > methods.." section 1-6 "preparation of wood > surfaces for bonding" it states that > sandpaper must never be used to smooth > softwood surfaces that are to be bonded. I > built my fuselage by cutting the braces on > the table saw to a rough dimension and > using a stationary disc sander to get just > the right fit. Does this mean that I'm > building an expensive 2-seat piece of > firewood? > > I did the same with the ribs I've been > building. > > Any thoughts on this? > > Tom Brant > Brooklyn Park, MN > > > Forum - > through the Contributions > banner ads or any other > Matronics Forums. > pietenpol-list@matronics.com > http://www.matronics.com/subscription > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm > http://www.matronics.com/search > http://www.matronics.com/archives > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:52:34 AM PST US From: Isablcorky@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Party Cove This was all meant as a joke on Chuck from last summer. I share your views on decency as I have 6 daughters. I'm sure that many took my e-mail about Party Cove as bad taste and I really shouldn't have done so. Since I'm near 82 yrs young I don't think I'll be flying port wing position with Gantzer over the Cove. Corky in Louisiana where he has more to handle without having to fly to Missouri Do not archive ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:52:34 AM PST US s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=sAg+PTc70zHyjtcWNVsP6WFKQa+ww+h5rCYo0u+xUzdHivyIWeCdXKv6WJkyAHyXt17N5xrlwERItgl314y82DxDJgz29VJwi1Z0IR0KfnNZmpo26Atdvsm4+MHxAfVQXmVQ7gK9KMjeLsOQ3+tuyoF2Tjmgc5Vr4BYH044ogQs= ; From: Galen Hutcheson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Video Documentry --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson Chuck, all the things you mentioned are excellent. One error I found was at the lower cross-member at the firewall. How do you attach it? At the intended attach points, there are the metal fittings for the engine mount (Model A) which would hinder the attchment. Also, methods on building a prop would be great. I think this video would be real helpful. Doc --- Rcaprd@aol.com wrote: > To all you Pietenpol Enthusiasts, > I've started doing this video on the building > and flying the Pietenpol > Aircamper, and I'm asking everyone to make > suggestions as to what I should > include in the video. Sterling Brooks has been VERY > helpful to me on this > project...Thank You Sterling !! > To introduce the video, I think I will go over > some of the reasons that > folks have always had the urge to fly. I will also > go into the history of the > Pietenpol, with information found on the Pietenpol > Family Web Site. A part of > that history, is that the plans sold by the > Pietenpol Family is the exact > plans drawn up by Orrin Hoopman, and designed by > Bernard Harold Pietenpol. This > is the reason I am against updating the original > plans. It's part of the rich > history of our beloved design. However, in my > video, I am going to go over > each of the errors, and not so clear points on the > plans, that need to be > clarified. I will also mention all the pertinent > documents, and books, that the > builder needs to study, as well as all the hints & > tips that I can think of. I > will include a method of tying the bunji chords. I > will also include the need > to use the strap fittings on the belly, between the > Landing Gear Lugs / Lift > Strut Fittings. Today, I carried the camera around > with me, during a > pre-flight, and talked about each item I was > inspecting...then the camera battery went > dead. I'm also going to do quite a bit of aerial > view points with the camera > with background music, and some ground based shots > of take offs, and > landings...I hope I can grease a few landings for > the camera !! > > As far as the errors go, here are the ones that I > know of : > Drawing No. 3 - lower left hand corner, the Bottom > Fitting Plates show a > dashed line that says 'BEND UP 20 HERE.' It > should read BEND UP 30 HERE, or > Maintain alignment with the Lift Struts. > Drawing No. 4 - in the lower left corner, the > drawing of the Center Strut > Fittings (to of the Cabane Struts) is unclear that > there are but TWO pieces, that > overlap each other, kind of a U into a U. It is > NOT three pieces. > Drawing No. 4 - Flying Strut Fittings 4 Req'd The > angle of the strut > fittings should be installed in line with the lift > struts, not at the sharp angle > called out in the plans. > Drawing No. 5 - the Measurements of Wing Rib > Profile, there are a couple of > measurements that are a little short, and cause the > top profile of the rib to > dip in. You should loft these points on your rib > jig, then just blend the > crooked line on the top, so it is a smooth > transition. > Drawing No. 5 - the Wing Beam Details (Main Spars) > show an outdated method of > splicing the spars, and not recognized by AC43.13. > The correct method of > scarf splice is called out in that AC. > > Can anyone point out any other areas of the plans > that are not clear ? > > Any other suggestions on what I should include in > the video ? > > Should I include all the infomation I have about > builders and flyers ? > > How about an overview about building a prop ? > > I hope to put together a useful, and enjoyable DVD, > but I'm not going to > release it until it is 'Just Right'. > > Chuck Gantzer > NX770CG > itching to burn some DVD's > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:02:05 AM PST US From: Rick Holland Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Video Documentry --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rick Holland Great idea Chuck, I will certainly purchase one. > To all you Pietenpol Enthusiasts, > I've started doing this video on the building and flying the Pietenpol > Aircamper, and I'm asking everyone to make suggestions as to what I should > include in the video. Sterling Brooks has been VERY helpful to me on this > project...Thank You Sterling !! > Can anyone point out any other areas of the plans that are not clear ? 1) Since a good percentage of Piets are not built with Model A engines several wood parts on the front of the fuselage are not needed. May want to point this out. 2) Seat belt attachments, everybody does it different, still don't how I will do mine, showing a couple proven ways to do this would be great. 3) Flying struts - this is my biggest unknown, if using 4130 the plans are fairly clear but it seems many do their ends attachments differently. Many people are using Aluminum struts also because of the high cost of steel streamline tubing and are also using different end attachments. People may value your flight-proven opinions on this. 4) Brakes, everyone knows what an installed set of brakes and wheels look like but a video segment of a wheel/rotor/caliper/etc being taken apart and put back together would help a lot of people. Especially since brakes are not on the plans. > > Any other suggestions on what I should include in the video ? > > Should I include all the infomation I have about builders and flyers ? > I would say put it in, especially since you are going with a DVD media if someone is not interested in a topic its simple to skip it unlike a tape where you may have to fast forward for 5 minutes. > How about an overview about building a prop ? Yes > > I hope to put together a useful, and enjoyable DVD, but I'm not going to > release it until it is 'Just Right'. > > Chuck Gantzer > NX770CG > itching to burn some DVD's -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:07:48 AM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Video Documentry In a message dated 3/13/2005 10:53:12 AM Central Standard Time, wacopitts@yahoo.com writes: One error I found was at the lower cross-member at the firewall. How do you attach it? At the intended attach points, there are the metal fittings for the engine mount (Model A) which would hinder the attchment. Doc, The cross-member (3/4 X 3/4 Spruce) is shown on Drawing No. 1, in the lower right portion. It goes between the inbd side of each of the lower longerons, but is cut short, to access the inboard bolts of the engine mount fitting. The 1/8" plywood firewall is also the gusset for this cross-member, as well as the 7/32" plywood bottom, and will carry the load. There is also a gusset on the inbd side of each lower longeron, with a cut out for this lower cross-member, called out on Drawing No. 4 - in the upper left portion of the drawing. I think this might be the error. There should NOT be a cut out for the cross-member, because the cross-member doesn't extend all the way to the longerons. Gussets like this one, and others like it on the lower longerons, should have a filler piece installed, to prevent dirt or water from collecting between the inboard gussets, and plywood sides, on each side of the lower longerons. On Drawing 6 - lower left portion - shows the lower Model A engine mount. This is a good point to clerify on the plans. The plans note - LOWER INSIDE FITTING INSERTED THRU FRONT BULKHEAD. CUT OFF END OF CROSS STRUT. This would be required to install one of the nuts on the inside of the fitting. Good point, Doc !! Lets hear more like this. Chuck G. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 03:03:20 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sanding From: rhartwig11@juno.com Tom, Ref your message: "I built my fuselage by cutting the braces on the table saw to a rough dimension and using a stationary disc sander to get just the right fit." I assume that you are sanding the ends of the pieces to get the correct angle. That is OK--most builders do it. The strength of these joints comes from the gussets. End grain joints are notoriously weak. It is even perfectly acceptable to build ribs with all of the bracing cut at a 90 degree angle, thus getting 100% of the strength from the gusset. By the way, be sure to scuff your plywood lightly with sandpaper before gluing. Dick Hartwig Waunakee, WI rhartwig11@juno.com ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:46 PM PST US From: "tmbrant1@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sanding --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tmbrant1@netzero.com" I think I understand the sanding the plywood... I've made several ribs and on a few occasions, had some extra glue. So I made test pieces. As you mentioned, I made one with the braces at 90 deg. cuts and the other were tight joints. The one without any end grain contact (gussets only) actually broke free of the gussets quite easily. I have not tried it with sanding the plywood. All of the ribs I've made do not have plywood that is sanded. Should I scrap them (8 ribs)? The other test I did had tight fitting joints and the wood broke first on that one. Then tonight I put a lot of pressure just outside the gussets and the brace came free of the top capstrip. IT had wood fibres in it but it broke at the glue line... Tom B. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:10:19 PM PST US From: Mark Blackwell Subject: Pietenpol-List: Different Piets --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell Well I keep looking for an all wood construction airplane that I can fit in at 6ft 1 and about 220. I recently sat in a Piet that I think was built using Bernards plans and I simply didn't fit. I saw some plans from St. Croix Aircraft including some interesting plans for a bi plane version. Are these any larger? Id be interested to know if anyone had flown the biplane version. Mark > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:25:21 PM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Different Piets <4235007F.1080500@dp.net> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" Mark, I built the long fuse from the 1934 plans ( with the long fuse added prints) and I'm 6' 3" 220#. It fits for me! walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Blackwell" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Different Piets > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell > > Well I keep looking for an all wood construction airplane that I can fit > in at 6ft 1 and about 220. I recently sat in a Piet that I think was > built using Bernards plans and I simply didn't fit. I saw some plans > from St. Croix Aircraft including some interesting plans for a bi plane > version. > > Are these any larger? Id be interested to know if anyone had flown the > biplane version. > > Mark > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:28:09 PM PST US s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=mVnNFdf8Nfoonwc3g54+ZAUxUOCUPsGAJIfy1poPkLud5phyC07peNMLgat5iL+cXFZFjfHC4PK6SvozNEBvqjcsrD2xubyevp+9kdOC+Ja4sGt+cQVhgqRsaL45i+evTjiVyoV76cev3iIm2iD8bw39Z0IUISk3cwUophKNqUo= ; From: Galen Hutcheson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Different Piets --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson Mark, many (including myself) have modified the width of the fuse to make the cockpit more user friendly. I am building a biplane version (my own design) using the Piet fuse and ribs. The great thing about the Piet is it's versitility. You should find many discussions on this topic via the search engine. The Piet is a great plane in it's own right, but it is easy to use it as a spring board for other designs. Doc - > > > > > > > > > > > Contributions > any other > Forums. > > http://www.matronics.com/subscription > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm > http://www.matronics.com/archives > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:33:48 PM PST US s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=epAVxaNSw/z1J3T07t+gln8kuaxqs/2m10y6YWWh+XnXnfMuFj/6VnO3RaaeqxG3vkGjb300X8N4ZiR4PyCcx2I/5VSVDPyM1Um5r+ZuRKaHkpDDkOgraKfvSQkCaY/PTFqfc0bjeqsu38qiazmv5GUZyHQYQU6YyyPeoA0q9uk= ; From: Galen Hutcheson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Video Documentry --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson Thanks Chuck, that was a little confusing on the plans. The cross member is only going to act as a stiffner for the ply attached to it since it isn't directly attached to the longerones. You could run 45 degree angle braces from the verticals at the bulkhead down to the cross member and this would allow it to have some structural integrity, may not be needed, however. I enclosed all my gussetts with balsa strips creating a sealed box to keep dirt and water from collecting near the joints. Doc --- Rcaprd@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/13/2005 10:53:12 AM Central > Standard Time, > wacopitts@yahoo.com writes: > One error I found was at the lower cross-member at > the > firewall. How do you attach it? At the intended > attach points, there are the metal fittings for the > engine mount (Model A) which would hinder the > attchment. > Doc, > The cross-member (3/4 X 3/4 Spruce) is shown on > Drawing No. 1, in the > lower right portion. It goes between the inbd side > of each of the lower > longerons, but is cut short, to access the inboard > bolts of the engine mount fitting. > The 1/8" plywood firewall is also the gusset for > this cross-member, as well > as the 7/32" plywood bottom, and will carry the > load. There is also a gusset > on the inbd side of each lower longeron, with a cut > out for this lower > cross-member, called out on Drawing No. 4 - in the > upper left portion of the drawing. > I think this might be the error. There should NOT > be a cut out for the > cross-member, because the cross-member doesn't > extend all the way to the longerons. > Gussets like this one, and others like it on the > lower longerons, should > have a filler piece installed, to prevent dirt or > water from collecting between > the inboard gussets, and plywood sides, on each side > of the lower longerons. > On Drawing 6 - lower left portion - shows the > lower Model A engine mount. > This is a good point to clerify on the plans. The > plans note - LOWER INSIDE > FITTING INSERTED THRU FRONT BULKHEAD. CUT OFF END > OF CROSS STRUT. This > would be required to install one of the nuts on the > inside of the fitting. > > Good point, Doc !! Lets hear more like this. > > Chuck G. >