Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:03 AM - Re: Stromberg needles for Continental engines (Mark Blackwell)
2. 07:11 AM - Plans study update (Mark Blackwell)
3. 07:17 AM - Pricing wood (Mark Blackwell)
4. 08:22 AM - Re: Pricing wood (Phillips, Jack)
5. 08:55 AM - Re: Plans study update (Dick Navratil)
6. 10:26 AM - Re: Plans study update (Gordon Bowen)
7. 10:44 AM - Re: Plans study update (Mark Blackwell)
8. 10:50 AM - Stromberg Carb Model NA33A1 (chris gomez)
9. 10:53 AM - Re: Pricing wood (Mark Blackwell)
10. 11:16 AM - Re: Plans study update (Dick Navratil)
11. 11:18 AM - Re: Stromberg Carb Model NA33A1 (Dick Navratil)
12. 11:29 AM - Re: Pricing wood (Dick Navratil)
13. 12:27 PM - Re: Plans study update (Phillips, Jack)
14. 01:39 PM - Re: Plans study update (Mark Blackwell)
15. 01:41 PM - Re: Plans study update (Mark Blackwell)
16. 01:55 PM - going to church while flying my Pietenpol (Michael D Cuy)
17. 02:20 PM - Stacy Clark (Michael D Cuy)
18. 05:54 PM - Re: Plans study update (Dick Navratil)
19. 08:24 PM - Re: Plans study update (Mark Blackwell)
20. 09:03 PM - Re: Pricing wood (Galen Hutcheson)
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: Stromberg needles for Continental engines |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
sites that will let you do that. There is some good information in
those that you need to evaluate.
Wizzard187@aol.com wrote:
> Pieters, I just read the neat article on stromberg carbs and the
> seats used with auto gas and wonder if anyone has any info for
> Marvel Shebler with probably the same neropreme needles. Thanks,
> Ken Conrad in nearly spring Iowa
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: | Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Well first little issue and hopefully I am just not reading the drawing
wrong. I may be looking at the drawings for the short fuselage and not
the long. I will definately need the long fuselage.
The plans call for a 31 inch space between the rear pit and the front
seat. Trouble is I have about 36 inch legs. When bent up enough it
forces knees into what will be the panel. That will have to be
lengthed. Width was not a problem. I wasn't wide enough yet to have
that be that big of a problem.
A couple of options. One is cramp the person in the front pit. Not
ideal. If you want to take someone for a ride you want them to enjoy it
as well.
Option get rid of the front seat. Well at least make it a baggage
compartment. Most of the time thats all the front pit would be used
for, but I would still like the ability to take someone along for the
ride should I choose to.
Lengthen the fuselage. It looks like going forward would have very
little impact. Im about 220 so going back probably wouldn't be the way
to go. Especially since the datam is the leading edge of the wing. I
saw a rearward CG limit in the plans, but is there a forward CG limit?
If so what is it and how much of an extension can be made without a big
impact on balance.
Thanks all for the help. Its going to be a whale of a ride gettting
this done.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
If the list gets bored with this types of questions, my apologies. I
just got off the phone with Aircraft Spruce. I got a price of $1070 or
so for a wood kit for the Aircamper using Sitka Spruce. I assumed this
is probably a worst case senerio as far as price. It includes all the
Spruce to build, but no plywood or capstrips. Capstrip would probably
be another 150 to 200. It also probably include no extra for a rookie
builder. It also did not include shipping to PA.
For those that have gone the lumber yard route, just how much could I
reasonably be expected to save by going too the lumberyard and hand
picking Douglas Fir. Thanks again for the patience with a brand new soon
to be builder
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
Mark,
Just something to think about. I will probably get a bunch of email
from the "Pietenpol -on-a-shoestring" builders, but I'll say it anyway
to provoke some thought before you buy your wood.
You can build a perfectly good Pietenpol with lumber yard lumber, as
long as you are careful in selecting your wood. The design is very
robust, and forgiving of less than perfect materials. Having said that,
let me make the case for using the best materials you can find (aircraft
grade spruce).
1. Your life, and that of your passengers will depend on the quality of
the construction you do - including materials and construction
technique. The better the quality of the materials, the better the end
result. When you are flying in rough air and watching the wings flex
with each updraft is no time to be thinking "I wish I hadn't used that
spar with the knot in it". Piece of mind is worth something.
2. The performance of these planes is definitely inversely proportional
to their weight. As someone on this list is fond of quoting,
"Simplicate and add Lightness". Douglas Fir is considerably heavier
than Sitka Spruce. It is also stronger. In theory, you can reduce the
size of members made from Fir to reduce some of the weight and still
keep the strength comparable. As stated above, a Piet is pretty much
over designed in most areas, so you sure don't need it to be any
stronger. Heavy is bad, Light is good. However, it would be a real
challenge to reduce the size of all the members to keep the weight down
to something comparable to the weight of a spruce structure. It would
be difficult to change the dimensions and have all the fits and
interfaces come out right. Most people don't do it - they just build
from fir and accept the heavier weight. How much heavier? Estimates
range from 10 to 40 lbs extra. That is enough to be noticeable. My
Pietenpol holds 15 gallons of fuel, or about 90 lbs worth. It
definitely flies better half full of fuel than it does with full fuel,
so I know that 45 lbs of weight makes a very noticeable difference in
performance.
3. The cost of wood is a very small component of the total cost of the
project. I didn't try to scrimp on my Piet and have a total of about
$15,000 in it. That was spaced out fairly evenly over the 8 years it
took me to build it (I like to tell people that it cost me the same
amount a 2-pack a day smoker would have spent on cigarettes in the same
time period). Unfortunately, due to the cost of shipping such long
pieces, it is best if you can order all the wood (at least all the big
pieces like spars and longerons and 4 x 8 plywood sheets) at once to
avoid paying even more for shipping. So even though you might spend a
total of $1500 on wood using aircraft grade materials, and that is only
10% of the total cost of the project, it is still a mighty big outlay of
cash all at once. I actually had 2 big shipments of wood - one for the
wings and one for the fuselage and tail, so I had to pay two large
trucking bills, but that made it easier on my finances to have 2 big
purchases a year or so apart.
Just remember that the pain of payment will be a one time thing. You
will feel the extra weight every time you take off. And yes, I know
Bernard built his planes with less than aircraft quality materials. Did
he do it because he wanted to, or did he just use the best materials he
had available? I suspect if he could have used better materials, he
would have.
Just my two cents worth...
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell
<aerialphotos@dp.net>
If the list gets bored with this types of questions, my apologies. I
just got off the phone with Aircraft Spruce. I got a price of $1070 or
so for a wood kit for the Air camper using Sitka Spruce. I assumed this
is probably a worst case scenario as far as price. It includes all the
Spruce to build, but no plywood or capstrips. Capstrip would probably
be another 150 to 200. It also probably include no extra for a rookie
builder. It also did not include shipping to PA.
For those that have gone the lumber yard route, just how much could I
reasonably be expected to save by going too the lumberyard and hand
picking Douglas Fir. Thanks again for the patience with a brand new soon
to be builder
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: | Re: Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
Mark
You will need the long fuse if using the Corvair or Cont. engine. My main
complaint in building the short fuse was that after a couple of hours of
flying my lower back gets real sore from the angle of the seat back to the
seat bottom. On my new long fuse, I reclined the seat back 1 1/2" at the
top and flattened out the seat bottom. Also, I went with the dimensions for
the short fuse in building the bridge decks between cockpits and the forward
cockpit. The result is that I have an additional 9 1/2" in the rear
cockpit. Width has not been an issue for me. I am 5'10" - 200lb. If you
are located near MPLS, MN. you can come over and sit in both and see what
you think.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plans study update
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
> Well first little issue and hopefully I am just not reading the drawing
> wrong. I may be looking at the drawings for the short fuselage and not
> the long. I will definately need the long fuselage.
>
> The plans call for a 31 inch space between the rear pit and the front
> seat. Trouble is I have about 36 inch legs. When bent up enough it
> forces knees into what will be the panel. That will have to be
> lengthed. Width was not a problem. I wasn't wide enough yet to have
> that be that big of a problem.
>
> A couple of options. One is cramp the person in the front pit. Not
> ideal. If you want to take someone for a ride you want them to enjoy it
> as well.
>
> Option get rid of the front seat. Well at least make it a baggage
> compartment. Most of the time thats all the front pit would be used
> for, but I would still like the ability to take someone along for the
> ride should I choose to.
>
> Lengthen the fuselage. It looks like going forward would have very
> little impact. Im about 220 so going back probably wouldn't be the way
> to go. Especially since the datam is the leading edge of the wing. I
> saw a rearward CG limit in the plans, but is there a forward CG limit?
> If so what is it and how much of an extension can be made without a big
> impact on balance.
>
> Thanks all for the help. Its going to be a whale of a ride gettting
> this done.
>
>
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: | Re: Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
Mark,
The nifty thing about the Piete's designs is the options available to you.
Make the plane to fit you right from the gitgo, wide enough and long enough
fuselage, the wings determine the CG envelope not the fuselage. After
you've determined what engine you want to use, and placement of the cabanes
this plane can be designed to easily carry 300 lbs in the backseat and 200
in the front (N-1033B's CG window). But first things first, it's gotta be
sized so you can get in it, make it comfy from the start. As for wood
purchases, I think some of the other guys are right, if you read, understand
and select your wood, this plane could be built from the stocks at any good
lumberyard or HomeDepot. Get FAA CAM-18, or some of the EAA publications
for good shortcourse on diff wood's pros and cons.
Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
Cozy IV N64CY
Osprey II N64SY
Pietenpol N-1033B
"Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your
aim"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plans study update
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
> Well first little issue and hopefully I am just not reading the drawing
> wrong. I may be looking at the drawings for the short fuselage and not
> the long. I will definately need the long fuselage.
>
> The plans call for a 31 inch space between the rear pit and the front
> seat. Trouble is I have about 36 inch legs. When bent up enough it
> forces knees into what will be the panel. That will have to be
> lengthed. Width was not a problem. I wasn't wide enough yet to have
> that be that big of a problem.
>
> A couple of options. One is cramp the person in the front pit. Not
> ideal. If you want to take someone for a ride you want them to enjoy it
> as well.
>
> Option get rid of the front seat. Well at least make it a baggage
> compartment. Most of the time thats all the front pit would be used
> for, but I would still like the ability to take someone along for the
> ride should I choose to.
>
> Lengthen the fuselage. It looks like going forward would have very
> little impact. Im about 220 so going back probably wouldn't be the way
> to go. Especially since the datam is the leading edge of the wing. I
> saw a rearward CG limit in the plans, but is there a forward CG limit?
> If so what is it and how much of an extension can be made without a big
> impact on balance.
>
> Thanks all for the help. Its going to be a whale of a ride gettting
> this done.
>
>
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: Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Dick Navratil wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
>
>Mark
>You will need the long fuse if using the Corvair or Cont. engine. My main
>complaint in building the short fuse was that after a couple of hours of
>flying my lower back gets real sore from the angle of the seat back to the
>seat bottom. On my new long fuse, I reclined the seat back 1 1/2" at the
>top and flattened out the seat bottom. Also, I went with the dimensions for
>the short fuse in building the bridge decks between cockpits and the forward
>cockpit. The result is that I have an additional 9 1/2" in the rear
>cockpit. Width has not been an issue for me. I am 5'10" - 200lb. If you
>are located near MPLS, MN. you can come over and sit in both and see what
>you think.
>Dick N.
>
>
>
If I am ever that way, I will let you know and I appreciate the offer.
I thought of reclining the seat back but in my case that would be no
help. I have a 34 inch inseam and legs straight out at something semi
comfortable was about 36 inch on a tape measure. It is an idea to make
the seat more comfortable for longer flights though.
If its 31 inches in the short Piet, then the long Piet might solve the
problem without any mods, which I am hoping to avoid.
On an aside just how many of you built a cockpit mockup to see how
things went before you start work on the Real McCoy. $1 to the old tv
show and if you are old enough to remember having watched it, we have
something in common lol.
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=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=t87hJREYr8iKv+qrAGumxAddtlQiJpbnXMcrVsmQgkJ2aajbg0rWH2obiQiTQ+2le2qp2Vrf4sQccFT4y4zWRDxtWtiXsx6iR3wfVGUhbZCdTAe5WsWvFPzsK/wP4xTfnKsucQ8WTgWVT+1ehON705qZpbBG3NfzIPag1yDqtOw=
;
| Subject: | Stromberg Carb Model NA33A1 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: chris gomez <gomerair@yahoo.com>
I have a friend who is looking for a Stromberg Carb
Model NA33A1 for his Piet project. Does anyone have
any suggestions where to find one?
Thanks,
Chris
__________________________________
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: Pricing wood |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Jack a lot of good and sound advise is in here. Why did Bernie build
like he did? Who knows but from some converstations with Don a few days
ago, I think I have a hunch. If I had to guess Id bet he built with the
best materials he could get and AFFORD at the time he built the
airplane. Yes he used some things that would make an FAA inspector
cringe. They worked just fine. Yet the inspector isn't necessarily wrong.
Keeping it light is most definately a goal. Keeping it simple for me is
a must. Keeping it safe goes without saying, and I like your analog of
a two pack a day smoker.
Yet I am not going to have 8 years over which to spread the costs. (At
least I hope I don't but I will tell you that when I am done) and
keeping the cost down is just as vital to my being able to complete the
project at a reasonable time as saving a few pounds. In my case maybe
more so.
You are right in that wood is not going to be the biggest expense in the
project. The big ones I project are going to be engine prop plywood
and then maybe fabric. Then again I will find out when it hits I have a
feeling. If I can save a few bucks now, that might be the difference in
a better engine and prop choice being available to me later. Only time
will tell there.
I do appreciate your input and respect your words of wisdom.
Phillips, Jack wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
>
>Mark,
>
>Just something to think about. I will probably get a bunch of email
>from the "Pietenpol -on-a-shoestring" builders, but I'll say it anyway
>to provoke some thought before you buy your wood.
>
>You can build a perfectly good Pietenpol with lumber yard lumber, as
>long as you are careful in selecting your wood. The design is very
>robust, and forgiving of less than perfect materials. Having said that,
>let me make the case for using the best materials you can find (aircraft
>grade spruce).
>
>1. Your life, and that of your passengers will depend on the quality of
>the construction you do - including materials and construction
>technique. The better the quality of the materials, the better the end
>result. When you are flying in rough air and watching the wings flex
>with each updraft is no time to be thinking "I wish I hadn't used that
>spar with the knot in it". Piece of mind is worth something.
>
>2. The performance of these planes is definitely inversely proportional
>to their weight. As someone on this list is fond of quoting,
>"Simplicate and add Lightness". Douglas Fir is considerably heavier
>than Sitka Spruce. It is also stronger. In theory, you can reduce the
>size of members made from Fir to reduce some of the weight and still
>keep the strength comparable. As stated above, a Piet is pretty much
>over designed in most areas, so you sure don't need it to be any
>stronger. Heavy is bad, Light is good. However, it would be a real
>challenge to reduce the size of all the members to keep the weight down
>to something comparable to the weight of a spruce structure. It would
>be difficult to change the dimensions and have all the fits and
>interfaces come out right. Most people don't do it - they just build
>from fir and accept the heavier weight. How much heavier? Estimates
>range from 10 to 40 lbs extra. That is enough to be noticeable. My
>Pietenpol holds 15 gallons of fuel, or about 90 lbs worth. It
>definitely flies better half full of fuel than it does with full fuel,
>so I know that 45 lbs of weight makes a very noticeable difference in
>performance.
>
>3. The cost of wood is a very small component of the total cost of the
>project. I didn't try to scrimp on my Piet and have a total of about
>$15,000 in it. That was spaced out fairly evenly over the 8 years it
>took me to build it (I like to tell people that it cost me the same
>amount a 2-pack a day smoker would have spent on cigarettes in the same
>time period). Unfortunately, due to the cost of shipping such long
>pieces, it is best if you can order all the wood (at least all the big
>pieces like spars and longerons and 4 x 8 plywood sheets) at once to
>avoid paying even more for shipping. So even though you might spend a
>total of $1500 on wood using aircraft grade materials, and that is only
>10% of the total cost of the project, it is still a mighty big outlay of
>cash all at once. I actually had 2 big shipments of wood - one for the
>wings and one for the fuselage and tail, so I had to pay two large
>trucking bills, but that made it easier on my finances to have 2 big
>purchases a year or so apart.
>
>Just remember that the pain of payment will be a one time thing. You
>will feel the extra weight every time you take off. And yes, I know
>Bernard built his planes with less than aircraft quality materials. Did
>he do it because he wanted to, or did he just use the best materials he
>had available? I suspect if he could have used better materials, he
>would have.
>
>Just my two cents worth...
>
>Jack Phillips
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell
><aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
>If the list gets bored with this types of questions, my apologies. I
>just got off the phone with Aircraft Spruce. I got a price of $1070 or
>so for a wood kit for the Air camper using Sitka Spruce. I assumed this
>
>is probably a worst case scenario as far as price. It includes all the
>Spruce to build, but no plywood or capstrips. Capstrip would probably
>be another 150 to 200. It also probably include no extra for a rookie
>builder. It also did not include shipping to PA.
>
>For those that have gone the lumber yard route, just how much could I
>reasonably be expected to save by going too the lumberyard and hand
>picking Douglas Fir. Thanks again for the patience with a brand new soon
>
>to be builder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
| 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: Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
Mark
Legs straight out seems comfortable for a short time but knees will ache
after a while. Another thing I did was to modify the bulkhead which becomes
the front seat back along with the center braces to make much larger foot
holes. That helped me alot also.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans study update
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
>
> Dick Navratil wrote:
>
>>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
>><horzpool@goldengate.net>
>>
>>Mark
>>You will need the long fuse if using the Corvair or Cont. engine. My main
>>complaint in building the short fuse was that after a couple of hours of
>>flying my lower back gets real sore from the angle of the seat back to the
>>seat bottom. On my new long fuse, I reclined the seat back 1 1/2" at the
>>top and flattened out the seat bottom. Also, I went with the dimensions
>>for
>>the short fuse in building the bridge decks between cockpits and the
>>forward
>>cockpit. The result is that I have an additional 9 1/2" in the rear
>>cockpit. Width has not been an issue for me. I am 5'10" - 200lb. If you
>>are located near MPLS, MN. you can come over and sit in both and see what
>>you think.
>>Dick N.
>>
>>
> If I am ever that way, I will let you know and I appreciate the offer. I
> thought of reclining the seat back but in my case that would be no help.
> I have a 34 inch inseam and legs straight out at something semi
> comfortable was about 36 inch on a tape measure. It is an idea to make
> the seat more comfortable for longer flights though.
>
> If its 31 inches in the short Piet, then the long Piet might solve the
> problem without any mods, which I am hoping to avoid.
>
> On an aside just how many of you built a cockpit mockup to see how things
> went before you start work on the Real McCoy. $1 to the old tv show and if
> you are old enough to remember having watched it, we have something in
> common lol.
>
>
>
Message 11
| 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: Stromberg Carb Model NA33A1 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
There are usually a few in the Parts Swap tent at Sun N Fun.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris gomez" <gomerair@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Stromberg Carb Model NA33A1
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: chris gomez <gomerair@yahoo.com>
>
> I have a friend who is looking for a Stromberg Carb
> Model NA33A1 for his Piet project. Does anyone have
> any suggestions where to find one?
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| 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: Pricing wood |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
Just a bit of an add on to Jack's great post. There are many non structural
parts that can use cedar to save weight also. A couple of examples--
stringers on the turtle deck, long stringer on fuse sides.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pricing wood
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
> <jphillip@alarismed.com>
>
> Mark,
>
> Just something to think about. I will probably get a bunch of email
> from the "Pietenpol -on-a-shoestring" builders, but I'll say it anyway
> to provoke some thought before you buy your wood.
>
> You can build a perfectly good Pietenpol with lumber yard lumber, as
> long as you are careful in selecting your wood. The design is very
> robust, and forgiving of less than perfect materials. Having said that,
> let me make the case for using the best materials you can find (aircraft
> grade spruce).
>
> 1. Your life, and that of your passengers will depend on the quality of
> the construction you do - including materials and construction
> technique. The better the quality of the materials, the better the end
> result. When you are flying in rough air and watching the wings flex
> with each updraft is no time to be thinking "I wish I hadn't used that
> spar with the knot in it". Piece of mind is worth something.
>
> 2. The performance of these planes is definitely inversely proportional
> to their weight. As someone on this list is fond of quoting,
> "Simplicate and add Lightness". Douglas Fir is considerably heavier
> than Sitka Spruce. It is also stronger. In theory, you can reduce the
> size of members made from Fir to reduce some of the weight and still
> keep the strength comparable. As stated above, a Piet is pretty much
> over designed in most areas, so you sure don't need it to be any
> stronger. Heavy is bad, Light is good. However, it would be a real
> challenge to reduce the size of all the members to keep the weight down
> to something comparable to the weight of a spruce structure. It would
> be difficult to change the dimensions and have all the fits and
> interfaces come out right. Most people don't do it - they just build
> from fir and accept the heavier weight. How much heavier? Estimates
> range from 10 to 40 lbs extra. That is enough to be noticeable. My
> Pietenpol holds 15 gallons of fuel, or about 90 lbs worth. It
> definitely flies better half full of fuel than it does with full fuel,
> so I know that 45 lbs of weight makes a very noticeable difference in
> performance.
>
> 3. The cost of wood is a very small component of the total cost of the
> project. I didn't try to scrimp on my Piet and have a total of about
> $15,000 in it. That was spaced out fairly evenly over the 8 years it
> took me to build it (I like to tell people that it cost me the same
> amount a 2-pack a day smoker would have spent on cigarettes in the same
> time period). Unfortunately, due to the cost of shipping such long
> pieces, it is best if you can order all the wood (at least all the big
> pieces like spars and longerons and 4 x 8 plywood sheets) at once to
> avoid paying even more for shipping. So even though you might spend a
> total of $1500 on wood using aircraft grade materials, and that is only
> 10% of the total cost of the project, it is still a mighty big outlay of
> cash all at once. I actually had 2 big shipments of wood - one for the
> wings and one for the fuselage and tail, so I had to pay two large
> trucking bills, but that made it easier on my finances to have 2 big
> purchases a year or so apart.
>
> Just remember that the pain of payment will be a one time thing. You
> will feel the extra weight every time you take off. And yes, I know
> Bernard built his planes with less than aircraft quality materials. Did
> he do it because he wanted to, or did he just use the best materials he
> had available? I suspect if he could have used better materials, he
> would have.
>
> Just my two cents worth...
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell
> <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
> If the list gets bored with this types of questions, my apologies. I
> just got off the phone with Aircraft Spruce. I got a price of $1070 or
> so for a wood kit for the Air camper using Sitka Spruce. I assumed this
>
> is probably a worst case scenario as far as price. It includes all the
> Spruce to build, but no plywood or capstrips. Capstrip would probably
> be another 150 to 200. It also probably include no extra for a rookie
> builder. It also did not include shipping to PA.
>
> For those that have gone the lumber yard route, just how much could I
> reasonably be expected to save by going too the lumberyard and hand
> picking Douglas Fir. Thanks again for the patience with a brand new soon
>
> to be builder
>
>
>
Message 13
| 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: | Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
I agree with Dick about both comments - it's not very comfortable to sit
for a long period with your legs straight out (ever make a long cross
country in a Luscombe?). I also had to enlarge my leg holes in the
front seat bulkhead (I built the long fuselage version. I am 6'2" and
200 lbs.). I enlarged them while I was building, but once I had it at
the airport and started doing taxi tests, I found that I came away with
scrapes on my shins from pushing my shins against the panel while
braking, so i took a Dremel tool to the plywood and enlarged the holes
further.
I added a sloping seatback cushion to make the rear seatback at a more
comfortable angle, and added a seat bottom cushion. My butt's too old
to sit comfortably for very long on bare plywood.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Navratil
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans study update
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
<horzpool@goldengate.net>
Mark
Legs straight out seems comfortable for a short time but knees will ache
after a while. Another thing I did was to modify the bulkhead which
becomes
the front seat back along with the center braces to make much larger
foot
holes. That helped me alot also.
Dick N.
Message 14
| 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: Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
I actually thought of that as a possibility, but wondered if anyone else
had ever done that. You are also right that having to sit with your
legs straight wouldn't be comfortable for long flights, but being able
to stretch them out that far is (or at least it would seem so for me.)
Piets are not really cross country airplanes per sey, but my one day
desire/dream/Im gonna do is to take a few weeks or maybe a few months
and see just how many different out of the way places I can find in a
Piet. Grass strips, fields, airports in the middle of nowhere, and my
experience is that just about always in the middle of nowhere there is
something that is both interesting and unique. That applies to both
locations and people. I will not get there very fast, but who cares.
The journey is half the adventure.
Dick Navratil wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
> <horzpool@goldengate.net>
>
> Mark
> Legs straight out seems comfortable for a short time but knees will
> ache after a while. Another thing I did was to modify the bulkhead
> which becomes the front seat back along with the center braces to make
> much larger foot holes. That helped me alot also.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Blackwell" <aerialphotos@dp.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans study update
>
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell
>> <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick Navratil wrote:
>>
>>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
>>> <horzpool@goldengate.net>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> You will need the long fuse if using the Corvair or Cont. engine.
>>> My main
>>> complaint in building the short fuse was that after a couple of
>>> hours of
>>> flying my lower back gets real sore from the angle of the seat back
>>> to the
>>> seat bottom. On my new long fuse, I reclined the seat back 1 1/2"
>>> at the
>>> top and flattened out the seat bottom. Also, I went with the
>>> dimensions for
>>> the short fuse in building the bridge decks between cockpits and the
>>> forward
>>> cockpit. The result is that I have an additional 9 1/2" in the rear
>>> cockpit. Width has not been an issue for me. I am 5'10" - 200lb.
>>> If you
>>> are located near MPLS, MN. you can come over and sit in both and see
>>> what
>>> you think.
>>> Dick N.
>>>
>>>
>> If I am ever that way, I will let you know and I appreciate the
>> offer. I thought of reclining the seat back but in my case that
>> would be no help. I have a 34 inch inseam and legs straight out at
>> something semi comfortable was about 36 inch on a tape measure. It
>> is an idea to make the seat more comfortable for longer flights though.
>>
>> If its 31 inches in the short Piet, then the long Piet might solve
>> the problem without any mods, which I am hoping to avoid.
>>
>> On an aside just how many of you built a cockpit mockup to see how
>> things went before you start work on the Real McCoy. $1 to the old tv
>> show and if you are old enough to remember having watched it, we have
>> something in common lol.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 15
| 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: Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Jack did you make the cushions removable or did you add padding and
upholster the seats.
I was too old to sit on bare plywood when I was a kid. My folks took me
to Baptist churches that were noted to have pastors that could talk
longer than the fuel supply of a Piet could last. I couldn't take
comfortably no padding on a church pew then, and luckily neither could
anyone else. When they got padded I was just like my dad, I went to
sleep. LOL
Phillips, Jack wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
>
>I agree with Dick about both comments - it's not very comfortable to sit
>for a long period with your legs straight out (ever make a long cross
>country in a Luscombe?). I also had to enlarge my leg holes in the
>front seat bulkhead (I built the long fuselage version. I am 6'2" and
>200 lbs.). I enlarged them while I was building, but once I had it at
>the airport and started doing taxi tests, I found that I came away with
>scrapes on my shins from pushing my shins against the panel while
>braking, so i took a Dremel tool to the plywood and enlarged the holes
>further.
>
>I added a sloping seatback cushion to make the rear seatback at a more
>comfortable angle, and added a seat bottom cushion. My butt's too old
>to sit comfortably for very long on bare plywood.
>
>Jack Phillips
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick
>Navratil
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 2:16 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans study update
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
><horzpool@goldengate.net>
>
>Mark
>Legs straight out seems comfortable for a short time but knees will ache
>
>after a while. Another thing I did was to modify the bulkhead which
>becomes
>the front seat back along with the center braces to make much larger
>foot
>holes. That helped me alot also.
>Dick N.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| 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: | going to church while flying my Pietenpol |
m><35DFB673B806F74CB188E350F8AE5C2A17FFB8@crexc01.na.alarismed.com >
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Mark-- I played piano at a Baptist church for about 8 years....but we had
padding on the pews.
What was funny is that in 2003 while flying my Piet back from Brodhead I
plugged in my walkman type
radio to see if I could catch any church services on the radio since I was
flying home on a Sunday and
would be missing church. I caught about 15 minutes of one and some of
another, but sure enough
the mahogany church pew seat of the Pietenpol did me fine. It really all
depends on what kinda butt
you have. I happen to have enough natural padding that it doesn't bother
me much to fly on the ply
for a day.
Mike C.
do not archive
Message 17
| 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 |
|
@aol.com><424AC18C.8030000@dp.net><002c01 c53549$3a5e9910$0700a8c0@DICKLAPT
OP>
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Hey Guys-- what ever happened to Stacy with the 'something Belle' he was
going to build ?
Mike C.
Message 18
| 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: Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
Making the leg holes larger is easy depending on which set of plans you are
working with. If your plans show a large space between the diagonal
bracing, change that and make them meet on the floor cross member. If you
do that, your leg holes can be almost 7 in. wide and much higher.
Also, there might be a few on the list here who would be shocked to hear
that a Piet is not a cross country airplane. Bill Rewey seems to show up
and Broadhead, OSH, and Sun n Fun. Ted B. took his from Naples, Fl. to
Broadhead and back. John D. Took his to Broadhead from Colorado. I remember
hearing something about Chuck G. doing some kind of trip last year. Even
Corky has talked about installing drop wing tanks and harassing the Cubans.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans study update
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
> I actually thought of that as a possibility, but wondered if anyone else
> had ever done that. You are also right that having to sit with your legs
> straight wouldn't be comfortable for long flights, but being able to
> stretch them out that far is (or at least it would seem so for me.)
> Piets are not really cross country airplanes per sey, but my one day
> desire/dream/Im gonna do is to take a few weeks or maybe a few months and
> see just how many different out of the way places I can find in a Piet.
> Grass strips, fields, airports in the middle of nowhere, and my experience
> is that just about always in the middle of nowhere there is something that
> is both interesting and unique. That applies to both locations and
> people. I will not get there very fast, but who cares. The journey is
> half the adventure.
>
> Dick Navratil wrote:
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
>> <horzpool@goldengate.net>
>>
>> Mark
>> Legs straight out seems comfortable for a short time but knees will ache
>> after a while. Another thing I did was to modify the bulkhead which
>> becomes the front seat back along with the center braces to make much
>> larger foot holes. That helped me alot also.
>> Dick N.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Blackwell" <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans study update
>>
>>
>>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell
>>> <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dick Navratil wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
>>>> <horzpool@goldengate.net>
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>> You will need the long fuse if using the Corvair or Cont. engine. My
>>>> main
>>>> complaint in building the short fuse was that after a couple of hours
>>>> of
>>>> flying my lower back gets real sore from the angle of the seat back to
>>>> the
>>>> seat bottom. On my new long fuse, I reclined the seat back 1 1/2" at
>>>> the
>>>> top and flattened out the seat bottom. Also, I went with the
>>>> dimensions for
>>>> the short fuse in building the bridge decks between cockpits and the
>>>> forward
>>>> cockpit. The result is that I have an additional 9 1/2" in the rear
>>>> cockpit. Width has not been an issue for me. I am 5'10" - 200lb. If
>>>> you
>>>> are located near MPLS, MN. you can come over and sit in both and see
>>>> what
>>>> you think.
>>>> Dick N.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If I am ever that way, I will let you know and I appreciate the offer.
>>> I thought of reclining the seat back but in my case that would be no
>>> help. I have a 34 inch inseam and legs straight out at something semi
>>> comfortable was about 36 inch on a tape measure. It is an idea to make
>>> the seat more comfortable for longer flights though.
>>>
>>> If its 31 inches in the short Piet, then the long Piet might solve the
>>> problem without any mods, which I am hoping to avoid.
>>>
>>> On an aside just how many of you built a cockpit mockup to see how
>>> things went before you start work on the Real McCoy. $1 to the old tv
>>> show and if you are old enough to remember having watched it, we have
>>> something in common lol.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 19
| 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: Plans study update |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Dick Navratil wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
> <horzpool@goldengate.net>
>
> Making the leg holes larger is easy depending on which set of plans
> you are working with. If your plans show a large space between the
> diagonal bracing, change that and make them meet on the floor cross
> member. If you do that, your leg holes can be almost 7 in. wide and
> much higher.
> Also, there might be a few on the list here who would be shocked to
> hear that a Piet is not a cross country airplane. Bill Rewey seems to
> show up and Broadhead, OSH, and Sun n Fun. Ted B. took his from
> Naples, Fl. to Broadhead and back. John D. Took his to Broadhead from
> Colorado. I remember hearing something about Chuck G. doing some kind
> of trip last year. Even Corky has talked about installing drop wing
> tanks and harassing the Cubans.
> Dick
>
Oh it gets there. You just can't care when or how long it takes you. I
think of a practical cross country airplane as one that is IFR with a
speed of at least 140 and preferrably something with some sort of
weather avoidance and ideally known ice. I once took a Cherokee 140
from Battle Creek Mi to FL and back twice in 10 days. That really
wasn't practical either, and not nearly as much fun as I would expect a
Piet trip like that to be.
I used to get a laugh back when I was teaching with students with my 150
windy day stories. Getting passed by traffic on the ground was never
really fun. Getting passed by a school bus used to be embarassing.
>
>
Message 20
| 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=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=BvjDPPpWmcAHL7+5MrpDt5rD47OBr4yD/XzHmWgyZWREmthRDjFRsW7yIuo85dw2CCD9OQm5RfMdmrpg1/uD/mbAsy6U23ohDLHaxLn8B2QgdRgj0IW6emhJ4kXpuZ4hdoB2RDprmu9USbKf+vubdgzo+WK0THdIdiR2v2qzIOs=
;
| Subject: | Re: Pricing wood |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts@yahoo.com>
Mark, many have given you good advice on the use of
wood. It would be nice if we all could afford the
"top of the line" aircraft grade lumber, but had I
been forced to use type of wood, I would still be
dreaming of building an airplane. I am building a
Pietenpol modified to be a 75% Curtiss Jenny. So, I
have much more wood than those just building the Piet.
I found reasonably good spruce (stacked with the
Douglas fir) at our local lumber yard. I had a friend
of mine (who is an experienced aircraft builder) show
me how to select the right pieces of lumber. I bought
different lengths of 2" X 6" boards and cut the right
sizes on a table saw. You have to discard a lot of
wood to get good quality building material, but I
still only spent around $60.00 for all the lumber I
needed to build the fuselage and wings. I bought
large pieces of white ash off ebay, for very little,
for the cross supports and the engine mount (for the
model A). I used selected baltic birch for the large
gussetts and floor. I have 1/8" mahagony for the side
panels. I bought Midwest brand aircraft grade 1/16"
plywood for the rib gussetts at the local hobby store.
I know of several home built aircraft flying with
materials of this type and they have never had a
structural failure. Your building technique is very
important as is your ability to judge the quality of
materials you select. Get someone who in experienced
(ie. EAA tech advisor) to help you at first, soon you
will become more comfortable with your own selections.
Do a lot of testing of your materials and then you
will know what you are putting in your machine. Of
course, you can never go wrong in buying the "top of
the line" materials if you have the means, but it is
not necessary. Develope good building techniques and
turn out quality parts for your plane and your will
have a safe airplane. I don't wish to upset anyone, I
am just stating facts that I have learned over 32
years of aviation experience. You won't catch me
putting a stove bolt in an airplane, nor will I use
any other off the shelf item if it hasn't been proven
to be safe. I am going to machine my own turnbuckles
(I have to have around 100 or so) and some other
expensive items that can be made. So hope this helps,
at least gives you something to think about.
Doc
--- Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell
> <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
>
>
> For those that have gone the lumber yard route, just
> how much could I
> reasonably be expected to save by going too the
> lumberyard and hand
> picking Douglas Fir.
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|