Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:01 AM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] (dralle@matronics.com)
2. 12:08 AM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Clif Dawson)
3. 12:18 AM - Re: Grove Wheels/Brakes (DJ Vegh)
4. 07:11 AM - FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection (Michael D Cuy)
5. 10:08 AM - Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition (Mark)
6. 10:24 AM - Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection (Christian Bobka)
7. 11:16 AM - Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a (John Hofmann)
8. 11:48 AM - there is no FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a conditioninspectio (Michael D Cuy)
9. 12:18 PM - Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection (Phillips, Jack)
10. 01:04 PM - my MIDO Chief friend confirms John H.'s response is correct (Michael D Cuy)
11. 01:15 PM - Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 25 Msgs - 06/01/05 (Brad Smith)
12. 01:26 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Steve Ruse)
13. 02:02 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (walt evans)
14. 02:20 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (DJ Vegh)
15. 02:21 PM - Re: Celebrity - was Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (DJ Vegh)
16. 02:24 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Steve Ruse)
17. 02:48 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Gordon Bowen)
18. 03:26 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Isablcorky@aol.com)
19. 03:53 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (John Hofmann)
20. 04:06 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Isablcorky@aol.com)
21. 05:53 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Gene Rambo)
22. 06:58 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Mark)
23. 07:52 PM - Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? (Mike McCarty)
24. 11:14 PM - Re: EAA (Clif Dawson)
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: | Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] |
DNA: do not archive
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dralle@matronics.com
Dear Lister,
Please read over the Pietenpol-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
Pietenpol-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/Pietenpol-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
Pietenpol-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the Pietenpol-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the Pietenpol-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
Pietenpol-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the Pietenpol-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
Don't use shellac with auto fuel containing alcohol. Shellac is made by
dissolving shellac flakes in ethanol or, in inferior products, methanol.
An interesting point. Shellac, properly prepared, has superior water
vapour resistance, above that of varnishes, epoxies, etc. and has been
used as an undercoat for fine varnish finishes for centuries.
http://antiquerestorers.com/Articles/jeff/shellac.htm
Clif
PS, More shellac stuff just for you, Mike; :-) :-) :-)
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/4264/
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
. Shellac
> is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
> other experts might
> have to say though before you take my word:)
>
> Mike C.
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Grove Wheels/Brakes |
I have them and love 'em! Havent flown with them yet but they are of very high
quality. Basically a Cleveland in sheeps clothing. I don't think you'll be
dissappointed.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn Knoll
To: pietenpol list
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Grove Wheels/Brakes
It's shopping time for wheels, brakes, tires, & master cylinders and there is
a large price savings with Grove's.
What advice can you all give?
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: | FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection |
m>
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't specifically
pinpoint where it says that an
A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
inspection. There are many
references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport aircraft
category, but not just plain old
vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
thank you,
Mike C. in Ohio
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 |
|
inspection
Subject: | Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition |
inspection
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't
> specifically pinpoint where it says that an
> A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
> inspection. There are many
> references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport
> aircraft category, but not just plain old
> vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
>
> thank you,
>
> Mike C. in Ohio
>
I am really not sure that there is much to gain by getting a fat
ultralight certified Experimental LSA. In fact it might have some real
pitfalls especially if looked at it in the light that no history is out
there on how things should be handled, (with experimental you have a
history on which to base decisions) you could be the one that gets to
set that precedent. As far as operation as long as the aircraft meets
LSA operational limitations, its my impression that its LSA an thats all
you need.
Mark
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="1145496429:sNHT21427176"
Subject: | Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
Part 43. It is there
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition
inspection
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
> Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> > <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
> >
> > Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't
> > specifically pinpoint where it says that an
> > A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
> > inspection. There are many
> > references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport
> > aircraft category, but not just plain old
> > vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
> >
> > thank you,
> >
> > Mike C. in Ohio
> >
> I am really not sure that there is much to gain by getting a fat
> ultralight certified Experimental LSA. In fact it might have some real
> pitfalls especially if looked at it in the light that no history is out
> there on how things should be handled, (with experimental you have a
> history on which to base decisions) you could be the one that gets to
> set that precedent. As far as operation as long as the aircraft meets
> LSA operational limitations, its my impression that its LSA an thats all
> you need.
>
> Mark
>
>
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 |
|
condition inspection
Subject: | Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a |
condition inspection
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: John Hofmann <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com>
Mikee!
It has been awhile since I have done this one but here goes. My FARS may be
a little old but I think I got it right. Anyone feel free to correct me if I
am off base:
FAR Part 43.1(b) specifically excludes experimental aircraft. It reads,
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental
airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of
airworthiness certificate had previously been issued for that aircraft."
FAR 91.409(c)(1) exempts experimentally certificated aircraft from the
normal inspection rules. The legal authority and basis to require an annual
"Condition Inspection" is found in 14 CFR part 91.319(e), whereby the FAA
Administrator (in this case, the certificating inspector) may issue any
"additional limitations the Administrator considers necessary" to the
aircraft's airworthiness certificate (Operating limitations) when the
aircraft receives a special airworthiness certificate.
This usually reads something like "No person shall operate this aircraft
unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition
inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D
to part 43, or other FAA-approved programs, and found to be in a condition
for safe operation. This inspection will be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
I used to do a lot of condition inspections of experimental aircraft after
they changed hands. Is this for the Corby?
-john-
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark <aerialphotos@dp.net>
>
> Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
>> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>>
>> Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't
>> specifically pinpoint where it says that an
>> A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
>> inspection. There are many
>> references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport
>> aircraft category, but not just plain old
>> vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
>>
>> thank you,
>>
>> Mike C. in Ohio
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 |
|
n
Subject: | there is no FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a conditioninspectio |
n
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
John-- you are right on. Part 43 does not apply to Experimental
aircraft--it says it right up front.
Where I found them was in my operating limitations issued with the
airworthiness cert. of the aircraft.
thank you !
Mike C.
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: | FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
I've looked all through Part 43 and cannot find it. There are
references to Light Sport Aircraft, but not Experimentals where it
explicitly says who is authorized to perform Condition Inspections. I
believe John Hoffmann is correct on this. I'll look at the
Airworthiness Certificate for my Pietenpol when I get home tonight.
Jack Phillips
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<sbobka@charter.net>
Part 43. It is there
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a
condition
inspection
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Michael D Cuy wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't
specifically pinpoint where it says that an
A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
inspection. There are many
references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport
aircraft category, but not just plain old
vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
thank you,
Mike C. in Ohio
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: | my MIDO Chief friend confirms John H.'s response is correct |
m>
John, Guys-- here is the word from my local FAA guy.....and Champ owner
Mike,
There is not a reg that specifically says what you are looking for, however
it is captured in your operating limitations which is part of the
airworthiness certificated. I'm in Chicago right now, I'll be back in the
office tomorrow if you would like to discuss in more detail. Our new
number is ....
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=IwODnE7IIeI3/w4maacP5RkjRPHAy24nEv677qrVZeWQkHPwdzNCWzHaUw8nGZuuKKkU857/IqtFHpZWCXqO2M61QJjI6+PNMesoSJuoGD9i0Qgv1vx9YwAykhchBdlnIuv5A6NivneHhQQuYdJdn8axYrpx6b0orM6g0MF5zEU=
;
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 25 Msgs - 06/01/05 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop@yahoo.com>
Answered in line below...
>Mark, In many ways I agree with your statement. The
>ship originally
>was short
>nosed and made for the heavy Model A Ford, then
>adapted to a Corvair
>and a small
>Continental which messes up the vertical surface area
>proportions with
>those
>motors' lighter weight and needed extended nose.
>Then people got
>bigger so
>they can't get in and out so they raised the wing and
>shifted it aft
>and added
>a flop for access, and then the ship needed the axle
>moved to make it
>handle
>on the ground, and then the aft shifted wing, gear,
>payload, and
>resulting CG
>upsets the tail moment arm (tail volume if you will)
>of the stabilisers
>so they
>are undersized now and effectively getting smaller as
>time goes on.
This is my "beef" with the Piet. I dearly love this
design, but at 250# I'm really too heavy for it as it
was originally conceived, except perhaps as a single
seat bird.
>Then the plane is yet heavier with the three piece
>wing which causes it
>to cruise
>it at a higher angle of attack which increases the
>pitching moment
>which calls
>for a bigger horizontal stabiliser that nobody is
>willing to give it.
Hmmm... very good points.
>For these reasons, although I appreciate the
>Peitenpol design for what
>it was and
>is, it has lost its attractiveness for my purposes
>although it can get
>the
>builder in the air cheaply, and probably the
>cheapest, if that is where
>he wants
>to be. And I don't blame him for wanting to be there
>but the choice
>should
>be rethought. Palns are virtually free and so is the
>advice which is
>worth what
>you pay for it.
I would probably disagree on the cheapest, but
certainly it ranks right up there with the best of
them.
>It took I few years for me to make the realiasation
>that too many
>changes have
>made the design get to the point where it should be
>redesigned from a
>clean sheet
>of paper, sized and proportioned to be of utmost
>utility in the future.
>They
>are barely true Pietenpols anymore and all the
>accomodations and
>bandaids
>speak of this and detract from the excellence of the
>no longer adequate
>original.
Agreed!
>That is why I have become such a proponent of Lynn
>William's Staaken
>Flitzer line
>as the aircraft fit today's people, use today's
>available and reliable
>motors
>(does not the Ferdinand Porche flat four date to 1914
>or something like
>that?
>So much for today's motors) like the mere 50 year old
>Corvair, Rotec
>R2800,
>Aerovee, etc,, yet look REALLY good and period, fly
>well, and can be
>constructed
>using the same EXACT traditional methods as the
>Pietenpol and just as
>inexpensively.
>We have it all in the Flitzer line including the cult
>status the
>Pietenpol
>enjoys. We just need to get the word out.
Ok... so the word is now out... I've never heard of
these aircraft. Feel free to contact me off line with
more info.
>Much fame could be had (and maybe some money, Gary)
>if a gifted
>designer took all
>the old classics and made them again viable by
>upsizing them 10-15% or
>even
>20% and adding 75 years of design experience to
>economise on the
>structure while
>preserving the ORIGINAL construction methods and
>handling: Buhl Bull
>Pup,
>Long Longster, Georgias Special, Pietenpol Camper and
>Scout, Heath Baby
>Bullet
>and Parasol, American Eaglet, Church Midwing, Chilton
>DW1, UT-1,
>Urbitis' ships,
>and the list goes on and on.
Roger Mann does semi-modern wooden versions of some of
those. Loehle does a parasol also in wood. Graham
Lee just released plans for the Heath in aluminum
tube/pop rivet construction like his Nieuports (I have
both the Heath and Nieuport 11 plans.)
>Just look at original editions of the
>Flying
>and Glider Manual (not the chopped up EAA editions
>that are missing
>half of
>the original content). The demand is there but
>nobody with the ability
>has stepped
>up to the plate except Lynn and he is overwhelmed. I
>wish I had the
>ability
>but lack the schooling and the process is yet still
>mystifying to me.
It is daunting for certain.
>For
>all the books I have, a hands on, start to finish
>design has never been
>put
>in book form to the extent that I believe necessary
>for me to be able
>to copy
>the technique and eventually be able to do it on my
>own. Hiscocks or
>Pazmany
>come closest but use sheet metal as the medium which
>is personally
>undesireable. This book form analysis would have to
> include flight testing and
>retrospective
>design analysis as a result of the corrections made
>in the field as a
>result
>of flight testing. I am truly jealous of the
>engineer's abilities!
I can recommend the Beaujon ultralight book for a good
resource. Best $35 I ever spent on aviation related
stuff. (Well, except for the "introductory flight"
that got me hooked I guess.)
>It
>seems that there is a plethora of magazine articles
>or series of
>articles that
>nibble at the design process yet never stick to it
>through to the end.
>It is
>apparent that few individuals possess the designer's
>ability.
There are a lot of details involved, and a change
often has a domino effect, setting off waves of other
required changes to make the first one viable.
>I could imagine that the 1929 Piet with a Model A
>motor and one piece
>wing built
>to the Hoopman plans (really! yeah right) and flown
>by a 150 pound
>pilot flies
>as sweet as can be. But that design is no longer
>realistic for today's
>sized
>people.
>I am not advocating building a GN-1.....
Not a bad design, but not what I want either.
Brad
Flitzer los!
Chris
__________________________________
http://discover.yahoo.com/
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: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
I found some shellac last night, but didn't buy any yet because I
noticed one of
the solvents is ethanol. I'm still undecided as to weather or not I'll use
Mogas in the future, so I didn't buy the shellac yet, in case I run into a
batch of Mogas with Ethanol (which I believe is a bad thing for other reasons,
if I recall correctly).
Chuck brings up a great point though, I hadn't considered the resin
used to make
my fiberglass tank. I need to test it for "ethanol resistance" before I
continue thinking about Mogas. I guess that holds true for all fuel system
components though.
Someone on another forum suggested clear fingernail polish. Might be worth
putting some dried samples in fuel to test?
Thanks for the tips everyone!
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
Quoting Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Steve-- upon the advice of my IA and several restoration guys at our
> airport, I dipped
> my cork in a can of shellac, let it dry and repeated this about 4
> times. No chips or
> troubles (like not floating) in almost 7 years of using avgas and a rare
> dose of autofuel.
> I did re-coat the cork about 2 years ago just to make sure she had a good
> seal. Shellac
> is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
> other experts might
> have to say though before you take my word:)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
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: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Some years back a friend of mine , who is now flying a Fisher Celebrity,
made me a float out of Stainless steel wire put thru a ping pong ball.
The ball was then sealed with epoxy.
When I completed the Piet he made me another. So they have both been both
autogas and 100LL for years, with no ill effects.
I can post a photo , and find out the epoxy type, if anyone is interested.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve@wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse
<steve@wotelectronics.com>
>
> I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like to
> re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the
existing
> varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and sink
> in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
>
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: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
what about fabricating a float from thin brass sheet?
I was thinking of buying some .020" brass sheet from the hobby store and
soldering up a simple cylinder and then soldering the cyclinder to a piece
of music wire run through it.
Guaranteed to work with any type of fuel for many decades.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve@wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse
<steve@wotelectronics.com>
>
> I found some shellac last night, but didn't buy any yet because I
> noticed one of
> the solvents is ethanol. I'm still undecided as to weather or not I'll
use
> Mogas in the future, so I didn't buy the shellac yet, in case I run into a
> batch of Mogas with Ethanol (which I believe is a bad thing for other
reasons,
> if I recall correctly).
>
> Chuck brings up a great point though, I hadn't considered the resin
> used to make
> my fiberglass tank. I need to test it for "ethanol resistance" before I
> continue thinking about Mogas. I guess that holds true for all fuel
system
> components though.
>
> Someone on another forum suggested clear fingernail polish. Might be
worth
> putting some dried samples in fuel to test?
>
> Thanks for the tips everyone!
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
> Quoting Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>:
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> > <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
> >
> > Steve-- upon the advice of my IA and several restoration guys at our
> > airport, I dipped
> > my cork in a can of shellac, let it dry and repeated this about 4
> > times. No chips or
> > troubles (like not floating) in almost 7 years of using avgas and a rare
> > dose of autofuel.
> > I did re-coat the cork about 2 years ago just to make sure she had a
good
> > seal. Shellac
> > is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
> > other experts might
> > have to say though before you take my word:)
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Celebrity - was Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
off topic, but how does he like that Celebrity? my dad has one that is
about 85% complete.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
> Some years back a friend of mine , who is now flying a Fisher Celebrity,
> made me a float out of Stainless steel wire put thru a ping pong ball.
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: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
I'd like to know the epoxy type, and see a picture if you have any.
Thanks Walt!
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
Quoting walt evans <wbeevans@verizon.net>:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
>
> Some years back a friend of mine , who is now flying a Fisher Celebrity,
> made me a float out of Stainless steel wire put thru a ping pong ball.
> The ball was then sealed with epoxy.
> When I completed the Piet he made me another. So they have both been both
> autogas and 100LL for years, with no ill effects.
> I can post a photo , and find out the epoxy type, if anyone is interested.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Ruse" <steve@wotelectronics.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:15 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
>
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse
> <steve@wotelectronics.com>
>>
>> I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like to
>> re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the
> existing
>> varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and sink
>> in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Steve Ruse
>> N6383J - KFTW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
If you made you fiberglass tank out of epoxy resin or Derakane epoxy based
vinyl ester resin, you shouldn't have any problem with Mogas with ethanol or
methanol. But if you made it out of polyester resin, it depends on the type
of polyester. Some boat fuel tanks are out of polyester and the type makes
for better fuel resist. Most all canard pusher Rutanesque type planes have
epoxy based fiberglass tanks, many guys run Mogas all the time for their
o-200's and 235's, and have not reported problems after a 30 year history.
Mogas will discolor the tank, but not dissolve. Biggest problem with Mogas
is it varies with season and with location across the country. Also Mogas
with alcohols will have an afffect on the gasketing.
Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
Cozy IV N64CY
Osprey II N64SY
Pietenpol N-1033B
" But such is the constitution of my mind I cannot avoid forming an
opinion", John Adams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve@wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse
<steve@wotelectronics.com>
>
> I found some shellac last night, but didn't buy any yet because I
> noticed one of
> the solvents is ethanol. I'm still undecided as to weather or not I'll
use
> Mogas in the future, so I didn't buy the shellac yet, in case I run into a
> batch of Mogas with Ethanol (which I believe is a bad thing for other
reasons,
> if I recall correctly).
>
> Chuck brings up a great point though, I hadn't considered the resin
> used to make
> my fiberglass tank. I need to test it for "ethanol resistance" before I
> continue thinking about Mogas. I guess that holds true for all fuel
system
> components though.
>
> Someone on another forum suggested clear fingernail polish. Might be
worth
> putting some dried samples in fuel to test?
>
> Thanks for the tips everyone!
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
> Quoting Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>:
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> > <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
> >
> > Steve-- upon the advice of my IA and several restoration guys at our
> > airport, I dipped
> > my cork in a can of shellac, let it dry and repeated this about 4
> > times. No chips or
> > troubles (like not floating) in almost 7 years of using avgas and a rare
> > dose of autofuel.
> > I did re-coat the cork about 2 years ago just to make sure she had a
good
> > seal. Shellac
> > is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
> > other experts might
> > have to say though before you take my word:)
> >
> > 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: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
Steve,
I've told this story before but I'll repeat it once again. While restoring a
1926 Dodge Bros Touring car I had need to seal some pin holes in the fuel
tank. I ordered a quart of tank sealer from Bill Hirsch in N.J.. It worked well.
When I arrived at your present stage with 41CC I tried shellac and it didn't
prove satisfactory. Suddenly I remembered the can of sealer left over
sitting on the dusty shelf. I rolled the wired cork several times, vised the wire
and went to bed. Next day dry and hard. Never found any trouble. This could
handle car gas safely as that is what it was designed for. 311CC is corked,
wired and coated likewise.
Send me your mailing address and I will ship you a small quantity adequate
for your cork.
Corky in Louisiana
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: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: John Hofmann <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com>
Corky Corky's Cork Conundrum?
Do not archive
> Steve,
>
> I've told this story before but I'll repeat it once again. While restoring a
> 1926 Dodge Bros Touring car I had need to seal some pin holes in the fuel
> tank. I ordered a quart of tank sealer from Bill Hirsch in N.J.. It worked
> well. When I arrived at your present stage with 41CC I tried shellac and it
> didn't prove satisfactory. Suddenly I remembered the can of sealer left over
> sitting on the dusty shelf. I rolled the wired cork several times, vised the
> wire and went to bed. Next day dry and hard. Never found any trouble. This
> could handle car gas safely as that is what it was designed for. 311CC is
> corked, wired and coated likewise.
> Send me your mailing address and I will ship you a small quantity adequate for
> your cork.
>
> Corky in Louisiana
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
John,
If it is a riddle maybe I'll send you a colored picture.
Corky
Message 21
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: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
the standard thing for cork floats is plain old fashion shellac. It is fuel proof.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com<mailto:Rcaprd@aol.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
In a message dated 6/1/2005 2:15:40 PM Central Standard Time, steve@wotelectronics.com<mailto:steve@wotelectronics.com> writes:
I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like to
re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the existing
varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and sink
in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
Steve,
I built both my tanks using fiberglass and Polyester Resin (auto body stuff).
Problem is that any alcohol in the fuel could soften up the resin. For this
reason, I coated my float with polyester resin to fuel proof it, as well as use
it as a monitor for any softening effect of accidental alcohol in the fuel.
Chuck G.
Message 22
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: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark <aerialphotos@dp.net>
Gordon Bowen wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
>
>If you made you fiberglass tank out of epoxy resin or Derakane epoxy based
>vinyl ester resin, you shouldn't have any problem with Mogas with ethanol or
>methanol. But if you made it out of polyester resin, it depends on the type
>of polyester. Some boat fuel tanks are out of polyester and the type makes
>for better fuel resist. Most all canard pusher Rutanesque type planes have
>epoxy based fiberglass tanks, many guys run Mogas all the time for their
>o-200's and 235's, and have not reported problems after a 30 year history.
>Mogas will discolor the tank, but not dissolve. Biggest problem with Mogas
>is it varies with season and with location across the country. Also Mogas
>with alcohols will have an afffect on the gasketing.
>Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
>Cozy IV N64CY
>Osprey II N64SY
>Pietenpol N-1033B
>" But such is the constitution of my mind I cannot avoid forming an
>opinion", John Adams
>
>
>
The alcohol in gas may also work on some fuel lines, but the kicker is
now that the mo gas companies no longer have to tell you when its in the
gas. It used to be labeled as containing alcohol, but no longer. Most
mogas now has some.
Message 23
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: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike McCarty" <mmccarty@zianet.com>
> what about fabricating a float from thin brass sheet?
>
> I was thinking of buying some .020" brass sheet from the hobby store and
> soldering up a simple cylinder and then soldering the cyclinder to a piece
> of music wire run through it.
Or just use a brass float from some old junk car or lawnmower carburetor...
-Mac
Message 24
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 |
|
<011201c56666$70879c00$0201a8c0@north>
A very low track between two radio beacons. :-)
Clif
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: EAA
Dick, What is a Grass Route?
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
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! --
|