Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:11 AM - Re: left coast piets (Clif Dawson)
2. 04:39 AM - Re: Options decisions (Phillips, Jack)
3. 04:41 AM - Arthur Johnson from Australia visits Brodhead, 2005 (Michael D Cuy)
4. 05:07 AM - Re: Options decisions (Michael D Cuy)
5. 05:31 AM - Charlie Rubecks (TBYH@aol.com)
6. 05:40 AM - FW: Inflight Breakup of an SR-71 at Mach 3.18 (This will get your attention! Wow!! DL) (Phillips, Jack)
7. 07:38 AM - Re: Arthur Johnson from Australia visits Brodhead, 2005 (M&M Stanley)
8. 07:55 AM - First flights (Nav8799h@aol.com)
9. 08:24 AM - Re: First flights (Phillips, Jack)
10. 08:31 AM - Lou Wither's first flights (Michael D Cuy)
11. 08:41 AM - Re: First flights (Galen Hutcheson)
12. 08:54 AM - Re: FW: Inflight Breakup of an SR-71 at Mach 3.18 (This will get your attention! Wow!! DL) ()
13. 10:24 AM - Re: Builders in North Dakota / Minnesota (Kenneth Heide)
14. 10:37 AM - Re: Options decisions (Jim Ash)
15. 12:50 PM - Re: Options decisions (Phillips, Jack)
16. 03:13 PM - A-65 (Isablcorky@aol.com)
17. 04:36 PM - Re: A-65 (walt evans)
18. 04:56 PM - Re: A-65 (Isablcorky@aol.com)
19. 05:08 PM - Re: gap seals (Dick Navratil)
20. 07:04 PM - Garmin GPS196 for dummies (Oscar Zuniga)
21. 07:20 PM - Mods to Model A engine mount.... (Jim Markle)
22. 08:20 PM - Re: Mods to Model A engine mount.... ()
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: left coast piets |
They're all on Vancouver Island. :-)
The oldest continuously registered aircraft in Canada, CF-AOG,
is flying off a private strip, one is flying out of Naniamo and the
other is completed and in flight testing, again, at Naniamo.
I almost forgot! It appears Dave Rowe has been posted to
the far Atlantic Coast somewhere. I don't know the status of
both his planes but some time ago they were under tarps
in the corner of a hanger at Pat Bay ( Victoria International ).
The attached photo is the one currently testing, built by Dean Sevold.
Powered by a Ford "B"
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: DONALD COOLEY
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 10:38 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: gap seals
Hello Group,
I was wondering.....how about using piano hinges for elevators? The only
real drawback I can see is that it wouldn't look "authentic". Maybe function
dictates form? I plan using piano hinges for the ailerons, so this seems not
too out of line. Comments?
BTW, I just returned from the NWAAC Fly-in at McMinnville, Oregon. There
was not a single Piet at this fairly prestigious event. Mine is still probably
several years from attending. Will it be the first? Where are all the Left
Coast Piets? The world awaits an answer!
Keep the sawdust flyin'! Don Cooley
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: | Options decisions |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Jim,
One thing to conisder (and you already seem to be considering weight) is
that the long fuselage adds considerable weight to the airplane.
Somewhere on the list archives is a thread about weight and CG as
surveyed at Brodhead a few years ago. Invariably, the long fuselage
Piets weighed well over 700 lbs empty, wheras the short fuselage
versions usually come in somewhere in the low 600's. Mine is not only a
long fuselage, but is 1" wider than plans (I'm also 6'2" and 200 lbs).
Empty weight is 745 lbs, and it really suffers poor climb performance on
a hot day. I flew formation with Mike Cuy to Brodhead and his plane
consistently outclimbed mine (not that his climb performance was
spectacular). I still have yet to take a passenger up in mine - I'm
waiting for the weather to cool off so the density altitudes come down a
bit.
Having said that, I still think I would build a long fuselage if I had
it to do over again. It is more comfortable, and if you are going to
fly it any distance, comfort becomes pretty important. But I would put
a more powerful engine than a Continental A65 in it. I'd go with a
Corvair or a C85 or O-200.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net>
I just got two of Tony Bingelis' books. I promised myself I was going to
read them before I started an airplane, and I'm glad I have so far.
I I read, I've had some questions about options specific to the Piet.
I've got the plans, including the supplementals and 3-piece wing
drawings. I'm just trying to decide what makes sense for me. I'm 6'2"
and 200lb, so I expect the long fuselage and the seat setback will be in
order. I haven't put together a mockup, but it's coming.
I was planning on building the 3-piece wing, but then I read that the
typical three-piece wing adds significantly more weight to the plane.
Now I'm wondering if this holds true specifically for the Piet.
I've also seen comments that the Piet tube-and-fabric fuselage is
significantly lighter than the wood one. I'm comfortable welding 4130
tubing, so I can go either way.
I currently own a J-3, but if I take my wife for a ride, I'm about 70 lb
over gross, so useful load in an airplane is one of my hot buttons. I'm
not going to set myself up again for this problem, certainly not from
the start, anyhow.
Jim Ash
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: | Arthur Johnson from Australia visits Brodhead, 2005 |
Guys-- (especially Mark Stanley),
Had the pleasure of meeting Piet builder Arthur Johnson at Brodhead. Here
is a photo of him in front of my Air Camper.
Arthur just got in from Japan where he stopped to see Piet builder and
fellow bloke Mark Stanley from the list. What
a whirlwind of travel. Arthur showed me a set of photos showing his
beautiful workmanship on his Air Camper back home.
It is going to be a beauty.
Mike C.
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: | Options decisions |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Jim-- Jack is correct in generalizing that the long fuselage Piets are
usually heavier than the shorter
version but that is not always the case. Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy is a
long fuselage, Cont. 65 powered
plane with no brakes and a tailskid and his empty weight is a few pounds
lighter than my 632 pounder.
You can keep the weight down. Douwe was talking with me at Brodhead and
he is very weight-concious
while building which you have to be if you want the plane to perform
decently. It is marginal enough without
saddling the wings with more than they really need to be lifting.
I feel for guys like Jack who, out of necessity, by the airspace they fly
in and around have to add things like encoding
altimeters and electrical systems.
Mike C.
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 |
|
Has anybody heard how Charlie is doing of late? I visited with him at
Brodhead and got an update on his condition -- he was going in for surgery the
following week. Just wondering if anyone has heard latest...hope he's doing well.
As for my Piet project I'm getting ready to place an order for nuts and bolts
so I can start bolting pieces to the fuselage, i.e. landing gear fittings,
struts, control sticks, etc.
Beautiful day here in La Crosse, WI -- and I took a vacation day! A bad day
Piet building (no such thing) beats a good day at work anytime!
Great stuff on this list lately -- many thanks to all the experts!
!
Fred B.
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: | FW: Inflight Breakup of an SR-71 at Mach 3.18 (This will |
get your attention! Wow!! DL)
For those of you about to do their own "test flying" on their Pietenpol
projects, a little insight into the world of the professional test
pilot.
Not that it has much to do with Pietenpols, just thought you might find
it interesting...
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
Bill Weaver: SR-71 BREAKUP
Among professional aviators, there's a well-worn saying: Flying is
simply
hours of boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror and panic. And
yet, I don't
recall too many periods of boredom during my 30-year career with
Lockheed,
most of which was spent as a test pilot.
By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. Jim Zwayer,
a
Lockheed flight test reconnaissance and navigation systems specialist,
and I
were evaluating those systems on an SR-71 Blackbird test from Edwards
AFB,
Calif. We also were investigating procedures designed to reduce trim
drag
and improve high-Mach cruise performance. The latter involved flying
with
the center-of-gravity (CG) located further aft than normal, which
reduced
the Blackbird's longitudinal stability.
We took off from Edwards at 11:20 a.m. and completed the mission's first
leg
without incident. After refueling from a KC-135 tanker, we turned
eastbound,
accelerated to a Mach 3.2-cruise speed and climbed to 78,000 ft., our
initial cruise-climb altitude. Several minutes into cruise, the right
engine inlet's
automatic control system malfunctioned, requiring a switch to manual
control.
The SR-71's inlet configuration was automatically adjusted during
supersonic flight
to decelerate air flow in the duct, slowing it to subsonic speed before
reaching the engine's face. This was accomplished by the inlet's
center-body
spike translating aft, and by modulating the inlet's forward bypass
doors.
Normally, these actions were scheduled automatically as a function of
Mach
number, positioning the normal shock wave (where air flow becomes
subsonic)
inside the inlet to ensure optimum engine performance. Without proper
scheduling,
disturbances inside the inlet could result in the shock wave being
expelled forward
--a phenomenon known as an "inlet unstart." That causes an instantaneous
loss
of engine thrust, explosive banging noises and violent yawing of the
aircraft--like
being in a train wreck. Unstarts were not uncommon at that time in the
SR-71's
development, but a properly functioning system would recapture the shock
wave
and restore normal operation.
On the planned test profile, we entered a programmed 35-deg. bank turn
to
the right. An immediate unstart occurred on the right engine, forcing
the
aircraft to roll further right and start to pitch up. I jammed the
control
stick as far left and forward as it would go. No response. I instantly
knew
we were in for a wild ride. I attempted to tell Jim what was happening
and to
stay with the airplane until we reached a lower speed and altitude. I
didn't
think the chances of surviving an ejection at Mach 3.18 and 78,800 ft.
were
very good. However, g-forces built up so rapidly that my words came out
garbled and unintelligible, as confirmed later by the cockpit voice
recorder.
The cumulative effects of system malfunctions, reduced longitudinal
stability, increased angle-of-attack in the turn, supersonic speed, high
altitude and other factors imposed forces on the airframe that exceeded
flight control authority and the Stability Augmentation System's ability
to
restore control.
Everything seemed to unfold in slow motion. I learned later the time
from
event onset to catastrophic departure from controlled flight was only
2-3
sec. Still trying to communicate with Jim, I blacked out, succumbing to
extremely high g-forces. The SR-71 then literally disintegrated around
us.
From that point, I was just along for the ride.
My next recollection was a hazy thought that I was having a bad dream.
Maybe
I'll wake up and get out of this mess, I mused. Gradually regaining
consciousness, I realized this was no dream; it had really happened.
That
also was disturbing, because I could not have survived what had just
happened. Therefore, I must be dead. Since I didn't feel bad--just a
detached sense of euphoria--I decided being dead wasn't so bad after
all.
AS FULL AWARENESS took hold, I realized I was not dead, but had somehow
separated from the airplane. I had no idea how this could have happened;
I
hadn't initiated an ejection. The sound of rushing air and what sounded
like
straps flapping in the wind confirmed I was falling, but I couldn't see
anything. My pressure suit's face plate had frozen over and I was
staring at
a layer of ice.
The pressure suit was inflated, so I knew an emergency oxygen cylinder
in
the seat kit attached to my parachute harness was functioning. It not
only
supplied breathing oxygen, but also pressurized the suit, preventing my
blood from boiling at extremely high altitudes. I didn't appreciate it
at
the time, but the suit's pressurization had also provided physical
protection from intense buffeting and g-forces. That inflated suit had
become my own escape capsule.
My next concern was about stability and tumbling. Air density at high
altitude is insufficient to resist a body's tumbling motions, and
centrifugal forces high enough to cause physical injury could develop
quickly. For that reason, the SR-71's parachute system was designed to
automatically deploy a small-diameter stabilizing chute shortly after
ejection and seat separation. Since I had not intentionally activated
the
ejection system--and assuming all automatic functions depended on a
proper
ejection sequence--it occurred to me the stabilizing chute may not have
deployed.
However, I quickly determined I was falling vertically and not tumbling.
The
little chute must have deployed and was doing its job. Next concern: the
main parachute, which was designed to open automatically at 15,000 ft.
Again
I had no assurance the automatic-opening function would work.
I couldn't ascertain my altitude because I still couldn't see through
the
iced-up face plate. There was no way to know how long I had been
blacked-out
or how far I had fallen. I felt for the manual-activation D-ring on my
chute harness, but with the suit inflated and my hands numbed by cold, I
couldn't locate it. I decided I'd better open the face plate, try to
estimate my height above the ground, then locate that "D" ring. Just as
I
reached for the face plate, I felt the reassuring sudden deceleration of
main-chute deployment.
I raised the frozen face plate and discovered its uplatch was broken.
Using
one hand to hold that plate up, I saw I was descending through a clear,
winter sky with unlimited visibility. I was greatly relieved to see
Jim's
parachute coming down about a quarter of a mile away. I didn't think
either
of us could have survived the aircraft's breakup, so seeing Jim had also
escaped lifted my spirits incredibly.
I could also see burning wreckage on the ground a few miles from where
we
would land. The terrain didn't look at all inviting--a desolate, high
plateau dotted with patches of snow and no signs of habitation.
I tried to rotate the parachute and look in other directions. But with
one
hand devoted to keeping the face plate up and both hands numb from
high-altitude, subfreezing temperatures, I couldn't manipulate the
risers
enough to turn. Before the breakup, we'd started a turn in the New
Mexico-Colorado-Oklahoma-Texas border region. The SR-71 had a turning
radius
of about 100 mi. at that speed and altitude, so I wasn't even sure what
state we were going to land in. But, because it was about 3:00 p.m., I
was
certain we would be spending the night out here.
At about 300 ft. above the ground, I yanked the seat kit's release
handle
and made sure it was still tied to me by a long lanyard. Releasing the
heavy
kit ensured I wouldn't land with it attached to my derriere, which could
break a leg or cause other injuries. I then tried to recall what
survival
items were in that kit, as well as techniques I had been taught in
survival
training.
Looking down, I was startled to see a fairly large animal--perhaps an
antelope--directly under me. Evidently, it was just as startled as I was
because it literally took off in a cloud of dust.
My first-ever parachute landing was pretty smooth. I landed on fairly
soft
ground, managing to avoid rocks, cacti and antelopes. My chute was still
billowing in the wind, though. I struggled to collapse it with one hand,
holding the still-frozen face plate up with the other.
"Can I help you?" a voice said.
Was I hearing things? I must be hallucinating. Then I looked up and saw
a
guy walking toward me, wearing a cowboy hat. A helicopter was idling a
short
distance behind him. If I had been at Edwards and told the
search-and-rescue
unit that I was going to bail out over the Rogers Dry Lake at a
particular
time of day, a crew couldn't have gotten to me as fast as that
cowboy-pilot
had.
The gentleman was Albert Mitchell, Jr., owner of a huge cattle ranch in
northeastern New Mexico. I had landed about 1.5 mi. from his ranch
house--and from a hangar for his two-place Hughes helicopter. Amazed to
see
him, I replied I was having a little trouble with my chute. He walked
over
and collapsed the canopy, anchoring it with several rocks. He had seen
Jim
and me floating down and had radioed the New Mexico Highway Patrol, the
Air
Force and the nearest hospital.
Extracting myself from the parachute harness, I discovered the source of
those flapping-strap noises heard on the way down. My seat belt and
shoulder
harness were still draped around me, attached and latched. The lap belt
had
been shredded on each side of my hips, where the straps had fed through
knurled adjustment rollers. The shoulder harness had shredded in a
similar
manner across my back. The ejection seat had never left the airplane; I
had
been ripped out of it by the extreme forces, seat belt and shoulder
harness
still fastened.
I also noted that one of the two lines that supplied oxygen to my
pressure
suit had come loose, and the other was barely hanging on. If that second
line had become detached at high altitude, the deflated pressure suit
wouldn't have provided any protection. I knew an oxygen supply was
critical for
breathing and suit-pressurization, but didn't appreciate how much
physical
protection an inflated pressure suit could provide. That the suit could
withstand forces sufficient to disintegrate an airplane and shred heavy
nylon seat belts, yet leave me with only a few bruises and minor
whiplash
was impressive. I truly appreciated having my own little escape capsule.
After helping me with the chute, Mitchell said he'd check on Jim. He
climbed
into his helicopter, flew a short distance away and returned about 10
min.
later with devastating news: Jim was dead. Apparently, he had suffered a
broken neck during the aircraft's disintegration and was killed
instantly.
Mitchell said his ranch foreman would soon arrive to watch over Jim's
body
until the authorities arrived.
I asked to see Jim and, after verifying there was nothing more that
could be
done, agreed to let Mitchell fly me to the Tucumcari hospital, about 60
mi.
to the south.
I have vivid memories of that helicopter flight, as well. I didn't know
much
about rotorcraft, but I knew a lot about "red lines," and Mitchell kept
the
airspeed at or above red line all the way. The little helicopter
vibrated
and shook a lot more than I thought it should have. I tried to reassure
the
cowboy-pilot I was feeling OK; there was no need to rush. But since he'd
notified the hospital staff that we were inbound, he insisted we get
there
as soon as possible. I couldn't help but think how ironic it would be to
have survived one disaster only to be done in by the helicopter that had
come to my rescue.
However, we made it to the hospital safely--and quickly. Soon, I was
able to
contact Lockheed's flight test office at Edwards. The test team there
had
been notified initially about the loss of radio and radar contact, then
told
the aircraft had been lost. They also knew what our flight conditions
had
been at the time, and assumed no one could have survived. I briefly
explained what had happened, describing in fairly accurate detail the
flight
conditions prior to breakup.
The next day, our flight profile was duplicated on the SR-71 flight
simulator at Beale AFB, Calif. The outcome was identical. Steps were
immediately taken to prevent a recurrence of our accident. Testing at a
CG
aft of normal limits was discontinued, and trim-drag issues were
subsequently resolved via aerodynamic means. The inlet control system
was
continuously improved and, with subsequent development of the Digital
Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System, inlet unstarts became rare.
Investigation of our accident revealed that the nose section of the
aircraft
had broken off aft of the rear cockpit and crashed about 10 mi. from the
main wreckage. Parts were scattered over an area approximately 15 mi.
long
and 10 mi. wide. Extremely high air loads and g-forces, both positive
and
negative, had literally ripped Jim and me from the airplane.
Unbelievably
good luck is the only explanation for my escaping relatively unscathed
from
that disintegrating aircraft.
Two weeks after the accident, I was back in an SR-71, flying the first
sortie on a brand-new bird at Lockheed's Palmdale, Calif., assembly and
test
facility. It was my first flight since the accident, so a flight test
engineer in the back seat was probably a little apprehensive about my
state
of mind and confidence. As we roared down the runway and lifted off, I
heard
an anxious voice over the intercom. "Bill! Bill! Are you there?"
"Yeah, George. What's the matter?"
"Thank God! I thought you might have left." The rear cockpit of the
SR-71
has no forward visibility--only a small window on each side--and George
couldn't see me. A big red light on the master-warning panel in the rear
cockpit had illuminated just as we rotated, stating, "Pilot Ejected."
Fortunately, the cause was a misadjusted microswitch, not my departure.
--------------------
Bill Weaver flight tested all models of the Mach-2 F-104 Starfighter and
the
entire family of Mach 3+ Blackbirds--the A-12, YF-12 and SR-71. He
subsequently was assigned to Lockheed's L-1011 project as an engineering
test pilot, became the company's chief pilot and retired as Division
Manager
of Commercial Flying Operations. He still flies Orbital Sciences Corp.'s
L-1011, which has been modified to carry a Pegasus satellite-launch
vehicle
(AW&ST Aug. 25, 2003, p. 56). An FAA Designated Engineering
Representative
Flight Test Pilot, he's also involved in various aircraft-modification
projects, conducting certification flight tests.
"For those who fly....or long to."
Contrails is an Aviation Week & Space Technology initiative to capture
the
untold stories that collectively make up the rich lore of aviation and
space
Copyright (c) 2005, Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill
Companies
All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Notice
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: Arthur Johnson from Australia visits Brodhead, 2005 |
G'day Blokes,
Thanks Mike for the Great shot of Arthur Johnson & your Piet. Arthur showed
me the photos of his Piet in OZ, (OZ = Australia for those who don't know).
I have to agree with Mike, the Piet will be a beauty. Arthur is a great
bloke and I hope lot's of you got to meet him at Brodhead.
I have attached a shot of Arthur Johnson, Takamichi Mita & myself with Mr.
Mita's Piet during Arthur's visit to Japan during July on his way to
Brodhead/Osh.
Mark S
Japan
> Had the pleasure of meeting Piet builder Arthur Johnson at Brodhead.
> Arthur just got in from Japan
> Mike C.
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I would like to take a minute to thank all of those on this list that have
unknowingly contributed to the successful building and eventual first flights
of N799LJ. I have been a lurker on this list for the last 3-1/2 years while
building this ship. I must say that all of the information needed to support
a builder is available on this site. Saturday, I was able to get in the
first flight of about 1/2 hour around the pattern in fairly rough air, not
proving much other than the plane would fly. Last night, however, I was able
to
get another flight of close to 1 hour in smooth beautiful air, just prior to
sundown, what a trip.
Plane flew fine, there is no requirements for rigging adjustment, plane
essentially flys hands off. All engine temperatures and pressures were normal.
Plane flies at 175 MPH @ 2250 RPM behind a C-85-12 turning a Sturba 72-44
wooden prop. I obviously have not gotten a chance to check climb performance
but it is significantly better than the Cub that I have been flying. Fifty MPH
on final sets up for 3 point landings that are a piece of cake.
Lou Wither
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 |
|
CONGRATULATIONS LOU!!!
Great feeling, isn't it?
Jack Phillips, PE
Sr. Manager, Disposables Product Development
Clinical Technologies and Services
Cardinal Health
Creedmoor, NC
(919) 528-5212
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Nav8799h@aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: First flights
I would like to take a minute to thank all of those on this list that
have unknowingly contributed to the successful building and eventual
first flights of N799LJ. I have been a lurker on this list for the last
3-1/2 years while building this ship. I must say that all of the
information needed to support a builder is available on this site.
Saturday, I was able to get in the first flight of about 1/2 hour around
the pattern in fairly rough air, not proving much other than the plane
would fly. Last night, however, I was able to get another flight of
close to 1 hour in smooth beautiful air, just prior to sundown, what a
trip.
Plane flew fine, there is no requirements for rigging adjustment, plane
essentially flys hands off. All engine temperatures and pressures were
normal. Plane flies at 175 MPH @ 2250 RPM behind a C-85-12 turning a
Sturba 72-44 wooden prop. I obviously have not gotten a chance to check
climb performance but it is significantly better than the Cub that I
have been flying. Fifty MPH on final sets up for 3 point landings that
are a piece of cake.
Lou Wither
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: | Lou Wither's first flights |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Wow Lou, that is GREAT news. Congratulations to you. Glad you were on
the list all this time. Don't be a stranger
to us---post all you like. More experience the better. I would love to
see any photos you can send offline or on or on the
photoshare.
Good going !
Mike C.
do not archive
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: First flights |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts@yahoo.com>
From a fellow lurker, CONGRATULATIONS!! on your first
flights. It's great to hear another wonderful
airplane takes to the air (of course I am quite
impressed with the 175 MPH at 2250 RPM and behind a
C-85 none the less. :) Best wishes and many happy
flying hours to you and your new plane.
Doc H
--- Nav8799h@aol.com wrote:
> I would like to take a minute to thank all of those
> on this list that have
> unknowingly contributed to the successful building
> and eventual first flights
> of N799LJ. I have been a lurker on this list for
> the last 3-1/2 years while
> building this ship. I must say that all of the
> information needed to support
> a builder is available on this site. Saturday, I
> was able to get in the
> first flight of about 1/2 hour around the pattern in
> fairly rough air, not
> proving much other than the plane would fly. Last
> night, however, I was able to
> get another flight of close to 1 hour in smooth
> beautiful air, just prior to
> sundown, what a trip.
>
> Plane flew fine, there is no requirements for
> rigging adjustment, plane
> essentially flys hands off. All engine temperatures
> and pressures were normal.
> Plane flies at 175 MPH @ 2250 RPM behind a C-85-12
> turning a Sturba 72-44
> wooden prop. I obviously have not gotten a chance
> to check climb performance
> but it is significantly better than the Cub that I
> have been flying. Fifty MPH
> on final sets up for 3 point landings that are a
> piece of cake.
>
> Lou Wither
>
>
>
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: FW: Inflight Breakup of an SR-71 at Mach 3.18 (This |
will get your attention! Wow!! DL)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@sympatico.ca>
> I expect to get at least mac 3 out of my plane when it's ready!
> From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
> Date: 2005/08/22 Mon AM 08:39:45 EST
> To: "Pietenpol-List" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: FW: Inflight Breakup of an SR-71 at Mach 3.18 (This
will get your attention! Wow!! DL)
>
> For those of you about to do their own "test flying" on their Pietenpol
> projects, a little insight into the world of the professional test
> pilot.
>
>
>
> Not that it has much to do with Pietenpols, just thought you might find
> it interesting...
>
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
>
> Bill Weaver: SR-71 BREAKUP
> Among professional aviators, there's a well-worn saying: Flying is
> simply
> hours of boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror and panic. And
> yet, I don't
> recall too many periods of boredom during my 30-year career with
> Lockheed,
> most of which was spent as a test pilot.
> By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. Jim Zwayer,
> a
> Lockheed flight test reconnaissance and navigation systems specialist,
> and I
> were evaluating those systems on an SR-71 Blackbird test from Edwards
> AFB,
> Calif. We also were investigating procedures designed to reduce trim
> drag
> and improve high-Mach cruise performance. The latter involved flying
> with
> the center-of-gravity (CG) located further aft than normal, which
> reduced
> the Blackbird's longitudinal stability.
> We took off from Edwards at 11:20 a.m. and completed the mission's first
> leg
> without incident. After refueling from a KC-135 tanker, we turned
> eastbound,
> accelerated to a Mach 3.2-cruise speed and climbed to 78,000 ft., our
> initial cruise-climb altitude. Several minutes into cruise, the right
> engine inlet's
>
> automatic control system malfunctioned, requiring a switch to manual
> control.
>
> The SR-71's inlet configuration was automatically adjusted during
> supersonic flight
>
> to decelerate air flow in the duct, slowing it to subsonic speed before
> reaching the engine's face. This was accomplished by the inlet's
> center-body
> spike translating aft, and by modulating the inlet's forward bypass
> doors.
> Normally, these actions were scheduled automatically as a function of
> Mach
> number, positioning the normal shock wave (where air flow becomes
> subsonic)
> inside the inlet to ensure optimum engine performance. Without proper
> scheduling,
>
> disturbances inside the inlet could result in the shock wave being
> expelled forward
>
> --a phenomenon known as an "inlet unstart." That causes an instantaneous
> loss
>
> of engine thrust, explosive banging noises and violent yawing of the
> aircraft--like
>
> being in a train wreck. Unstarts were not uncommon at that time in the
> SR-71's
>
> development, but a properly functioning system would recapture the shock
> wave
>
> and restore normal operation.
> On the planned test profile, we entered a programmed 35-deg. bank turn
> to
> the right. An immediate unstart occurred on the right engine, forcing
> the
> aircraft to roll further right and start to pitch up. I jammed the
> control
> stick as far left and forward as it would go. No response. I instantly
> knew
> we were in for a wild ride. I attempted to tell Jim what was happening
> and to
>
> stay with the airplane until we reached a lower speed and altitude. I
> didn't
>
> think the chances of surviving an ejection at Mach 3.18 and 78,800 ft.
> were
>
> very good. However, g-forces built up so rapidly that my words came out
>
>
> garbled and unintelligible, as confirmed later by the cockpit voice
> recorder.
> The cumulative effects of system malfunctions, reduced longitudinal
> stability, increased angle-of-attack in the turn, supersonic speed, high
> altitude and other factors imposed forces on the airframe that exceeded
> flight control authority and the Stability Augmentation System's ability
> to
> restore control.
>
> Everything seemed to unfold in slow motion. I learned later the time
> from
> event onset to catastrophic departure from controlled flight was only
> 2-3
> sec. Still trying to communicate with Jim, I blacked out, succumbing to
> extremely high g-forces. The SR-71 then literally disintegrated around
> us.
> From that point, I was just along for the ride.
>
> My next recollection was a hazy thought that I was having a bad dream.
> Maybe
> I'll wake up and get out of this mess, I mused. Gradually regaining
> consciousness, I realized this was no dream; it had really happened.
> That
> also was disturbing, because I could not have survived what had just
> happened. Therefore, I must be dead. Since I didn't feel bad--just a
> detached sense of euphoria--I decided being dead wasn't so bad after
> all.
> AS FULL AWARENESS took hold, I realized I was not dead, but had somehow
> separated from the airplane. I had no idea how this could have happened;
> I
> hadn't initiated an ejection. The sound of rushing air and what sounded
> like
> straps flapping in the wind confirmed I was falling, but I couldn't see
> anything. My pressure suit's face plate had frozen over and I was
> staring at
> a layer of ice.
>
> The pressure suit was inflated, so I knew an emergency oxygen cylinder
> in
> the seat kit attached to my parachute harness was functioning. It not
> only
> supplied breathing oxygen, but also pressurized the suit, preventing my
> blood from boiling at extremely high altitudes. I didn't appreciate it
> at
> the time, but the suit's pressurization had also provided physical
> protection from intense buffeting and g-forces. That inflated suit had
> become my own escape capsule.
> My next concern was about stability and tumbling. Air density at high
> altitude is insufficient to resist a body's tumbling motions, and
> centrifugal forces high enough to cause physical injury could develop
> quickly. For that reason, the SR-71's parachute system was designed to
> automatically deploy a small-diameter stabilizing chute shortly after
> ejection and seat separation. Since I had not intentionally activated
> the
> ejection system--and assuming all automatic functions depended on a
> proper
> ejection sequence--it occurred to me the stabilizing chute may not have
> deployed.
> However, I quickly determined I was falling vertically and not tumbling.
> The
> little chute must have deployed and was doing its job. Next concern: the
> main parachute, which was designed to open automatically at 15,000 ft.
> Again
> I had no assurance the automatic-opening function would work.
> I couldn't ascertain my altitude because I still couldn't see through
> the
> iced-up face plate. There was no way to know how long I had been
> blacked-out
> or how far I had fallen. I felt for the manual-activation D-ring on my
> chute harness, but with the suit inflated and my hands numbed by cold, I
> couldn't locate it. I decided I'd better open the face plate, try to
> estimate my height above the ground, then locate that "D" ring. Just as
> I
> reached for the face plate, I felt the reassuring sudden deceleration of
> main-chute deployment.
> I raised the frozen face plate and discovered its uplatch was broken.
> Using
> one hand to hold that plate up, I saw I was descending through a clear,
> winter sky with unlimited visibility. I was greatly relieved to see
> Jim's
> parachute coming down about a quarter of a mile away. I didn't think
> either
> of us could have survived the aircraft's breakup, so seeing Jim had also
> escaped lifted my spirits incredibly.
> I could also see burning wreckage on the ground a few miles from where
> we
> would land. The terrain didn't look at all inviting--a desolate, high
> plateau dotted with patches of snow and no signs of habitation.
> I tried to rotate the parachute and look in other directions. But with
> one
> hand devoted to keeping the face plate up and both hands numb from
> high-altitude, subfreezing temperatures, I couldn't manipulate the
> risers
> enough to turn. Before the breakup, we'd started a turn in the New
> Mexico-Colorado-Oklahoma-Texas border region. The SR-71 had a turning
> radius
> of about 100 mi. at that speed and altitude, so I wasn't even sure what
> state we were going to land in. But, because it was about 3:00 p.m., I
> was
> certain we would be spending the night out here.
> At about 300 ft. above the ground, I yanked the seat kit's release
> handle
> and made sure it was still tied to me by a long lanyard. Releasing the
> heavy
> kit ensured I wouldn't land with it attached to my derriere, which could
> break a leg or cause other injuries. I then tried to recall what
> survival
> items were in that kit, as well as techniques I had been taught in
> survival
> training.
> Looking down, I was startled to see a fairly large animal--perhaps an
> antelope--directly under me. Evidently, it was just as startled as I was
> because it literally took off in a cloud of dust.
> My first-ever parachute landing was pretty smooth. I landed on fairly
> soft
> ground, managing to avoid rocks, cacti and antelopes. My chute was still
> billowing in the wind, though. I struggled to collapse it with one hand,
> holding the still-frozen face plate up with the other.
> "Can I help you?" a voice said.
> Was I hearing things? I must be hallucinating. Then I looked up and saw
> a
> guy walking toward me, wearing a cowboy hat. A helicopter was idling a
> short
> distance behind him. If I had been at Edwards and told the
> search-and-rescue
> unit that I was going to bail out over the Rogers Dry Lake at a
> particular
> time of day, a crew couldn't have gotten to me as fast as that
> cowboy-pilot
> had.
> The gentleman was Albert Mitchell, Jr., owner of a huge cattle ranch in
> northeastern New Mexico. I had landed about 1.5 mi. from his ranch
> house--and from a hangar for his two-place Hughes helicopter. Amazed to
> see
> him, I replied I was having a little trouble with my chute. He walked
> over
> and collapsed the canopy, anchoring it with several rocks. He had seen
> Jim
> and me floating down and had radioed the New Mexico Highway Patrol, the
> Air
> Force and the nearest hospital.
> Extracting myself from the parachute harness, I discovered the source of
> those flapping-strap noises heard on the way down. My seat belt and
> shoulder
> harness were still draped around me, attached and latched. The lap belt
> had
> been shredded on each side of my hips, where the straps had fed through
> knurled adjustment rollers. The shoulder harness had shredded in a
> similar
> manner across my back. The ejection seat had never left the airplane; I
> had
> been ripped out of it by the extreme forces, seat belt and shoulder
> harness
> still fastened.
> I also noted that one of the two lines that supplied oxygen to my
> pressure
> suit had come loose, and the other was barely hanging on. If that second
> line had become detached at high altitude, the deflated pressure suit
>
> wouldn't have provided any protection. I knew an oxygen supply was
> critical for
> breathing and suit-pressurization, but didn't appreciate how much
> physical
> protection an inflated pressure suit could provide. That the suit could
> withstand forces sufficient to disintegrate an airplane and shred heavy
> nylon seat belts, yet leave me with only a few bruises and minor
> whiplash
> was impressive. I truly appreciated having my own little escape capsule.
>
> After helping me with the chute, Mitchell said he'd check on Jim. He
> climbed
> into his helicopter, flew a short distance away and returned about 10
> min.
> later with devastating news: Jim was dead. Apparently, he had suffered a
> broken neck during the aircraft's disintegration and was killed
> instantly.
> Mitchell said his ranch foreman would soon arrive to watch over Jim's
> body
> until the authorities arrived.
> I asked to see Jim and, after verifying there was nothing more that
> could be
> done, agreed to let Mitchell fly me to the Tucumcari hospital, about 60
> mi.
> to the south.
> I have vivid memories of that helicopter flight, as well. I didn't know
> much
> about rotorcraft, but I knew a lot about "red lines," and Mitchell kept
> the
> airspeed at or above red line all the way. The little helicopter
> vibrated
> and shook a lot more than I thought it should have. I tried to reassure
> the
> cowboy-pilot I was feeling OK; there was no need to rush. But since he'd
> notified the hospital staff that we were inbound, he insisted we get
> there
> as soon as possible. I couldn't help but think how ironic it would be to
> have survived one disaster only to be done in by the helicopter that had
> come to my rescue.
> However, we made it to the hospital safely--and quickly. Soon, I was
> able to
> contact Lockheed's flight test office at Edwards. The test team there
> had
> been notified initially about the loss of radio and radar contact, then
> told
> the aircraft had been lost. They also knew what our flight conditions
> had
> been at the time, and assumed no one could have survived. I briefly
> explained what had happened, describing in fairly accurate detail the
> flight
> conditions prior to breakup.
> The next day, our flight profile was duplicated on the SR-71 flight
> simulator at Beale AFB, Calif. The outcome was identical. Steps were
> immediately taken to prevent a recurrence of our accident. Testing at a
> CG
> aft of normal limits was discontinued, and trim-drag issues were
> subsequently resolved via aerodynamic means. The inlet control system
> was
> continuously improved and, with subsequent development of the Digital
> Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System, inlet unstarts became rare.
> Investigation of our accident revealed that the nose section of the
> aircraft
> had broken off aft of the rear cockpit and crashed about 10 mi. from the
> main wreckage. Parts were scattered over an area approximately 15 mi.
> long
> and 10 mi. wide. Extremely high air loads and g-forces, both positive
> and
> negative, had literally ripped Jim and me from the airplane.
> Unbelievably
> good luck is the only explanation for my escaping relatively unscathed
> from
> that disintegrating aircraft.
> Two weeks after the accident, I was back in an SR-71, flying the first
> sortie on a brand-new bird at Lockheed's Palmdale, Calif., assembly and
> test
> facility. It was my first flight since the accident, so a flight test
> engineer in the back seat was probably a little apprehensive about my
> state
> of mind and confidence. As we roared down the runway and lifted off, I
> heard
> an anxious voice over the intercom. "Bill! Bill! Are you there?"
> "Yeah, George. What's the matter?"
> "Thank God! I thought you might have left." The rear cockpit of the
> SR-71
> has no forward visibility--only a small window on each side--and George
> couldn't see me. A big red light on the master-warning panel in the rear
> cockpit had illuminated just as we rotated, stating, "Pilot Ejected."
> Fortunately, the cause was a misadjusted microswitch, not my departure.
> --------------------
> Bill Weaver flight tested all models of the Mach-2 F-104 Starfighter and
> the
> entire family of Mach 3+ Blackbirds--the A-12, YF-12 and SR-71. He
> subsequently was assigned to Lockheed's L-1011 project as an engineering
> test pilot, became the company's chief pilot and retired as Division
> Manager
> of Commercial Flying Operations. He still flies Orbital Sciences Corp.'s
> L-1011, which has been modified to carry a Pegasus satellite-launch
> vehicle
> (AW&ST Aug. 25, 2003, p. 56). An FAA Designated Engineering
> Representative
> Flight Test Pilot, he's also involved in various aircraft-modification
> projects, conducting certification flight tests.
> "For those who fly....or long to."
> Contrails is an Aviation Week & Space Technology initiative to capture
> the
> untold stories that collectively make up the rich lore of aviation and
> space
> Copyright (c) 2005, Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill
> Companies
> All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Notice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Builders in North Dakota / Minnesota |
Dan,
Sound great!
I just finished a 16' by 32 inch rolling table with adjustable casters for the
project. I am on board with you in this project!
I currently have a hangar at Hawley Airport. I am finishing up with a Aircoupe
(complete restoration)! So I have lots of room also.
I have planned on using the corvair engine and have purchased two of them. I look
forward to this set-up as I have read many good things about that particular
motor.
I am very excited to get started with this project and look forward to working
together. My skills are i the artificial limb and brace business as I work in
Fargo, ND. I have plenty of finishing equipment and metal bending jigs that could
be very useful. My lab is large enough to work in creating some of the parts.
My home phone is 218-486-1963 and cell phone 701-793-3030.
Look forward to a meeting and discussion as to our next move.
Sincerely,
Ken Heide
Dan Loegering <danl@odayequipment.com> wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dan Loegering"
Hi Ken,
I would be very interested in sharing ideas with you as your project progresses,
and maybe you could teach me a thing or two as well!
I am in Fargo, ND and am only slightly farther along than you at this point - purchased
plans about 4 months ago and have been working on getting the basement
ready for the project and researching all that I can on building practices and
Piet specific items. Just purchased the Tony Bengalis series while at Oshkosh
and have been reading these the last few weeks. My rib jig is nearly complete
and I was literally going to place the order for capstrip and ply for the ribs
today. (I'll hold off now though until we can talk)
I started this venture with another individual with the intent on building two
aircraft side by side, and this may still happen once work slows down a bit this
winter (he manages outside construction crews). Our intent was to be able to
purchase materials together and ease the shipping charges. Neither of us are
in a hurry to get them flying though and I am planning on about a 5 year project
- wing ribs through this winter - tail surfaces next spring, fuse next fall,
etc... The plan was that we would each work on a different jig and then swap
jigs around as we completed phases.
In talking with the local EAA chapter, I believe there is another Piet project
in the area, but he is inactive on it (doesn't want to sell though...).
Drop me an email at "danl(at)odayequipment.com" so we can chat - I'll be driving
through tonight on my way to Ottertail - can't stop tonight, but I'll swing
over some time with my Cardinal. Sure will be a blast to cruise the lakes with
a flight of Piet's though!
Dan Loegering
Time: 11:30:57 AM PST US
From: Kenneth Heide
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet builders in North Dakota/Minnesota
Members of the list:
I recently purchased a set of plans to build a Pietenpol. Anyone interested in
assisting me in and or around the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota area? Would enjoy working
with others to make this plane come to life.
I am a native of Albany, Wisconsin just 7 miles to the west of Brodhead, WI They
are some fantastic builders at that airport and well worth the time to visit.
Anyone interested please contact me at 218-486-1963 Home or Work 701-364-9100
Ken Heide
_
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: | Options decisions |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net>
Thanks for the replies. I expected the long fuselage would be heavier, but I didn't
know how much.
I spent some time yesterday looking at the plans with a calculator. I didn't realize
how long the 'long' fuselage really is. I also noticed that the tubular
fuselage drawing is actually the shortest of the lot, at 161", if memory serves
(I'm at work and nowhere near the drawings). It's also got one less station
in the rear than the short woodies. Although the top part of the pilot's seat
area is a bit longer between stations, the bottom part is shorter. I haven't looked
at the angles, but I suspect this would put me in a more prone and knees-folded-up
position.
If I look at all three drawings concurrently, the long woody is roughly the same
as the short, with an inch or two extra added to select stations. If I want
to make a long fuselage of 4130 tubing, I'll have to come up with a similar lengthening
process. Having a seriously aft CG scares me; I plan on exiting every
spin I might enter.
As I babble, I guess I'm looking to find out:
1. Is there anybody here who built or owns a tube-and-fabric fuselage, and waddayathink?
2. What are the relative strengths between the short woody and the as-drawn tube-and-fabric
fuselage?
3. Of those who 'adjusted' their dimensions be it for personal comfort or whatever,
what were the changes and how were they derived (and why)?
4. The tube-and-fabric drawing specifies diagonal bracing at three stations, but
the wooden ones don't. I suspect it's because there's a sheet of wood across
these stations on the woodies, but is this true?
5. Has anybody done a weight comparison of the one-piece vs the three-piece wing?
6. Does somebody here have the tube-and-fabric fuselage drawing handy? Some of
the fine print (tubing sizes) is blurry on mine towards the front, and I could
use the numbers clarified. I got mine straight fron Don Pietenpol, so they're
not copies, but the printer must have had an off day.
On a different note, Tony Bingelis mentioned something that pulley sizes should
be a larger diameter when going around tighter angles. I see this isn't the case
for most of the aileron pulleys on the Piet. Is this because of the space
being too tight for larger pulleys? Has anybody used larger pulleys?
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Options decisions
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Jim,
One thing to conisder (and you already seem to be considering weight) is
that the long fuselage adds considerable weight to the airplane.
...
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: | Options decisions |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
HI Jim,
I tried to answer some of your questions below. You are asking good
questions!
I guess if you are comfortable with welding, the steel fuselage could be
built longer and would be lighter than wood. Making it wider would not
be as much of a problem with tubing. I must admit though that I like
the look of my wooden interior.
One change you might want to make is to provide more slant to the rear
seatback. I suggest you build a cockpit mockup and see if it is
comfortable for you. I wish I had done so - I would have then changed
the seatback angle to be more comfortable.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net>
Jim Ash wrote:
...As I babble, I guess I'm looking to find out:
3. Of those who 'adjusted' their dimensions be it for personal comfort
or whatever, what were the changes and how were they derived (and why)?
Jim - I can say that the mods I made to mine were a 1" wider
fuselage and a 6" wider centersection in the wing. The fuselage was
made wider to give more room in the cockpit and I think it was a good
change, except for 2 issues - it added weight and it added cost. The
weight was due to more plywood and slightly more spruce, the cost was
due to the fact that I had to buy more than one sheet of plywood (not
possible to get 2, 25" widths out of a sheet of 4'x8' plywood). The
centersection was made wider to give more fuel capacity. My fuel is all
in the centersection and by making it wider I have a 15.5 gallon tank.
4. The tube-and-fabric drawing specifies diagonal bracing at three
stations, but the wooden ones don't. I suspect it's because there's a
sheet of wood across these stations on the woodies, but is this true?
I wondered about the lack of diagonal bracing in the wooden
fuselage but it doesn't seem to be a problem. Even a serious ground
loop that wrenched the tailwheel off the fuselage didn't cause any
twisting of the fuselage structure
5. Has anybody done a weight comparison of the one-piece vs the
three-piece wing?
I haven't done a comparison, but I can tell you the one piece is
lighter. The fittings that hold the 3 piece wings together and the
bolts, metal fairings, sheetmetal screws, etc all add up to several
pounds of weight. However, the 3 piece wing is A LOT easier to handle
during construction and transport to the airport. I know how heavy my
centersection was and I remember how difficult it was to hold it up
while installing it on the cabane struts and riging the roll wires. I
can't imagine having to do that with the entire wing
6. Does somebody here have the tube-and-fabric fuselage drawing handy?
Some of the fine print (tubing sizes) is blurry on mine towards the
front, and I could use the numbers clarified. I got mine straight fron
Don Pietenpol, so they're not copies, but the printer must have had an
off day.
On a different note, Tony Bingelis mentioned something that pulley sizes
should be a larger diameter when going around tighter angles. I see this
isn't the case for most of the aileron pulleys on the Piet. Is this
because of the space being too tight for larger pulleys? Has anybody
used larger pulleys?
I don't know on this one. I used the size called out in the
plans (or the closest larger size) and they seem to work fine.
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 |
|
Pieters:
I need a lot of help. Can't start engine without pouring raw fuel in the top
plug holes. Have started twice. First time it ran for about 10 seconds. Next
day, same priming procedure, it ran for about 15 seconds. Has anyone
experienced this behavior with your 65? I've overhauled the carb daily, new steel
needle and seat, gaskets. I took the brass revolving plate, mixture, out. Read
the A-65 manual until the print is fading also the Stromberg NA-S3A1 manual.
The only thing I can't comply with from the manual is the 18 inch head of fuel
above the carb. I only have 8 inches from tank bottom to carb bottom.
Will one of you engine know-hows please come to my rescue?
Mags are very hot from rebuild. Engine has new bearings, guides, rings etc.
Thanks in advance
Corky In La trying to start this d--- thing in 102 temp.
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 |
|
Corky,
My first thought and then I'll think more later,,,
Remember the first time that I put fuel in my tank, and I had just rebuilt the
carb to the book,,,I thought the carb would just fill up when I opened the gas
shut off. But it didn't. Forget how I vented the bowl to get gas into it, but
it was strange.
Sound like the bowl is strangly empty.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:13 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A-65
Pieters:
I need a lot of help. Can't start engine without pouring raw fuel in the top
plug holes. Have started twice. First time it ran for about 10 seconds. Next day,
same priming procedure, it ran for about 15 seconds. Has anyone experienced
this behavior with your 65? I've overhauled the carb daily, new steel needle
and seat, gaskets. I took the brass revolving plate, mixture, out. Read the A-65
manual until the print is fading also the Stromberg NA-S3A1 manual. The only
thing I can't comply with from the manual is the 18 inch head of fuel above
the carb. I only have 8 inches from tank bottom to carb bottom.
Will one of you engine know-hows please come to my rescue?
Mags are very hot from rebuild. Engine has new bearings, guides, rings etc.
Thanks in advance
Corky In La trying to start this d--- thing in 102 temp.
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 |
|
Walt,
The bowl is full each time I remove it to "try something else". Tomorrow I
will set the fuel level a bit higher, if I can find a washer thin enough. As I
said ,I installed a new needle and seat valve so it may be needing a
slightly higher fuel level.
Corky
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 |
|
You could do piano hinge on the elevators. You would have to change the dimensions
on the rear of the stab and the front of the elev to be able to trim off
material, so it would get full up and down motion. Other than that it would
probably be fine.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: DONALD COOLEY
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:38 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: gap seals
Hello Group,
I was wondering.....how about using piano hinges for elevators? The only
real drawback I can see is that it wouldn't look "authentic". Maybe function
dictates form? I plan using piano hinges for the ailerons, so this seems not
too out of line. Comments?
BTW, I just returned from the NWAAC Fly-in at McMinnville, Oregon. There
was not a single Piet at this fairly prestigious event. Mine is still probably
several years from attending. Will it be the first? Where are all the Left
Coast Piets? The world awaits an answer!
Keep the sawdust flyin'! Don Cooley
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: | Garmin GPS196 for dummies |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Okay, I'll admit it. I'm a dummy. I just talked myself into a Garmin
GPS196 (black & white) and it comes with a free download of the database
update. However... nowhere in the manual can I find how to go about
downloading the update and installing it to the GPS. I know there is an
interface cable for my PC, but beyond that I'm clueless as to how to snag
and download the update.
GPS196 users who can help me, please email off-list at taildrags@hotmail.com
or point me to some instructions somewhere. Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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: | Mods to Model A engine mount.... |
My fuse is 1" wider than plans and I have a Model A mount that is built to plans....so
when I bolt on the 3/4" tubing braces, the holes that the ash sits on
are spaced 1" too far apart.
I considered adding a 1/2" piece of ash to each side of each of the bearers (to
move them toward each other 1/2" each tomake up the 1") but that adds a bit of
a moment arm.....probably not an issue but I would rather keep the engine as
close to the center line of the tubing holes as possible.
I can notch the tubing per the attached picture and weld the gap shut. The bend
works out to approximately 3 degrees, which means I'll notch out a .04" gap
(not much more than the width of my saw blade) and then weld that back together.
(My preference is to do NO cutting and welding......)
Since I only need a 3 degree bend over a 19" distance (for a change in the hole
location of 1/2" on each side of the engine mount) I'm considering heating the
tubing up and bending it in 1/2". Maybe heating up a 12" length (rather than
a short distance) would not compromise the strength of the tubing......would
that work?
I'm obviously going to run this by my EAA Tech Counselor but these solutions seem
more than adequate....but I sure would like a sanity check from anyone who
cares to help me out here.
Suggestions? Notch/weld or heat/bend?
I welcome all input!
Thanks!
Jim in Plano
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: Mods to Model A engine mount.... |
I like the heat and bend option.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Markle
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mods to Model A engine mount....
My fuse is 1" wider than plans and I have a Model A mount that is built to plans....so
when I bolt on the 3/4" tubing braces, the holes that the ash sits on
are spaced 1" too far apart.
I considered adding a 1/2" piece of ash to each side of each of the bearers (to
move them toward each other 1/2" each tomake up the 1") but that adds a bit
of a moment arm.....probably not an issue but I would rather keep the engine
as close to the center line of the tubing holes as possible.
I can notch the tubing per the attached picture and weld the gap shut. The bend
works out to approximately 3 degrees, which means I'll notch out a .04" gap
(not much more than the width of my saw blade) and then weld that back together.
(My preference is to do NO cutting and welding......)
Since I only need a 3 degree bend over a 19" distance (for a change in the hole
location of 1/2" on each side of the engine mount) I'm considering heating
the tubing up and bending it in 1/2". Maybe heating up a 12" length (rather than
a short distance) would not compromise the strength of the tubing......would
that work?
I'm obviously going to run this by my EAA Tech Counselor but these solutions
seem more than adequate....but I sure would like a sanity check from anyone who
cares to help me out here.
Suggestions? Notch/weld or heat/bend?
I welcome all input!
Thanks!
Jim in Plano
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! --
|