Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:01 AM - GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question (Tim Willis)
2. 06:11 AM - Re: Corvair engine disassembly (tmbrant1@netzero.com)
3. 06:20 AM - Re: Corvair engine disassembly (MICHAEL SILVIUS)
4. 07:14 AM - Re: Corvair engine disassembly (tmbrant1@netzero.com)
5. 08:18 AM - Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question (Hans Vander Voort)
6. 09:22 AM - Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question (harvey rule)
7. 09:33 AM - Re: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil (DJ Vegh)
8. 10:04 AM - Re: Corvair engine disassembly (Bill Church)
9. 10:55 AM - I wanna build (The Schuerrs)
10. 01:15 PM - Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question (walt evans)
11. 05:46 PM - Re: Corvair engine disassembly (Kip and Beth Gardner)
12. 07:25 PM - mystery plane in Manhattan (DJ Vegh)
13. 07:42 PM - Re: mystery plane in Manhattan (Eric Williams)
14. 07:42 PM - Re: mystery plane in Manhattan (BARNSTMR@aol.com)
15. 08:33 PM - Re: mystery plane in Manhattan (DJ Vegh)
16. 09:22 PM - Re: mystery plane in Manhattan (gcardinal)
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: | GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
Let me be more specific about Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil and stall speeds.
I am asking what you think. I am also clarifying my question with some added data.
>
> The "official sites" for the Piet and GN-1 show different data. The Piet site
("pressenter") addresses a 35 mph landing speed for the Piet, and the GN-1 ("gregagn")
site states that plane has a 25 mph stall speed.
1. Is this an apples-to-apples comparison? Is one site using "landing speed"
to mean the same as "stall speed"? Or is the 35 mph landing speed where the
Piet pilot cuts the power and flares, actually stalling in a perfect 3-point
at a lower speed (maybe even as low as 25 mph)? Which is it? What is likely
correct?
2. Has anyone personal comparative experience here, seeing Piets vs. GN-1s land,
or flying both? Have you at least heard hangar talk of comparative stall
speeds and landing speeds? What is your personal experience with testing stall
speeds on your craft, whatever its wing?
>
3. On the top end, The GN-1 site claims a 115 mph top speed, while the Piet site
claims 90 mph. Again, what do you think? Is the GN-1 115 mph claim for a "top
speed in level flight," or is that 115 mph really a VNE? Is there really an
apples-to-apples top speed difference?
4. Since the planes are otherwise so similar, I think any REAL differences (e.g.,
"apples-to-apples") pretty much must be attributed to the different shape
in the first 20 percent of their respective airfoils. Is it possible that this
one factor alone would really cause such changes? I can see some differences
in possible stall speeds, or at least more gentle stalls for the GN-1, but
more top end, too?
>
What do you think?
Thanks,
Tim
---------------------------------
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
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: Corvair engine disassembly |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tmbrant1@netzero.com" <tmbrant1@netzero.net>
WW suggests in his manual that unless the studs turn out or are pulled out or damaged
(rust) that they can be re-used in modest applications such as a pietenpol.
The top row of studs you're talking about shouldn't turn out and shouldn't
be damaged or rusted because they were continuously bathed in oil inside the
head. I have dissassembled several engines and the only studs which have turned
or been damaged in any way are the lower ones. Usually they're rusted pretty
badly. To make sure if one turns or not, take a white out brush and brush
on a mark on the outer part of the stud and engine case. The rocker studs in
the engines I've worked on have been pretty easy to remove without disturbing
the case / stud fit.
I plan to use my upper studs but replace most if not all of my lowers and helicoil
the lowers as well.
Lot's of opinions on this - do you have WW book? If not, get it, ask him questions...
He's happy to answer them and see that things are done right.
Tom B.
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: Corvair engine disassembly |
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engine disassemblyok
it apears that the links I used last night did not work.
but if you go to go to:
http://www.maddyhome.com/corvairsrch/index.jsp
and do a search on "cylinder head studs" it turns up a god bit of discussion on
the issue.
I tend to go directly to WW's posts and then follow up by steping back to the posting
he is responding, or making refference to.
On page 2 of the search: (# 41)
Lon of Corvairunderground writes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) The threads on the block ends are a bit unusual in that they are
actually a form of self-tapping thread. All 12 studs on each side of the
case were installed into pre-drilled holes in one gang operation at the
factory. What this means is that a std 3/8-16 thread is not exactly a
correct repair.
It is not uncommon for attempted stud repairs to "go wrong". Part of
this is because the original method of stud installation yields a stud
that is normally quite secure in the block. Various attempts to remove a
stud and re-install it (whether with an insert or just simply screwing
back in) will almost never duplicate the same result. The factory
oversize studs were intended to be used where a stud had simply
unscrewed. In the case where a stud was actually stripped (or pulled)
out the factory answer was to get another block, rather than repair.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
regarding the removal of studs:
specifically look at: WW's
(#74 Apr 5, 2004)
The Mother Of All Head Stud Posts
he writes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Typical Situations
Q: I disassembled my motor, and it came apart easily. Should I be worried
about my studs? None of them pulled out of the case.
A: No. In most cases, your studs would be perfectly fine. If you wish to
check them, you can borrow one of the tool sets from us.
Q: The upper row of nuts were rusted on my motor. I used a breaker bar and
impact wrench to take them off. Are my studs ok?
A: A lot of our testing says they're junk, and here's why: A stock head nut
can only take about 55 foot pounds of torque before the threads rip out. You
cannot damage a stud by overtightening it with a stock head nut. However, if the
two are rusted together, and you're using aggressive tools, the bond between
the rusty nut and stud can easily transmit several times this amount of torque
in reverse. We've found almost no weakened lower row studs, however,
virtually all the studs that have rusty tops pull like taffy, frequently stretching
25-30/1000 more at the same level of torque as an undamaged stud. These studs
are wounded by being removed with aggressive methods. If you put a wounded stud
back in, and simply put a piece of pipe on it and torque the nut, it will
torque to the 35 foot pounds, but you will be proving nothing. Such a weakened
stud will not exert the same clamping force on the head as the undamaged ones.
I
would suggest any stud that takes more than 50 foot pounds of torque in
reverse be looked at very carefully. Many people have seen Grace disassemble engines
with 1/2" air impact gun. This said, she knows the trick of hitting it
tighter for a moment and then reversing it. In either case, we now replace all
the
upper studs in all of our production engines.
Q: Should I use a stock or oversize stud if the stud unscrews from the case?
A: It depends on the fit. I'm a big advocate of Loctite 620 and it does a
fantastic job of holding somewhat loose studs in place, even at engine operating
temperatures. It seals the oil in the non blind holes also. I read one post
where someone mentioned helicoiling a hole, torquing a stud into it and getting
drag torque with a stock stud. As said previously, these are incompatible with
helicoils unless they're modified. Helicoiled holes will need Loctite 620 to
seal them in place, otherwise the stud would turn all the way into the case.
Q: The tops of my studs are rusty, but the nuts came off without twisting the
studs. Should I replace the studs?
A: Maybe not. A method to consider is milling the pad on the head where the
nut sits down 1/8" to get the new nut to operate entirely on the clean part of
the threads. We do this on a stud by stud basis on some engines. This may be
of particular interest to people building 3100s who wish to avoid any type of
mod to the base of the studs.
I saw a note where someone was commenting that it would be nice if someone
tested helicoils in the case, strength of studs, etc. Someone did this years ago
in great detail. There is no need for people to reinvent the wheel on this
sort of stuff, nor question my judgment. I tested to destruction every type of
stud and insert repair, every combination of fasteners and lubricants. If you
go back in the photos and look at my cam test rig, you'll notice that it is
built on a case that has 24 ripped out stud holes in it. I do not believe that
anyone else ever engaged in this type of testing, and correlated it to what
people in the field needed to know.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
on page 7 of the cylincer head studs search our friend Oscar Z in a posting listed
as:
corvaircraft: engine teardown
makes some of the salient points on the issue as well.
regards:
Michael Silvius
Scarborough, Maine
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tmbrant1@netzero.com" <tmbrant1@netzero.net>
my upper and lower are reversed.. to add to your confusion
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Tim,
Isn't the GN airfoil a Piper Cub airfoil (USA 35-b)?
Michael Shuck wrote a Airfoil analyses between Pietenpol and Piper.
See the matronics archives or the File share list, Ken Chambers listed it
there in April of 2005.
It does not address the stall-landing speed issue but is very interesting
reading.
My Pietenpol stalls at about 28 Mph. (on Pitot tube ASI)
But how accurate is my ASI ?
I have made my own Johnson type Air speed indicator.
And also have a panel mounted ASI with the traditional Pitot tube.
The Johnson type, I calibrated by sticking it out of the window of a car.
The Pitot tube ASI is calibrated by the factory.
They both read different.
As does my GPS speed which is of course is measuring ground speed, but none
the less averaging up wind and down wind speeds do not produce the same
readings as the ASI's either.
But they are all within 10% of each other, which to me is OK.
Long story short, Air Speed measuring accuracy is subject to instrument
used and slow speeds are difficult to measure, 25 Mph vs 35 Mph both are
very, very slow.
I would consider the 35 Mph as minimum controllable airspeed and a rough
guide for test flying your own Pietenpol.
In normal flight I use a 55 Mph approach speed (on Base and Final) which
gives me a good glide (with part throttle) and good response over all
controls.
When 6 feet over the runway cut the power to idle and the speed bleeds off
quickly, she settles down at around 30 Mph.
Hans
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: harvey rule <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
That is identical to my N3 Pup ultralight aircraft which is 3/4 the size
of a cub.In all other aspects is the same as a cub.Interesting.
Hans Vander Voort wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>
> Tim,
>
> Isn't the GN airfoil a Piper Cub airfoil (USA 35-b)?
>
> Michael Shuck wrote a Airfoil analyses between Pietenpol and Piper.
> See the matronics archives or the File share list, Ken Chambers listed it
> there in April of 2005.
>
> It does not address the stall-landing speed issue but is very interesting
> reading.
>
> My Pietenpol stalls at about 28 Mph. (on Pitot tube ASI)
> But how accurate is my ASI ?
> I have made my own Johnson type Air speed indicator.
> And also have a panel mounted ASI with the traditional Pitot tube.
> The Johnson type, I calibrated by sticking it out of the window of a car.
> The Pitot tube ASI is calibrated by the factory.
> They both read different.
>
> As does my GPS speed which is of course is measuring ground speed, but none
> the less averaging up wind and down wind speeds do not produce the same
> readings as the ASI's either.
>
> But they are all within 10% of each other, which to me is OK.
> Long story short, Air Speed measuring accuracy is subject to instrument
> used and slow speeds are difficult to measure, 25 Mph vs 35 Mph both are
> very, very slow.
>
> I would consider the 35 Mph as minimum controllable airspeed and a rough
> guide for test flying your own Pietenpol.
> In normal flight I use a 55 Mph approach speed (on Base and Final) which
> gives me a good glide (with part throttle) and good response over all
> controls.
> When 6 feet over the runway cut the power to idle and the speed bleeds off
> quickly, she settles down at around 30 Mph.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
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: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil |
early Gn-1's used a piper cub wing. some still opt to do that but most use the
modifed Piet airfoil that is shown in the plans. The differences are in the
leading edge of the airfoil. the GN-1 uses a more bluntly rounded edge. other
than that the profile is the same. wing spar locations and other structural
dimensions are different but the overall shape is very close to a Piet airfoil
DJ Vegh
Dir. of Web Development
Editor - Animator - Digital Artist
Larry John Wright, Inc.
1045 E. University Dr.
Mesa, AZ 85203
480.833.8111 - Office
602.743.5768 - Mobile
"The Nation's Number One Retail Advertising Agency"
Achieving Big Time Results for Local and Regional Retailers
-
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil
Yesterday I placed one of my completed Piet ribs over a recently acquired full-scale
GN-1 wing rib drawing. I was impressed by the differences at the leading
edge and the next 5" back. I know that the GN-1 folks claim slower stalls
with their wing, based only on this difference. Do you know what they really
claim, and has anyone been able to verify differences?
Thanks,
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server <pietenpol-list-digest@matronics.com> wrote:
*
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest for matted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-03-06.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-03-06.txt
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 03/06/06: 4
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:51 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Hans Va nder Voort)
2. 07:44 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
3. 07:59 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (harvey rule)
4. 09:10 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 05:51:27 AM PST US
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
From: Hans Vander Voort
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort
Glenn,
Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a tailskid ?
The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only a tailskid, some of us
still build them that way, but they are hard to handle on paved runways.
The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass runway.
If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel are a must have.
Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and brakes and tailwheel)
as I liked the looks of it.
But straight or split landing gear should make no difference on paved or
grass.
For safety sake you should have brakes and a tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in the 21st Century and we
should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons learned.
Keep on Building
Hans
"Glenn Thomas"
ngwood.com> To
Sent by: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved
runways
03/03/2006 09:58
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Glenn Thomas"
At the last EAA meeting I talked with our DAR (who tried to talk me out of
building a Piet) and he said he landed the one that he test flew last year
on a paved runway. H e said there aren't any grass strips in Connecticut.
I haven't heard of anyone doing this yet. Would the J3 cub style landing
gear (like Chuck has on his plane) be a must for this type of scenario?
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 07:44:19 AM PST US
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson
I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
Extra work to do but will be worth it to me as I plan
to do a lot of traveling.
Doc (H)
--- Hans Vander Voort
wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander
> Voort
>
> Glenn,
>
> Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> tailskid ?
> The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> a tailskid, some of us
> still build them that way, but they are hard to
> handle on paved runways.
> The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> runway.
> If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> are a must have.
>
> Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> brakes and tailwheel)
> as I liked the looks of it.
> But straight or split landing gear should make no
> difference on paved or
> grass.
>
> For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> the 21st Century and we
> should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> learned.
>
> Keep on Building
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:59:32 AM P ST US
From: harvey rule
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: harvey rule
You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and jetison the
tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass and you encounter a
paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change that skid to a wheel
while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to take off with
skids,they go all over the place,no control.You would be better to
install a wheel lock.
Galen Hutcheson wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson
>
> I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
> and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
> and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
> when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
> Extra work to do but will be wort h it to me as I plan
> to do a lot of traveling.
>
> Doc (H)
>
> --- Hans Vander Voort
> wrote:
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander
> > Voort
> >
> > Glenn,
> >
> > Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> > tailskid ?
> > The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> > a tailskid, some of us
> > still build them that way, but they are hard to
> > handle on paved runways.
> > The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> > runway.
> > If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> > are a must have.
> >
> > Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> > brakes and tailwheel)
> > as I liked the looks of it.
> > But straight or sp lit landing gear should make no
> > difference on paved or
> > grass.
> >
> > For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> > tailwheel.
> > It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> > the 21st Century and we
> > should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> > learned.
> >
> > Keep on Building
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 09:10:48 AM PST US
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson
Harvey, been there-done that. I have had a couple of
planes (both antique bipes that origionally came out
with tail skids and later converted to wheels) and I
really liked the set up. Like I said, if I am heading
off cross country, then I put the tailwheel on. I
only flew the skid at the grass location. But I have
landed a skid on pavement (but I had differential
brakes) and it wasn't all that bad. With a skid, you
use the rudder as the steering device. If you need to
change direction of travel while the skid in on the
ground, you give a blast from the prop to make the
rudder more effective. It takes a lot more skill than
a tailwheel, but as I said earlier, practice,
practice, practice...
Don't care much for tailwheel locks...but that's
another story.
Doc (H)
--- harvey rule wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: harvey rule
>
>
> You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and
> jetison the
> tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass
> and you encounter a
> paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change
> th at skid to a wheel
> while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to
> take off with
> skids,they go all over the place,no control.You
> would be better to
> install a wheel lock.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Corvair engine disassembly |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
*** --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tmbrant1@netzero.com"
*** --> <tmbrant1@netzero.net>
***
*** my upper and lower are reversed..
I've been accused of that before. Usually by someone who strongly
disagrees with my opinion.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
Hello everyone, I went to my local VERY high end lumber yard and found that they
had about 50 16' long spruce 1x12. There's a lot of work in picking through
but there's definitely useable wood. And get this 23 dollars apiece. I also
asked if they could get clear and they said the best they could get is #1. I'm
a carpenter so I know something about wood, but my question is, can ponderosa
pine or radiata pine be used? They have a very good selection of doug fir
also. If doug fir is used, where can you downsize to eliminate some weight, or
can you? Also, one last question. Since only recently catching the piet bug
and short on funds right now, where can I find a description of the parts that
I don't know, like spars and longerons and such. Thanks for your help. I'll
see y'all in the skies someday
Steve
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
Tim,
All I can add is that in the early flight phase, just me (no passenger)with 10
gallons of fuel in the nose tank, my stall speed was 37mph.
Pietenpol Aircamper built to the prints, empty weight 595#
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list-digest@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question
Let me be more specific about Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil and stall speeds.
I am asking what you think. I am also clarifying my question with some added
data.
>
> The "official sites" for the Piet and GN-1 show different data. The Piet site
("pressenter") addresses a 35 mph landing speed for the Piet, and the GN-1
("gregagn") site states that plane has a 25 mph stall speed.
1. Is this an apples-to-apples comparison? Is one site using "landing speed"
to mean the same as "stall speed"? Or is the 35 mph landing speed where the
Piet pilot cuts the power and flares, actually stalling in a perfect 3-point
at a lower speed (maybe even as low as 25 mph)? Which is it? What is likely
correct?
2. Has anyone personal comparative experience here, seeing Piets vs. GN-1s land,
or flying both? Have you at least heard h angar talk of comparative stall
speeds and landing speeds? What is your personal experience with testing stall
speeds on your craft, whatever its wing?
>
3. On the top end, The GN-1 site claims a 115 mph top speed, while the Piet
site
claims 90 mph. Again, what do you think? Is the GN-1 115 mph claim for a "top
speed in level flight," or is that 115 mph really a VNE? Is there really an
apples-to-apples top speed difference?
4. Since the planes are otherwise so similar, I think any REAL differences (e.g.,
"apples-to-apples") pretty much must be attributed to the different shape
in the first 20 percent of their respective airfoils. Is it possible that this
one factor alone would really cause such changes? I can see some differences
in possible stall speeds, or at least more gentle stalls for the GN-1, but
more top end, too?
>
What do you think?
Thanks,
Tim
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
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: Corvair engine disassembly |
Cc: pietenpol-list@matronics.com, "tmbrant1@netzero.com" <tmbrant1@netzero.net>
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
At 2:09 PM +0000 3/8/06, tmbrant1@netzero.com wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tmbrant1@netzero.com"
><tmbrant1@netzero.net>
>
>WW suggests in his manual that unless the studs turn out or are
>pulled out or damaged (rust) that they can be re-used in modest
>applications such as a pietenpol. The top row of studs you're
>talking about shouldn't turn out and shouldn't be damaged or rusted
>because they were continuously bathed in oil inside the head. I
>have dissassembled several engines and the only studs which have
>turned or been damaged in any way are the lower ones. Usually
>they're rusted pretty badly. To make sure if one turns or not, take
>a white out brush and brush on a mark on the outer part of the stud
>and engine case. The rocker studs in the engines I've worked on
>have been pretty easy to remove without disturbing the case / stud
>fit.
>
>I plan to use my upper studs but replace most if not all of my
>lowers and helicoil the lowers as well.
>
>Lot's of opinions on this - do you have WW book? If not, get it,
>ask him questions... He's happy to answer them and see that things
>are done right.
>
>Tom B.
OK!
Lots of opinons here, so I guess everyone can do what they feel
comfortable with. But, to reiterate, my previous post was base on
what WW told all of us in June 2005 at Corvair College # 7 (the one
held at my EAA Chapter clubhouse in Alliance, OH). To the best of my
recollection, there was not a single engine case there that had not
had the studs removed. Based on Jim Ash's comments, and William's
apparent preference for doing this (based on what he recommended we
all do), I personally wouldn't not pull & replace the studs. Yeah,
new studs add a hundred-plus bucks to the rebuild, but given that
with the Corvair, you'd be hard pressed to spend even 1/2 the cost of
an A65 overhaul unless you were going with the large-cylinder version
or adding a turbo, 5th bearing, etc. it's just not worth NOT doing it.
As far as I'm concerned, the keys to doing this right, based on that
event were:
Retapping the holes using the 'homemade' tap/stud tool.
Setting ALL the studs in LocTite 620, not just studs that were
heli-coiled because of stripped holes.
My 2nd 2cents
Kip
--
North Canton, OH
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: | mystery plane in Manhattan |
Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my employer.
what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
Manhattan?
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: | mystery plane in Manhattan |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
I think the more important question is - why are those two brownish
buildings leaning into the others?
I think you've come across some funky composite or Photoshopped image (...
maybe even created by the DeeJ himself???)
>From: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:56:57 -0700
>
>Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my
>employer.
>
>what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
>Manhattan?
>
><< plane_manhattan.jpg >>
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: mystery plane in Manhattan |
That's odd. Did you find that on Google earth? It looks like a biplane.
Perhaps it is a kids playground? Who knows?
Believe it or not, there is a photo of downtown Manhattan taken from a
Pietenpol.... It was published in one of the 1980's BPA calendars. In the photo,
the Piet is well below the top floor... probably about 70 floors up... just
puttering along among the sky-scrapers.
Anyone on the list know the story behind that Piet Photo?
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: mystery plane in Manhattan |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
I promise... I did nothing to the image. it's for all to see if you google
earth manhattan. The buildings are likely leaning in towards another
because the image is a composite of two or more photos taken from different
sattelites at different times.
wierd wierd wierd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:41 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams"
> <ewilliams805@msn.com>
>
> I think the more important question is - why are those two brownish
> buildings leaning into the others?
>
> I think you've come across some funky composite or Photoshopped image (...
> maybe even created by the DeeJ himself???)
>
>
>>From: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
>>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
>>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:56:57 -0700
>>
>>Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my
>>employer.
>>
>>what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
>>Manhattan?
>>
>
>
>><< plane_manhattan.jpg >>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
>
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: mystery plane in Manhattan |
I believe the Pietenpol was flying along the Hudson River corridor and not among
the skyscapers.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: BARNSTMR@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
That's odd. Did you find that on Google earth? It looks like a biplane. Perhaps
it is a kids playground? Who knows?
Believe it or not, there is a photo of downtown Manhattan taken from a Pietenpol....
It was published in one of the 1980's BPA calendars. In the photo, the
Piet is well below the top floor... probably about 70 floors up... just puttering
along among the sky-scrapers.
Anyone on the list know the story behind that Piet Photo?
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! --
|