---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 03/16/06: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:28 AM - Re: Warner 145 radial (BARNSTMR@aol.com) 2. 06:39 AM - Re: Warner 145 radial (Carl Vought) 3. 07:35 AM - Re: Warner 145 radial (John Hofmann) 4. 08:09 AM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Rick Holland) 5. 08:22 AM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Rick Holland) 6. 10:27 AM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (The Schuerrs) 7. 11:12 AM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Rick Holland) 8. 12:15 PM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (The Schuerrs) 9. 02:12 PM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Bill Church) 10. 02:57 PM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Rick Holland) 11. 06:18 PM - Corvair update... (Oscar Zuniga) 12. 07:12 PM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Glenn Thomas) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:28:22 AM PST US From: BARNSTMR@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial Carl's photo has a 7 cyl Warner it appears. Bill Church's photo has a 5 cyl LeBlond I think. Terry ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:39:58 AM PST US From: "Carl Vought" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial RE: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radialChris...I don't think you're wrong. The photo you attached appears to be the same airplane that is pictured in my attachment of 3/14/06. The back of the photo that I scanned is annotated "497AR Lowel C. Frank (Warner 145) PO Box 581 Okauchee, WI 53069.....Carl Vought ----- Original Message ----- From: Catdesign To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial I always thought this was Mr. Franks plane. But I guess I was wrong. Do not archive Chris Tracy Sacramento, Ca ----- Original Message ----- From: bike.mike To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial Different engines, too. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Church To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:01 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial Was just looking at the photo submitted by Carl Vought compared to the one I took at Brodhead 2004. It's the same plane with clearly two different engine mounts - one quite a bit longer than the other. Don't know the story behind it. Bill C. --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" --> Oscar, I have this one posted to Photoshare (from Brodhead 2004) http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/eng@canadianrogers.com.07.29.2004/NX497AR.jpg Bill C. --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" --> Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet? Thanks. Oscar Zuniga ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:35:38 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial From: John Hofmann Lowell replaced the Warner with a Lambert. He had that engine on the plane at Brodhead last summer. I may have a photo. -john- > Chris...I don't think you're wrong. The photo you attached appears to be the > same airplane that is pictured in my attachment of 3/14/06. The back of the > photo that I scanned is annotated "497AR Lowel C. Frank (Warner 145) PO Box > 581 Okauchee, WI 53069.....Carl Vought >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Catdesign >> >> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:20 PM >> >> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial >> >> >> >> I always thought this was Mr. Franks plane. But I guess I was wrong. >> >> >> >> Do not archive >> >> >> >> Chris Tracy >> Sacramento, Ca >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: bike.mike >>> >>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:21 PM >>> >>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial >>> >>> >>> >>> Different engines, too. >>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> From: Bill Church >>>> >>>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:01 PM >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Was just looking at the photo submitted by Carl Vought compared to the one >>>> I took at Brodhead 2004. It's the same plane with clearly two different >>>> engine mounts - one quite a bit longer than the other. Don't know the >>>> story behind it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill C. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oscar, >>>> >>>> >>>> I have this one posted to Photoshare (from Brodhead 2004) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/eng@canadianrogers.com.07.29.2004/NX497 >>>> AR.jpg >>>> >>> 7AR.jpg> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill C. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> Oscar Zuniga >>>> > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:09:07 AM PST US From: "Rick Holland" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Actually if you compare the long fuse with the 1933-1934 plans and On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote: > > > Rick, > > You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans > 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches. > As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the > fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, > before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to > 1956 article with letter written by BHP) > > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271 > > > Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage > extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the > supplementary plans. > > Of course, as long as your weight and balance work out (i.e. the new > firewall position allows enough room to mount your engine), the only > difference would be the length of your motor mounts, and you get to make use > of that "empty" space that some have ended up with when their W&B > calculations indicated that they needed to extend their motor mounts by > several inches. It will be interesting to see how your numbers work out - > keep us all posted. > > Bill > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto: > owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland > *Sent:* March 13, 2006 9:15 AM > > *To: * pietenpol-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel > tank > > I am using the long fuselage plans and extended the front 6 inches (per > Bernard's recommendation) ... > > Rick H. > > -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:22:41 AM PST US From: "Rick Holland" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Bill If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further back. Rick H. On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote: > > > Rick, > > You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans > 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches. > As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the > fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, > before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to > 1956 article with letter written by BHP) > > > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271 > > Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage > extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the > supplementary plans. > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:27:05 AM PST US From: "The Schuerrs" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank So, if you were to recommend a set of plans, which one would you recommend for a corvair engine? I don't mind buying plans that I need, I just don't want to be redundant. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Bill If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further back. Rick H. On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote: Rick, You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches. As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to 1956 article with letter written by BHP) http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271 Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the supplementary plans. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 11:12:37 AM PST US From: "Rick Holland" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Bill Since I am only a humble Piet builder, and have never flown or finished one (yet), my opinion is worth very little (almost nothing). However, I have talked to William Wayne, the Corvair god who built and flew a Corvair Piet for hundreds of hours, about this and he highly recommends the long fuselage. Here is one of his email replies to this question: *Subj: Pietenpol Power Curve, Props* Date: 6/6/03 My nephew & I are researching the possibility of using a Corvair engine on a Pietenpol. Do you have available the power curve on the engines?? What prop would you recommend?? Thanks. Harry Myers, harrymyr@vtc.net *Reply from WW: * As you already know, the Corvair is the ideal engine for the Pietenpol. The updated LONG FUSELAGEdrawings available from the Pietenpol family are the most ideal ones to build from for Corvair power. The Corvair engine, built according to my Conversion Manual (available for $59 in the U.S. (and $64 including S&H outside the U.S.), by check or money order payable to William Wynne, P.O. Box 290802, Port Orange, FL 32129-0802, or by credit card via PayPal at the Online Catalog ) produces about 80hp at 2,800rpm, 90hp at 2,950 and 100hp at 3,100rpm. I sell 2-blade Warp Drive 68" ground adjustable propellers for Pietenpols, the same prop I flew for years on my own Pietenpol with great satisfaction. Most guys flying wood props use 66" diameter with a pitch in the range of 30-34". Happy building and flying your family project. If you haven't already, check out his web site at http://www.flycorvair.com/and you will want to get one of his Corvair conversion manuals if you are thinking about Corvair power. Good luck. Rick H On 3/16/06, The Schuerrs wrote: > > So, if you were to recommend a set of plans, which one would you recommend > for a corvair engine? I don't mind buying plans that I need, I just don't > want to be redundant. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Rick Holland > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:21 AM > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel > tank > > Bill > > If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side > you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, > everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum > the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" > further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 > 3/8" further back. > > Rick H. > > On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote: > > > > > > Rick, > > > > You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans > > 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches. > > As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the > > fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, > > before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to > > 1956 article with letter written by BHP) > > > > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271 > > > > > > Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage > > extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the > > supplementary plans. > > > > -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:15:39 PM PST US From: "The Schuerrs" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Bill Since I am only a humble Piet builder, and have never flown or finished one (yet), my opinion is worth very little (almost nothing). However, I have talked to William Wayne, the Corvair god who built and flew a Corvair Piet for hundreds of hours, about this and he highly recommends the long fuselage. Here is one of his email replies to this question: Subj: Pietenpol Power Curve, Props Date: 6/6/03 My nephew & I are researching the possibility of using a Corvair engine on a Pietenpol. Do you have available the power curve on the engines?? What prop would you recommend?? Thanks. Harry Myers, harrymyr@vtc.net Reply from WW: As you already know, the Corvair is the ideal engine for the Pietenpol. The updated LONG FUSELAGE drawings available from the Pietenpol family are the most ideal ones to build from for Corvair power. The Corvair engine, built according to my Conversion Manual (available for $59 in the U.S. (and $64 including S&H outside the U.S.), by check or money order payable to William Wynne, P.O. Box 290802, Port Orange, FL 32129-0802, or by credit card via PayPal at the Online Catalog) produces about 80hp at 2,800rpm, 90hp at 2,950 and 100hp at 3,100rpm. I sell 2-blade Warp Drive 68" ground adjustable propellers for Pietenpols, the same prop I flew for years on my own Pietenpol with great satisfaction. Most guys flying wood props use 66" diameter with a pitch in the range of 30-34". Happy building and flying your family project. If you haven't already, check out his web site at http://www.flycorvair.com/ and you will want to get one of his Corvair conversion manuals if you are thinking about Corvair power. Good luck. Rick H On 3/16/06, The Schuerrs wrote: So, if you were to recommend a set of plans, which one would you recommend for a corvair engine? I don't mind buying plans that I need, I just don't want to be redundant. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Bill If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further back. Rick H. On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote: Rick, You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches. As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to 1956 article with letter written by BHP) http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271 Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the supplementary plans. -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 02:12:53 PM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank From: "Bill Church" Rick, Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two fuselages. The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The "improved" fuselage was designed around the Ford model A, and the "supplementary" fuselage was intended for the lighter Continental and Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary drawings for the Continental and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding is that BHP found that the lighter engines had to be mounted further from the firewall (for W&B), and then determined that the tail had to be extended to balance the longer nose (for handling). The trick is to find the right balance, and my assumption is that the supplementary plans must be very close to where things should be. I think one thing that contributes to the confusion is that the drawings don't show a fuselage with the engine mounted. It would be interesting to see the differences between the various powerplant/fuselage combinations side-by-side. But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the engine mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than the engine mounts seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit much). Like you said, you may end up with the first Piet with the cabanes leaning forward. Bill C. ________________________________ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Holland Sent: March 16, 2006 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Bill If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further back. Rick H. On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote: Rick, You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches. As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to 1956 article with letter written by BHP) =09 http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&Ph otoID=3D2271 Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the supplementary plans. =09 =09 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 02:57:27 PM PST US From: "Rick Holland" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank That's correct Bill, the Ford engine weighs around 260 lbs and I don't know if that includes the radiator and water. The C-65/75/85s most people put in their Piets weight from 165-190 lbs. and they nearly all have to move their wings back 3 to 4 inches to balance. Based on my previous discussion if the long fuselage was used with these they may have to move their wings back a bit further. When I talked to William Wayne about this he said his Piet was a short fuselage and he built his mount to set his engine 15" from the firewall (firewall to rear engine mount bolt). This allowed him to have vertical cabanes. In his manual he says that the Corvair can be mounted as close as 8 1/2" (front starter and remote oil filter). That's a difference of 6 1/2", given that I am heaver than William (and always will be) and I am building the long fuselage theoretically a 6" fuselage extension may be just right. If I were going to do it again I think I would compromise at 3". However since I have not varnished anything yet and have not glued the side plywood or firewall on cutting off a few inches wouldn't take more than an hour or two. Rick H On 3/16/06, Bill Church wrote: > > Rick, > > Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two > fuselages. The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The > "improved" fuselage was designed around the Ford model A, and the > "supplementary" fuselage was intended for the lighter Continental and > Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary drawings for the Continental > and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding is that BHP found that the > lighter engines had to be mounted further from the firewall (for W&B), and > then determined that the tail had to be extended to balance the longer nose > (for handling). The trick is to find the right balance, and my assumption is > that the supplementary plans must be very close to where things should be. I > think one thing that contributes to the confusion is that the drawings don't > show a fuselage with the engine mounted. It would be interesting to see the > differences between the various powerplant/fuselage combinations > side-by-side. > But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the > engine mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than the > engine mounts seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit much). Like > you said, you may end up with the first Piet with the cabanes leaning > forward. > > Bill C. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto: > owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland > *Sent:* March 16, 2006 11:31 AM > > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel > tank > > Bill > > If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side > you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, > everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum > the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" > further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 > 3/8" further back. > > Rick H. > > On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote: > > > > > > Rick, > > > > You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans > > 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches. > > As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the > > fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, > > before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to > > 1956 article with letter written by BHP) > > > > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271 > > > > > > Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage > > extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the > > supplementary plans. > > > > -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:18:10 PM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair update... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" ...William Wynne's website, is at http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html The latest to fly, Phil Maxson's CH601. Also a bit of info on a distributor modification that William is now offering. Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:12:49 PM PST US From: "Glenn Thomas" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Church To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Rick, Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two fuselages. The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The "improved" fuselage was designed around the Ford model A, and the "supplementary" fuselage was intended for the lighter Continental and Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary drawings for the Continental and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding is that BHP found that the lighter engines had to be mounted further from the firewall (for W&B), and then determined that the tail had to be extended to balance the longer nose (for handling). The trick is to find the right balance, and my assumption is that the supplementary plans must be very close to where things should be. I think one thing that contributes to the confusion is that the drawings don't show a fuselage with the engine mounted. It would be interesting to see the differences between the various powerplant/fuselage combinations side-by-side. But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the engine mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than the engine mounts seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit much). Like you said, you may end up with the first Piet with the cabanes leaning forward. Bill C. From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Holland Sent: March 16, 2006 11:31 AM To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank Bill If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further back. Rick H. On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote: Rick, You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches. As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to 1956 article with letter written by BHP) http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271 Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the supplementary plans.