Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:44 AM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Hans Vander Voort)
2. 06:23 AM - Piet/GN-1 performance (Gene Beenenga)
3. 08:30 AM - Re: Piet/GN-1 performance (Steve Ruse)
4. 10:11 AM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Rick Holland)
5. 11:18 AM - Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank (Hans Vander Voort)
6. 06:53 PM - Wood Ink Test (Alan Lyscars)
7. 08:32 PM - Re: Wood Ink Test (Catdesign)
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: | Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Bill & Rick,
I extended the BHP Corvair engine mount by 1/2 Inch.
The rest is standard long fuselage as per plans.
Cabanes leaning back slightly.
The 1/2 inch extension in the motor mount is needed for the Corvair
build-on Oil filter to clear the firewall.
I have a stainless steel sheet and Fibrefrax covering the firewall.
An FAA requirement not needed in the good old days when BHP build his.
The stainless and Fibrefrax add about 1/4 inch.
There are other ways of achieving the same.
Hans
"Bill Church"
<eng@canadianroge
rs.com> To
Sent by: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure
testing a welding aluminum fuel
03/16/2006 04:13 tank
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
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 <eng@canadianrogers.com> 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=page2.jpg&PhotoID=2271
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 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: | Piet/GN-1 performance |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd@earthlink.net>
attn Piet/GN-1 pilots:
I need some input from those of you that have experience with the GN-1 in particular,
but more so, those of you that have flown off short grass.
What I need is a few examples verified of actual "roll out distance on grass" to
clear a 15' obsticle at take off. Even though may particular situation has
no obstacles at either end of this EW strip but farm ground and a country road
at one of the ends. The altitude varies 2 feet from one end to the other and
is at 680' MSL
Here is the situation, i am trying to get dept. of aeronautics to approve a 1330'
grass strip for "restricted use for specified aircraft (i.e. GN-1)", they want
some "performance input" on this scenerio. Other factor(s) include; stock
Corvair turning 3100 RPM on a 2 blade warp drive, 68" ground adjustable prop.
The gear on my GN-1 is basically a J4 with standard tires, and a 4" Scott tail.
"Mean" Gene
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: Piet/GN-1 performance |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
Gene,
My GN-1 is based at a 2,100' grass strip, and even with two people I routinely
get up in 1,000' or less, even with 18 gallons of fuel. This is with an A-75
turning a 68"x42 prop near 2,400 RPM static. With just me on board and a
slight headwind, I can get off in a few hundred feet.
Here is a picture of the field showing obstructions.
http://www.wotelectronics.com/O44.jpg
On runway 35, I am always up before the "slight bump" indicated in the
picture,
even with two people. Elevation is 1,135'MSL.
Hope this helps, let me know if I can provide any other information.
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
Quoting Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd@earthlink.net>:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd@earthlink.net>
>
> attn Piet/GN-1 pilots:
>
> I need some input from those of you that have experience with the
> GN-1 in particular, but more so, those of you that have flown off
> short grass.
>
> What I need is a few examples verified of actual "roll out distance
> on grass" to clear a 15' obsticle at take off. Even though may
> particular situation has no obstacles at either end of this EW strip
> but farm ground and a country road at one of the ends. The altitude
> varies 2 feet from one end to the other and is at 680' MSL
>
> Here is the situation, i am trying to get dept. of aeronautics to
> approve a 1330' grass strip for "restricted use for specified
> aircraft (i.e. GN-1)", they want some "performance input" on this
> scenerio. Other factor(s) include; stock Corvair turning 3100 RPM on
> a 2 blade warp drive, 68" ground adjustable prop. The gear on my
> GN-1 is basically a J4 with standard tires, and a 4" Scott tail.
>
> "Mean" Gene
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: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Thanks Hans, just to make sure I understand do you know the measurement from
your firewall to the center of the rear engine mount bolt on your engine
mount tray?
Rick
On 3/17/06, Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com> wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <
> hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>
> Bill & Rick,
>
> I extended the BHP Corvair engine mount by 1/2 Inch.
> The rest is standard long fuselage as per plans.
> Cabanes leaning back slightly.
>
> The 1/2 inch extension in the motor mount is needed for the Corvair
> build-on Oil filter to clear the firewall.
>
> I have a stainless steel sheet and Fibrefrax covering the firewall.
> An FAA requirement not needed in the good old days when BHP build his.
> The stainless and Fibrefrax add about 1/4 inch.
>
> There are other ways of achieving the same.
>
> Hans
>
>
> "Bill Church"
> <eng@canadianroge
> rs.com> To
> Sent by: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> owner-pietenpol-l cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com Subject
> RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure
> testing a welding aluminum fuel
> 03/16/2006 04:13 tank
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
> 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 <eng@canadianrogers.com> 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.
>
>
=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=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Rick,
I would have to measure it, all I have right now is: I clear the Stainless
steel firewall by 1/4 inch
On the motor mount I just moved the engine mounting points 1/2 inch
forward.
Still using the original BHP design Corvair motor mount.
I also used the urethane bushings that William Wynne suggests, this also
moves the engine up a little.
Keep on building
Hans
"Rick Holland"
<at7000ft@gmail.c
om> To
Sent by: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure
testing a welding aluminum fuel
03/17/2006 12:08 tank
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Thanks Hans, just to make sure I understand do you know the measurement
from your firewall to the center of the rear engine mount bolt on your
engine mount tray?
Rick
On 3/17/06, Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com> wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <
hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Bill & Rick,
I extended the BHP Corvair engine mount by 1/2 Inch.
The rest is standard long fuselage as per plans.
Cabanes leaning back slightly.
The 1/2 inch extension in the motor mount is needed for the Corvair
build-on Oil filter to clear the firewall.
I have a stainless steel sheet and Fibrefrax covering the firewall.
An FAA requirement not needed in the good old days when BHP build his.
The stainless and Fibrefrax add about 1/4 inch.
There are other ways of achieving the same.
Hans
"Bill Church"
<eng@canadianroge
rs.com>
To
Sent by: < pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
owner-pietenpol-l
cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com
Subject
RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure
testing a welding aluminum fuel
03/16/2006 04:13 tank
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
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 <eng@canadianrogers.com> 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=page2.jpg&PhotoID=2271
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.============================================ ="
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
">http://www.matronics================================================ p;
-Matt Dralle, Li> ===================================================
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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 |
|
Ok fellows, I've lost my marbles.
Somewhere in my stack of stuff I've got an article about testing wood grain direction
with india ink. I can't remember which publication it's in: Sport Aviation
Tips, Wood, etc.
I've got a chance to purchase some Sitka here in Maine (been at the lumberyard
for about a year, having been brought in from the West Coast on special order
for another customer) for $8 per foot (full 2"x6"). VERY straight grain, with
rings averaging 21 per inch (low 18 rpi, high 30 rpi) throughout the full six
inch width.
Do any of you guys remember this article--maybe from Forest Products Lab publication,
AC 43.13, etc.?
Thanx,
Alan
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: Wood Ink Test |
How about this one. See page 2 under Flat Grain Slope. Dont know where this
came from.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Lyscars
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood Ink Test
Ok fellows, I've lost my marbles.
Somewhere in my stack of stuff I've got an article about testing wood grain
direction with india ink. I can't remember which publication it's in:
Sport Aviation Tips, Wood, etc.
I've got a chance to purchase some Sitka here in Maine (been at the
lumberyard for about a year, having been brought in from the West Coast on
special order for another customer) for $8 per foot (full 2"x6"). VERY
straight grain, with rings averaging 21 per inch (low 18 rpi, high 30 rpi)
throughout the full six inch width.
Do any of you guys remember this article--maybe from Forest Products Lab
publication, AC 43.13, etc.?
Thanx,
Alan
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! --
|