---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 03/17/06: 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:44:33 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank From: Hans Vander Voort --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort 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" To Sent by: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:23:12 AM PST US From: Gene Beenenga Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet/GN-1 performance --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gene Beenenga 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:30:48 AM PST US From: Steve Ruse Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet/GN-1 performance --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse 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 : > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gene Beenenga > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:11:52 AM PST US From: "Rick Holland" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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" > rs.com> To > Sent by: > 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:18:10 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank From: Hans Vander Voort --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort 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" 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 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" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:53:52 PM PST US From: "Alan Lyscars" 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 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:32:59 PM PST US From: "Catdesign" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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