Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:49 AM - Re: Interesting trim ()
2. 04:49 AM - Re: Interesting trim ()
3. 04:53 AM - Pietenpol trim (TBYH@aol.com)
4. 06:10 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers (Glenn Thomas)
5. 06:11 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers (Gene Beenenga)
6. 06:11 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers (Hans Vander Voort)
7. 06:37 AM - Fuel Problems (Steve Glass)
8. 06:45 AM - Re: Fuel Problems (Hans Vander Voort)
9. 06:50 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply (Jim Ash)
10. 08:40 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply (Rob Stapleton)
11. 09:27 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply (Hans Vander Voort)
12. 10:29 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply (Jim Ash)
13. 10:29 AM - Re: Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply ()
14. 10:38 AM - Wings and Wheels Fly-In on June 11th - Lansing, Illinois (Russ Knaack)
15. 10:56 AM - Calling all TACO members! (DJ Vegh)
16. 11:08 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers ()
17. 11:08 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers (Jim Ash)
18. 11:10 AM - seat question (Dan Loegering)
19. 12:09 PM - Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply ()
20. 12:16 PM - Re: Interesting trim (walt evans)
21. 04:47 PM - Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply (MICHAEL SILVIUS)
22. 05:00 PM - Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply (Mark Blackwell)
23. 07:01 PM - tailcone access (Oscar Zuniga)
24. 07:17 PM - Re: seat question (Dick Navratil)
25. 08:54 PM - The Canadians sure like the Pietenpol (Matt Naiva)
26. 10:53 PM - Re: The Canadians sure like the Pietenpol (Clif Dawson)
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: | Interesting trim |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
Gliders use water to control ballist.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Glass
Sent: May 3, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Interesting trim
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Glass"
<redsglass@hotmail.com>
Hi Ken
Perhaps you hit on something. Yachts are using active trim tanks
usually
side to side to reduce heel. Perhaps you could install a small soda
bottle
fore and aft with a a manual trim pump in the cockpit. Putting the tank
as
far aft as possible would give you a good amount of moment. You could
even
have a third port in the cockpit so you could have a little drink while
flying along. It could be a problem in the winter with freeze up but
I'm
sure some suitable ducting could be worked out.
Could call it the wet trim system. Thinking more about it the weight
penalty is not good perhaps Helium ballons stuffed in each end with a
transfer.............................
Steve G
>From: KMHeide <kmheidecpo@yahoo.com>
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Interesting trim
>Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Clif,
>
> The first thing you would have to do is figure out the amount of
urine
>stored inside the bladder. Then applying some mathematical
calculations,
>you can determine the weight of the uric acid versus untainted liquid
water
>to arrive at a weight per ounce. Then subtract that number from 6.6033
to
>determine the correct amount of ballast within the bladder. In the
sagittal
>plane you need to calculate the arm for weight and balance to find a
>starting point of adjusted movement of weight relative to center of
gravity
>in the aircraft and the human body. Then and only then can you get the
true
>accurate number of forward weight deflection within the cabin of a
pilot
>who has to pee......
>
> Ken
>
>Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson
>
>I've been told you can do the same sticking your
>arms out. :-)
>
>And a question. A pilot takes off from airport A.
>As the flight progresses, the pilot finds himself
>needing to pee. By the time he reaches his
>destination, airport B, his bladder is full.
>
>How does this accumulation of fluid affect W+B ?
>
>Clif
>
>
> > Hi Guys...
> > I figured out something really cool the other morning while flying.
> > Others I'm sure have figured this out too. I don't have any kind of
>pitch
> > trim. I have a nose tank that holds about 14.5 gallons. While
somewhere
> > around 8 gallons it is pretty much in trim in pitch with my weight.
If I
> > let go of the stick and leaned back it slowly pitches up. If I
leaned
> > forward it slowly pitches down. I know it only makes sense but I
don't
> > think I've ever flown anything that is so easily affected by weight
> > movement!
> > Don Emch
> >
>
>
>---------------------------------
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: | Interesting trim |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
This message has absolutely nothing to do with the Pietenpol but I
couldn't resist with all this talk of balance and such.I know some of
you guys own there have pools because a few have sent pics with them in
the pools.The next time your in the pool try this;lay on your back and
put your arms over your head and take a deep breath.Your feet and legs
will come up and you can float on top of the water with no trouble at
all.Drop your hands to your side and your feet and legs will sink.Women
do not have to put their arms over their heads because they have
boobs.The fatter you are the better this works because fat is
floatable.If your ever out in the water and you don't have a floatation
device on and your tuckered out from swimming to shore try this to relax
and save strength ,it may save your life.
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of walt
evans
Sent: May 3, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Interesting trim
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <waltdak@verizon.net>
Don,
I used to mess with the trim on a Cessna. Trim it perfectly, then lean
forard and put your hands over the inst. panel. Down you go. same with
leaning back in the seat with hands over head. Up you go.
Here's something that I've tried, and not too many had heard of
it.....Trim
out a plane at a certain alt. Say 1000 ft. Now don't touch the trim,
but
pull up and climb to 2000 ft. Let go of the stick/wheel, and it will
slightly nose down and slowly lose altitude. The rate of decent will
slowly
diminish, and it will settle back exactly at 1000 ft. So the trim will
be
different on any day for any density altitude.
Neat trick.
Also flew my old Fisher 404 from a nearby airport back to my home
airport
(about 15 mi) hands off, just sticking my fingertips out each side of
the
windshield, as needed, to turn and correct heading. Try it,, it's fun
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Interesting trim
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
>
> Hi Guys...
> I figured out something really cool the other morning while flying.
> Others I'm sure have figured this out too. I don't have any kind of
pitch
> trim. I have a nose tank that holds about 14.5 gallons. While
somewhere
> around 8 gallons it is pretty much in trim in pitch with my weight.
If I
> let go of the stick and leaned back it slowly pitches up. If I leaned
> forward it slowly pitches down. I know it only makes sense but I
don't
> think I've ever flown anything that is so easily affected by weight
> movement!
> Don Emch
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=32441#32441
>
>
>
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 |
|
I used to try that "Look Ma, no hands!" and "Watch this!" stuff on bicycles,
usually with bad results!
Anybody tried filling the tires with helium? Every little bit of lift helps,
right? : )
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
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 Flyers |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas@flyingwood.com>
Got the same type of response from the ABDAR and various folks in my EAA chapter.
He didn't say he wouldn't do the maiden or assist in his capacity as Tech
Counselor but I also got a lot of "encouragement" to abandon the Corvair idea.
In fact I was encouraged to abandon the idea of building a Pietenpol which is
said is a "dangerous" plane. I think he is just looking out for me since the
Piet seems to require a little more skill than the average plane, and although
I'm building the plane, I am not a pilot. I'll be interested in seeing the
responses.
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=32727#32727
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: Corvair Flyers |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd@earthlink.net>
Here is another way of responding to your "Alaskan logic";
the difference between a Corvair engine a Continental or Lycoming is that those
"airplane" motors are wired together! Same cast metal, same iron, same steel
or aluminum, same bolts, except the "airplane" ones have holes in them!
Somewhere I heard, (it may have been some drunks around a campfire), "GM put more
man hours into engineering desgin of the Corvair motor for use in aircraft
engine than did Lycoming and Continental combined put into the design of their
engine"! Otherwise. there is no diffence, other than when those damn lawyers
get envolved.
yours truly, Mean Gene
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rob Stapleton <foto@alaska.net>
>Sent: May 4, 2006 1:37 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers
>
>To all Corvair flyers:
>
>
>
>This afternoon I visited an open house at a local FBO and float storage
>business at Lake Hood here in Anchorage. I went specifically to find an A&P
>that had been identified as an EAA technical advisor who works there.
>
>
>
>After asking him if he would be available to help me with my project he said
>"sometimes," and asked what kind of project I was working on? When I told
>him about the Pietenpol project, and that it came with a turbo-charged
>Corvair engine, he immediately said, "I am not a fan of automotive engines
>in aircraft, those Pientenpol builders seem to like them, but then again
>they are flying over farms and fields, and up here we don't have any of
>those, so if your engine quits..My advice to you is to get a 0-200 or an 85
>horse engine for $15-16,000 and forget about the Corvair.
>
>
>
>My question is how many of you using Corvair engines have encountered
>mechanical or carb ice problems while flying with this type of engine, and
>been forced to land as a result of either?
>
>
>
>Don't worry, I am not easily intimidated, and will forge on despite this
>type of blatant opinion.
>
>
>
>Rob Stapleton
>
>Birchwood, Alaska
>
>
>
>
>
>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
>
>
>
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: Corvair Flyers |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Rob,
I fly a Corvair since late August of last year, I am still working away on
the 40 Hour test period, weather and work have been getting in the way.
A few hours in to the test phase I had a engine out and had to make a off
field landing, which was no problem as I had enough altitude to find a good
field.
No damage to the Airplane and a few experiences wiser.
The engine out was caused by a fuel starvation problem.
I used a 11 gallon wing tank and a 2 gallon header tank, the 2 gallon tank
was empty when I landed. ( could hear the fuel flowing back in when I was
on the ground)
The original system had a ventilation line on the 2 gallon header tank to
avoid air in this tank.
However in flight this vent would create a pressure on the header tank that
stop all fuel from the main tank.
The vent cap of the main tank is also in a low pressure area on the wing,
which contributed to the problem.
I made some fix with a check valve on the header tank vent line ( air
allowed out but not in) and re-arranged the vent line to avoid excess
pressure.
I flew another 4-5 hours this way but was never comfortable with it.
A 2 gallon header tank gives you about 25 minutes of airtime at which time
you get the urge to land.
I finally removed the 2 gallon header tank and replaced it with Piper J3
tank in the nose (12.5 Gallons) it shifted my CG forward which I
compensated with changing my exhaust system ( changed the cast iron
manifolds for a much lighter header system)
Been flying with that setup for more than 20 hours now and have had no
problems.
My Corvair is a '65 , 110HP Corvair conversion as per William Wynne manual.
It is a very smooth and powerful engine, I would rate its reliability as
very high, very close to a Continental.
If it had dual spark plugs it would be an equal.
Still fly with a non nitrated Crankshaft too, although I have a spare one
that is being nitrated.
If I had a O-200, C90/85 I would have used it,only because you do not have
to deal with a 40 Test phase (25 hours if you have a aircraft engine)
Of course there is money issue as well, total expense on my Corvair was
6,000- US with all moving parts to new specs, I did not cut any corners on
rebuilding the engine. (the crank in hindsight being the exception)
Furthermore I believe two more Pietenpols had to make a forced landing last
year, both Continental powered, go figure..
It is very rarely the engine that causes a problem it is most likely the
systems around it that fail.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Glass" <redsglass@hotmail.com>
Hi Guys
I was wondering if anybody has done any studies on engine out causes. We
all hear the horror stories of cranks breaking but I bet that 90% of the
time an engine stops. It is out of fuel for one reason or another.
Aircraft or auto no fuel no go.
Does anybody know of any hard data out there?
Steve G
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: | Re: Fuel Problems |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Steve
NTSB has done this accross all aircraft (www.ntsb.gov)
The Fuel system is one of the main reasons for engine out causes.
Hans
"Steve Glass"
<redsglass@hotmai
l.com> To
Sent by: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Fuel Problems
05/04/2006 08:36
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Glass" <redsglass@hotmail.com>
Hi Guys
I was wondering if anybody has done any studies on engine out causes. We
all hear the horror stories of cranks breaking but I bet that 90% of the
time an engine stops. It is out of fuel for one reason or another.
Aircraft or auto no fuel no go.
Does anybody know of any hard data out there?
Steve G
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
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: | Corvair Flyers - long reply |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash
Good reply.
Yes, I have read Wynne's website info and the story by an obvious
follower
of his, also a journalist.
My thinking is, if carb ice is a problem with this engine, then what has
been done to thwart it. Wynne makes reference to a joint carb heat
device
that as you throttle back applies carb heat. I talked with a guy who up
here
who ran the Corvair in VW buses, and he said they are "very" prone to
icing
up and also uses them in air boats and more than once has seen ice build
up
on them, and even wrapped the manifold with asbestos cloth to help the
problem.
What kind of baffling and other devices have been tried, and is there a
correlation to the size of the intake manifold and carb set-up that
contributes to this problem?
I sent Wynne this question, and have not heard back from him yet.
RS
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Ash
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers - long reply
In the summer of 2001, William Wynne, 'the Corvair Authority'
(http://www.flycorvair.com/) himself, had an engine failure in his own
Pietenpol. Note that according to the online aviation databases, William
holds an A&P but no pilot ratings. There were two in the aircraft and
the
other guy was officially the pilot. The plane went down and caught fire,
severely burning William. The investigation attributes the accident to
carbuteror ice. There's a write-up about the incident on his web site,
or
you can find the accident report on the NTSB web site.
In the last 20 years or so, the definition of 'experimental' has become
skewed to mean "a reliable airplane based on somebody else's kit or
plans".
Because of the proliferation of available kits, plans, engines, etc,
this
has become an expectation with homebuilders. At the end of the day, YOU
ARE
THE MANUFACTURER. Years back, I had a casual conversation at Sun 'n Fun
with
Bob Barrows, the guy who engineered and sells plans for the Bearhawk,
about
his take on liability. Bob's response was "Here's what I did, and
anybody
who wants to attempt to try what I did is welcome'. This approach
absolves
the experimental suppliers from liability, which in turn allows these
airplanes to be built at minimal expense. I'm not a lawyer, I've never
sued
anybody for anything, and I despise inappropriate (my definition /
opinion)
lawsuits. My concern regarding liability isn't about my ability to sue
somebody; it's about my expectation that anybody who engineers something
and
sells it should have enough pride in it to stand behind their work. On
the
flip side, that also means me, as the manufacturer of my homebuilt.
When I bought William's manual back in the mid-late 90's, he had me sign
a
liability waiver before he would give it to me (Does he still do this?).
In
this litigous society, I can't blame William for consulting with his
lawyer
first (In fact I think it was smart) before selling manuals, but it
didn't
instill a lot of confidence in me. I thought (and still do) it was
strange,
having never had to sign a waiver for anything when I bought airplane
stuff
before, but it certainly rams home the 'YOU are the manufacturer'
concept.
It also blatantly reinstates the classical definition of 'experimental'
with
respect to aircraft. Think about it.
I've seen scant few quality (my definition, sorry) Corvair installations
in
aircraft, but they also involved tons of work and skill; way beyond a
normal
engine rebuild and install. I suspect a good lot of the current crop of
Corvair folks are relying too heavily on William's work without
verifying
all the information for themselves, based on the volumes of 'William
says',
I hear at Sun 'n Fun every year and see on this forum, and some of the
shortcuts I've heard people are attempting. You are the manufacturer. Do
the
work. If you don't know how, get help until you know everything about
your
specific engine in your specific airplane. But please don't shortcut the
process because it's cheaper, either in money or in time.
Lots of folks would like to own an airplane for minimal or zero cost,
which
is really what this is about. If you could get a good A-65 for the price
of
a Corvair engine, would you really consider the Corvair? I have an
expectation that quality, reliable stuff is not going to be free, so I
expect to have to spend enough time, brainpower, and money to put a
reliable
airplane in the air. If somebody at the airport said "I just finished
this
plane and I only spent $400 for the whole thing", would you get in it
and go
for a ride with him? I'd be too busy looking for old gate hinges,
lawnmower
control cables, used dental floss and house paint. I'm not a
motorcyclist,
but a long time ago Bell had a one-liner ad for their helmets which
stuck
with me that said "If you've got a ten-dollar head, buy a ten-dollar
helmet". Not this boy.
Don't get me wrong; I do like Corvairs and I've owned many (3 right now)
since the late 70's. And I do my own work on them. You guys can wax
poetic
all you want about Corvair engines in aircraft, the Corvair 'Authority',
and
Corvair Colleges, and hopefully time will prove me wrong (sincerely).
But in
the interim and until the kinks are worked out, I choose to not be one
of
the lab rats in this 'experiment'.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Stapleton
Sent: May 4, 2006 2:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers
To all Corvair flyers:
This afternoon I visited an open house at a local FBO and float storage
business at Lake Hood here in Anchorage. I went specifically to find an
A&P
that had been identified as an EAA technical advisor who works there.
After asking him if he would be available to help me with my project he
said
"sometimes," and asked what kind of project I was working on? When I
told
him about the Pietenpol project, and that it came with a turbo-charged
Corvair engine, he immediately said, "I am not a fan of automotive
engines
in aircraft, those Pientenpol builders seem to like them, but then again
they are flying over farms and fields, and up here we don't have any of
those, so if your engine quits..My advice to you is to get a 0-200 or an
85
horse engine for $15-16,000 and forget about the Corvair.
My question is how many of you using Corvair engines have encountered
mechanical or carb ice problems while flying with this type of engine,
and
been forced to land as a result of either?
Don't worry, I am not easily intimidated, and will forge on despite this
type of blatant opinion.
Rob Stapleton
Birchwood, Alaska
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
such
Chat,
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
List
List
-Matt
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: | Corvair Flyers - long reply |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Rob,
Not my text, I just cut and pasted this from a website:
------As the aircraft carburetor vaporizes fuel, it cools the intake air by
evaporation. The carburetor venturi also cools the air by adiabatically
expanding the intake air, known as the Joule-Thomson Effect. If the air
temperature drops below the dew point, moisture in the air condenses into
water droplets. Thus, water can be present in the carburetor even when
flying in clear skies.
Ice forms near the aircraft carburetor butterfly when water droplets
strike parts of the carburetor (typically the butterfly and venturi) that
are freezing. Freezing is determined by: the outside air temperature, the
temperature drop, and heat absorption from the engine. With the throttle
partly closed, such as in a low power descent, you may have a 10" Hg or
more pressure drop across the throttle butterfly.
The more gasoline the carburetor evaporates, the colder the carburetor. As
your engine idles at the end of the runway, little fuel is evaporating and
the carburetor's temperature may be above freezing. Adding takeoff power
increases the rate of fuel evaporation. Now the carburetor may be cold
enough to form carburetor ice. Your carburetor can get pretty cold. The
heat loss from evaporation of gasoline at the stoichiometric ratio creates
a theoretical temperature drop of 40 degrees F. The adiabatic expansion of
gas across the carburetor's venturi also lowers the temperature. Thus, you
could drop the carburetor temperature to freezing and form carburetor ice
at an ambient temperature of 72 degrees or higher. Stoichiometric is the
leanest possible mixture. At richer mixtures the ambient temperature at
which carburetor ice forms is even higher - Lycoming publishes a
temperature range of twenty to 90 degrees F. for carburetor ice.
Adding alcohol to gasoline dramatically increases the ambient temperature
where ice forms. Evaporating methyl alcohol creates a temperature drop of
300 degrees F. As a result, carburetor ice occurs over a wide range of
temperatures.
Your Continental aircraft engine forms carburetor ice at a higher outside
air temperature than your Lycoming engine since the carburetor on a
Continental engine absorbs less engine heat. Continental mounts the
carburetor to the intake pipes away from engine heat. Lycoming mounts the
carburetor to the oil pan where it absorbs heat from the engine oil. One
side effect of forming carburetor ice at a higher air temperature is that
the warm air holds more moisture than cold air; therefore, you have a
potential for greater carburetor icing with Continental engines than with
Lycoming engines ------
The Corvair WW setup is very similar to a Continental engine and carb heat
must be applied!
During test running of my Corvair on a test stand I could measure (and see
and feel ) the cooling effect right behind the carburetor.
It gets cold ! ...very cold at part throttle, the high humidity will cause
the outside of the intake manifold to get wet (water droplets) image what
happens on the inside.
I copied the setup that Mark Langford uses on his Corvair see
>>http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/airbox/
Not his air box but only his heat pick up around the exhaust manifold.
My exhaust manifold is however not stainless steel (stainless steel is poor
conductor of heat) I used plain carbon steel and painted it black (maximum
heat rejection).
This works very well, the recommended 90 F temperature rise is easily
achieved.
The hot air is robbing a lot of HP, In flight I can feel the extra few
RPM/HP kick-in when I remove Carb heat.
Carb heat is not a problem in summer months in the Houston Texas area, as
temperatures are 90 - 100 degree but rest of the year the temperatures are
varying between 60 to 80 F and humidity is high year round.
I fly with carb heat on constantly, only during take off and taxing on the
ground I use cold filtered air.
Right before take off, during the run up I apply carb heat for about 1
minute with engine at 2500 RPM.
Hans
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: | Corvair Flyers - long reply |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <foto@alaska.net>
This sounds logical and the procedure you use is what I would have imagined. According
to this I would assume that you use carb heat during flight and especially
during throttle back rpm reductions!
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers - long reply
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort
> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
> Rob,
>
> Not my text, I just cut and pasted this from a website:
>
> ------As the aircraft carburetor vaporizes fuel, it cools the
> intake air by
> evaporation. The carburetor venturi also cools the air by
> adiabaticallyexpanding the intake air, known as the Joule-Thomson
> Effect. If the air
> temperature drops below the dew point, moisture in the air
> condenses into
> water droplets. Thus, water can be present in the carburetor even when
> flying in clear skies.
>
>
> Ice forms near the aircraft carburetor butterfly when water droplets
> strike parts of the carburetor (typically the butterfly and
> venturi) that
> are freezing. Freezing is determined by: the outside air
> temperature, the
> temperature drop, and heat absorption from the engine. With the
> throttlepartly closed, such as in a low power descent, you may have
> a 10" Hg or
> more pressure drop across the throttle butterfly.
>
>
> The more gasoline the carburetor evaporates, the colder the
> carburetor. As
> your engine idles at the end of the runway, little fuel is
> evaporating and
> the carburetor's temperature may be above freezing. Adding takeoff
> powerincreases the rate of fuel evaporation. Now the carburetor may
> be cold
> enough to form carburetor ice. Your carburetor can get pretty cold.
> Theheat loss from evaporation of gasoline at the stoichiometric
> ratio creates
> a theoretical temperature drop of 40 degrees F. The adiabatic
> expansion of
> gas across the carburetor's venturi also lowers the temperature.
> Thus, you
> could drop the carburetor temperature to freezing and form
> carburetor ice
> at an ambient temperature of 72 degrees or higher. Stoichiometric
> is the
> leanest possible mixture. At richer mixtures the ambient
> temperature at
> which carburetor ice forms is even higher - Lycoming publishes a
> temperature range of twenty to 90 degrees F. for carburetor ice.
>
>
> Adding alcohol to gasoline dramatically increases the ambient
> temperaturewhere ice forms. Evaporating methyl alcohol creates a
> temperature drop of
> 300 degrees F. As a result, carburetor ice occurs over a wide range of
> temperatures.
>
>
> Your Continental aircraft engine forms carburetor ice at a higher
> outsideair temperature than your Lycoming engine since the
> carburetor on a
> Continental engine absorbs less engine heat. Continental mounts the
> carburetor to the intake pipes away from engine heat. Lycoming
> mounts the
> carburetor to the oil pan where it absorbs heat from the engine
> oil. One
> side effect of forming carburetor ice at a higher air temperature
> is that
> the warm air holds more moisture than cold air; therefore, you have a
> potential for greater carburetor icing with Continental engines
> than with
> Lycoming engines ------
>
> The Corvair WW setup is very similar to a Continental engine and
> carb heat
> must be applied!
> During test running of my Corvair on a test stand I could measure
> (and see
> and feel ) the cooling effect right behind the carburetor.
> It gets cold ! ...very cold at part throttle, the high humidity
> will cause
> the outside of the intake manifold to get wet (water droplets)
> image what
> happens on the inside.
>
> I copied the setup that Mark Langford uses on his Corvair see
> >>http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/airbox/
> Not his air box but only his heat pick up around the exhaust manifold.
> My exhaust manifold is however not stainless steel (stainless steel
> is poor
> conductor of heat) I used plain carbon steel and painted it black
> (maximumheat rejection).
>
> This works very well, the recommended 90 F temperature rise is easily
> achieved.
> The hot air is robbing a lot of HP, In flight I can feel the extra few
> RPM/HP kick-in when I remove Carb heat.
>
> Carb heat is not a problem in summer months in the Houston Texas
> area, as
> temperatures are 90 - 100 degree but rest of the year the
> temperatures are
> varying between 60 to 80 F and humidity is high year round.
>
> I fly with carb heat on constantly, only during take off and taxing
> on the
> ground I use cold filtered air.
> Right before take off, during the run up I apply carb heat for
> about 1
> minute with engine at 2500 RPM.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Wings and Wheels Fly-In on June 11th - Lansing, Illinois |
Hello,
I'm trying to reach Pietenpol folks to let them know about a wings & wheels fly-in event on June 11th at Lansing airport in Lansing, Illinois. I am with the (Ford) Model A Restorer's Club and we are working in conjunction with EAA Chapter 260 out of Lansing. We are, in part, celebrating the 80th anniversary of the historic Ford hangar at the airport, which was built by Henry Ford for his Tri-Motors. There is a good chance that we will have a Ford Tri-Motor at the event. There will also be other antique, modern, and experimental aircraft, as well as a large number of Ford Model A's (and some T's). There will be a pancake breakfast and lunch as well. It would be great to have at least one Pietenpol because of the obvious connection. Please visit www.jolietmarc.org (go to "Upcoming Events") for the full details, or feel free to contact me. Also, feel free to tell anyone else who may be interested (general public welcome).
Best Regards to All,
Russell Knaack, Model A Restorer's Club
Homer Glen, IL
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: | Calling all TACO members! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <dj@veghdesign.com>
put your planes to good use!
I will be helping the Minuteman Project in the near future. Both with my
unmanned helicopters as well as my Grumman Cheetah.
I plan to fly the Cheetah down to the border during an organized Minuteman
field excercise and provide aerial recon for gound based units. I'm
guessing I'll cruise around at about 700-1200' AGL and maybe 80mph or so
looking for illegals for 2 or 3 hours at a time (yes I call them illegals!)
We'll also be trying out one of my new aerial video helicopters to try and
spot illegals. I had a major setback in that business in February but some
things have happened and we're going strong with a couple new helicopters
that aren't as failure prone.
so get your Piets (or whatever you can get your hand on) and help the
Minuteman Project by volunteering some time and gas money to help secure our
borders!!
DJ Vegh
(honorary TACO member & Corona drinker extrodinaire)
PS. yes I drink Corona but I only the drink the stuff that comes here
legally imported.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
A friend of mine installed a Corvair engine in his Christavia with
reduction drive.He flew for about two weeks and then the main bearing
gave out.He switched to Lycoming and has been happy ever since.He sold
the engine to a guy who knew how to manufacture bearings and was very
happy to get the engine.I have not heard how the new owner made out.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans
Vander Voort
Sent: May 4, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort
<hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Rob,
I fly a Corvair since late August of last year, I am still working away
on
the 40 Hour test period, weather and work have been getting in the way.
A few hours in to the test phase I had a engine out and had to make a
off
field landing, which was no problem as I had enough altitude to find a
good
field.
No damage to the Airplane and a few experiences wiser.
The engine out was caused by a fuel starvation problem.
I used a 11 gallon wing tank and a 2 gallon header tank, the 2 gallon
tank
was empty when I landed. ( could hear the fuel flowing back in when I
was
on the ground)
The original system had a ventilation line on the 2 gallon header tank
to
avoid air in this tank.
However in flight this vent would create a pressure on the header tank
that
stop all fuel from the main tank.
The vent cap of the main tank is also in a low pressure area on the
wing,
which contributed to the problem.
I made some fix with a check valve on the header tank vent line ( air
allowed out but not in) and re-arranged the vent line to avoid excess
pressure.
I flew another 4-5 hours this way but was never comfortable with it.
A 2 gallon header tank gives you about 25 minutes of airtime at which
time
you get the urge to land.
I finally removed the 2 gallon header tank and replaced it with Piper J3
tank in the nose (12.5 Gallons) it shifted my CG forward which I
compensated with changing my exhaust system ( changed the cast iron
manifolds for a much lighter header system)
Been flying with that setup for more than 20 hours now and have had no
problems.
My Corvair is a '65 , 110HP Corvair conversion as per William Wynne
manual.
It is a very smooth and powerful engine, I would rate its reliability as
very high, very close to a Continental.
If it had dual spark plugs it would be an equal.
Still fly with a non nitrated Crankshaft too, although I have a spare
one
that is being nitrated.
If I had a O-200, C90/85 I would have used it,only because you do not
have
to deal with a 40 Test phase (25 hours if you have a aircraft engine)
Of course there is money issue as well, total expense on my Corvair was
6,000- US with all moving parts to new specs, I did not cut any corners
on
rebuilding the engine. (the crank in hindsight being the exception)
Furthermore I believe two more Pietenpols had to make a forced landing
last
year, both Continental powered, go figure..
It is very rarely the engine that causes a problem it is most likely the
systems around it that fail.
Hans
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Corvair Flyers |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dan Loegering" <danl@odayequipment.com>
Hey all,
I was spending some time last night drafting out my fuse sides and ran into an
area that needs some clarification. The dimensions for the pilots seat back (22"
long) and the seat front (6" high) end up making a seat that just doesn't
"look" right. The rear seat support ends up very close to the bottom of the fuse
and the angle between the seat bottom and seat back is about 84 Deg. Does
this sound about right? or what have others done in this area? It would be easy
to raise the rear support an inch and add a wedge to the seat back to give
the seat a more "normal" look... Looks like it is time to build a mock-up and
sit it in front of the TV for a while to see what is comfortable.
Dan L.
Fargo, ND
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Corvair Flyers - long reply |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
Everybody I know of who flys up here only uses carb heat on the down wind,base
and final portion of the landing.Unless they are on a long trip, now and then
at intervals ,they will turn on carb heat to make sure the carb is clear.I know
of no one who flys with carb heat on all the time as this letter would suggest????????????????
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans Vander Voort
Sent: May 4, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers - long reply
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Rob,
Not my text, I just cut and pasted this from a website:
------As the aircraft carburetor vaporizes fuel, it cools the intake air by
evaporation. The carburetor venturi also cools the air by adiabatically
expanding the intake air, known as the Joule-Thomson Effect. If the air
temperature drops below the dew point, moisture in the air condenses into
water droplets. Thus, water can be present in the carburetor even when
flying in clear skies.
Ice forms near the aircraft carburetor butterfly when water droplets
strike parts of the carburetor (typically the butterfly and venturi) that
are freezing. Freezing is determined by: the outside air temperature, the
temperature drop, and heat absorption from the engine. With the throttle
partly closed, such as in a low power descent, you may have a 10" Hg or
more pressure drop across the throttle butterfly.
The more gasoline the carburetor evaporates, the colder the carburetor. As
your engine idles at the end of the runway, little fuel is evaporating and
the carburetor's temperature may be above freezing. Adding takeoff power
increases the rate of fuel evaporation. Now the carburetor may be cold
enough to form carburetor ice. Your carburetor can get pretty cold. The
heat loss from evaporation of gasoline at the stoichiometric ratio creates
a theoretical temperature drop of 40 degrees F. The adiabatic expansion of
gas across the carburetor's venturi also lowers the temperature. Thus, you
could drop the carburetor temperature to freezing and form carburetor ice
at an ambient temperature of 72 degrees or higher. Stoichiometric is the
leanest possible mixture. At richer mixtures the ambient temperature at
which carburetor ice forms is even higher - Lycoming publishes a
temperature range of twenty to 90 degrees F. for carburetor ice.
Adding alcohol to gasoline dramatically increases the ambient temperature
where ice forms. Evaporating methyl alcohol creates a temperature drop of
300 degrees F. As a result, carburetor ice occurs over a wide range of
temperatures.
Your Continental aircraft engine forms carburetor ice at a higher outside
air temperature than your Lycoming engine since the carburetor on a
Continental engine absorbs less engine heat. Continental mounts the
carburetor to the intake pipes away from engine heat. Lycoming mounts the
carburetor to the oil pan where it absorbs heat from the engine oil. One
side effect of forming carburetor ice at a higher air temperature is that
the warm air holds more moisture than cold air; therefore, you have a
potential for greater carburetor icing with Continental engines than with
Lycoming engines ------
The Corvair WW setup is very similar to a Continental engine and carb heat
must be applied!
During test running of my Corvair on a test stand I could measure (and see
and feel ) the cooling effect right behind the carburetor.
It gets cold ! ...very cold at part throttle, the high humidity will cause
the outside of the intake manifold to get wet (water droplets) image what
happens on the inside.
I copied the setup that Mark Langford uses on his Corvair see
>>http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/airbox/
Not his air box but only his heat pick up around the exhaust manifold.
My exhaust manifold is however not stainless steel (stainless steel is poor
conductor of heat) I used plain carbon steel and painted it black (maximum
heat rejection).
This works very well, the recommended 90 F temperature rise is easily
achieved.
The hot air is robbing a lot of HP, In flight I can feel the extra few
RPM/HP kick-in when I remove Carb heat.
Carb heat is not a problem in summer months in the Houston Texas area, as
temperatures are 90 - 100 degree but rest of the year the temperatures are
varying between 60 to 80 F and humidity is high year round.
I fly with carb heat on constantly, only during take off and taxing on the
ground I use cold filtered air.
Right before take off, during the run up I apply carb heat for about 1
minute with engine at 2500 RPM.
Hans
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Interesting trim |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <waltdak@verizon.net>
Steve,
That's how we did it on Subs.
"Run Silent Run Deep"
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Glass" <redsglass@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Interesting trim
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Glass"
> <redsglass@hotmail.com>
>
> Hi Ken
>
> Perhaps you hit on something. Yachts are using active trim tanks usually
> side to side to reduce heel. Perhaps you could install a small soda
> bottle fore and aft with a a manual trim pump in the cockpit. Putting the
> tank as far aft as possible would give you a good amount of moment. You
> could even have a third port in the cockpit so you could have a little
> drink while flying along. It could be a problem in the winter with freeze
> up but I'm sure some suitable ducting could be worked out.
>
> Could call it the wet trim system. Thinking more about it the weight
> penalty is not good perhaps Helium ballons stuffed in each end with a
> transfer.............................
>
> Steve G
>
>
>>From: KMHeide <kmheidecpo@yahoo.com>
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Interesting trim
>>Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>Clif,
>>
>> The first thing you would have to do is figure out the amount of urine
>> stored inside the bladder. Then applying some mathematical calculations,
>> you can determine the weight of the uric acid versus untainted liquid
>> water to arrive at a weight per ounce. Then subtract that number from
>> 6.6033 to determine the correct amount of ballast within the bladder. In
>> the sagittal plane you need to calculate the arm for weight and balance
>> to find a starting point of adjusted movement of weight relative to
>> center of gravity in the aircraft and the human body. Then and only then
>> can you get the true accurate number of forward weight deflection within
>> the cabin of a pilot who has to pee......
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson
>>
>>I've been told you can do the same sticking your
>>arms out. :-)
>>
>>And a question. A pilot takes off from airport A.
>>As the flight progresses, the pilot finds himself
>>needing to pee. By the time he reaches his
>>destination, airport B, his bladder is full.
>>
>>How does this accumulation of fluid affect W+B ?
>>
>>Clif
>>
>>
>> > Hi Guys...
>> > I figured out something really cool the other morning while flying.
>> > Others I'm sure have figured this out too. I don't have any kind of
>>pitch
>> > trim. I have a nose tank that holds about 14.5 gallons. While somewhere
>> > around 8 gallons it is pretty much in trim in pitch with my weight. If
>> > I
>> > let go of the stick and leaned back it slowly pitches up. If I leaned
>> > forward it slowly pitches down. I know it only makes sense but I don't
>> > think I've ever flown anything that is so easily affected by weight
>> > movement!
>> > Don Emch
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply |
They made it legal and got hitched recently. I forget exactly when but
within the last year
michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Ash
I owned a home in Deltona, maybe 20 miles southwest of Daytona, for 12
years. I was the president of Central Florida Corvairs for a couple
years in the mid 90's. I think William also hangs out with EAA chapter
635 (the corn-roast guys at Sun 'n Fun) based in Deland, which was my
chapter when I lived in the area. I've known William for a number of
years through these affiliations. Grace Korosec is William's long-time
girlfriend (Common law in Florida is 7-years, maybe she's his wife by
now) . I guess that qualifies her as obvious follower.
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Corvair Flyers - long reply |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958@verizon.net>
I can see a lot of reasons not to use carb heat all the time. When you heat
the air going in, you reduce the density of the air and thus the horsepower.
At that point you need a higher power setting to produce the same amount of
HP burning more fuel in the process.
Worse than that you will lose more than just a few RPM's if left on at
takeoff. That power just might be what gets you over the tree tops.
Most installations when you pull the carb heat, you also by pass the air
filter. Lots of people think that carb heat helps the engine warm up faster
so they taxi out with carb heat on with no idea that the dirt the landing
gear is kicking up is being sucked into the engine without any filtration at
all. There is can work like sandpaper on expensive engine parts.
Everyone should have a solid idea of what carb ice looks like. Some
airplanes and engines are more prone to it. Someone asked about reasons for
engine failures on a few posts ago.
The last order I heard for the most common reasons for engine failure are
1. No gas on the airplane. 2. Contaminated gas on the airplane (water
trash ect) 3 Gas on the airplane, but the fuel selector on an empty tank.
4. Carb Icing.
There is a lot there we can do something about isnt it.
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers - long reply
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
>
> Everybody I know of who flys up here only uses carb heat on the down
> wind,base and final portion of the landing.Unless they are on a long trip,
> now and then at intervals ,they will turn on carb heat to make sure the
> carb is clear.I know of no one who flys with carb heat on all the time as
> this letter would suggest????????????????
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans
> Vander Voort
> Sent: May 4, 2006 12:25 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers - long reply
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort
> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>
> Rob,
>
> Not my text, I just cut and pasted this from a website:
>
> ------As the aircraft carburetor vaporizes fuel, it cools the intake air
> by
> evaporation. The carburetor venturi also cools the air by adiabatically
> expanding the intake air, known as the Joule-Thomson Effect. If the air
> temperature drops below the dew point, moisture in the air condenses into
> water droplets. Thus, water can be present in the carburetor even when
> flying in clear skies.
>
>
> Ice forms near the aircraft carburetor butterfly when water droplets
> strike parts of the carburetor (typically the butterfly and venturi) that
> are freezing. Freezing is determined by: the outside air temperature, the
> temperature drop, and heat absorption from the engine. With the throttle
> partly closed, such as in a low power descent, you may have a 10" Hg or
> more pressure drop across the throttle butterfly.
>
>
> The more gasoline the carburetor evaporates, the colder the carburetor. As
> your engine idles at the end of the runway, little fuel is evaporating and
> the carburetor's temperature may be above freezing. Adding takeoff power
> increases the rate of fuel evaporation. Now the carburetor may be cold
> enough to form carburetor ice. Your carburetor can get pretty cold. The
> heat loss from evaporation of gasoline at the stoichiometric ratio creates
> a theoretical temperature drop of 40 degrees F. The adiabatic expansion of
> gas across the carburetor's venturi also lowers the temperature. Thus, you
> could drop the carburetor temperature to freezing and form carburetor ice
> at an ambient temperature of 72 degrees or higher. Stoichiometric is the
> leanest possible mixture. At richer mixtures the ambient temperature at
> which carburetor ice forms is even higher - Lycoming publishes a
> temperature range of twenty to 90 degrees F. for carburetor ice.
>
>
> Adding alcohol to gasoline dramatically increases the ambient temperature
> where ice forms. Evaporating methyl alcohol creates a temperature drop of
> 300 degrees F. As a result, carburetor ice occurs over a wide range of
> temperatures.
>
>
> Your Continental aircraft engine forms carburetor ice at a higher outside
> air temperature than your Lycoming engine since the carburetor on a
> Continental engine absorbs less engine heat. Continental mounts the
> carburetor to the intake pipes away from engine heat. Lycoming mounts the
> carburetor to the oil pan where it absorbs heat from the engine oil. One
> side effect of forming carburetor ice at a higher air temperature is that
> the warm air holds more moisture than cold air; therefore, you have a
> potential for greater carburetor icing with Continental engines than with
> Lycoming engines ------
>
> The Corvair WW setup is very similar to a Continental engine and carb heat
> must be applied!
> During test running of my Corvair on a test stand I could measure (and see
> and feel ) the cooling effect right behind the carburetor.
> It gets cold ! ...very cold at part throttle, the high humidity will cause
> the outside of the intake manifold to get wet (water droplets) image what
> happens on the inside.
>
> I copied the setup that Mark Langford uses on his Corvair see
>>>http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/airbox/
> Not his air box but only his heat pick up around the exhaust manifold.
> My exhaust manifold is however not stainless steel (stainless steel is
> poor
> conductor of heat) I used plain carbon steel and painted it black (maximum
> heat rejection).
>
> This works very well, the recommended 90 F temperature rise is easily
> achieved.
> The hot air is robbing a lot of HP, In flight I can feel the extra few
> RPM/HP kick-in when I remove Carb heat.
>
> Carb heat is not a problem in summer months in the Houston Texas area, as
> temperatures are 90 - 100 degree but rest of the year the temperatures are
> varying between 60 to 80 F and humidity is high year round.
>
> I fly with carb heat on constantly, only during take off and taxing on the
> ground I use cold filtered air.
> Right before take off, during the run up I apply carb heat for about 1
> minute with engine at 2500 RPM.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
Message 23
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
There is one thing I'm ever so grateful to Corky for installing in 41CC- an
access cover to allow access into the tailcone from underneath. Laying on a
typical automotive creeper, with this cover removed I have full, complete,
and ready access to the elevator bellcrank assembly and all the cables
running aft of the pilot's seat. It even turns out to be the exactly
correct distance for my bifocals to focus on the assembly without me having
to move my head up and down to focus to adjust the turnbuckles and safety
them ;o) I really don't see how you can do without this, other than fully
assembling the bellcrank assembly and attaching control cables to it prior
to covering the aft fuselage.
The one Corky made for 41CC is just a flat piece of aluminum about 16"
square, attached to the underside framing members with PK screws. Pictures
on request.
Gee, it never occurred to me that if this access cover hadn't been
installed, getting back into the tailcone to re-rig the elevator control
cables could leave me feeling like the morning after my wedding night like
it did Harvey. I think I'd give the price of my last colonoscopy to feel
like that again ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 24
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: seat question |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
Dan
That is right. Try sitting at that angle for 2 1/2 hours. Some have raised
the seat bottom a bit for pilot height Now is the time to think about these
things. Mine is built to plans and killed my back till someone suggested
rolling over my self inflating sleeping bag pad as a seat, which made a
great difference.
On my new project, I reclined the seat back 1 1/2 inches for comfort. If
doing that, don't forget to calculate the change in CG.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Loegering" <danl@odayequipment.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: seat question
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dan Loegering"
<danl@odayequipment.com>
Hey all,
I was spending some time last night drafting out my fuse sides and ran into
an area that needs some clarification. The dimensions for the pilots seat
back (22" long) and the seat front (6" high) end up making a seat that just
doesn't "look" right. The rear seat support ends up very close to the
bottom of the fuse and the angle between the seat bottom and seat back is
about 84 Deg. Does this sound about right? or what have others done in this
area? It would be easy to raise the rear support an inch and add a wedge to
the seat back to give the seat a more "normal" look... Looks like it is
time to build a mock-up and sit it in front of the TV for a while to see
what is comfortable.
Dan L.
Fargo, ND
Message 25
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: | The Canadians sure like the Pietenpol |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Matt Naiva" <corvaircoupe@gmail.com>
I found an interesting link showing quite a few Pietenpols registered in Canada.
Matt
http://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Pietenpol.html
Message 26
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: The Canadians sure like the Pietenpol |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
They have a few things wrong though. C-AOG
is actually CF-AOG. Same with the others with
three letter identifiers.
CF-AOG was not built in 75, it was REbuilt then
by the original builders son. I'm not sure of the
original date of registration but the owner told me
that it is the oldest continuously registered aircraft
in Canada.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=IMG_0239.jpg&PhotoID=361
I don't think it gets flown much anymore. The owner
has recently finished an RV. :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Naiva" <corvaircoupe@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: The Canadians sure like the Pietenpol
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Matt Naiva"
> <corvaircoupe@gmail.com>
>
> I found an interesting link showing quite a few Pietenpols registered in
> Canada.
>
> Matt
>
>
> http://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Pietenpol.html
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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! --
|