Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:40 AM - Re: Corvair Flyers / apology & clarification (Rob Stapleton)
2. 04:12 AM - Re: Rate of Climb ()
3. 06:49 AM - Re: Rate of Climb (Phillips, Jack)
4. 07:47 AM - BUILD TIME (RAMPEYBOY@aol.com)
5. 01:43 PM - Re: BUILD TIME (lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan))
6. 02:41 PM - Re: Rate of Climb (Don Emch)
7. 02:47 PM - Re: More to I D (Don Emch)
8. 06:33 PM - Re: Re: Cylinders and CG (Wizzard187@aol.com)
9. 08:15 PM - Re: Re: Cylinders and CG (Gordon Bowen)
10. 08:41 PM - Re: Re: Cylinders and CG (Mark Blackwell)
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: | Corvair Flyers / apology & clarification |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Rob Stapleton" <foto@alaska.net>
I just got my manual and it is really good. I think Wynne had done a suburb
job on it.
Corvair-in-the-air!
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 Gene
Beenenga
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers / apology & clarification
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd@earthlink.net>
Mike, hear! hear!
you put it all down very well, throughly and accurately, It would be a honor
to be considered a part of that small (but growing) group of Corvair powered
aircraft advocates. Mean Gene
-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Whaley <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
>Sent: May 10, 2006 9:38 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers / apology & clarification
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
>
>I agree!
>
>The Internet has only been around for 14 years now. Postal letters have
been
>around for hundreds of years. Although many folks tout the so-called
>advantages of email and websites, they simply don't have the track record
>that serious communicators demand. In fact, I knew a guy who got the
>Internet and joined an email list and within a month, he started to get
>messages he didn't like. He sold his computer, and has been happily using
>the US Postal Service ever since. You're free to do what you will, but I
>don't want to be a guinea pig in some techno-geek's big worldwide social
>experiment.
>
>Seriously, this discussion has been annoying me a bit to watch, though it's
>nothing new. I do appreciate Jim publicly clarifying that he wasn't trying
>to malign William, which is more than usually happens. But some perspective
>is in order here.
>
>Obviously, nobody's forcing anyone to use an engine they aren't comfortable
>with. I'm personally sold on the Corvair, as I've come to know William and
>the Hangar gang well enough that I have faith that they are honest and
>straightforward in their dealings and that they are right when they say
that
>I am capable, with their help, of building a satisfactory Corvair-based
>aircraft engine for my personal requirements. I have heard them tell people
>both what this motor both can, and cannot, do, and if anything I've seen
>them consistently UNDER-sell the capabilities of the Corvair rather than
>OVER-state it to try to sell products. In my experience, they've never,
ever
>encouraged folks to do anything blindly just "because they said so"... they
>have always been willing and able to back up their recommendations with
>sound reasoning. Most importantly, this is most often based on significant
>amounts of actual flight experience, not theoretical calculations or single
>tests as some other folks will use to "prove" their products. If they only
>have one or two data points, or none, they will make sure you know that
>fact. They also have consistently encouraged people to learn and understand
>for themselves WHY they recommend to do something, or not.
>
>In my opinion, anyone who says to do something "because William says so" is
>missing the point somewhat, but they generally do so because they have
found
>that he has actually earned the right to be considered an authority on the
>subject. This is because he really has tried most of the ideas that people
>have asked about, and refined the good ones so that anyone could use them.
>
>While I've heard folks criticize Corvairs before and even pull out some
>examples to "prove" their unworthiness, they never seem to mention the
>thousands of failures of Lycomings, Continentals, Pratt & Whitneys, etc.
>installed by "qualified" folks for comparison. 98% of the "examples" are
>things heard from friends of friends, etc. From the folks I've personally
>talked to, emailed, and read about who have actually BUILT their own
>Corvairs and can thus speak with some authority on the matter, it would
seem
>that nearly everyone who has followed William's advice has ended up quite
>satisfied, if not extremely happy, with their Corvair installation. Most of
>the occasional problems I've heard of have been caused by things that
>William has specifically and publicly warned against doing, or happened
>before he even started his research on the subject. In short, folks who
>follow WW's advice tend to have a high chance of success with their Corvair
>engines.
>
>I don't "deify" William or anyone else, nor do I have any personal stake in
>this discussion other than I consider the Hangar Gang to be friends, who
>happen to be "the" experts on the engine I will build in the (hopefully
>near) future. However, I can honestly say that the Corvair Hangar Gang, to
a
>person, set an excellent example of honesty, enthusiasm, helpfulness, and
>fun that I wish was present in everyone in aviation. This seems to have
>rubbed off on quite a few others (or perhaps it just attracts like-minded
>souls) throughout the homebuilt community, who then share their enthusiasm.
>I don't know why, but this seemingly attracts the occasional ire of a few
>folks who'd rather complain about a subject they rarely seem to have any
>first-hand knowledge of. I'm no engine expert myself, but if you ask me,
>even if you don't choose to fly a Corvair yourself, you should have a
>healthy dose of respect and appreciation for the many positive
contributions
>that the Corvair folks have made towards furthering recreational aviation.
>We need a lot more folks like them in the aviation world.
>
>BTW, most homebuilt companies now require a signed legal release before
>selling plans or products. This is simply a factor of today's out of
control
>legal system, NOT a lack of faith in their own products. It isn't the plans
>purchaser they are worried about, but their survivors's lawyers. It doesn't
>matter whether the accident really had anything to do with the manufacturer
>or not.
>
>-Mike
>
>Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
>Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
>http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
>
>> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash
>> > Unfortunately, that's a rather fallacious argument. By history, I mean
>> > real hours spent working in the air, not calendar years since someone
>> > first tried it.
>> >
>> > Jim Ash
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Rick Holland
>> > Sent: May 10, 2006 8:13 AM
>> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Flyers / apology &
>clarification
>> >
>> > Corvairs have been flying since 1960. Thats 46 years. If an engine
>> > needed a longer track record than that to be considered safe for
>> > an experimental nobody would be using Rotax, Hirth, HKS, or
>> > Corvair engines, only the dinosaurs.
>> >
>> > Rick H.
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
The prop of choice seems to be 72 X 42;at least that is the one I
gleaned from previous emails and transponding with Tennessee props.About
658.00 Cnd for mine.She's a beauty.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Blackwell
Sent: May 11, 2006 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rate of Climb
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mark Blackwell"
<markb1958@verizon.net>
The other critical piece of information for comparison is what type of
prop
you have on the airplane. Might not be the engine at all but you might
need
a different prop to get the most out of the airplane
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rate of Climb
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
>
> Hi Guys,
> For those of you running A-65s I have a question for you. In these
> following conditions what would you expect for initial rate of climb?
> Field elevation 1100', 80 degrees, full fuel, and solo. I am right
around
> 900lbs in this condition and am just wondering what you guys would
expect
> for climb.
> Thanks,
> Don Emch
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=34118#34118
>
>
>
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 |
|
Mine's a little heavier. Solo it weighs about 1,000 lbs. Climbs at 300
fpm (I have a VSI). With a 160 lb passenger added it climbs at about
250 fpm.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Navratil
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rate of Climb
I'm right in there with Chuck. 18.9 gal and 200 lbs of me puts me at
990 lb. Field at 900 ft. Something arount 300 fpm.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rate of Climb
In a message dated 5/11/2006 4:25:57 PM Central Standard Time,
EmchAir@aol.com writes:
Hi Guys,
For those of you running A-65s I have a question for
you. In these following conditions what would you expect for initial
rate of climb? Field elevation 1100', 80 degrees, full fuel, and solo.
I am right around 900lbs in this condition and am just wondering what
you guys would expect for climb.
Thanks,
Don Emch
I haven't got a ROC instrument, so I just put the ASI on about
50 mph,and live with whatever the rate of climb is. I am at 960 lbs,
solo, with 20 gal full fuel, field elevation is 1360' at Cook Field,
turning close to 2000 rpm. I suspect it is somewhere around 200 FPM,
and is never above 300 FPM. My ROC has improved a little bit, since I
reworked my prop, and now I can now get full rated rpm (2300 rpm), in
level flight, full throttle. If I wax the prop and the leading edge of
the wing, in my mind, I get better performance, and the bugs wipe off
easier !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
going out to 'whack some bugs' this evening !!
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege=
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i=
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N=
orsk - Portuguese - Svenska: www.cardinalhealth.com/legal/email
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 |
|
Does anyone have there build times broken down by section that they would
like to share? I'm curious about how long it takes for the fuselage, wing,
empennage, gear, covering, etc. Thanks
Boyce
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Boyce: I find build times are kind of irreverent. Building my center
section seemed to go on and on for ever, and ever. When I framed up a
wing it went so fast that I thought I could have both done in a month,
Then I got into the small details which slowed things WAY down. It took
about a month to build that one wing, and it was spread out over two
summers. My whole project was to be a 2 year thing, I'm into year 8!
Bottom line..don't sweat time, just get started and keep plugging away.
I'm glad I didn't try to build to a time schedule. I would be building
an imaginary Piet in a padded cell some whare. Leon S.
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: Rate of Climb |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
Thank you guys very much for all the rate of climb info that you shared. I timed
(no vsi) my climbouts the other night and got to wondering what others were
seeing. I am spinning a Hegy 72 X 44 prop. I seemed to be timing about 350
fpm. I notice a real difference between 45 degrees and 80 degrees. I've noticed
a difference in everything else I've flown but the Piet seems to be fairly
sensitive to temps. It was a little breezy the other night and the Piet seems
to be sensitve to that too. I'm sure it's just me not really used to flying
something so light. Just a ball of fun to fly though!!! :D
Don Emch
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=34327#34327
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: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
First picture;
Bob ? - sitting on left
Larry Williams - sitting on left with white t-shirt
Jim Kinsella - sitting on right with white t-shirt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=34329#34329
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: Cylinders and CG |
Pieters,
Does anyone have any experience with croming 65 cont cylinders. Mine
are .015 over and pretty much to the limits and I wonder if new ones are
aviable, if crome is the best way to go and which type is the best and what
are the cost.
Also is anyone flying around with the cg at 30 percent and how does it
fly. I could lose some weight but you know how that goes. Ken in rainy
Iowa
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: Cylinders and CG |
Ken,
Re CG, as you burn off fuel the Cg will be moving back with you in the
plane. Even a traditional NACA wing does not allow over 32% aft cg.
The Piete wing as designed doesn't allow that far aft without mucho
problems with needed lift from the tail feathers, and loss of control.
highly recommend a) cut back on the big Mac's (my problem), b) add some
lead to the engine compartment if your gross weight is ok with added
lead. Aft CG dangerous place to be. I designed my Piete with an 0-235
extended forward and battery forward of empty cg and still need to be
sure not to fly with less than 5 gal of fuel so not to go beyond 32% of
chord. My Piete has Aeronca wings, more forgiving than original Piete
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Wizzard187@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cylinders and CG
Pieters,
Does anyone have any experience with croming 65 cont cylinders.
Mine are .015 over and pretty much to the limits and I wonder if new
ones are aviable, if crome is the best way to go and which type is the
best and what are the cost.
Also is anyone flying around with the cg at 30 percent and how
does it fly. I could lose some weight but you know how that goes.
Ken in rainy Iowa
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cylinders and CG |
Chroming was a way to go for a while, but it seemed to have some
problems. I would check with Superior Aircraft as they have cylinders
for nearly every engine that was ever built. They would probably
overhaul yours of have an exchange set waiting to ship to you.
The worst engine problem I ever experienced was due to a broken rocker
box in a Cont 0 200 (Guys trust me they don't run well on 2 cylinders,
but it ran) and it was replaced with a Superior cylinder. That section
had been greatly beefed up and was much stronger than what came from the
factory.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wizzard187@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cylinders and CG
Pieters,
Does anyone have any experience with croming 65 cont cylinders.
Mine are .015 over and pretty much to the limits and I wonder if new
ones are aviable, if crome is the best way to go and which type is the
best and what are the cost.
Also is anyone flying around with the cg at 30 percent and how
does it fly. I could lose some weight but you know how that goes.
Ken in rainy Iowa
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! --
|