Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:59 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)
2. 06:07 AM - GN-1 Gap Seals (Mike King)
3. 08:02 AM - Re: Engine selection (Bill Church)
4. 09:36 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)
5. 09:56 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)
6. 10:52 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)
7. 11:08 AM - Re: Engine selection (Steve Eldredge)
8. 11:57 AM - Engine selection (HelsperSew@aol.com)
9. 01:23 PM - Re: Engine selection (KMHeide)
10. 06:58 PM - Re: Engine selection (Dick Navratil)
11. 07:07 PM - radial eng chopper (Dick Navratil)
12. 07:16 PM - Re: Covering (Peter W Johnson)
13. 08:14 PM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)
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: | Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.
My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carrying
passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approaches
at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also
cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West
Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb
over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in
a downdraft.
Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)
and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb empty
weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and density
altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try this
from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. We
flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructed
approaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive
- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but
still acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).
BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.
If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impacted
the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to build
another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which
would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.
One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealed
the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I found
a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mph
improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of the
airplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using my
spring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose down
slightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
Ken Heide,
Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite
a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.
Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish
with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had to
work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve
to deal with downdrafts.
Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With only
a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant
improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about
7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,
the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, I
have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forget
that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs
and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan
of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's
29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven
compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.
When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed around
smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders
these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes
would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to
carry.
However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and
the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them
(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding
too much weight, of course).
In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for
the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same
clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol
and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory
case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer
engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,
etc.)
If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine
for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.
Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. I
have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the
C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close to
ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise
and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified
propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I were
to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible
in order to fly well with modest power.
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary,
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in 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 - Norsk - Portuguese - Svenska: www.cardinalhealth.com/legal/email
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 |
|
BlankSay guys, I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to pla
ns.
That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all this
talk
about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations
from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planes
were built.
I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gap
seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slight
ly
nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid
changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even
more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the
plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wings
and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer
months.
As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly
appreciated.
Thanks.
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas
Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b25ada24a7f9f2360c3efe68e69728914bc3920.gif
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
In Graham's words:
"If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
designed to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work
hard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modest
power.".
On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th Annual
Pietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with Brian
Kenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HP
Continental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. But
he emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down as
much as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so it
is possible to build lighter if we really make the effort.
As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately a
strong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). But
there were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures of
and talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has been
flying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it to
school regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me he
has about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the original
covering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, and
Dacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their second
Piet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacron
covering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as a
teenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then got
resurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim said
it was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took great
care to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleased
with the results.
I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download for
about a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share.
Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which is
only five weeks away).
Bill C.
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: Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in
the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to
Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea
what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but
I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will
take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not
in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
Thank You
Gene
Pietenpol N502R
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>
> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything
> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying.
> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or
> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of
> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a
> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on
> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400'
> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a
> downdraft.
>
>
> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh
> 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745
> lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was
> 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough
> sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end
> where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway
> is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either
> end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in
> about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm.
> He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight,
> stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
>
>
> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from
> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we
> would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops.
> If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to
> the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20
> sq. ft to the wing area.
>
>
> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I
> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct
> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff,
> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it
> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the
> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full
> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the
> tail is providing more lift than before.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
>
>
> Ken Heide,
>
>
> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is
> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
>
>
> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65
> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb
> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise
> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude;
> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.
>
>
> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least.
> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The
> most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed
> increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by
> much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within
> ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles
> and cope with downdrafts.
>
>
> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend
> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to
> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these
> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180
> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square
> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8,
> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers
> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people,
> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we
> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform
> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.
>
>
> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these
> days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is
> keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power
> (without adding too much weight, of course).
>
>
> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine
> for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides
> the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12
> in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the
> rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and
> the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't
> wish to build new cowlings, etc.)
>
>
> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is
> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for
> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may
> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a
> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try
> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work,
> but they may not be the best for your setup.
>
>
> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If
> I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light
> as possible in order to fly well with modest power.
>
>
> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
> received it in 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 -
> Norsk - Portuguese - Svenska: www.cardinalhealth.com/legal/email
>
>
>
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: | Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Gene,
Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)
originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after
attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a
Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.
On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and
found it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison County
Executive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it very
friendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also landed
at Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going no
further north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains and
shouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800'
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &
Tammy
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy"
<zharvey@bellsouth.net>
My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm
just in
the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida
line to
Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some
idea
what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip
but
I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It
will
take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm
not
in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
Thank You
Gene
Pietenpol N502R
_________________________________________________
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: Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
Jack,
Thank you for your reply. All good info. I have a stop planned for MDQ. I
live East of Jackson in Camden (I 40 to North on 641 at exit 126.) I'm
flying the plane from Thomasville, Ga. and will be headed up across Alabama
to Tennessee. Should be leaving monday the 26th if the weather permits.
I'd be very interested in meeting with a builder near me so hopefully if
there is one he will contact me on this list. I do know of a Pietenpol in
Humboldt and will be checking it out.
Any more advice for the trip? Have you found googles necessary on long
trips? I do wish the cockpit was a bit larger so I could stash charts and
such.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:50 AM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>
> Gene,
>
> Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)
> originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after
> attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a
> Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.
>
> On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and
> found it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison County
> Executive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it very
> friendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also landed
> at Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going no
> further north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains and
> shouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800'
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &
> Tammy
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PM
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy"
> <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
>
> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm
> just in
> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida
> line to
> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some
> idea
> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip
> but
> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It
> will
> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm
> not
> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
> Thank You
> Gene
> Pietenpol N502R
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
I also fly with an A-65. my field elevation is 4500' Solo is fine. Density altitude
and weight make drastic differences in low powered aircraft. My empty
weight is 626lbs and I weight 215lbs. I have carried up to a 220# passenger
on long runways. Since I carved my own prop (acts more like a cruise, than climb
prop) I have limited my passenger weight to about 150lbs.
I've been keeping my eyes open for a o-200. I think without electricity it would
give very good performance with two people, and climb would be very smart indeed
solo.
I finally shook the dust off and flew my piet for 30 minutes for the first time
this season. I've been flying a stinson lately. There is nothing to beat wind
in your hair!
Steve Eldredge
Spanish Fork, UT
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:56 AM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.
My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carrying
passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approaches
at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also
cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West
Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb
over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in
a downdraft.
Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)
and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb empty
weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and density
altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try this
from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. We
flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructed
approaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive
- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but
still acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).
BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.
If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impacted
the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to build
another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which
would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.
One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealed
the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I found
a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mph
improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of the
airplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using my
spring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose down
slightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
Ken Heide,
Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite
a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.
Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish
with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had to
work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve
to deal with downdrafts.
Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With only
a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant
improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about
7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,
the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, I
have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forget
that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs
and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan
of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's
29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven
compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.
When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed around
smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders
these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes
would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to
carry.
However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and
the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them
(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding
too much weight, of course).
In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for
the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same
clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol
and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory
case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer
engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,
etc.)
If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine
for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.
Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. I
have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the
C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close to
ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise
and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified
propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I were
to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible
in order to fly well with modest power.
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
_________________________________________________
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: | Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: HelsperSew@aol.com
I would like to hear some feedback along this vein from the guys with the
souped-up Ford A engines that are supposedly getting 70 HP.
Dan Helsper
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: Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: KMHeide <kmheidecpo@yahoo.com>
Graham,
I truly appreciate your insight on this matter of engine selection. I was attempting
to utilize the Corvair but ran short with parts from WW. He was willing
to take my $$ but then never produce what I needed.
I have purchased a nice A-65 Continental for $1,000.00. The mechanic stored it
for several years and needs a once over. I am planning on (with assistance from
another builder) creating our own prop for this plane. This will make for
a much better match for my height, weight, and size compared with weight and balance
of he plane.
I am going to attach an electric starter and possible a charger to the engine
as my only modification. Air boat technology has created this modification years
ago.
I hope to be starting the fuse any day now and look forward to many fun filled
days of building. Since I am 265lbs. finding a mate who wants to fly front seat
with me is far and few between.....That's o.k. my toy and only for me.
Ken Heide
Fargo, ND
Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
Ken Heide,
Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite
a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.
Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish
with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had
to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve
to deal with downdrafts.
Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With
only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant
improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by
about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the
A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays,
I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to
forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs
and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan
of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's
29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven
compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.
When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed
around smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders
these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes
would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to
carry.
However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and
the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep
them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding
too much weight, of course).
In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for
the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same
clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol
and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory
case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A
longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,
etc.)
If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work
fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to
do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important.
I have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the
C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close
to ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise
and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified
propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I
were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible
in order to fly well with modest power.
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
---------------------------------
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
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: Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
Gene
I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look more
for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in
the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to
Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea
what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but
I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will
take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not
in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
Thank You
Gene
Pietenpol N502R
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>
> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything
> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For
> carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY
> clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on
> takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget
> flying it across West Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at
> 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of
> climb and losing 500 fpm in a downdraft.
>
>
> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh
> 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745
> lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was
> 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough
> sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end
> where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway
> is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either
> end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in
> about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm.
> He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight,
> stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
>
>
> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from
> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we
> would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops.
> If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to
> the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20
> sq. ft to the wing area.
>
>
> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I
> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct
> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff,
> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it
> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the
> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full
> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the
> tail is providing more lift than before.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
>
>
> Ken Heide,
>
>
> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is
> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
>
>
> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65
> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb
> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise
> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude;
> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.
>
>
> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least.
> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The
> most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed
> increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by
> much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within
> ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles
> and cope with downdrafts.
>
>
> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend
> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to
> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these
> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180
> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square
> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8,
> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers
> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people,
> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we
> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform
> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.
>
>
> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these
> days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is
> keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power
> (without adding too much weight, of course).
>
>
> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine
> for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides
> the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12
> in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the
> rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and
> the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't
> wish to build new cowlings, etc.)
>
>
> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is
> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for
> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may
> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a
> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try
> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work,
> but they may not be the best for your setup.
>
>
> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If
> I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light
> as possible in order to fly well with modest power.
>
>
> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
>
> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands -
>
>
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: | radial eng chopper |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
Just a follow up to last weeks chopper pics and comments. I heard back from Rotec.
There are now 4 choppers with the Rotec engine and you all arent far off,
Jim at the factory says he is getting 2-3 inquiries a day from chopper people.
Dick
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
Thanks Guys.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd@aol.com
Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 3:28 PM
In a message dated 6/15/2006 11:59:41 PM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka@bigpond.net.au writes:
Hi Guys,
I have just started covering. I have the vertical and horizontal stabilizer
complete except for the edge tapes. I have the rudder with the fabric on but
now have a problem with the control horn. I have looked thorough the manual
and watched the video, (Stits Poly Fibre process) but there is not too much
info on how to get round the fittings. Any ideas on how to negotiate the
areas around these fittings?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
In the areas around a fitting, take a sharp hobby knife and make slits in
the shape of an 'X', and allow the fitting to protrude through the fabric.
Then carefully cut off the flaps of the 'X', to allow a very tight fitting
area around the fitting, even allowing the fabric to creap up around the
perimeter of the fitting. Then use poly tac to add a small piece 1 1/2" or
2" of fabric around the fitting with the same type of 'X' slits, but be sure
to place the threads of the doubler fabric at a 45 angle to the base fabric
threads. You can use your iron to blend in the edges of the doubler patch.
These pieces of doubler fabric should be added anywhere there is a fitting
protruding through the fabric, or where there is any type of structure that
is touching the fabric underneath. This keeps the fabric from wearing
through when in service. It's easy enough to get the doubler patch to lay
right down to the point where after paint, you can hardly even see it after
the paint is applied. As for the edges, I center up the edge tape and go
around the entire perimeter, just gluing the center of the edge tape. Then
iron it down around the radius to shrink the edge tape as much as possible,
then cut slits at the corners or anywhere it goes around a radius, and glue
down the slits overlapping the edge tape so that is 'Out of the Wind'. Use
your iron to make it lay down perfectly flat after the dabbing the poly tac
underneath.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
--
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: Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
Dick,
Guess I'm going to have to adjust my thinking and my flying. My wife tells
me this should be right up my alley as I'm always looking for a challenge
and an adventure. I love low & slow flight and don't really have a need for
performance more than what a 65 will give a 645 lb plane. More like a J-3
than a super cub. I'll keep everyone informed of my adventures bringing her
home and my impressions of how she flys. Sounds like I will have a lot to
learn and I'm looking forward to it.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:55 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil"
> <horzpool@goldengate.net>
>
> Gene
> I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look
> more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy"
> <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
>
> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just
> in
> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line
> to
> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some
> idea
> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but
> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will
> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm
> not
> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
> Thank You
> Gene
> Pietenpol N502R
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM
>
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
>> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>>
>> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything
>> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying.
>> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or
>> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of
>> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a
>> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on
>> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400'
>> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a
>> downdraft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I
>> weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to
>> my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed.
>> OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had
>> enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the
>> end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the
>> runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on
>> either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the
>> ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable
>> at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at
>> that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from
>> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field,
>> we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the
>> treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at
>> adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the
>> weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.
>>
>>
>>
>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I
>> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct
>> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff,
>> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it
>> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the
>> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full
>> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the
>> tail is providing more lift than before.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>>
>> NX899JP
>>
>> Raleigh, NC
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken Heide,
>>
>>
>>
>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is
>> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
>>
>>
>>
>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65
>> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb
>> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise
>> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude;
>> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least.
>> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%!
>> The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise
>> speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not
>> by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well
>> within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over
>> obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
>>
>>
>>
>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend
>> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to
>> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these
>> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180
>> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square
>> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8,
>> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers
>> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people,
>> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we
>> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform
>> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier
>> these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we
>> can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the
>> available power (without adding too much weight, of course).
>>
>>
>>
>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum
>> engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and
>> provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have
>> a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version
>> because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between
>> the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this
>> problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)
>>
>>
>>
>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
>> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
>> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is
>> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for
>> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may
>> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a
>> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try
>> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will
>> work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
>>
>>
>>
>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power.
>> If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as
>> light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.
>>
>>
>>
>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
>> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
>> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
>> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 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! --
|