Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:02 AM - Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! ()
2. 04:08 AM - Re: ah goodie ! (Jack T. Textor)
3. 04:14 AM - 2006 Brodhead Roll Call (tbyh@aol.com)
4. 04:51 AM - Re: Brodhead (amsafetyc@aol.com)
5. 05:08 AM - Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! (Phillips, Jack)
6. 06:17 AM - Gap Seals/Prop (Mike King)
7. 06:41 AM - Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! (TomTravis@aol.com)
8. 06:41 AM - Fred "The Hulk" Beseler & Chuckie Gantzer (Michael D Cuy)
9. 06:49 AM - Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! (Glenn Thomas)
10. 07:08 AM - Re: Brodhead (Jim Markle)
11. 07:10 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)
12. 07:30 AM - Brodhead Buzz (Bill Church)
13. 07:54 AM - Re: Brodhead Buzz (Steve Eldredge)
14. 08:18 AM - Re: Aeromart (Wizzard187@aol.com)
15. 09:24 AM - Re: Gap Seals/Prop (Gordon Bowen)
16. 10:59 AM - Re: Gap Seals/Prop (Barry Davis)
17. 11:37 AM - GN-1 vs. Piet gaps (Michael D Cuy)
18. 11:51 AM - Bill of materials (amsafetyc@aol.com)
19. 11:55 AM - Re: Bill of materials (RAMPEYBOY@aol.com)
20. 12:04 PM - Re: Bill of materials (Phillips, Jack)
21. 12:16 PM - Re: Bill of materials (amsafetyc@aol.com)
22. 12:18 PM - Re: Bill of materials (Michael D Cuy)
23. 12:19 PM - Re: Bill of materials (amsafetyc@aol.com)
24. 12:28 PM - saving time (Michael D Cuy)
25. 12:31 PM - (Michael D Cuy)
26. 12:49 PM - Re: saving time (amsafetyc@aol.com)
27. 12:57 PM - Re: (Phillips, Jack)
28. 01:00 PM - Re: saving time (Phillips, Jack)
29. 01:15 PM - Airplane assemblers (HelsperSew@aol.com)
30. 01:28 PM - Re: Airplane assemblers (Phillips, Jack)
31. 01:58 PM - Assemblers (HelsperSew@aol.com)
32. 02:34 PM - Re: Brodhead (Rcaprd@aol.com)
33. 03:36 PM - Re: Brodhead oops (Rcaprd@aol.com)
34. 03:49 PM - Re: Bill of materials (Peter W Johnson)
35. 04:27 PM - Re: (walt evans)
36. 04:54 PM - Re: role call ? (Michael Conkling)
37. 06:02 PM - Re: saving time (Isablcorky@aol.com)
38. 06:11 PM - Re: Brodhead (KMHeide)
39. 07:57 PM - a comment on brakes (Oscar Zuniga)
40. 08:03 PM - Re: a comment on brakes (Isablcorky@aol.com)
41. 08:04 PM - Re: Brodhead Buzz (Dog67@aol.com)
42. 09:27 PM - Re: Gap Seals/Prop (Gordon Bowen)
43. 11:32 PM - Re: Gap Seals/Prop (Mike King)
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: | role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
Thanks for all that info guys,really appreciate it.It will help a lot.
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clif
Dawson
Sent: June 21, 2006 1:09 AM
Markle...Javier !
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
Have fun wading through this stuff Harvey. :-)
http://www.b4.ca/raa_85/download/border.pdf
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/020607_5131.html
http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/security/waivers/
Cliff
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
>
> I may be able to make it there in the future but not this year.Where
is
> Brodhead;coordinance for GPS please and map reference,thanks.I feel
like
> I know half you guys but I'd like some day to put a face to the name.I
> think the idea is to land at the closest airfield and report your
> arrival in the States if your coming from Canada and if I'm not
mistaken
> you have to stay in the plane until cleared by officials.Plus having
to
> have all the correct paapers.
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: "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor@thepalmergroup.com>
Chuck, please put my name on a build video, ride too!
Thanks,
Jack Textor
Driving from Des Moines
Yes, of course I'll be there. I'll have a handful of my DVD video's
with
me, and maybe even some of the 'Building NX770CG' video. This is the
fourth
summer in a row to Brodhead for me. I'm probably going to arrive on
Thursday,
and from Brodhead (Saturday or Sunday) I'm heading west to South Dakota
to
the Badlands, Mount Rushmore, Chief Crazy Horse, Sturges and Wall Drug.
I'm
trying to persuade Sterling B. to accompany me on this leg, in his spam
can.
I'm going to try something new this year for my passengers. I now
have a
working intercom, and I'm going to install the controls in the front
pit.
This will give folks some hands on experience with how she handles.
Anyone
wanna give 'er a try ??? Ya just gotta promise you won't kill me...
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita, KS
NX770CG
http://nx770cg.com/
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: | 2006 Brodhead Roll Call |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: tbyh@aol.com
I'll be there again this year. The dates are July 21-23, correct?
Have got my fuselage complete, all tail pieces built -- just need to install Vi
Kapler's hinges. The wing ribs are complete (Okay, I cheated -- ribs by the late
Charlie Rubeck. Sure will miss visiting with Charlie this year) and am now
working on the landing gear.
Looking forward to it -- only 30 days to go!
Fred "The Big Muffin" Beseler
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
How far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on how to
combine business with passion and really need to see examples and continue the
prebuild research.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Tim Willis <strategyguy536@yahoo.com>
The Brodhead dates are Fri Jul 21-- Sun Jul 23.
I plan to drive up and get there as early as possible on Friday. I will have
a car for errands, supplies, beer runs, etc. I will be camping there on Friday
night, but will likely move to a motel in Rockford on Saturday, for I am meeting
an old friend from Chicago who says his 75-yr.-old back doesn't do air matresses
any longer.
That's my plan for now.
Chuck Gantzer told me he was likely going up Thursday to get settled in.
Oscar has told me he cannot go this year.
Corky, are you thinking of going? I'll have the scotch this time.
I look forward to meeting you all.
Tim
.
Pietenpol-List Digest Server <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> wrote:
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-06-19.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-06-19.txt
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 06/19/06: 13
----------------------------------------------------------
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 _____________________________________
Time: 04:59:13 AM PST US
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
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
_________________________________________________
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.
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 06:07:26 AM PST US
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 _____________________________________
Time: 08:02:08 AM PST US
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church"
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 _____________________________________
Time: 09:36:38 AM PST US
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy"
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"
>
>
> 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 5 _____________________________________
Time: 09:56:46 AM PST US
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
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
=== message truncated ==
---------------------------------
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
________________________________________________________________________
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: | role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Good looking Pietenpol, Gene. You're gonna love it!
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &
Tammy
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:38 PM
Markle...Javier !
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy"
<zharvey@bellsouth.net>
You guys are great! Just what I needed! Between your comments and Jack
Phillips sending photos of his last trip, I can't stand it any more and
have
left a message with the seller to see if I can pick the plane up a few
days
earlier. If anyone is interested in seeing the plane you can go to
Barnstormers.com and see it under experimental, "Pietenpol".
I won't be able to make the fly-in but sure hope some of you will take
lots
of photo's.
If the owner can and the weather holds, I will move the fly date from
the
27th to the 22nd. I'll keep ya posted.
Gene
N502R
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:34 AM
!
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>
> Not me. I've decided to sell my Pietenpol (too slow, too noisy, too
> drafty, no fun) and buy a REAL airplane - a Cessna 172. Then I will
> feel safe, flying only from controlled fields and always under an
> instrument flight plan so I don't have to worry about some foolish
pilot
> in an aircraft without radios running into me.
>
> NOT
>
> Unfortunately, I can't make it to Brodhead (or the other Wisconsin
> fly-in) this year. I am having a blast flying the Pietenpol, though.
> Just got married and about to leave on a honeymoon, and can't afford
to
> do that and get to Wisconsin. I did suggest a honeymoon sleeping
under
> the stars in Wisconsin, but that didn't set too well.
>
> Since my new bride has agreed to start building an RV-10 with me as
soon
> as we get back, I can't complain too much. She has also agreed that
we
> must always keep the Pietenpol for fun flying, no matter what kind of
> fast spam can we have for travelling. Now all I've got to do is
figure
> out how to convince her that we need to keep the Pietenpol, the RV-4
and
> the RV-10. I'm afraid the RV-4 will have to go, so we can afford to
> finish the RV-10. I'll miss the aerobatics in the -4.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Michael
> D Cuy
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:12 AM
> !
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
>
> Okay you sugar muffins---you guys sure have been boring lately.
Let's
> get
> the lead out and get
> fired up some, huh ? (okay, I'm boring too.....and fat, but that
> doesn't
> stop me from shaking you up
> once in a while)
>
> Who the heck is getting their sorry asses to Brodhead ??? I don't
care
> by
> car, boat, or plane--who is
> going to be there ?
>
> Mike C. in Ohio
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
>
>
_________________________________________________
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 |
|
BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while
building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built
without them, I would like your recommendations.
I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.
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 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: TomTravis@aol.com
I need some motivation to get this Piet project back on the front burner so
I'm going to try to make it to Broadhead this year. I'm trying to talk my
bride into a driving vacation that would include Broadhead and Oshkosh.
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: | Fred "The Hulk" Beseler & Chuckie Gantzer |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Man, Old Iron Butt himself, gotta give a big credit to Chuck Gantzer for
making it from Kansas for the fourth
year in a row in his Smoker Special Air Camper. Way to go, Chuck. I am
going to be a woose and drive up
in comfortable air conditioning--and will love every mile of it. (it was
downright scary flying home last year)
Got to meet many of you fine folks last year at Brodhead and Fred Beseler
was one. Fred looks like he could
put you up against a wall as a bouncer in a club, but is a friendly and
enthusiastic Piet builder.
By the way Fred--I cheated too in buying a set of Charlie Ruebeck
ribs. Charlie did some very, very nice work.
I heard from someone that though Charlie built many sets over the years
that mine were the first (that he had heard of)
to fly in 1998. Not sure how true that is but no better tribute than for
you and others to get more sets of those
Ruebeck ribs in the air !
Mike C.
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: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas@flyingwood.com>
Also planning on making the trip in from CT with tent and camera in tow.
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=42044#42044
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
According to my map it's about 37 miles.....
Jim Markle
Pryor, OK
214.505.6101
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:50 AM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
>
> How far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on
> how to combine business with passion and really need to see examples and
> continue the prebuild research.
>
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: | Re: Engine selection |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
Jack,
Again thanks for the info and advise. I'm headed out the door with ear
plugs and goggles. The owner will meet me on thursday the 22nd and I will
spend the day getting use to the plane and then weather permitting I will
leave on Friday. To say I'm excited is an understatement!
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 1:25 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>
> I find goggles and earplugs (or headset) a necessity for just about any
> flight in a Pietenpol. If you can possibly find one, a handheld GPS
> sure makes navigation easier. I also find that unfolding a sectional
> chart is difficult at best. I prefer to go to the aeroplanner site
> (found on the EAA webpage) and I print off a basic triptik which gives
> me up to date sectional information a page at a time that will fit on my
> kneeboard. Makes navigation SO much easier. I used those for all 2,047
> miles of my trip last summer.
>
> Didn't know there was a Pietenpol at Humboldt. Years ago there was a
> GN-1 at Jackson built by a fellow named Mike Lucky. I flew it while it
> was still flying off restrictions - nice flying plane and one reason I
> wanted to build my own Pietenpol.
>
> I'm familiar with Camden. Used to go to Boy Scout camp near there. I
> had my first forced landing (in a J-3 Cub) just north of I-40, west of
> the rest areas near Camden.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &
> Tammy
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 1:51 PM
>
> --> 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 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: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
With all the chatter about Brodhead approaching, I remembered a short
movie I put together from some footage that I shot in 2004, and I
thought maybe others might like to see it, so I sent it through to
photoshare. I'm not sure if it will go through, as it is a fairly big
file (6MB). But if it does, it should be available in a couple of days
(according to the photoshare rules).
Bill C.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
Steve E here,
Not planning to attend from Utah, but wish I was. I last attended in
2000 when I drove. Flew in my piet in 1999. Great time. Wish I could
be there making smoke and eating a brat or two. My Stinson is almost
done. Just have interior, glass, and cowling left, then wings and tail
go on. I've put 20 or so hours on in a Stinson lately and hadn't flown
the piet for 6 months. Last night I flew into the sunset and boy it was
a great night for open cockpit piet flying. You can hear the trains and
smell the fields.
Steve e
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:33 AM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church"
<eng@canadianrogers.com>
With all the chatter about Brodhead approaching, I remembered a short
movie I put together from some footage that I shot in 2004, and I
thought maybe others might like to see it, so I sent it through to
photoshare. I'm not sure if it will go through, as it is a fairly big
file (6MB). But if it does, it should be available in a couple of days
(according to the photoshare rules).
Bill C.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Wizzard187@aol.com
I think that aeromart is not open on Monday or atleast that was how it was
last year. They take in on Monday but start selling on Tues. I may be
wrong but worth checking. Ken in wet Iowa
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: | Re: Gap Seals/Prop |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
Mike,
Almost all the taildraggers here on the field at Homer AK, are equipped with
vortex generators on the underside of their horizonal stabs. Plus the
normal ones on the wings. The guys who own these SuperCubs etc. tell me it
makes a world of difference in the sensation of flying "uphill" all the
time. I intend to put VG's on N-1033B when I get back down to FL. Maybe
someone out there in Piete land has tried this too. Pipe-up if you have.
Sorry about not being able to make it to Broadhead, but you all will be glad
to know that the salmon are running just fine.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:14 AM
BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while
building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built
without them, I would like your recommendations.
I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.
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
slightly
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
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Gap Seals/Prop |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Barry Davis" <bed@mindspring.com>
I would be very interested in your experimentation on vortex generators. I
hope you keep the group informed on your progress and results.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:22 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen"
> <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
>
> Mike,
> Almost all the taildraggers here on the field at Homer AK, are equipped
> with vortex generators on the underside of their horizonal stabs. Plus
> the normal ones on the wings. The guys who own these SuperCubs etc. tell
> me it makes a world of difference in the sensation of flying "uphill" all
> the time. I intend to put VG's on N-1033B when I get back down to FL.
> Maybe someone out there in Piete land has tried this too. Pipe-up if you
> have. Sorry about not being able to make it to Broadhead, but you all will
> be glad to know that the salmon are running just fine.
> Gordon Bowen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:14 AM
>
>
> BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while
> building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built
> without them, I would like your recommendations.
>
> I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.
> 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
> slightly
> 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
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: | GN-1 vs. Piet gaps |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye bolts
to attach control
surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol design.
Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the
tailfeathers are nothing to
fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story.
Mike C.
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 |
|
Subject: | Bill of materials |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
Again, and not to beat a dead horse as far as the research part of this project
but I need to ask. Does anyone have a good bill of materials that they would
be willing to share? Something I can uses to do my cost estimates with, and locate
vendors. It doesn't matter about the format, just something that will tell
me how much of each size and type material I need in wood and metal, now especially
the metal part as I may be close to the metal acquisition phase as soon
as tomorrow afternoon. I realize its rather short notice, but I figured with
the collective wisdom of the group and the opportunity presenting itself to
get metal in the next day or two I would at least ask.
Any basic listing would be helpful, naturally the more detail the better. If ya
got anything that's close you are willing to share it would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0400
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye bolts to attach
control
surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol design.
Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the tailfeathers
are nothing to
fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Re: Bill of materials |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: RAMPEYBOY@aol.com
I'd be interested in a bill of materials also. I haven't bought plans. I
guess the bill of materials is included with plans, or not?
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: | Bill of materials |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
You don't need to beat this particular horse - it's been beat to death
many times before. There is no definitive list because every Pietenpol
is different. For example, mine uses wire wheels and a straight axle,
so if you're building an "Improved" Pietenpol with the split axle gear,
mine wouldn't help you. Likewise, my 25" wide fuselage would have you
order too much plywood if you are building yours to the plans, but used
my list of materials. Of course, it is possible that you are building
yours exactly to the plans with no modifications, and there just might
be another Pietenpol out there built exactly to the plans, but I doubt
it. I've never seen any two Pietenpols that were even close to being
identical. Mike Cuy's and mine are pretty close - both have A65
Continentals and wire wheels with straight axles, and piano hinges on
the ailerons, but then his is a short fuselage, mine is a long, mine is
1" wider than plans, his has mechanical brakes, mine are hydraulic, his
uses curved windscreens, mine are 3-pane flat - the list of differences
goes on and on.
One of the joys of building a Pietenpol is that you get to do every
single step of the creative process, and have to think. Pity the
kitbuilder - someone else got to do all the thinking and he is not
allowed to think. He is not a builder, but merely an assembler.
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
amsafetyc@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:51 PM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
Again, and not to beat a dead horse as far as the research part of this
project but I need to ask. Does anyone have a good bill of materials
that they would be willing to share? Something I can uses to do my cost
estimates with, and locate vendors. It doesn't matter about the format,
just something that will tell me how much of each size and type material
I need in wood and metal, now especially the metal part as I may be
close to the metal acquisition phase as soon as tomorrow afternoon. I
realize its rather short notice, but I figured with the collective
wisdom of the group and the opportunity presenting itself to get metal
in the next day or two I would at least ask.
Any basic listing would be helpful, naturally the more detail the
better. If ya got anything that's close you are willing to share it
would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0400
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye
bolts to attach control
surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol
design.
Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the
tailfeathers are nothing to
fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
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: Bill of materials |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
Jack thanks for your reply, actually I intend to go wider and 25" does sound attractive,
I am not a small guy and intended on down loading info from the archives
about stretch and widen, so we may be close pretty close. I am trying to
not reinvent the wheel or the peit for that matter, but moreover extract the current
wisdom for my own speed and design purposes. Which is the reason I am looking
for in the bill of materials. It will save a great deal of time rather
than studying the drawings and listing each piece to come up with the gross numbers.
The metal opportunity is at hand and I would like to take full advantage of the
opportunity as it available. I typically like to get the research done and design
a plan of attack prior to beginning any project, especially one this complex.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:03:17 -0400
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
You don't need to beat this particular horse - it's been beat to death
many times before. There is no definitive list because every Pietenpol
is different. For example, mine uses wire wheels and a straight axle,
so if you're building an "Improved" Pietenpol with the split axle gear,
mine wouldn't help you. Likewise, my 25" wide fuselage would have you
order too much plywood if you are building yours to the plans, but used
my list of materials. Of course, it is possible that you are building
yours exactly to the plans with no modifications, and there just might
be another Pietenpol out there built exactly to the plans, but I doubt
it. I've never seen any two Pietenpols that were even close to being
identical. Mike Cuy's and mine are pretty close - both have A65
Continentals and wire wheels with straight axles, and piano hinges on
the ailerons, but then his is a short fuselage, mine is a long, mine is
1" wider than plans, his has mechanical brakes, mine are hydraulic, his
uses curved windscreens, mine are 3-pane flat - the list of differences
goes on and on.
One of the joys of building a Pietenpol is that you get to do every
single step of the creative process, and have to think. Pity the
kitbuilder - someone else got to do all the thinking and he is not
allowed to think. He is not a builder, but merely an assembler.
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
amsafetyc@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:51 PM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
Again, and not to beat a dead horse as far as the research part of this
project but I need to ask. Does anyone have a good bill of materials
that they would be willing to share? Something I can uses to do my cost
estimates with, and locate vendors. It doesn't matter about the format,
just something that will tell me how much of each size and type material
I need in wood and metal, now especially the metal part as I may be
close to the metal acquisition phase as soon as tomorrow afternoon. I
realize its rather short notice, but I figured with the collective
wisdom of the group and the opportunity presenting itself to get metal
in the next day or two I would at least ask.
Any basic listing would be helpful, naturally the more detail the
better. If ya got anything that's close you are willing to share it
would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0400
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye
bolts to attach control
surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol
design.
Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the
tailfeathers are nothing to
fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Bill of materials |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Jack's post is very realistic in regards to compiling a bill of materials
for a Pietenpol or GN-1.
When ordering my wood I simply got out the plans, went over them slowly and
noted the size and lengths
I would need for each component of my plane, for example the wing type (3
pce) and called Wicks and
ordered it. They brought my wood load to Oshkosh where I picked it up
from their truck and trucked it home
atop our vehicle to save trucking costs.
Steel is another matter--wether you buy strips or bulk sheets and have it
sheared.
Most of the fittings are either .060" or .090" 4130 with a few odd
thicknesses here and there
and a smattering of tubing sizes.
An acquaintance once owned an AN hardware business and wanted to put
together a hardware kit for a Piet
and it really is an act of futility as we all build slightly different, use
different ideas, gear types, wing configurations, engine
types, cable sizes for brace cables, big or small, and big or small turn
buckles.
If this was an RV kit I could see a very nice hardware kit coming along,
but this whole thing is scratch thought out and built.
Mike C.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Bill of materials |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
Nope, no bill of materials, just a cost sheet of what it cost Bernie to buy the
parts on the list when he built his. No real listing of specs and quantities
of each material that one could without study of the prints. At least none that
I was able to comprehend.
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:54:48 EDT
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: RAMPEYBOY@aol.com
I'd be interested in a bill of materials also. I haven't bought plans. I
guess the bill of materials is included with plans, or not?
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
John-- if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA
for about $75.
These will save you time so you order the right hardware, right
steel (steel has a grain direction and can't be bent across the
grain.....I didn't know that
when I started building) the right wood, the right stuff that will save you
tons of time by not having to re-do your mistakes.
Those books paid for themselves over and over again in TIME and money saved
on my project.
It is great to plan, to go to Brodhead, to take notes, photos,
measurements, ask questions, review the archives---but this plane takes as much
time to think about as it does to build. I have tons of notes, scratch
pad ideas, things I would modify, change, change again, read about how
to do and the actual doing took far less time than the planning so planning
is good, for sure but listing materials for the plane is about one of
your shorter tasks in a 3-8 year project.
Mike C.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
correction---steel should be bent perpendicular to the grain (printing on
the steel sheet)
Funny thing about the Piet is that you just don't place one order for
materials. You will be on a first name
basis with the people at Wicks, your hardware source, your fabric and
finishing source, and your UPS man or woman in short
order while building a scratch-built plane.
Mike C.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
Now that I have the full set of drawing and supplements that's the next thing
on my list as far as publications to guide me through the process.
"if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA for about
$75". That to me was a great part of the advise cycle I have already noted and
intend on ordering within the next 2 weeks, along with joining the local chapter
of the EAA.
I am new to this process and all ears when it comes to information, research, tips
and tricks.
Thanks again
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:27:59 -0400
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
John-- if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA for
about $75.
These will save you time so you order the right hardware, right steel (steel has
a grain direction and can't be bent across the grain.....I didn't know that
when I started building) the right wood, the right stuff that will save you tons
of time by not having to re-do your mistakes.
Those books paid for themselves over and over again in TIME and money saved on
my project.
It is great to plan, to go to Brodhead, to take notes, photos, measurements, ask
questions, review the archives---but this plane takes as much
time to think about as it does to build. I have tons of notes, scratch pad ideas,
things I would modify, change, change again, read about how
to do and the actual doing took far less time than the planning so planning is
good, for sure but listing materials for the plane is about one of
your shorter tasks in a 3-8 year project.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________
Message 27
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: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Good point about being on a first name basis with the UPS man. I
brought him down to my basement one day to show him the Piet under
construction. After that he never left a package out in the rain again,
but brought them up to the front porch.
Another reason no list of materials exists is because most builders
piecemeal it out, buying the stuff for the wings, then the fuselage,
then the tail, etc, rather than all at once. I have no idea what parts
I bought for mine. I've got all the invoices, and I know it tiotalled a
little over $7000 (not counting the engine), but it would take me a week
to compile a single list from it.
If you are having it shipped, it is an advantage to order all the big
stuff (spars, longerons, sheets of plywood) that has to go by truck
rather than UPS all at the same time to save on shipping. It costs
about $100 to ship by truck, whether it is just one spar or enough
lumber to buidl three airplanes.
Jack Phillips
About to put my brain in neutral and order a Kit, so I can become an
airplane assembler instead of a builder.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
D Cuy
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:31 PM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
correction---steel should be bent perpendicular to the grain (printing
on
the steel sheet)
Funny thing about the Piet is that you just don't place one order for
materials. You will be on a first name
basis with the people at Wicks, your hardware source, your fabric and
finishing source, and your UPS man or woman in short
order while building a scratch-built plane.
Mike C.
_________________________________________________
Message 28
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: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Buy a copy of AC 43.13B "Acceptable methods - Aircraft Inspection and
Repair", too. I also found the EAA's book on aircraft welding to be
useful, but you probably know more about welding than I did when I
started building (my dog did).
Jack Phillips
Pietenpol Builder
RV Assembler (soon)
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
amsafetyc@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:49 PM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
Now that I have the full set of drawing and supplements that's the next
thing on my list as far as publications to guide me through the process.
"if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA
for about $75". That to me was a great part of the advise cycle I have
already noted and intend on ordering within the next 2 weeks, along with
joining the local chapter of the EAA.
I am new to this process and all ears when it comes to information,
research, tips and tricks.
Thanks again
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:27:59 -0400
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
John-- if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru
EAA for about $75.
These will save you time so you order the right hardware, right steel
(steel has a grain direction and can't be bent across the grain.....I
didn't know that
when I started building) the right wood, the right stuff that will save
you tons of time by not having to re-do your mistakes.
Those books paid for themselves over and over again in TIME and money
saved on my project.
It is great to plan, to go to Brodhead, to take notes, photos,
measurements, ask questions, review the archives---but this plane takes
as much
time to think about as it does to build. I have tons of notes, scratch
pad ideas, things I would modify, change, change again, read about how
to do and the actual doing took far less time than the planning so
planning is good, for sure but listing materials for the plane is about
one of
your shorter tasks in a 3-8 year project.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Message 29
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: | Airplane assemblers |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: HelsperSew@aol.com
I couldn't imagine myself just "putting part "A" in slot "B". It would bore
me to death. I need to exercise my brain, laying awake at night drawing
imaginary parts in my mind's eye. That is the beauty and fun of the Piet.
Bernard actually did us a huge favor when he left a lot of stuff out of the plans
(even though I have been cussing him of late after I scrapped my second set
of straight axle landing gear struts and fittings).
Dan Helsper
Message 30
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: | Airplane assemblers |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
I agree Dan,
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) my new
bride loves to fly, as long as we're going somewhere. She doesn't care
at all to just go "up", like I enjoy with the Pietenpol. If I say,
"let's fly the RV-4 to..." she's out the door and climbing in the
cockpit before I can even finish the sentence. I've taken her up in the
Piet once and she couldn't believe how long it took to get to the end of
the runway after takeoff. It couldn't have been much over a minute
(6500' runway). She's used to getting wherever she wants to go at 170
knots, but she finds the RV-4 too cramped for comfortable travel. Hence
my decision to build (excuse me, "assemble") an RV-10. Maybe I'll
modify it and make the world's first taildragger RV-10, just so it's not
exactly like 1,000 other airplanes.
Don't get me wrong, she loves the Pietenpol and thinks it's a cool
plane, as long as she doesn't have to sit in it very long. At least she
likes to fly, which is more than I can say for wife #1 or wife #2. And
she understands my need to fly a plane with no starter, no forward
visibility and open cockpits.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
HelsperSew@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:14 PM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: HelsperSew@aol.com
I couldn't imagine myself just "putting part "A" in slot "B". It would
bore
me to death. I need to exercise my brain, laying awake at night
drawing
imaginary parts in my mind's eye. That is the beauty and fun of the
Piet.
Bernard actually did us a huge favor when he left a lot of stuff out of
the plans
(even though I have been cussing him of late after I scrapped my second
set
of straight axle landing gear struts and fittings).
Dan Helsper
_________________________________________________
Message 31
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: HelsperSew@aol.com
Jack,
Alright I guess I can forgive you this time, after your explanation. I also
have another "going some place" airplane. My wife (#1) is not into this
Pietenpol thing unfortunately. You better hang on tight to #3. Tell your wife
if she ever decides to dump you to look me up.
Dan H
Message 32
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: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 6/21/2006 9:09:16 AM Central Standard Time,
jim_markle@mindspring.com writes:
According to my map it's about 37 miles.....
Which means that if I were 148 miles high, it would be within gliding
distance of a Pietenpol. That's considering a 4 to 1 glide ratio.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Message 33
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: Brodhead oops |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 6/21/2006 4:36:04 PM Central Standard Time, Rcaprd@aol.com
writes:
Which means that if I were 148 miles high, it would be within gliding
distance of a Pietenpol. That's considering a 4 to 1 glide ratio.
Oops !! Got that backwards !! If I were 9 1/4 miles high, Brodhead would
be gliding distance from Rockford. 4 to 1 glide ratio.
Chuck G.
Message 34
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: | Bill of materials |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
John,
I have a list of the material I used for my Piet at
http://www.cpc-world.com.
Check under Services & Suppliers > Material Lists.
As noted in previous emails on this thread, this is what I used for my Piet,
yours may be different. It should however give you a good guide for costing
etc.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
amsafetyc@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2006 4:51 AM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
Again, and not to beat a dead horse as far as the research part of this
project but I need to ask. Does anyone have a good bill of materials that
they would be willing to share? Something I can uses to do my cost estimates
with, and locate vendors. It doesn't matter about the format, just something
that will tell me how much of each size and type material I need in wood
and metal, now especially the metal part as I may be close to the metal
acquisition phase as soon as tomorrow afternoon. I realize its rather short
notice, but I figured with the collective wisdom of the group and the
opportunity presenting itself to get metal in the next day or two I would at
least ask.
Any basic listing would be helpful, naturally the more detail the better. If
ya got anything that's close you are willing to share it would be greatly
appreciated!
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0400
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye bolts
to attach control
surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol design.
Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the
tailfeathers are nothing to
fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
--
Message 35
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: tenpol-List: |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <waltdak@verizon.net>
Mike,
Funny, you must have the same gene for humor as me (or vice versa) You seam
to pick up on the same stuff.
I was on a first name basis with the UPS driver, who would come down to the
basement whenever I didn't answer the door. He followed my project to about
2/3 done. Now the next guy took over, and a couple years later is still
around.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:30 PM
>>
> Funny thing about the Piet is that you just don't place one order for
> materials. You will be on a first name
>
> basis with the people at Wicks, your hardware source, your fabric and
> finishing source, and your UPS man or woman in short
>
> order while building a scratch-built plane.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 36
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: "Michael Conkling" <hpvs@southwind.net>
The "luck of the draw"!! ;-) Brodhead is the same weekend as our community
Rodeo (4 nights where the whole town working as "slave labor"!!) & my
"On-call" weekend for work. I won't be up that way this year -- but will be
dreaming of it!! (maybe if I camp out in the yard & play Chuck & Mike 's
videos I'll feel better!! ;-)
Hey Chuck G.! -- save me a copy of the "Building" DVD -- it will be for
another flight exhibit! (the "Flying" DVD has my Boss starting a Wag Aero
Cub !)
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
Do Not Archive
Message 37
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: Isablcorky@aol.com
Have the set (4) of Bengelis books and will probably never open any again.
$40 plus UPS if anyone is interested.
Corky
Message 38
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: KMHeide <kmheidecpo@yahoo.com>
Travel distance to Janesville is about 30 minutes and then another 20 minutes to
Rockford.
amsafetyc@aol.com wrote: --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com
How far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on how to
combine business with passion and really need to see examples and continue the
prebuild research.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Tim Willis
The Brodhead dates are Fri Jul 21-- Sun Jul 23.
I plan to drive up and get there as early as possible on Friday. I will have
a car for errands, supplies, beer runs, etc. I will be camping there on Friday
night, but will likely move to a motel in Rockford on Saturday, for I am meeting
an old friend from Chicago who says his 75-yr.-old back doesn't do air matresses
any longer.
That's my plan for now.
Chuck Gantzer told me he was likely going up Thursday to get settled in.
Oscar has told me he cannot go this year.
Corky, are you thinking of going? I'll have the scotch this time.
I look forward to meeting you all.
Tim
.
Pietenpol-List Digest Server
wrote:
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-06-19.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-06-19.txt
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 06/19/06: 13
----------------------------------------------------------
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 _____________________________________
Time: 04:59:13 AM PST US
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
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
_________________________________________________
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.
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 06:07:26 AM PST US
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 _____________________________________
Time: 08:02:08 AM PST US
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church"
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 _____________________________________
Time: 09:36:38 AM PST US
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy"
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"
>
>
> 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 5 _____________________________________
Time: 09:56:46 AM PST US
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack"
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
=== message truncated ==
---------------------------------
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
=== message truncated ==
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting
at 1/min.
Message 39
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: | a comment on brakes |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Just thinking out loud here as I clean up and overhaul the brakes on 41CC.
They are labeled Cessna brakes and even if they are off of the smallest
modern Cessna airplane, the C150, they should be more than anyone would ever
need on a Piet. The C150 has a max gross of 1600 lbs. and an empty weight
of nearly more than the Piet's max gross, not to mention 100HP as standard.
Should be more than adequate for holding an A65 on runup or on a full power
short-field takeoff, and certainly for landing duty. Good choice, Corky.
All I'm doing is cleaning, stripping paint and repainting, replacing O-rings
on the wheel cylinder pistons, and replacing the aluminum brake lines with
Nylaflow tubing. The aluminum kinked when the gear folded up.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 40
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: a comment on brakes |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
While you are at it change the 0 rings in the cylinders.
Message 41
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: Brodhead Buzz |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Dog67@aol.com
Steve - I have an empty seat in a glastar, if you want a ride to Brodhead.
Just have to leave earlier that week :)
Cheers
jon apfelbaum
Message 42
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: Gap Seals/Prop |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
Barry,
Just today put on Hall VG's from Spruce, cheapest of the various suppliers,
on my Osprey. For $186 got roll of 3M electricians tape, bottle of Pliobond
rubber adhesive and 46 slightly curved VG's plus 16 flat VG's (for underside
tail feathers). I ended up just using the Vg's and my own
polyurethane/silicone adhesive. Anyway, kinda expensive but they wind
tunnelled these and give a good explanation of where to put them. I need to
put them for sure on the Osprey because of the funny flight characteristics
of this homebuilt and it's loss of tailfeather effectiveness with loss of
power. I have a o-235 on the Piete and am kinda big (6'4"/260 lbs) for a
Piete. Moved the engine out front with longer motor mount, battery forward
too, for CG reasons. Think the Vg's will help the tail don't know about the
stall etc. Due to the cost, think I'll make my own trial VG's for the Piete
out of plastic L extrusions first, then maybe a $186 set of al from Hall.
The Vg manufacturers don't do much with homebuilts regarding testing
effectiveness with wind tunnelling, except Longezes and RV's. Googling
"vortex generators", provide lots of info about using these on storebought
planes. But the guys here in Homer swear by them on their Supercubs, etc.
We'll see if the price was worth it.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:56 AM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Barry Davis" <bed@mindspring.com>
>
> I would be very interested in your experimentation on vortex generators. I
> hope you keep the group informed on your progress and results.
> Barry
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:22 PM
>
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen"
>> <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
>>
>> Mike,
>> Almost all the taildraggers here on the field at Homer AK, are equipped
>> with vortex generators on the underside of their horizonal stabs. Plus
>> the normal ones on the wings. The guys who own these SuperCubs etc. tell
>> me it makes a world of difference in the sensation of flying "uphill" all
>> the time. I intend to put VG's on N-1033B when I get back down to FL.
>> Maybe someone out there in Piete land has tried this too. Pipe-up if you
>> have. Sorry about not being able to make it to Broadhead, but you all
>> will be glad to know that the salmon are running just fine.
>> Gordon Bowen
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:14 AM
>>
>>
>> BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while
>> building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built
>> without them, I would like your recommendations.
>>
>> I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.
>> 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
>> slightly
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 43
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: Gap Seals/Prop |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike King" <mikek120@mindspring.com>
Gordon,
Thanks for the thought. I don't know that much about vortex generators
and would like to see a few pictures of your planes in Homer, AK
using them. I know people say Piets and GN-1s fly like Cubs, but
that is so far from the truth. I did my tailwheel checkout in a Cub before
I flew my GN-1. When I flew my plane, it did NOT fly like a Cub......no
glide ratio, float, etc...... When you pull the throttle, back it is going straight
down.
Now, I am thinking about a combination of vortex generators and/or
gap seals.
Thanks Gordon for the input.
Best regards,
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Bowen
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gap Seals/Prop
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
Mike,
Almost all the taildraggers here on the field at Homer AK, are equipped with
vortex generators on the underside of their horizonal stabs. Plus the
normal ones on the wings. The guys who own these SuperCubs etc. tell me it
makes a world of difference in the sensation of flying "uphill" all the
time. I intend to put VG's on N-1033B when I get back down to FL. Maybe
someone out there in Piete land has tried this too. Pipe-up if you have.
Sorry about not being able to make it to Broadhead, but you all will be glad
to know that the salmon are running just fine.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:14 AM
BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while
building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built
without them, I would like your recommendations.
I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.
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
slightly
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
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! --
|