---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 08/29/06: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:46 AM - Re: Electric tach () 2. 07:03 AM - Elect tach (lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan)) 3. 08:33 AM - Re: fuel (Gene & Tammy) 4. 11:46 AM - Re: fuel (Gordon Bowen) 5. 12:33 PM - Re: fuel (hvandervoo@aol.com) 6. 12:57 PM - Re: fuel (Jeff Boatright) 7. 01:14 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Bill Church) 8. 01:47 PM - Re: fuel (walt evans) 9. 05:04 PM - Re: fuel (Gordon Bowen) 10. 06:08 PM - electrical tachs (Douwe Blumberg) 11. 06:18 PM - Re: Elect tach (Rcaprd@aol.com) 12. 06:28 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Don Emch) 13. 06:58 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Rcaprd@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:46:34 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Electric tach From: Because the mags are replacing the coil and battery;I may be wrong in this but I believe the mag puts out about 200v at start up.I have not checked this but it seems like something I've heard someone say along the way.I don't have the spec on the mags in front of me at this time so I'm only guessing.But it makes sence for start up it would have to be somewhere around the same as what a coil would put out. ________________________________ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rcaprd@aol.com Sent: August 29, 2006 12:43 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Electric tach In a message dated 8/28/2006 1:56:10 PM Central Standard Time, kmheidecpo@yahoo.com writes: Can you tell me the electrical output of the mags upon start-up and running. I am interested in using a voltage rectifier running off a mag which in turns provides a nice trickle charge back to a small motorcycle 12V battery. I am aware of the minimal drain on the battery however, I also plan on using ring gear and starter to fire up the engine. So any information as to the output is greatly appreciated. I was under the impression the mag puts out a lot of charge when starting up and then maintains a 12 volt current. Right or wrong? Keep the mags totally independent of any other portion of the electrical system. Voltage is different than current. Mags put out a very high voltage, which causes the spark to jump across the electrodes of the spark plugs. However, the current is very low. You need current to charge a battery, and if you rob the mags of their limited current, you are asking for trouble. Chuck G. NX770CG ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:03:41 AM PST US From: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan) Subject: Pietenpol-List: Elect tach --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan) I am using a Westach electric tach that I ordered from Wicks. It has a small generator that mounts on the tach drive pad. It is self contained and doesn't depend on a mag or spark plug for power. I don't have the catalog in front of me now, but I think it was around $120 back then-kind of expensive, but I felt it was worth it for not having to buy and mess with a drive cable and one or two 90d angle drives. Chet Peek was featured in the last news letter, so I'll bet he will be at Brodhead next year selling and signing his book. I have 3 or 4 of his books, I think I will bring all of them and have him sign them all. Mo gas vs. av gas....I haven't flown for 4 years, but the only difference I ever noticed ( beside cost ) in an 0-300 engine was after about 10 hours with 100LL, the plugs begin to led fowl. Leon S. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:33:09 AM PST US From: "Gene & Tammy" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel For what it's worth. I contacted EAA today and asked what their position is on using auto fuel in a Continental A65. Their reply was. "The FAA has approved the use of auto fuel in the C 65 and we find no fault in using auto fuel. In fact, we have the STC for auto fuel for those that fly standard catagory aircraft. The STC for each airplane costs $1.00 per horse power." Being an experimental it does not need the STC. Gene----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Navratil To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:36 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel I should have also added to my post that the auto fuel I have used does not have ethanol. I also realize that possibly an old tach might not be the most accurate. Also, the sod runway after a few days of rain might require a bit more takeoff run. Dick N. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:46:12 AM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel Hmmm. Let's do the math. C-65 at max. 5 gal/hr. Average flying time per year 100 hrs (thats 2 hrs/week year around, and that's a lot). 500 gals fuel per year. Average savings Mogas at $3.00/gal. vs AVgas at $4.00/gal. $1.00/gal. $500/year. Probably more like $100/yr savings for most of us due to limited flying season north of the Rio Grande. Heck, I waste almost that much in Skoal droppings. Known to have squandered that much in spilled liquid refreshments at the Down East Saloon as the Seahawks are getting worked over by the Steelers. Have hid at least 5 times that much in new airplane toys from sceptical tightwad Wifey. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: Gene & Tammy To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:32 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel For what it's worth. I contacted EAA today and asked what their position is on using auto fuel in a Continental A65. Their reply was. "The FAA has approved the use of auto fuel in the C 65 and we find no fault in using auto fuel. In fact, we have the STC for auto fuel for those that fly standard catagory aircraft. The STC for each airplane costs $1.00 per horse power." Being an experimental it does not need the STC. Gene----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Navratil To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:36 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel I should have also added to my post that the auto fuel I have used does not have ethanol. I also realize that possibly an old tach might not be the most accurate. Also, the sod runway after a few days of rain might require a bit more takeoff run. Dick N. ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:33:08 PM PST US From: hvandervoo@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel Dick, Here is a table with energy densities of different fuels. Auto gas holds more energy by volume than Avgas ( but less by weight ) If everything is equal, OAT, humidity & altitude. If you set for a lean mixture on Avgas, when switching from Avgas to Auto gas you will run slightly richer on Auto gas and perhaps see a drop in RPM (mixture being a fuction of volume) If you run and tune the mixture on auto gas and than switch to Avgas you might run too lean. Since we run with relatively (too) rich mixtures I doubt you will notice a real difference. Pound for pound there is a 9 % difference. Liquid Fuel MJ/litreLitre/TonneGJ/tonne LPGpropane25.3196049.6 LPGbutane27.7175049.1 LPGmixture25.7192849.6 Gasolineaviation33.0141249.6 Gasolineautomotive34.2136046.4 Kerosenepower37.5123046.1 Keroseneturbine fuel36.8126146.4 Kerosenelighting36.6127046.5 Heating Oil 37.3123846.2 Diesel Oilautomotive38.6118245.6 Diesel Oilindustrial39.6113544.9 Fuel Oillow sulphur39.7111044.1 Fuel Oilhigh sulphur40.8105042.9 Refinery Fuel 40.9105042.9 Naphtha 31.41534481 Lubricants 38.8112043.4 Bitumen 44.098142.7 Solvents 34.4122944.0 Waxes 38.8118045.8 Crude Oil 38.7116044.9 Ethanol 23.4126629.6 LNG-160C & 300kPa25.0217454.4 Hans -----Original Message----- From: horzpool@goldengate.net Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 7:26 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and didn't see much difference. However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be a 10% difference in power. I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running smooth, mag check before and after was good. I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal. of fuel. I don't do that with every fill. Any comments? Dick N. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:57:48 PM PST US From: Jeff Boatright Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel A consideration is that it's a real problem getting avgas out to our gas strip and there are NO airports with avgas AND turf runways nearby. The local gas station is 1 block from the runway. Do the math. ;) At 10:45 AM -0800 8/29/06, Gordon Bowen wrote: >Hmmm. Let's do the math. C-65 at max. 5 gal/hr. Average flying >time per year 100 hrs (thats 2 hrs/week year around, and that's a >lot). 500 gals fuel per year. Average savings Mogas at $3.00/gal. >vs AVgas at $4.00/gal. $1.00/gal. $500/year. Probably more >like $100/yr savings for most of us due to limited flying season >north of the Rio Grande. Heck, I waste almost that much in Skoal >droppings. Known to have squandered that much in spilled liquid >refreshments at the Down East Saloon as the Seahawks are getting >worked over by the Steelers. Have hid at least 5 times that much in >new airplane toys from sceptical tightwad Wifey. >Gordon > -- _____________________________________________________________ Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis mailto:jboatri@emory.edu ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 01:14:55 PM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question From: "Bill Church" Well, Gene, It looks to me like the attach bolts for the rear landing gear/lift struts will still pass through the 1/8" ply gusset plates and the spruce filler blocks. Granted, they will be at the forward end of the gusset, which looks "unusual", but there, nonetheless. I agree that this looks like it may have been an afterthought. We do know that Bernard kept trying different things with this old design, so that might be the case. ***Just speculation on my part here, but MAYBE in the development of the split gear, Bernard found that it was somehow "better" with the rear attach points at 27 1/2" instead of 28 3/4" (for whatever reason), but found that it worked fine with the fuselage sides left as-is, and just beefed-up, widened and shifted the bottom cross piece.*** As one more piece of evidence that the 27 1/2" dimension was not just a slip of the pencil, look at drawing No. 1, on the right hand side, more than half way down. The detail is labelled is the "constructional view of the front cockpit", and it clearly shows the "white ash cross strut" at the forward end of the gusset plate. (small drawing attached) IF the 27 1/2" is a mistake, it's a mistake that got repeated in at least four places on the drawings. I believe that the 27 1/2" dimension was most likely the way Bernard built the first (or second, or whatever) Improved Air Camper, and the drawings were made to reflect the details of that plane. But that's just my opinion - nobody needs to agree with me - I won't be offended. And if anyone has a more compelling argument (or even some facts), I might change my opinion. "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 01:47:53 PM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel Not sure if this was brought up on this thread. But higher or lower octane gas has the same power. Only reason for the higher octane is to run in higher compression engines. So the fuel won't pre ignite due to the diesel effect of heat being caused by compressing the fuel/air mixture. I'm flying an A-65 which has a relitively low Compression Ratio of 6.3. So to me the octane is not the issue. At the point that I had the engine on the plane and on the gear, was fun to run the engine in the yard and blow the leaves around. Had a gallon or two of auto fuel in the tank. This sat in the system over the winter in the garage. In the spring, for whatever reason, I shut off the fuel and took the bowl off the gascollator. The top rubber gasket was all puffed up and kind of gooey. If it did this with a certified gascollator, what's it doing to my rubber tipped float needle from 1940's technology. For the little difference in price per gallon, I'll stick with avgas. To much volitile stuff in auto gas. Take two shallow bowls and put about 1/2 cup of each gas in different bowls. Next day the auto gas is dry,,,the avgas is still there. Go figure. walt evans NX140DL "Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you" Ben Franklin ----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Navratil To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:26 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and didn't see much difference. However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be a 10% difference in power. I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running smooth, mag check before and after was good. I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal. of fuel. I don't do that with every fill. Any comments? Dick N. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 05:04:04 PM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel I can answer partially the swollen gaskets question. Mogas has been using aromatic hydrocarbons like xylene and napthalene since they dropped tetraethyl lead as the antiknock additive. These high mol. weight aromatics change the partial pressures needed to vaporize the fuel compared to the normal fuel C-8 aliphatic hydrocarbon (heptane's first cousin), thus antiknock. These aromatics are added at diff rates depending on the region of the country and the season of the year. That's why the refineries are complaining about the EPA and State rules on Mogas formulas and why refineries are overloaded. Too many formulas for Mogas. Old leaded fuels didn't have these aromatics. Even 100LowLead AVgas doesn't. Problem is these aromatic hydrocarbons are dandy solvents for rubber gaskets of various flavors. Modern cars have modern plastics like teflon or viton seals in their fuel systems. Thus the puffy rubber gaskets in your old C-85. Old low and slow aeroplanes have to think twice about putting Mogas in an older fuel system. Alcohol and other ketones that are derived from corn/grain fermentation added to Mogas will only make the stuff a better solvent, thus future problems on down the road for all airplanes when they allow alcohol in the 100LL. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: walt evans To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel Not sure if this was brought up on this thread. But higher or lower octane gas has the same power. Only reason for the higher octane is to run in higher compression engines. So the fuel won't pre ignite due to the diesel effect of heat being caused by compressing the fuel/air mixture. I'm flying an A-65 which has a relitively low Compression Ratio of 6.3. So to me the octane is not the issue. At the point that I had the engine on the plane and on the gear, was fun to run the engine in the yard and blow the leaves around. Had a gallon or two of auto fuel in the tank. This sat in the system over the winter in the garage. In the spring, for whatever reason, I shut off the fuel and took the bowl off the gascollator. The top rubber gasket was all puffed up and kind of gooey. If it did this with a certified gascollator, what's it doing to my rubber tipped float needle from 1940's technology. For the little difference in price per gallon, I'll stick with avgas. To much volitile stuff in auto gas. Take two shallow bowls and put about 1/2 cup of each gas in different bowls. Next day the auto gas is dry,,,the avgas is still there. Go figure. walt evans NX140DL "Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you" Ben Franklin ----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Navratil To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:26 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and didn't see much difference. However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be a 10% difference in power. I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running smooth, mag check before and after was good. I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal. of fuel. I don't do that with every fill. Any comments? Dick N. ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:08:15 PM PST US From: "Douwe Blumberg" Subject: Pietenpol-List: electrical tachs I'm using an electrical tach running off one mag. Tony Bingelis says it's okay as long as you install a fuse (can't remember the size) in line so that if the instrument should ever short out, it couldn't affect your mag. I'm running a Ford with two mags, and there is no observable difference in rpms between one mag and both. I think the plugs are so close together that the combustion is identical either way. Douwe ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:18:18 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elect tach In a message dated 8/29/2006 9:05:40 AM Central Standard Time, lshutks@webtv.net writes: It has a small generator that mounts on the tach drive pad. It is self contained and doesn't depend on a mag or spark plug for power. I like this method Much better than something that robs power from the mags...however, I still preferr the old tach cable / driven tachs - just don 't use any 90=BA angle drives...keep the cable straight, and very little bends, to the tach. Chuck G. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:28:30 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question From: "Don Emch" --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Don Emch" I know this has been said many times before, but...if you try to follow the plans as closely as you can, you really will build a good airplane. Mine is to the plans with the exception of the A-65, nose tank, moving the wheels forward 1" (geometry in the gear only) and the wing back 4". If I were to build another, (the thought has crossed my mind) I think the only changes I would make would be to try to build one with a Model A straight off of the plans. I would never try to force my opinion on someone else, it is just that I really like the airplane and how it flies. Sorry...I know it's been said many times. Don E. NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=58357#58357 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 06:58:57 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question I measured the distance between the struts on my plane this evening. The measurements I made were between the centers of the attach bolts. At the lower end, where the gear lugs are, they are 27 7/8" on center. At the upper end they are 28 7/8" on center. They are One Inch out of Parallel. I have never realized they were not parallel. It seems Gene has come up with an anomaly in the plans that very few folks were aware of. Congrats, Gene !! Chuck G. NX770CG