Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:34 AM - Just A Few Days Left; Trailing Last Year... (Matt Dralle)
1. 05:39 AM - Re: Fuse questions... (amsafetyc@aol.com)
2. 06:08 AM - Re: Fuse questions... (Rick Holland)
3. 07:14 AM - Re: Is a firewall necessary? (Alan Lyscars)
4. 07:36 AM - Re: Is a firewall necessary? (Phillips, Jack)
5. 08:05 AM - Re: Is a firewall necessary? (Hans Vander Voort)
6. 08:21 AM - Re: Is a firewall necessary? ()
7. 08:27 AM - Re: Fuse questions... (Roman Bukolt)
8. 09:04 AM - Re: Fuse questions... (Hans Vander Voort)
9. 10:46 AM - Re: heavy piet (Phillips, Jack)
10. 11:57 AM - Re: heavy piet (Bill Church)
11. 12:07 PM - Re: heavy piet (Phillips, Jack)
12. 01:13 PM - Re: T-88 vs. resorcinol (Gary Gower)
13. 02:37 PM - Re: Is a firewall necessary? (Rcaprd@aol.com)
14. 03:01 PM - Re: heavy piet (Gene & Tammy)
15. 05:39 PM - Re: Fuse questions... (Roman Bukolt)
16. 07:07 PM - Gorilla Glue (last post) (Oscar Zuniga)
17. 08:43 PM - Re: heavy piet (Pietsrneat@aol.com)
Message 0
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
DNA; do not archive
Subject: | Few Days Left; Trailing Last Year... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few more days left of this year's List Fund Raiser! Response
has been very good, but we are behind last year in the number of people that have
made a Contribution and as a percentage of the total number of subscribers.
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser.
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: | Re: Fuse questions... |
I may be required to change my build strategy and go with the metal tube design.
I am curious to learn about any appreciable weight advantages/disadvantages
or considerations between the wooden and steel versions. I just learned that the
wood worker I had to assist in this project may be moving in the near future
so I may need to make some drastic changes in my build plan and go metal. I
am better equipped and adept at metal than I am at wood,however I may be able
to get him to build the wings with me before he moves.
Any input, comment or advice is greatly appreciated!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: enhubbard@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions...
Phillips, Jack wrote:
A couple of concerns, Ken,
I made my Pietenpol 1" wider than plans, and used the long fuselage plans. The
result is a pretty heavy Pietenpol (empty weight 745 lbs), which climbs even
worse than usual for a Piet. There are a couple of problems with the long, wide
fuselage. The first is weight. SOme years ago, someone on this list compiled
a list of Pietenpols at Brodhead, comparing their empty weights and CG locations.
Every one of the long fuselage Piets came in at over 700 lbs, and a couple
were over 800 lbs. You wouldn't think that adding 9" or so would add 50
to 100 lbs, but it seems to do so. Making it wider adds substantial weight as
well. The other problem with a wider fuselage is in expense. With a 24" wide
fuselage, you can use a single sheet of plywood ripped lengthwise for the floorboards
and firewall. If you make it wider, you will use a lot more plywood,
with substantial waste.
The Pietenpol is supposed to have a gross weight of about 1050 lbs. If you weigh
254 lbs, and carry 10 gallons of gas, your airplane can only weigh 736 lbs
EMPTY, and you'd probably better not plan on carrying any passengers. I have
flown mine with myself and a 205 lb passenger, and 15 gallons of fuel on board,
for a gross weight of 1,240 lbs. It flew, but I was glad we were flying off
a 6,000' paved runway. Climb rate was a shade under 100 feet per minute.
If I were to build another one, I would build the short fuselage and keep it standard
width. I'm 6'2 and 200 lbs, and I've flown Mike Cuy's standard width,
short fuse Piet and found it nearly as comfortable as my own, with a better climb
rate.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KMHeide
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 4:42 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions...
Fellow Pieters:
Question.....If you are going to build a wider fuselage would you build it 3"
or 4" wider? Also, are they going to be any major changes is the structural integrity,
rigging etc.... Lastly, for a guy who is 6'0 and 254lbs....is the current
size of the plane comfortable? what modification if any have you made to
improve function and comfort of this plane design.
Ken H.
Fargo, ND
_________________________________________________
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
________________________________________________________________________
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuse questions... |
John
I have heard that the metal fuselage is lighter than the wood version, and
compared to a spruce fuselage would be cheaper also.
Rick
On 11/29/06, amsafetyc@aol.com <amsafetyc@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I may be required to change my build strategy and go with the metal tube
> design. I am curious to learn about any appreciable weight
> advantages/disadvantages or considerations between the wooden and steel
> versions. I just learned that the wood worker I had to assist in this
> project may be moving in the near future so I may need to make some drastic
> changes in my build plan and go metal. I am better equipped and adept at
> metal than I am at wood,however I may be able to get him to build the
> wings with me before he moves.
>
> Any input, comment or advice is greatly appreciated!
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: enhubbard@sbcglobal.net
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 2:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions...
>
> Phillips, Jack wrote:
>
> A couple of concerns, Ken,
>
> I made my Pietenpol 1" wider than plans, and used the long fuselage pla
> ns. The result is a pretty heavy Pietenpol (empty weight 745 lbs), which
> climbs even worse than usual for a Piet. There are a couple of problems
> with the long, wide fuselage. The first is weight. SOme years ago, someone
> on this list compiled a list of Pietenpols at Brodhead, comparing their
> empty weights and CG locations. Every one of the long fuselage Piets came
> in at over 700 lbs, and a couple were over 800 lbs. You wouldn't think that
> adding 9" or so would add 50 to 100 lbs, but it seems to do so. Making it
> wider adds substantial weight as well. The other problem with a wider
> fuselage is in expense. W ith a 24" wide fuselage, you can use a single
> sheet of plywood ripped lengthwise for the floorboards and firewall. If you
> make it wider, you will use a lot more plywood, with substantial waste.
>
> The Pietenpol is supposed to have a gross weight of about 1050 lbs. If
> you weigh 254 lbs, and carry 10 gallons of gas, your airplane can only weigh
> 736 lbs EMPTY, and you'd probably better not plan on carrying any
> passengers. I have flown mine with myself and a 205 lb passenger, and 15
> gallons of fuel on board, for a gross weight of 1,240 lbs. It flew, but I
> was glad we were flying off a 6,000' paved runway. Climb rate was a shade
> under 100 feet per minute.
>
> If I were to build another one, I would build the short fuselage and keep
> it standard width. I'm 6'2 and 200 lbs, and I've flown Mike Cuy'sstandard width,
short fuse
> Piet and found it nearly as comfortable as my own, with a better climb
> rate.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto
> :owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *KMHeide
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 18, 2006 4:42 PM
> *To:* Pietenpol
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions...
>
> Fellow Pieters:
>
> Question.....If you are going to build a wider fuselage would you build it
> 3" or 4" wider? Also, are they going to be any major changes is the
> structural integrity, rigging etc.... Lastly, for a guy who is 6'0 and
> 254lbs....is the current size of the plane comfortable? what modification if
> any have you made to improve function and comfort of this plane design.
>
> Ken H.
> Fargo, ND
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
>
> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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: | Re: Is a firewall necessary? |
Chuck,
An ole timer in our Chapter gave me a sheet of titanium more than large
enough for a firewall. Is it ok to use this metal compared to stainless
steel?
Al in Portland Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary?
In a message dated 11/28/2006 1:20:33 AM Central Standard Time,
HelsperSew@aol.com writes:
What are the opinions out there on this subject of firewalls?
Dan,
Yes, a Firewall is Definately necessary !! The only material that
should be used for Firewalls, are either Stainless Steel, or the less
expensive Galvanized steel. When I had the Model A on my Pietenpol, I
used Galvanized just up to the top edge of the face of the firewall, but
not into the shelf area. It would be very difficult to build enough
protection into the shelf area because there is so many inside corners
and sides to protect. That would also cause a place for moisture to
collect. For this reason, the Model A Pietenpol is a very difficult
design to protect from an engine fire. When I did the Firewall Forward
retrofit to the Continental A65 engine, I used a full face - one piece
Stainless Steel firewall, and backed it up with the thickest fiberglass
matt (not weave) I could find which is about 1/16" thick. I think it's
a good idea to back it up with FiberFrax (which is a Ceramic fiber),
which is superior to fiberglass...just have to be carefull not to
compress the thickness of the FiberFrax. I'm using 1/8" FiberFrax
behind the firewall on my Tailwind. Lynn Knoll and I did a flame test
on the Fiberfax, and it simply will Not burn.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Is a firewall necessary? |
Good luck drilling all the holes in it you will require. Titanium is
difficult to work. Should be good enough from a temperature standpoint
- it melts at 3034 F (steel melts at around 2500 - 2700 F, depending on
the alloy). Ti will save you some weight, where you don't need to save
it.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan
Lyscars
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:14 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary?
Chuck,
An ole timer in our Chapter gave me a sheet of titanium more
than large enough for a firewall. Is it ok to use this metal compared
to stainless steel?
Al in Portland Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary?
In a message dated 11/28/2006 1:20:33 AM Central
Standard Time, HelsperSew@aol.com writes:
What are the opinions out there on this subject
of firewalls?
Dan,
Yes, a Firewall is Definately necessary !! The only
material that should be used for Firewalls, are either Stainless Steel,
or the less expensive Galvanized steel. When I had the Model A on my
Pietenpol, I used Galvanized just up to the top edge of the face of the
firewall, but not into the shelf area. It would be very difficult to
build enough protection into the shelf area because there is so many
inside corners and sides to protect. That would also cause a place for
moisture to collect. For this reason, the Model A Pietenpol is a very
difficult design to protect from an engine fire. When I did the
Firewall Forward retrofit to the Continental A65 engine, I used a full
face - one piece Stainless Steel firewall, and backed it up with the
thickest fiberglass matt (not weave) I could find which is about 1/16"
thick. I think it's a good idea to back it up with FiberFrax (which is
a Ceramic fiber), which is superior to fiberglass...just have to be
carefull not to compress the thickness of the FiberFrax. I'm using
1/8" FiberFrax behind the firewall on my Tailwind. Lynn Knoll and I did
a flame test on the Fiberfax, and it simply will Not burn.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ch
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Is a firewall necessary? |
Alan,
Titanium is lighter than stainless,
More corrosion resistant than stainless
But has a much higher thermal conductivity than stainless, almost the same
as Aluminum.
Thus I would not recommend using it as the main objective of the firewall
is insulation from heat not fire (the same reason we use fibrefrax)
I work for a company that makes plate heat exchangers out of titanium,
excellent material for that duty.
Hans
"Alan Lyscars"
<alyscars@maine.r
r.com> To
Sent by: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall
necessary?
11/29/2006 09:13
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Chuck,
An ole timer in our Chapter gave me a sheet of titanium more than large
enough for a firewall. Is it ok to use this metal compared to stainless
steel?
Al in Portland Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary?
In a message dated 11/28/2006 1:20:33 AM Central Standard Time,
HelsperSew@aol.com writes:
What are the opinions out there on this subject of firewalls?
Dan,
Yes, a Firewall is Definately necessary !! The only material that should
be used for Firewalls, are either Stainless Steel, or the less expensive
Galvanized steel. When I had the Model A on my Pietenpol, I used
Galvanized just up to the top edge of the face of the firewall, but not
into the shelf area. It would be very difficult to build enough
protection into the shelf area because there is so many inside corners and
sides to protect. That would also cause a place for moisture to collect.
For this reason, the Model A Pietenpol is a very difficult design to
protect from an engine fire. When I did the Firewall Forward retrofit to
the Continental A65 engine, I used a full face - one piece Stainless Steel
firewall, and backed it up with the thickest fiberglass matt (not weave) I
could find which is about 1/16" thick. I think it's a good idea to back
it up with FiberFrax (which is a Ceramic fiber), which is superior to
fiberglass...just have to be carefull not to compress the thickness of the
FiberFrax. I'm using 1/8" FiberFrax behind the firewall on my Tailwind.
Lynn Knoll and I did a flame test on the Fiberfax, and it simply will Not
burn.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution
">http://www.matronics.com/chref="
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Is a firewall necessary? |
At a certain heat temperature,of which I cannot remember,aluminum will
act like magnesium ignited and believe me you don't want that for a fire
wall.The English found this out in the Fuaklins War(not sure of spelling
here) when their ships burned quite quickly to the waterline.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans
Vander Voort
Sent: November 29, 2006 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary?
<hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Alan,
Titanium is lighter than stainless,
More corrosion resistant than stainless
But has a much higher thermal conductivity than stainless, almost the
same
as Aluminum.
Thus I would not recommend using it as the main objective of the
firewall
is insulation from heat not fire (the same reason we use fibrefrax)
I work for a company that makes plate heat exchangers out of titanium,
excellent material for that duty.
Hans
"Alan Lyscars"
<alyscars@maine.r
r.com>
To
Sent by: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
owner-pietenpol-l
cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com
Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall
necessary?
11/29/2006 09:13
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Chuck,
An ole timer in our Chapter gave me a sheet of titanium more than large
enough for a firewall. Is it ok to use this metal compared to stainless
steel?
Al in Portland Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary?
In a message dated 11/28/2006 1:20:33 AM Central Standard Time,
HelsperSew@aol.com writes:
What are the opinions out there on this subject of firewalls?
Dan,
Yes, a Firewall is Definately necessary !! The only material that
should
be used for Firewalls, are either Stainless Steel, or the less
expensive
Galvanized steel. When I had the Model A on my Pietenpol, I used
Galvanized just up to the top edge of the face of the firewall, but not
into the shelf area. It would be very difficult to build enough
protection into the shelf area because there is so many inside corners
and
sides to protect. That would also cause a place for moisture to
collect.
For this reason, the Model A Pietenpol is a very difficult design to
protect from an engine fire. When I did the Firewall Forward retrofit
to
the Continental A65 engine, I used a full face - one piece Stainless
Steel
firewall, and backed it up with the thickest fiberglass matt (not
weave) I
could find which is about 1/16" thick. I think it's a good idea to
back
it up with FiberFrax (which is a Ceramic fiber), which is superior to
fiberglass...just have to be carefull not to compress the thickness of
the
FiberFrax. I'm using 1/8" FiberFrax behind the firewall on my
Tailwind.
Lynn Knoll and I did a flame test on the Fiberfax, and it simply will
Not
burn.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution
">http://www.matronics.com/chref="
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
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: Fuse questions... |
The Piet that I bought in Oct. built by a veteran homebuilder has a
steel tube fuse and tail framework.
The plane is covered in ceconite with two coats dope and two coats
automotive acrylic. It is powered by a Cont. A-65 and has an alum. 15
gal. fuel tank. Landing Gear is typical with 6x6.00 tires.
Empty weight 676 lb. About the same as a typical wood frame Piet.
One advantage is that it has a passenger cockpit door. Disadvantage
that you can't mount add ons with screws. you have to use those wrap
around clamps. also wood just looks so much prettier than steel tube.
Roman Bukolt NX 20795
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions...
John
I have heard that the metal fuselage is lighter than the wood version,
and compared to a spruce fuselage would be cheaper also.
Rick
On 11/29/06, amsafetyc@aol.com <amsafetyc@aol.com> wrote:
I may be required to change my build strategy and go with the metal
tube design. I am curious to learn about any appreciable weight
advantages/disadvantages or considerations between the wooden and steel
versions. I just learned that the wood worker I had to assist in this
project may be moving in the near future so I may need to make some
drastic changes in my build plan and go metal. I am better equipped and
adept at metal than I am at wood,however I may be able to get him to
build the wings with me before he moves.
Any input, comment or advice is greatly appreciated!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: enhubbard@sbcglobal.net
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions...
Phillips, Jack wrote:
A couple of concerns, Ken,
I made my Pietenpol 1" wider than plans, and used the long
fuselage plans. The result is a pretty heavy Pietenpol (empty weight
745 lbs), which climbs even worse than usual for a Piet. There are a
couple of problems with the long, wide fuselage. The first is weight.
SOme years ago, someone on this list compiled a list of Pietenpols at
Brodhead, comparing their empty weights and CG locations. Every one of
the long fuselage Piets came in at over 700 lbs, and a couple were over
800 lbs. You wouldn't think that adding 9" or so would add 50 to 100
lbs, but it seems to do so. Making it wider adds substantial weight as
well. The other problem with a wider fuselage is in expense. W ith a
24" wide fuselage, you can use a single sheet of plywood ripped
lengthwise for the floorboards and firewall. If you make it wider, you
will use a lot more plywood, with substantial waste.
The Pietenpol is supposed to have a gross weight of about 1050
lbs. If you weigh 254 lbs, and carry 10 gallons of gas, your airplane
can only weigh 736 lbs EMPTY, and you'd probably better not plan on
carrying any passengers. I have flown mine with myself and a 205 lb
passenger, and 15 gallons of fuel on board, for a gross weight of 1,240
lbs. It flew, but I was glad we were flying off a 6,000' paved runway.
Climb rate was a shade under 100 feet per minute.
If I were to build another one, I would build the short fuselage
and keep it standard width. I'm 6'2 and 200 lbs, and I've flown Mike
Cuy's standard width, short fuse Piet and found it nearly as comfortable
as my own, with a better climb rate.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KMHeide
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 4:42 PM
To: Pietenpol
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions...
Fellow Pieters:
Question.....If you are going to build a wider fuselage would
you build it 3" or 4" wider? Also, are they going to be any major
changes is the structural integrity, rigging etc.... Lastly, for a guy
who is 6'0 and 254lbs....is the current size of the plane comfortable?
what modification if any have you made to improve function and comfort
of this plane design.
Ken H.
Fargo, ND
_________________________________________________Dansk - Deutsch -
Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
www.aeroelectric.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuse questions... |
Just to compare.
My Pietenpol, long fuse with a Corvair, split landing gear, three piece
wing and poly fiber covering weights empty at 680 Lbs.
No deviations from the plans other than longer Cabane struts (2 inch),
center section cut out (no flop) and piano hinge ailerons
That makes it only 4 Lbs heavier than Roman's steel tube fuselage with a
similar setup.
Oh....and I have an electric starter and battery on board.
Hans
NX15KV
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 |
|
It's in the Archives. Here's a link to it:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=36631117?KEYS
=icarus_?LISTNAME=Pietenpol?HITNUMBER=44?SERIAL=09083512216?SHOWBUT
TONS
YES
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &
Tammy
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:42 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: heavy piet
Jack,
Let's hear the story about you trying to run down a pickup with
your Piet.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Phillips, Jack <mailto:Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: heavy piet
Hi Dan,
was only good for about 2 g's (which is about how hard I
hit on that landing, avoiding hitting a pickup truck).
a
_________________________________________________
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
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano -
Japanese - Nederlands - N
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ch
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
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 |
|
Jack,
Just went back to the archives to re-read your story. I remember reading
it back then, but I didn't remember the part about the photo shoot
pictures for Private Pilot. Anyway, I was wondering what happened to the
article and/or photos?
Bill C
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 |
|
By the time I got the plane rebuilt and was ready to re-shoot thephotos,
Private Pilot was no longer in business. The author/photographer that
was doing the story now writes freelance for AOPA Pilot. He's trying to
get some interest there for the story, but they are much less interested
in homebuilts.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:56 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: heavy piet
Jack,
Just went back to the archives to re-read your story. I remember
reading it back then, but I didn't remember the part about the photo
shoot pictures for Private Pilot. Anyway, I was wondering what happened
to the article and/or photos?
Bill C
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: T-88 vs. resorcinol |
Just a short comment,
Lets remember that some of the old airplanes (some still flying) were glued with
pre resorcinol ot T-88 glues, like Caseine glue and few are still flying or
in museums in perfect shape.
I have a few family furniture bonded with Caseine Glue that is in better shape
that the newer with modern glues...
Barnishing and mantainance is very important will prevent any wood around the joint
to fail for moisture, the glue will be perfect but the wood around could
fail... like an old barn roof.
Good inspection every year to all wood, wood joints and ply is important for a
sound (wood) airplane. Dont forget proper installed dain holes and some venting.
Saludos
Gary Gower
Good grief, Jack-! Are you planning to fly your Piet through 24 hours of
boiling water? Icarus will certainly plummet!
This is one discussion that will never end, as long as there are taverns,
hangars, and pilots. Less filling or more taste? T-88 or resorcinol? I'll
settle for T-88, having used it and found that its qualities are very
endearing... workable in temps down into the 50s, not fussy about
proportioning, nice gap filling, dries clear, readily available, quick
curing, will bond dissimilar materials, and well documented in aviation use
for a long time.
But, I do not plan to fly through boiling water, ever ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
---------------------------------
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Is a firewall necessary? |
In a message dated 11/29/2006 9:17:39 AM Central Standard Time,
alyscars@maine.rr.com writes:
Chuck,
An ole timer in our Chapter gave me a sheet of titanium more than large
enough for a firewall. Is it ok to use this metal compared to stainless steel?
Al in Portland Maine
Al,
The sheet of Titanium would be suitable for a firewall, if it is not more
than .020 or .025 thick. Like Jack P. mentioned, from a heat, flame, and weight
standpoint it would be suitable, and it is difficult to drill, but it can be
done...you'll go through lots of drill bits. I've drilled Titanium at work,
and it puts of a very offending, and maybe toxic, odor. The primary reason it
is not used is the high cost.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
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 |
|
MessageJack,
Did you ever figure out the problem with the engine?
Also, as a side note, do you know how a person can bend angles into
Lexan? N502R has windshilds made from tinted Lexan. I need to remake
them in clear, as looking thru two tinted windshilds (one in front of
the other) makes it hard to see things like towers and wires on a cloudy
day. Rather than being rounded, my windshilds are straight in the
middle with the sides at about 45 degrees.
Thanks
Gene
_________________________________________________
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
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
- N
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ectric.com
">www.buildersbooks.com
og.com
builthelp.com
..matronics.com/contribution
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
_________________________________________________
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
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
- N
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: Fuse questions... |
And I have a 35 lb. lead weight bolted to the top of my A-65 because this
Piet was originally designed for a Corvair engine.
Roman Bukolt.
Actually with the added dead weight it now weighs 35lbs. more, empty, and
mine is a long fuselage and a three piece wing spanning 30ft 5 ins.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Vander Voort" <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions...
> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>
> Just to compare.
>
> My Pietenpol, long fuse with a Corvair, split landing gear, three piece
> wing and poly fiber covering weights empty at 680 Lbs.
> No deviations from the plans other than longer Cabane struts (2 inch),
> center section cut out (no flop) and piano hinge ailerons
>
> That makes it only 4 Lbs heavier than Roman's steel tube fuselage with a
> similar setup.
>
> Oh....and I have an electric starter and battery on board.
>
>
> Hans
>
> NX15KV
>
>
>
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: | Gorilla Glue (last post) |
I did use Gorilla Glue (my hangar mate's, not mine) on one place on 41CC and
it was an excellent application. I fabricated new metal straps to support
the fuel tank from the X-members ahead of the passenger's panel and needed
to reattach the strips of felt padding that came off the old straps.
Gorilla Glue! The felt is very coarse and porous and would have required
gobbing on any other glue, but I simply dampened the felt, applied Gorilla
Glue, and clamped the felt to the metal straps with some clothespins,
knowing that the glue would foam up into the felt and make it grab. It did.
Like I said, it does have a place and this is one.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style,
age, and price. Try it!
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId00,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0601&tcode=wlmtagline
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 |
|
In a message dated 11/29/2006 3:10:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com writes:
By the time I got the plane rebuilt and was ready to re-shoot thephotos,
Private Pilot was no longer in business. The author/photographer that was doing
the story now writes freelance for AOPA Pilot. He's trying to get some
interest there for the story, but they are much less interested in homebuilts.
Jack
And what was the story on the engine?
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! --
|