---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 11/29/06: 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:34:41 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle DNA; do not archive Subject: Just A 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:51 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions... From: amsafetyc@aol.com 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:08:27 AM PST US From: "Rick Holland" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:40 AM PST US From: "Alan Lyscars" 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 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:36:29 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary? From: "Phillips, Jack" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:05:58 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary? From: Hans Vander Voort 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" To Sent by: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:00 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Is a firewall necessary? From: 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? 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" To Sent by: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:27:00 AM PST US From: "Roman Bukolt" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:04:37 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse questions... From: Hans Vander Voort 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:46:27 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: heavy piet From: "Phillips, Jack" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:57:11 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: heavy piet From: "Bill Church" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:07:22 PM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: heavy piet From: "Phillips, Jack" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:13:28 PM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:37:09 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:01:29 PM PST US From: "Gene & Tammy" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: heavy piet 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:39:47 PM PST US From: "Roman Bukolt" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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" Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:07:30 PM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:43:29 PM PST US From: Pietsrneat@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: heavy piet 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.