Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:21 AM - Re: McNuggets ()
2. 04:29 AM - Re: Propellers ()
3. 06:45 AM - Re: side business (Kip and Beth Gardner)
4. 06:49 AM - prop pitch and winter flying (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
5. 06:53 AM - Re: pilot weight/was builders ages (Tim Willis)
6. 08:33 AM - props (glich7@juno.com)
7. 08:36 AM - Re: wings (Dick Navratil)
8. 08:50 AM - Re: side business (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
9. 08:53 AM - Re: pilot weight/was builders ages (Roman Bukolt)
10. 09:00 AM - Re: props ()
11. 09:15 AM - Re: side business (Steve Eldredge)
12. 12:46 PM - Re: pilot weight/was builders ages (walt evans)
13. 01:44 PM - Re: pilot weight/was builders ages (Tim Willis)
14. 02:09 PM - Re: props (John Hofmann)
15. 03:47 PM - Kerosene Heater (Larry Rice)
16. 03:53 PM - Welding (Larry Rice)
17. 05:27 PM - Re: Kerosene Heater (Glenn Thomas)
18. 05:47 PM - Re: Making Rib Gussets (Glenn Thomas)
19. 06:13 PM - Re: props (GlennThomas@flyingwood.com)
20. 09:45 PM - Center section butt rib location (Greg Bacon)
21. 10:48 PM - Congratulations Gene Hubbard (DOUGLAS BLACKBURN)
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 |
|
After all my AME and metal man has done for me ;they want a trip to
Vegas.Woh!Even if I sold both my planes I probably couldn't afford that
so I bought them some beer.I'll see if they'll go for a steak this
spring.
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Pietsrneat@aol.com
Sent: January 9, 2007 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: McNuggets
In a message dated 1/9/2007 11:37:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov writes:
You know Harvey, I was thinking along the lines of a nice
steakhouse or rib place myself but it looks like in the effort to
minimize travel
and entertainment costs Ron is going on the cheap with me but
for the sake of the Pietenpol movement I'll show him my plane and then
pass on the drive thru at Mc'Ds so he can get on the road again
and not miss any of the great action in store at Brodhead !
Mike C.
Another example of one of my sad jokes going terribly wrong. A big, fat
steak it is, Mike. After all you've done for me, that is the least I can
do.
Ron
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 |
|
I may be starting a storm here but from what I have read on the web
about direct drive and ground adjustable props, it's not a good idea.
Because of pulses that the direct drive puts out the ground adjustable
prop has a tendency to loose blades. I have even received an email from
an engine builder who told me this was bad practice.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Leon
Stefan
Sent: January 9, 2007 5:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Propellers
I am using a Model A, so I am going to have to have a prop made, but for
you guys using aircraft engines or the Corvair, wouldn't it be simple to
solve the prop question by using one of the ground adjustable (Ivo
prop?) propellers. Dick: I built a 3 piece wing and I spent more time
building the center section ( especially if I factor in the building of
the fiberglass fuel tank ) then the 2 wing panels. Ken Perkins has a one
piece wing. After a forced landing he had to take the wing off to
transport the airplane home and really regretted the one piece wing-at
least at that time. another good reason for the 3piece. Leon S.
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: side business |
Mike,
Actually, I've given some serious thought to doing this, but I doubt
it would be possible to do a set for $300 and have it be financially
worthwhile. I'm going to do a cost analysis in the next few weeks,
let the list know what I think a fair price would be and go from
there.
I've come up with a number of tricks for making the process smooth
and efficient, while producing a high-quality, uniform "product", but
rib-building is still pretty labor-intensive, considering the number
of pieces involved.
Hope everyone had a great Christmas & New Year.
Kip Gardner
At 4:48 PM -0600 1/9/07, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC] wrote:
>You know Steve, since the Piet world lost Indiana farmer/Piet rib
>maker Charlie Ruebeck there is now a market share available to
>ready-made Piet rib sets. I hear he was getting what, $250-$300
>for a set recently ? If you make one a day that would be a
>$300/month added
>income if the buyers are out there, minus material costs of course.
>
>Mike C.
>
>do not archive
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
--
North Canton, OH
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: | prop pitch and winter flying |
Wow Don, that surprises me that Frank's prop is not a x42 but a x44.
I certainly am happy with the x42 pitch, even if it does cost me some
speed in cruise, I'd rather not flirt with tree tops or power lines
on climb out.
You can tell that you are still on your honeymoon with your new
Pietenpol
Don because for the first 2-3 years I would fly it in all kinds of
runway
conditions, barring anything that would make ruts in the sod runway.
For even a 10 minute flight I would end up spending 30 minutes cleaning
the muck off of the bottom of the wings and fuselage and horizontal
tail.
On January 1, 2000 a few of us wanted to see if our airplanes were Y2K
compliant. It was a sunny New Year's Day with about 1 inch of snow
blanketing
the runway, but the OAT was only 8F. With a torpedo heater we
preheated
the Cub and Piet engines and it still took lots of propping on the Piet
to
get it going. Nothing like getting all sweaty then climbing in an open
cockpit day for a 70 mph wind chill on a balmy 8 F. (no, we were not
drinking)
The owner of the Cub said "I'll bet you don't stay up for more than 5
minutes"
so of course that was a dare, right ? After about 13 minutes I had
proved my
level of stubbornness sufficiently so I landed at about the 15 minute
mark
and that is all Brian talked about for the rest of the day I heard.
he, of course, had cabin heat in his Cub)
Mike C.
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: pilot weight/was builders ages |
I am 65, 6'1" and weigh 270-- too damned much. My age is under "two decades ahead"
of my age, instead of "three decades ahead," where it should be.
About 8 months ago I bought Corky's second Piet project. It is a long fuze and
has a Continental A-65, just like his first plane (Oscar's). If you recall reading
some of my other posts, I have some issues in weight, and thus in CG, and
in fitting in the airplane.
I appreciate the many suggestions I got from this board relative to both CG and
airfoil discussions.
I have enhanced my CG spreadsheet to allow me to tinker things on the fly very
quickly. Because I weigh much more than Corky and because the A-65 is so light,
I am definitely having to extend the motor mounts and tilt the cabanes back
4 inches as well.
*Note: Extending the motor mounts causes flying stability problems, as has been
pointed out, and might require more tail surface to compensate (which as also
has been pointed out, adds weight in the worst place).
Here's what I "know" from my CG table (using estimated weights for components);
thus it's not really what I KNOW, it's what I think I think (I think):
All of the data below are relative to the chord of the wing, getting the CG forward
of 20" behind the wing leading edge (LE). [Datum actually used is the firewall,
with wing placement adjusted as dependent variable, then CG recalculated.]
With the motor mount 9" longer than plans, and with the cabanes tilted to move
the wings back 4":
the CG for the plane and pilot (no fuel) is 3/4 of an inch AHEAD (good) of the
maximum rearwards CG allowed. That is the worst case-- the empty landing condition--
and that result is fine, in fact nearly optimum, but in order to achieve
this, the engine is likely too far forward, as stated above*.
Using this as a starting data set (datum), each move below INDEPENDENTLY changes
the CG as follows:
1. Taking 4" off the length of the motor mount moves the CG rearwards 1"-- that's
too much.
2. In order to get the 1" back, tilting the wing aftwards another inch (5" total)
moves the CG forward an inch, but that is more than any other application,
and makes pilot entry/egress even more problematic.
3. Alternatively adding a 22# battery mounted forward of the firewall moves the
CG forward 3/4"... I'd rather not have that weight.
4. Moving my heavy weight forward 3" moves the CG (again, this is the case with
an empty plane plus pilot) forward 1". (However, I likely can't move forward
presently more than an inch. Foam might allow that 1", yet still allow my knees
to clear the bottom of the instrument panel on entry and egress.)
5. Losing 28 pounds of pilot weight moves the CG forward an inch. Another 27
pounds loss moves the CG forward another inch. [This is a great solution for
many reasons, but is not an "engineering solution." Moreover, in my case it might
be achieved only by an extended vacation in Ethiopia.]
6. Adding 18 gal. of fuel in the nose tank moves the CG forward almost 3 inches.
Of course, this is a different case, looking for the FORWARD CG limits. In
this regard, a 220 pound pilot with a full tank of fuel is right at the forward
CG limit (25% of chord). The solution for such a temporary pilot is to add
tail weight. For such a pemanent pilot, the solution is to move the wing forward.
7. Adding a totally impractical 340# passenger (2 X "std." passenger) moves the
CG rearwards half an inch with the tank full or only 3/8" with the tank empty.
This is just to prove that, as Oscar says, the CG is not sensitive to passenger
weight.
8. Of course there are also LG placement, braking, and ground handling issues
to consider, but they are another whole linkage and discussion.
I hope this discussion helps someone else with their CG considerations.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>
>Sent: Jan 9, 2007 8:49 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
>
>
>Rob wrote-
>
>>As a builder who is 55, I am far less by waistline than the previously
>>mentioned waistlines, but now I am curious about the useful load, and what
>>(lbs) is allowed in the back seat for proper CG.
>
>I'm about to do a new W&B on 41CC this weekend and I'll let you know how it
>turns out, but the biggest factor is what engine you have on the airplane.
>I've run many 'what-ifs' in the W&B spreadsheet on 41CC in its previous trim
>and can tell you a couple of things that the numbers show on this airplane.
>And it has a Continental A65-8, cabanes swung back 4", and split axle
>Cub-style gear. And I'm 55 and not "oversquare" in the waistline (32" on a
>good day, before dinner, without tucking in my shirt).
>
>One thing the numbers show is that my airplane should only be soloed from
>the rear seat, especially with full fuel (16 gal. in a header tank).
>Another thing is that there is a minimum pilot weight, solo with full fuel,
>of about 95 lbs. or the CG is too far forward. Another thing is that it's
>virtually impossible for the passenger's weight to affect the CG... I've
>tried passenger weights up to 350 lbs. with a 95 lb. pilot and I really
>don't believe that can physically be done by any 350 pounder I've ever seen.
> More realistic passenger weights do not change the CG to any appreciable
>extent.
>
>So... to your question. "Useful load" for 41CC is a pilot, passenger, full
>fuel, and a couple of headsets. There is essentially no place to put
>baggage, certainly not behind the pilot. On this airplane, that amounts to
>roughly 500 lbs. available for pilot and passenger. I've run scenarios (on
>paper) with large pilot and passenger and full fuel and you can put the
>airplane out of CG limits and over-gross, but I really don't believe it's
>physically possible to stuff two people that large into both cockpits,
>especially into the front. And more than that, my understanding is that the
>A65 won't pull the airplane up with any gusto in this configuration,
>especially on a warm day or at anything much above sea level.
>
>I'll let you know how the new W&B turns out.
>
>Oscar Zuniga
>San Antonio, TX
>mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
>
>
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 |
|
harvey,
This isn't a storm or anything but I did remember it and thought it
would be useful. This is from the Dec 2, 2003 Part three post on the
Flycorvair website.
"Two of the nicest people I've ever met in my life, Bob and Sarah
Bean. Many times, people repeat stories in aviation which they have no
firsthand experience with. They all start something like, "well I
heard of a guy who had ... ". Lest anybody think that my refusal to
use Ivoprops on Corvair engines is based on such stories, read
closely. In 1996, I sold an Ivoprop to Bob, which he installed on an O-
320 powered Tailwind he built for Sarah. The airplane first flew in
1998. It was the nicest Tailwind that most people could ever remember
having seen. Sarah raced it in the 1999 Sun 100 Air Race, where it
threw 12 inches off one blade, the engine nearly came out of the
airframe, and the aircraft was destroyed in the crash landing. I had
an understandably hard time facing Bob and telling him that I had not
personally flown the same model prop I sold him. This marked the last
time I ever sold or recommended any flying part to anyone that I had
not personally flown behind. Today I cringe at how bold people's
recommendations are when they've never flown what they're
recommending. Today, Bob and Sarah fly the country in the Oshkosh
Award Winning Glasair III Bob built as a replacement."
If I remember correctly, Ivoprops are much more flexible than say Warp
Drive props (don't quote me on that), which are also ground
adjustable, and unlike Ivoprop, warp drives have been extensively
tested by WW and are recommended for the corvair. I'm not saying it
can't be done, but based on what you find on most flying corvairs, I'd
respectfully suggest that not all ground adjustable props are good/bad
for direct drive, but there are some that are proven and some that
are ..the opposite of proven. My .02 along with wordy speculation.
Tim Hansen
P.S. Yeah the Buckeyes were bested but they beat themselves as much as
the gators, but the gators played very well..maybe next year...
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________
FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com
Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again!
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/products/online_calendar.pd
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 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: Pietsrneat@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wings
Ron I built my one piece wing and installed it, then had it inspected.
My hangar is in the metro area and not in an area approved for test
flying. I removed the wing with the help of two others. I transported
the wing 45 miles and with the help of Del Magsen, we re-mounted the
wing in less than 2 hours. Building in the dihedral was easy. Working
on the wing was not a problem. I build a 16' rolling table that
rotated. I had enough visitors to the hangar, that turning the wing
over a couple of times wasn't a problem.
Initial fitting not a problem with pulley system hanging from rafters
suspending wing while playing with lift struts.
Dick N.
Dick,
I find it very interesting you would opt for the one piece if you
were to do another. I have probably wrestled with this aspect of
construction (one piece or three piece) more than any other. Although I
initially gravitated toward the one piece, it seemed logistically
prudent to go the 3-piece route, especially if I wanted to build in some
dihedral. On the other hand, the one piece looks cumbersome and hard to
handle.
Ron
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 |
|
Kip, that would be a great place to start eh, doing a cost/profit
calculation to make it even worthwhile to do and then see what the Piet
market would bear. I might be out of the ballpark some on what Charlie
was charging for ribs in recent years since I did hear those
prices second-hand. Be something to look into and something your
little girl could maybe even help with for 'extra credit' points with
Dad:)
Mike C.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot weight/was builders ages |
According to Bill Rewey, when calculating the C.G., the pilot and the
passenger their C.G. is where their navel is. In my case it's 10" ahead of
the back of the seat. At 270 lbs. how forward of your back is your navel.
That might be enough to influence your C.G. location.
Then again you could live in fantasy land and use the FAA standard for Wt. &
Bal. and assume each person is the "standard" 170 lbs.
Alternative:
Eat a late breakfast of oatmeal (good for your heart), skip lunch then have
a light and healthy supper.
Do this for about a yr. and you'll feel good and look good and feel "svelt".
and the girls will shower you with attention.
Yeah, right!!
Roman Bukolt NX20795
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Willis" <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>
> I am 65, 6'1" and weigh 270-- too damned much. My age is under "two
> decades ahead" of my age, instead of "three decades ahead," where it
> should be.
>
> About 8 months ago I bought Corky's second Piet project. It is a long
> fuze and has a Continental A-65, just like his first plane (Oscar's). If
> you recall reading some of my other posts, I have some issues in weight,
> and thus in CG, and in fitting in the airplane.
>
> I appreciate the many suggestions I got from this board relative to both
> CG and airfoil discussions.
>
> I have enhanced my CG spreadsheet to allow me to tinker things on the fly
> very quickly. Because I weigh much more than Corky and because the A-65
> is so light, I am definitely having to extend the motor mounts and tilt
> the cabanes back 4 inches as well.
>
> *Note: Extending the motor mounts causes flying stability problems, as
> has been pointed out, and might require more tail surface to compensate
> (which as also has been pointed out, adds weight in the worst place).
>
> Here's what I "know" from my CG table (using estimated weights for
> components); thus it's not really what I KNOW, it's what I think I think
> (I think):
>
> All of the data below are relative to the chord of the wing, getting the
> CG forward of 20" behind the wing leading edge (LE). [Datum actually used
> is the firewall, with wing placement adjusted as dependent variable, then
> CG recalculated.]
>
> With the motor mount 9" longer than plans, and with the cabanes tilted to
> move the wings back 4":
>
> the CG for the plane and pilot (no fuel) is 3/4 of an inch AHEAD (good) of
> the maximum rearwards CG allowed. That is the worst case-- the empty
> landing condition-- and that result is fine, in fact nearly optimum, but
> in order to achieve this, the engine is likely too far forward, as stated
> above*.
>
> Using this as a starting data set (datum), each move below INDEPENDENTLY
> changes the CG as follows:
>
> 1. Taking 4" off the length of the motor mount moves the CG rearwards
> 1"-- that's too much.
>
> 2. In order to get the 1" back, tilting the wing aftwards another inch
> (5" total) moves the CG forward an inch, but that is more than any other
> application, and makes pilot entry/egress even more problematic.
>
> 3. Alternatively adding a 22# battery mounted forward of the firewall
> moves the CG forward 3/4"... I'd rather not have that weight.
>
> 4. Moving my heavy weight forward 3" moves the CG (again, this is the
> case with an empty plane plus pilot) forward 1". (However, I likely can't
> move forward presently more than an inch. Foam might allow that 1", yet
> still allow my knees to clear the bottom of the instrument panel on entry
> and egress.)
>
> 5. Losing 28 pounds of pilot weight moves the CG forward an inch.
> Another 27 pounds loss moves the CG forward another inch. [This is a
> great solution for many reasons, but is not an "engineering solution."
> Moreover, in my case it might be achieved only by an extended vacation in
> Ethiopia.]
>
> 6. Adding 18 gal. of fuel in the nose tank moves the CG forward almost 3
> inches. Of course, this is a different case, looking for the FORWARD CG
> limits. In this regard, a 220 pound pilot with a full tank of fuel is
> right at the forward CG limit (25% of chord). The solution for such a
> temporary pilot is to add tail weight. For such a pemanent pilot, the
> solution is to move the wing forward.
>
> 7. Adding a totally impractical 340# passenger (2 X "std." passenger)
> moves the CG rearwards half an inch with the tank full or only 3/8" with
> the tank empty. This is just to prove that, as Oscar says, the CG is not
> sensitive to passenger weight.
>
> 8. Of course there are also LG placement, braking, and ground handling
> issues to consider, but they are another whole linkage and discussion.
>
> I hope this discussion helps someone else with their CG considerations.
>
> Tim in central TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>
>>Sent: Jan 9, 2007 8:49 AM
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
>>
>><taildrags@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Rob wrote-
>>
>>>As a builder who is 55, I am far less by waistline than the previously
>>>mentioned waistlines, but now I am curious about the useful load, and
>>>what
>>>(lbs) is allowed in the back seat for proper CG.
>>
>>I'm about to do a new W&B on 41CC this weekend and I'll let you know how
>>it
>>turns out, but the biggest factor is what engine you have on the airplane.
>>I've run many 'what-ifs' in the W&B spreadsheet on 41CC in its previous
>>trim
>>and can tell you a couple of things that the numbers show on this
>>airplane.
>>And it has a Continental A65-8, cabanes swung back 4", and split axle
>>Cub-style gear. And I'm 55 and not "oversquare" in the waistline (32" on
>>a
>>good day, before dinner, without tucking in my shirt).
>>
>>One thing the numbers show is that my airplane should only be soloed from
>>the rear seat, especially with full fuel (16 gal. in a header tank).
>>Another thing is that there is a minimum pilot weight, solo with full
>>fuel,
>>of about 95 lbs. or the CG is too far forward. Another thing is that it's
>>virtually impossible for the passenger's weight to affect the CG... I've
>>tried passenger weights up to 350 lbs. with a 95 lb. pilot and I really
>>don't believe that can physically be done by any 350 pounder I've ever
>>seen.
>> More realistic passenger weights do not change the CG to any appreciable
>>extent.
>>
>>So... to your question. "Useful load" for 41CC is a pilot, passenger,
>>full
>>fuel, and a couple of headsets. There is essentially no place to put
>>baggage, certainly not behind the pilot. On this airplane, that amounts
>>to
>>roughly 500 lbs. available for pilot and passenger. I've run scenarios
>>(on
>>paper) with large pilot and passenger and full fuel and you can put the
>>airplane out of CG limits and over-gross, but I really don't believe it's
>>physically possible to stuff two people that large into both cockpits,
>>especially into the front. And more than that, my understanding is that
>>the
>>A65 won't pull the airplane up with any gusto in this configuration,
>>especially on a warm day or at anything much above sea level.
>>
>>I'll let you know how the new W&B turns out.
>>
>>Oscar Zuniga
>>San Antonio, TX
>>mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
>>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Actually I'm going on information that was given to me from Scott
Cassler whom I was in touch with during the time I was working on my 1/2
VW. I also seen the cracks in Dave Strouds ground adjustable prop when I
told him about it and he said he would look into it. I have included a
picture of another unfortunate bloke who lost a blade. It's not the IVO
and my friend Dave's was not an IVO either, although it was a composite
from another manufacturer. I don't know if the IVO will stand up to the
pressures that a direct drive engine will put on it or not. Maybe he has
made it strong enough. Can anyone be sure that when they tighten the
bolts down that the blade will stay in. With reduction drive, this is
not a problem because the pulses are not transferred to the prop. I also
had a problem with my ground adjustable on my N3 Pup that was on
reduction drive. I was lax in inspecting the bolts that held the blades
in and one blade moved to a different angle(twisted in the hold) and I
got so much vibration that it blew the seals on my engine(503 Rotax). I
would after all my experiences only use a ground adjustable blade to
find out what your best blade positions are and then order a one piece
blade of the kind you want. Just my opinion.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
glich7@juno.com
Sent: January 10, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: props
<glich7@juno.com>
harvey,
This isn't a storm or anything but I did remember it and thought it
would be useful. This is from the Dec 2, 2003 Part three post on the
Flycorvair website.
"Two of the nicest people I've ever met in my life, Bob and Sarah
Bean. Many times, people repeat stories in aviation which they have no
firsthand experience with. They all start something like, "well I
heard of a guy who had ... ". Lest anybody think that my refusal to
use Ivoprops on Corvair engines is based on such stories, read
closely. In 1996, I sold an Ivoprop to Bob, which he installed on an O-
320 powered Tailwind he built for Sarah. The airplane first flew in
1998. It was the nicest Tailwind that most people could ever remember
having seen. Sarah raced it in the 1999 Sun 100 Air Race, where it
threw 12 inches off one blade, the engine nearly came out of the
airframe, and the aircraft was destroyed in the crash landing. I had
an understandably hard time facing Bob and telling him that I had not
personally flown the same model prop I sold him. This marked the last
time I ever sold or recommended any flying part to anyone that I had
not personally flown behind. Today I cringe at how bold people's
recommendations are when they've never flown what they're
recommending. Today, Bob and Sarah fly the country in the Oshkosh
Award Winning Glasair III Bob built as a replacement."
If I remember correctly, Ivoprops are much more flexible than say Warp
Drive props (don't quote me on that), which are also ground
adjustable, and unlike Ivoprop, warp drives have been extensively
tested by WW and are recommended for the corvair. I'm not saying it
can't be done, but based on what you find on most flying corvairs, I'd
respectfully suggest that not all ground adjustable props are good/bad
for direct drive, but there are some that are proven and some that
are ..the opposite of proven. My .02 along with wordy speculation.
Tim Hansen
P.S. Yeah the Buckeyes were bested but they beat themselves as much as
the gators, but the gators played very well..maybe next year...
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________
FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com
Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again!
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.co
m/p
roducts/online_calendar.pd
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 |
|
That is a thought, one that I had when I was building a tailwind. I
built about six sets for others about 5 years ago. I charged $600 per
set shipped anywhere in the US. Charlie's sets for $250 were a
bargain- a way for him to contribute to the piet community, he certainly
didn't make minimum wage doing it.
Steve Eldredge
Brigham Young University
Chief Engineer Mass Storage and Servers
801-422-7130
steve@byu.edu <mailto:steve@byu.edu>
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cuy,
Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: side business
You know Steve, since the Piet world lost Indiana farmer/Piet rib maker
Charlie Ruebeck there is now a market share available to
ready-made Piet rib sets. I hear he was getting what, $250-$300 for a
set recently ? If you make one a day that would be a $300/month added
income if the buyers are out there, minus material costs of course.
Mike C.
do not archive
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: pilot weight/was builders ages |
Bill was just being nice to you. In the early days it was where "other
things" were, and it been since cleaned up for mixed company.
"other things" don't move forward when the belly grows. :^)
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Bukolt" <conceptmodels@tds.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
> <conceptmodels@tds.net>
>
> According to Bill Rewey, when calculating the C.G., the pilot and the
> passenger their C.G. is where their navel is. In my case it's 10" ahead
> of the back of the seat. At 270 lbs. how forward of your back is your
> navel. That might be enough to influence your C.G. location.
> Then again you could live in fantasy land and use the FAA standard for Wt.
> & Bal. and assume each person is the "standard" 170 lbs.
> Alternative:
> Eat a late breakfast of oatmeal (good for your heart), skip lunch then
> have a light and healthy supper.
> Do this for about a yr. and you'll feel good and look good and feel
> "svelt". and the girls will shower you with attention.
>
> Yeah, right!!
>
> Roman Bukolt NX20795
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Willis" <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
>
>
>> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>>
>> I am 65, 6'1" and weigh 270-- too damned much. My age is under "two
>> decades ahead" of my age, instead of "three decades ahead," where it
>> should be.
>>
>> About 8 months ago I bought Corky's second Piet project. It is a long
>> fuze and has a Continental A-65, just like his first plane (Oscar's). If
>> you recall reading some of my other posts, I have some issues in weight,
>> and thus in CG, and in fitting in the airplane.
>>
>> I appreciate the many suggestions I got from this board relative to both
>> CG and airfoil discussions.
>>
>> I have enhanced my CG spreadsheet to allow me to tinker things on the fly
>> very quickly. Because I weigh much more than Corky and because the A-65
>> is so light, I am definitely having to extend the motor mounts and tilt
>> the cabanes back 4 inches as well.
>>
>> *Note: Extending the motor mounts causes flying stability problems, as
>> has been pointed out, and might require more tail surface to compensate
>> (which as also has been pointed out, adds weight in the worst place).
>>
>> Here's what I "know" from my CG table (using estimated weights for
>> components); thus it's not really what I KNOW, it's what I think I think
>> (I think):
>>
>> All of the data below are relative to the chord of the wing, getting the
>> CG forward of 20" behind the wing leading edge (LE). [Datum actually
>> used is the firewall, with wing placement adjusted as dependent variable,
>> then CG recalculated.]
>>
>> With the motor mount 9" longer than plans, and with the cabanes tilted to
>> move the wings back 4":
>>
>> the CG for the plane and pilot (no fuel) is 3/4 of an inch AHEAD (good)
>> of the maximum rearwards CG allowed. That is the worst case-- the empty
>> landing condition-- and that result is fine, in fact nearly optimum, but
>> in order to achieve this, the engine is likely too far forward, as stated
>> above*.
>>
>> Using this as a starting data set (datum), each move below INDEPENDENTLY
>> changes the CG as follows:
>>
>> 1. Taking 4" off the length of the motor mount moves the CG rearwards
>> 1"-- that's too much.
>>
>> 2. In order to get the 1" back, tilting the wing aftwards another inch
>> (5" total) moves the CG forward an inch, but that is more than any other
>> application, and makes pilot entry/egress even more problematic.
>>
>> 3. Alternatively adding a 22# battery mounted forward of the firewall
>> moves the CG forward 3/4"... I'd rather not have that weight.
>>
>> 4. Moving my heavy weight forward 3" moves the CG (again, this is the
>> case with an empty plane plus pilot) forward 1". (However, I likely
>> can't move forward presently more than an inch. Foam might allow that
>> 1", yet still allow my knees to clear the bottom of the instrument panel
>> on entry and egress.)
>>
>> 5. Losing 28 pounds of pilot weight moves the CG forward an inch.
>> Another 27 pounds loss moves the CG forward another inch. [This is a
>> great solution for many reasons, but is not an "engineering solution."
>> Moreover, in my case it might be achieved only by an extended vacation in
>> Ethiopia.]
>>
>> 6. Adding 18 gal. of fuel in the nose tank moves the CG forward almost 3
>> inches. Of course, this is a different case, looking for the FORWARD CG
>> limits. In this regard, a 220 pound pilot with a full tank of fuel is
>> right at the forward CG limit (25% of chord). The solution for such a
>> temporary pilot is to add tail weight. For such a pemanent pilot, the
>> solution is to move the wing forward.
>>
>> 7. Adding a totally impractical 340# passenger (2 X "std." passenger)
>> moves the CG rearwards half an inch with the tank full or only 3/8" with
>> the tank empty. This is just to prove that, as Oscar says, the CG is not
>> sensitive to passenger weight.
>>
>> 8. Of course there are also LG placement, braking, and ground handling
>> issues to consider, but they are another whole linkage and discussion.
>>
>> I hope this discussion helps someone else with their CG considerations.
>>
>> Tim in central TX
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>
>>>Sent: Jan 9, 2007 8:49 AM
>>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
>>>
>>><taildrags@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>>Rob wrote-
>>>
>>>>As a builder who is 55, I am far less by waistline than the previously
>>>>mentioned waistlines, but now I am curious about the useful load, and
>>>>what
>>>>(lbs) is allowed in the back seat for proper CG.
>>>
>>>I'm about to do a new W&B on 41CC this weekend and I'll let you know how
>>>it
>>>turns out, but the biggest factor is what engine you have on the
>>>airplane.
>>>I've run many 'what-ifs' in the W&B spreadsheet on 41CC in its previous
>>>trim
>>>and can tell you a couple of things that the numbers show on this
>>>airplane.
>>>And it has a Continental A65-8, cabanes swung back 4", and split axle
>>>Cub-style gear. And I'm 55 and not "oversquare" in the waistline (32" on
>>>a
>>>good day, before dinner, without tucking in my shirt).
>>>
>>>One thing the numbers show is that my airplane should only be soloed from
>>>the rear seat, especially with full fuel (16 gal. in a header tank).
>>>Another thing is that there is a minimum pilot weight, solo with full
>>>fuel,
>>>of about 95 lbs. or the CG is too far forward. Another thing is that
>>>it's
>>>virtually impossible for the passenger's weight to affect the CG... I've
>>>tried passenger weights up to 350 lbs. with a 95 lb. pilot and I really
>>>don't believe that can physically be done by any 350 pounder I've ever
>>>seen.
>>> More realistic passenger weights do not change the CG to any
>>> appreciable
>>>extent.
>>>
>>>So... to your question. "Useful load" for 41CC is a pilot, passenger,
>>>full
>>>fuel, and a couple of headsets. There is essentially no place to put
>>>baggage, certainly not behind the pilot. On this airplane, that amounts
>>>to
>>>roughly 500 lbs. available for pilot and passenger. I've run scenarios
>>>(on
>>>paper) with large pilot and passenger and full fuel and you can put the
>>>airplane out of CG limits and over-gross, but I really don't believe it's
>>>physically possible to stuff two people that large into both cockpits,
>>>especially into the front. And more than that, my understanding is that
>>>the
>>>A65 won't pull the airplane up with any gusto in this configuration,
>>>especially on a warm day or at anything much above sea level.
>>>
>>>I'll let you know how the new W&B turns out.
>>>
>>>Oscar Zuniga
>>>San Antonio, TX
>>>mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
>>>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: pilot weight/was builders ages |
Thanks for correcting my typo. I meant to say, "My age is over two decades larger
than my waistline, but should be three." But you knew what I meant.
I am measuring from my navel, which is an advantage, given the forward displacement
of same. Actually I think it's appropriate because I have heavy legs. Guys
with beer guts and BLs (bird legs) should not do so. Babe Ruth comes to mind.
The comment about another measurement metric is appropriate but useless,
as my such gear is in defilade.
Thanks for bearing with me on my continued rants on weight, balance and CG. I
am like the old saw, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks
like a nail." Which reminds me... have I told you about my CG issues? ;)
Golly, it's too late now for looks. I am building the plane to get away from women.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels@tds.net>
>Sent: Jan 10, 2007 10:53 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
>
>
>According to Bill Rewey, when calculating the C.G., the pilot and the
>passenger their C.G. is where their navel is. In my case it's 10" ahead of
>the back of the seat. At 270 lbs. how forward of your back is your navel.
>That might be enough to influence your C.G. location.
>Then again you could live in fantasy land and use the FAA standard for Wt. &
>Bal. and assume each person is the "standard" 170 lbs.
>Alternative:
>Eat a late breakfast of oatmeal (good for your heart), skip lunch then have
>a light and healthy supper.
>Do this for about a yr. and you'll feel good and look good and feel "svelt".
>and the girls will shower you with attention.
>
>Yeah, right!!
>
>Roman Bukolt NX20795
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tim Willis" <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:53 AM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
>
>
>> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>>
>> I am 65, 6'1" and weigh 270-- too damned much. My age is under "two
>> decades ahead" of my age, instead of "three decades ahead," where it
>> should be.
>>
>> About 8 months ago I bought Corky's second Piet project. It is a long
>> fuze and has a Continental A-65, just like his first plane (Oscar's). If
>> you recall reading some of my other posts, I have some issues in weight,
>> and thus in CG, and in fitting in the airplane.
>>
>> I appreciate the many suggestions I got from this board relative to both
>> CG and airfoil discussions.
>>
>> I have enhanced my CG spreadsheet to allow me to tinker things on the fly
>> very quickly. Because I weigh much more than Corky and because the A-65
>> is so light, I am definitely having to extend the motor mounts and tilt
>> the cabanes back 4 inches as well.
>>
>> *Note: Extending the motor mounts causes flying stability problems, as
>> has been pointed out, and might require more tail surface to compensate
>> (which as also has been pointed out, adds weight in the worst place).
>>
>> Here's what I "know" from my CG table (using estimated weights for
>> components); thus it's not really what I KNOW, it's what I think I think
>> (I think):
>>
>> All of the data below are relative to the chord of the wing, getting the
>> CG forward of 20" behind the wing leading edge (LE). [Datum actually used
>> is the firewall, with wing placement adjusted as dependent variable, then
>> CG recalculated.]
>>
>> With the motor mount 9" longer than plans, and with the cabanes tilted to
>> move the wings back 4":
>>
>> the CG for the plane and pilot (no fuel) is 3/4 of an inch AHEAD (good) of
>> the maximum rearwards CG allowed. That is the worst case-- the empty
>> landing condition-- and that result is fine, in fact nearly optimum, but
>> in order to achieve this, the engine is likely too far forward, as stated
>> above*.
>>
>> Using this as a starting data set (datum), each move below INDEPENDENTLY
>> changes the CG as follows:
>>
>> 1. Taking 4" off the length of the motor mount moves the CG rearwards
>> 1"-- that's too much.
>>
>> 2. In order to get the 1" back, tilting the wing aftwards another inch
>> (5" total) moves the CG forward an inch, but that is more than any other
>> application, and makes pilot entry/egress even more problematic.
>>
>> 3. Alternatively adding a 22# battery mounted forward of the firewall
>> moves the CG forward 3/4"... I'd rather not have that weight.
>>
>> 4. Moving my heavy weight forward 3" moves the CG (again, this is the
>> case with an empty plane plus pilot) forward 1". (However, I likely can't
>> move forward presently more than an inch. Foam might allow that 1", yet
>> still allow my knees to clear the bottom of the instrument panel on entry
>> and egress.)
>>
>> 5. Losing 28 pounds of pilot weight moves the CG forward an inch.
>> Another 27 pounds loss moves the CG forward another inch. [This is a
>> great solution for many reasons, but is not an "engineering solution."
>> Moreover, in my case it might be achieved only by an extended vacation in
>> Ethiopia.]
>>
>> 6. Adding 18 gal. of fuel in the nose tank moves the CG forward almost 3
>> inches. Of course, this is a different case, looking for the FORWARD CG
>> limits. In this regard, a 220 pound pilot with a full tank of fuel is
>> right at the forward CG limit (25% of chord). The solution for such a
>> temporary pilot is to add tail weight. For such a pemanent pilot, the
>> solution is to move the wing forward.
>>
>> 7. Adding a totally impractical 340# passenger (2 X "std." passenger)
>> moves the CG rearwards half an inch with the tank full or only 3/8" with
>> the tank empty. This is just to prove that, as Oscar says, the CG is not
>> sensitive to passenger weight.
>>
>> 8. Of course there are also LG placement, braking, and ground handling
>> issues to consider, but they are another whole linkage and discussion.
>>
>> I hope this discussion helps someone else with their CG considerations.
>>
>> Tim in central TX
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>
>>>Sent: Jan 9, 2007 8:49 AM
>>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: pilot weight/was builders ages
>>>
>>><taildrags@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>>Rob wrote-
>>>
>>>>As a builder who is 55, I am far less by waistline than the previously
>>>>mentioned waistlines, but now I am curious about the useful load, and
>>>>what
>>>>(lbs) is allowed in the back seat for proper CG.
>>>
>>>I'm about to do a new W&B on 41CC this weekend and I'll let you know how
>>>it
>>>turns out, but the biggest factor is what engine you have on the airplane.
>>>I've run many 'what-ifs' in the W&B spreadsheet on 41CC in its previous
>>>trim
>>>and can tell you a couple of things that the numbers show on this
>>>airplane.
>>>And it has a Continental A65-8, cabanes swung back 4", and split axle
>>>Cub-style gear. And I'm 55 and not "oversquare" in the waistline (32" on
>>>a
>>>good day, before dinner, without tucking in my shirt).
>>>
>>>One thing the numbers show is that my airplane should only be soloed from
>>>the rear seat, especially with full fuel (16 gal. in a header tank).
>>>Another thing is that there is a minimum pilot weight, solo with full
>>>fuel,
>>>of about 95 lbs. or the CG is too far forward. Another thing is that it's
>>>virtually impossible for the passenger's weight to affect the CG... I've
>>>tried passenger weights up to 350 lbs. with a 95 lb. pilot and I really
>>>don't believe that can physically be done by any 350 pounder I've ever
>>>seen.
>>> More realistic passenger weights do not change the CG to any appreciable
>>>extent.
>>>
>>>So... to your question. "Useful load" for 41CC is a pilot, passenger,
>>>full
>>>fuel, and a couple of headsets. There is essentially no place to put
>>>baggage, certainly not behind the pilot. On this airplane, that amounts
>>>to
>>>roughly 500 lbs. available for pilot and passenger. I've run scenarios
>>>(on
>>>paper) with large pilot and passenger and full fuel and you can put the
>>>airplane out of CG limits and over-gross, but I really don't believe it's
>>>physically possible to stuff two people that large into both cockpits,
>>>especially into the front. And more than that, my understanding is that
>>>the
>>>A65 won't pull the airplane up with any gusto in this configuration,
>>>especially on a warm day or at anything much above sea level.
>>>
>>>I'll let you know how the new W&B turns out.
>>>
>>>Oscar Zuniga
>>>San Antonio, TX
>>>mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
>>>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
I have personal experience with an Ivo Prop. I installed one on an RV-3 in
1994 with an O-320 per the request of the owner. First, I did not like the
fact that each blade is held in place by only two bolts. A standard
propeller has all 6 bolts sharing the load. The Ivo uses a cam, a follower
and a rod with a paddle on it to adjust blade pitch. Well, what happens when
the cam follower decides to break? One blade goes flat while the other
remains where it was set. This makes a really neat sound from the ground,
however the pilot did not quite care for the resulting vibration and lack of
performance. He landed safely and the wooden Sensenich was returned to the
RV-3. I am not a real fan of these plastic ground adjustable props.
-john-
>
> harvey,
> This isn't a storm or anything but I did remember it and thought it
> would be useful. This is from the Dec 2, 2003 Part three post on the
> Flycorvair website.
>
> "Two of the nicest people I've ever met in my life, Bob and Sarah
> Bean. Many times, people repeat stories in aviation which they have no
> firsthand experience with. They all start something like, "well I
> heard of a guy who had ... ". Lest anybody think that my refusal to
> use Ivoprops on Corvair engines is based on such stories, read
> closely. In 1996, I sold an Ivoprop to Bob, which he installed on an O-
> 320 powered Tailwind he built for Sarah. The airplane first flew in
> 1998. It was the nicest Tailwind that most people could ever remember
> having seen. Sarah raced it in the 1999 Sun 100 Air Race, where it
> threw 12 inches off one blade, the engine nearly came out of the
> airframe, and the aircraft was destroyed in the crash landing. I had
> an understandably hard time facing Bob and telling him that I had not
> personally flown the same model prop I sold him. This marked the last
> time I ever sold or recommended any flying part to anyone that I had
> not personally flown behind. Today I cringe at how bold people's
> recommendations are when they've never flown what they're
> recommending. Today, Bob and Sarah fly the country in the Oshkosh
> Award Winning Glasair III Bob built as a replacement."
>
> If I remember correctly, Ivoprops are much more flexible than say Warp
> Drive props (don't quote me on that), which are also ground
> adjustable, and unlike Ivoprop, warp drives have been extensively
> tested by WW and are recommended for the corvair. I'm not saying it
> can't be done, but based on what you find on most flying corvairs, I'd
> respectfully suggest that not all ground adjustable props are good/bad
> for direct drive, but there are some that are proven and some that
> are ..the opposite of proven. My .02 along with wordy speculation.
>
> Tim Hansen
>
> P.S. Yeah the Buckeyes were bested but they beat themselves as much as
> the gators, but the gators played very well..maybe next year...
> do not archive
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com
> Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again!
> http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/product
> s/online_calendar.pd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
My friend was recovering wings on an early Cessna 170. So, I know about
fabric effects, but nothing else.
Larry the MicroMong guy
--
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 |
|
Did my micro mong fuselage with oxy-acetylene and mild steel rod (RG45),
and after welding each cluster used the flame to make it cool slow. One
of these days we'll see if it holds together in the air! ;)
Larry the micro Mong guy
--
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kerosene Heater |
I called System 3 and talked to tech support about the kerosene heater. Because
I sand the surface of the gusset and the rib at the gusset location prior to
T-88 application I should be fine. He also recommended using a solvent to clean
the 2 surfaces before bonding as indicated on the instructions. Aware of
this, I chose to just clean with a shop vac because I was unable to find a satisfactory
promise that the solvent wouldn't adversely react to the adhesives in
the plywood (which are fairly thin layers in 1/16" ply). ...but no more kerosene
anymore. Although the idea of standing in a cold shed after being on my
ass for 3 days of the flu is not attractive right now.
Thanks for the warning.
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=86848#86848
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Making Rib Gussets |
The hole saw approach will save a significant amount of time. Each one of my gussets
is a different size and making custom sized gussets for each place on a
rib took me 3 full days to make them all. I've seen pictures of someone else
on the list (Bill Church's log on MyKitPlane I believe) where he used round gussets
and was able to quickly sand the edges smooth with a drill and a piece
of sandpaper. You could probably cut the length of the gusset cutting process
down to 1/3 if you made them all the same size and just stacked them up aligning
grain and cut them in half. If I do this again I will do that.
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=86851#86851
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Mr. Hoffman Sir,
What do A&P types use for filler rod when welding 4130 strap and tubing?
I've been waiting for a clear answer. Got torches for Christmas but have
been hearing that the 4130 filler rod is no good. Not sure why since what
I've been reading is that the filler material is supposed to be melted in
with the 2 pieces being joined and should be the same material type.
Waiting to figure out what I need to start practicing.
Thanks!
Glenn W. Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hofmann" <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: props
> <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com>
>
> I have personal experience with an Ivo Prop. I installed one on an RV-3 in
> 1994 with an O-320 per the request of the owner. First, I did not like the
> fact that each blade is held in place by only two bolts. A standard
> propeller has all 6 bolts sharing the load. The Ivo uses a cam, a follower
> and a rod with a paddle on it to adjust blade pitch. Well, what happens
> when
> the cam follower decides to break? One blade goes flat while the other
> remains where it was set. This makes a really neat sound from the ground,
> however the pilot did not quite care for the resulting vibration and lack
> of
> performance. He landed safely and the wooden Sensenich was returned to the
> RV-3. I am not a real fan of these plastic ground adjustable props.
>
> -john-
>
>>
>> harvey,
>> This isn't a storm or anything but I did remember it and thought it
>> would be useful. This is from the Dec 2, 2003 Part three post on the
>> Flycorvair website.
>>
>> "Two of the nicest people I've ever met in my life, Bob and Sarah
>> Bean. Many times, people repeat stories in aviation which they have no
>> firsthand experience with. They all start something like, "well I
>> heard of a guy who had ... ". Lest anybody think that my refusal to
>> use Ivoprops on Corvair engines is based on such stories, read
>> closely. In 1996, I sold an Ivoprop to Bob, which he installed on an O-
>> 320 powered Tailwind he built for Sarah. The airplane first flew in
>> 1998. It was the nicest Tailwind that most people could ever remember
>> having seen. Sarah raced it in the 1999 Sun 100 Air Race, where it
>> threw 12 inches off one blade, the engine nearly came out of the
>> airframe, and the aircraft was destroyed in the crash landing. I had
>> an understandably hard time facing Bob and telling him that I had not
>> personally flown the same model prop I sold him. This marked the last
>> time I ever sold or recommended any flying part to anyone that I had
>> not personally flown behind. Today I cringe at how bold people's
>> recommendations are when they've never flown what they're
>> recommending. Today, Bob and Sarah fly the country in the Oshkosh
>> Award Winning Glasair III Bob built as a replacement."
>>
>> If I remember correctly, Ivoprops are much more flexible than say Warp
>> Drive props (don't quote me on that), which are also ground
>> adjustable, and unlike Ivoprop, warp drives have been extensively
>> tested by WW and are recommended for the corvair. I'm not saying it
>> can't be done, but based on what you find on most flying corvairs, I'd
>> respectfully suggest that not all ground adjustable props are good/bad
>> for direct drive, but there are some that are proven and some that
>> are ..the opposite of proven. My .02 along with wordy speculation.
>>
>> Tim Hansen
>>
>> P.S. Yeah the Buckeyes were bested but they beat themselves as much as
>> the gators, but the gators played very well..maybe next year...
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com
>> Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again!
>> http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/product
>> s/online_calendar.pd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Center section butt rib location |
Does anyone know if a significant reason the butt rib on the center
section is 1-7/8 inch from the end of the spar while the butt rib on the
wing is only 1/2 inch from the end of it's spar? It looks as though the
butt rib could be closer to the end of the CS spar without causing any
major problem. However, I might be failing to see potential/operational
problems.
I would like to have the butt ribs on the CS as far apart as possible to
allow for a wider arc cut-out (instead of the flop). I'm rebuilding Mtn
Piet's CS a little wider, like Bill Rewey's bird.
Thanks,
Greg Bacon
Prairie Home, MO
P.S. For the age survey, I'm 39 with only 16 days until 40!
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Congratulations Gene Hubbard |
Good job Gene!!!!!
I have been down to see Gene a few times over the years. He even loaned
me his rib jig to many years ago. I have to say I have been the
proverbial bump on a log, and I'd say it is time to get off that log and
pull my head out and get to building. Even though Gene loaned me his
jig, It appears to be a better deal to build your own from what I have
been reading in the archives this evening. I have the cap-strip for the
ribs, the wood for the tail group, and all the wood for the fuse in the
attic above the garage. I suppose this list is making me accountable so
to speak for getting this project on the road. I hope my questions over
the next few years don't become too much for you guys. No more excuses
either. Tomorrow I will pick up a board to build the rib jig. Gene I
will return yours as soon as it fits into yours and mines schedule.
Email me off list and we will work that out.
My wife has had many health problems and I suppose I have been hiding
behind that in a way. He rproblems continue, but it is time for me to
move forward with this dream of mine to build a plane. I hope to learn
as much, and be able to teach as much some day to someone else, in the
way you all teach each other. I'll get off the soapbox now, I need to
find a place to build a website, and start the progress logs. Thanks,
you'll be hearing from me.
Doug Blackburn
Yucaipa California
p.s. Carl Levken, drop me a line..............
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! --
|