Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:09 AM - Re: A.S.S. Does it again. (Aircraft Spruce) (Gene & Tammy)
2. 04:30 AM - Scott S's experiece w/ Aircraft Spruce (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
3. 04:32 AM - Oscar (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
4. 04:33 AM - model A carb (Douwe Blumberg)
5. 04:48 AM - Re: Axel location Clarifications (gcardinal)
6. 04:49 AM - tailpost height above groun (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
7. 05:17 AM - Re: Scott S's experiece w/ Aircraft Spruce (Glenn Thomas)
8. 05:20 AM - Re: tailpost height above groun (Gene & Tammy)
9. 06:57 AM - Weight and balance advise (Rick Holland)
10. 07:29 AM - Take heart Chris: Wood Gear Leg Nighmares (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
11. 07:31 AM - Aircraft Spruce (KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP)
12. 07:31 AM - Tail wheel spring Part # (Dave Abramson)
13. 07:48 AM - Re: Tail wheel spring Part # (Phillips, Jack)
14. 08:44 AM - Take heart- gear leg nightmare (HelsperSew@aol.com)
15. 09:39 AM - Dues (KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP)
16. 09:59 AM - Re: Dues (Steve Eldredge)
17. 10:20 AM - Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp (Steve Eldredge)
18. 10:28 AM - Piet pics on the web (Bill Church)
19. 10:52 AM - FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Bill Church)
20. 11:04 AM - Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Phillips, Jack)
21. 11:29 AM - Re: Weight and balance advise (Gordon Bowen)
22. 11:43 AM - Re: Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp (Gordon Bowen)
23. 11:43 AM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Steve Eldredge)
24. 12:03 PM - Re: Weight and balance advise (amsafetyc@aol.com)
25. 01:04 PM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Catdesigns)
26. 02:42 PM - Steel vs Wood (Perry Rhoads)
27. 03:06 PM - Re: Steel vs Wood (Gordon Bowen)
28. 03:08 PM - Re: Steel vs Wood (Catdesigns)
29. 03:10 PM - Re: Axel location Clarifications (Catdesigns)
30. 04:28 PM - Re: Axel location Clarifications (BScott116@aol.com)
31. 04:39 PM - Re: Steel vs Wood (Dave Abramson)
32. 04:41 PM - Re: registration information (Dick Navratil)
33. 04:53 PM - Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Eric Williams)
34. 06:57 PM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Rick Holland)
35. 07:22 PM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length- baby bear's view (Rick Holland)
36. 08:07 PM - Re: Steel vs Wood (Roman Bukolt)
37. 09:32 PM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Don Emch)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: A.S.S. Does it again. (Aircraft Spruce) |
Bottom line Aircraft Spruce may be learning, "Don't piss off the
Pietenpolers, they stick together as a group and if you mess with them,
you could lose a lot of customers."
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Reeves
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A.S.S. Does it again. (Aircraft Spruce)
I think it's awesome that builders' lists and idea forums get this
type of customer service and follow up.
Aircraft Spruce is truly on the "cutting edge" of listening to their
customers and actually doing something about it.
In this world of instant messaging, blogs, and communications, it's
nice to have a company that really does care and realizes the importance
of customer needs.
Matt
Rochester, NY
Aircraft Spruce <info@aircraftspruce.com> wrote:
A customer of ours recently posted a comment to the Pietenpol group
about a backorder that was cancelled by Aircraft Spruce. Our Customer
Service department attempted to contact the customer by phone to advise
that the shipping on the one piece of tubing would be expensive, and to
ask if we could cut it for shipping. When they id not receive a reply,
they cancelled the backorder and notified the customer by email.
Unfortunately, they did not identify the item that was on backorder,
which led our customer to believe that other items (hardware) were
backordered, when they actually were shipped. We have extended our
apology to our customer and have shipped the backordered tubing at our
expense.
We greatly appreciate all the business we receive from Pietenpol
builders and if there is ever a question or concern regarding an order,
the Aircraft Spruce Customer Service department is ready to help.
Contact us at 877-477-7823 or customerservice@aircraftspruce.com.
Aircraft Spruce
Customer Service
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Scott S's experiece w/ Aircraft Spruce |
Scott's repeated difficulties with Aircraft Spruce mirror the issues
that caused me to quickly stop purchasing ANYTHING from them unless
nobody else carried it. I couldn't believe the utter incompetence and
lack of communication, good aircraft part knowledge, and difficulty in
getting incorrect or backordered issues resolved. I am encouraged to
hear that some, like Walt Evans, have had better experiences with ACS
and it appears that they are making attempts to improve customer
satisfaction. After getting burned a few times from ACS I found that
they
had an outstanding Customer Service Center located near St. Louis called
WICKS Aircraft !!!!!!!
Mike C.
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 |
|
Go flying, would you ?
xoxoxo
Mike C.
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 |
|
Oops,
Just read my posting of yesterday and apologize for my typo. The weber
carb used is a 3236.
Douwe
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: Axel location Clarifications |
We must have been using rulers from Harbor Freight.......
The axel location on NX18235 is 20" aft of the firewall. This was recorded
during the W&B excercise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:14 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axel location Clarifications
> <catdesigns@comcast.net>
>
> Hi, it's me again. Just a few last questions. After searching the archives
> there are some things that need to be clarified about axel placement.
>
> Greg Cardinal's and Dale Johnson's axel location sems to float around in
> the archives. I've seen pictures of the plane and I know the axel is in a
> fixed position.
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | tailpost height above groun |
Chris,
I don't have any measurements from the bottom of my tailpost to
ground but perhaps this photo might help. The photo of Jack
Phillips plane might help too if we can ask Jack what the height
of his wheels (mains) are, then you can easily get a decent calculation
of the height of his tailpost (bottom longerons) above ground.
So we now have msl, agl, and atl: above tailwheel level.
Mike C.
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Scott S's experiece w/ Aircraft Spruce |
While I appreciate Aircraft Spruce's attempt to heroicly salvage a customer relationship
before all of us potential customers on the forum, I have to say that
I have made 2 orders for wood. One for my capstrip and one for a single piece
of 1/2" x 1/2" capstrip (for the rib nose blocks). I scrutinize everything
and it was obvious to me that both orders contained substandard would (grain
density, grain inconsistencies, and imperfections/damage from the cutting process).
Armed with information from their own site and AC43.13 I was unable to
get them to replace anything. Once I sent them a link to pictures on my website
and THEN things started to move. Glad some people didn't go through the hell
I did but I echo Mike. To me great customer service doesn't mean they will
be happy to make good on their screw-ups. It means a commitment to less screw-ups
which I have seen no evidence of. I have yet to hear about anyone unhappy
with Wicks.
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99606#99606
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: tailpost height above groun |
What a beautiful airplane!
Gene
N502R
----- Original Message -----
From: Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: tailpost height above groun
Chris,
I don't have any measurements from the bottom of my tailpost to
ground but perhaps this photo might help. The photo of Jack
Phillips plane might help too if we can ask Jack what the height of
his wheels (mains) are, then you can easily get a decent calculation
of the height of his tailpost (bottom longerons) above ground. So
we now have msl, agl, and atl: above tailwheel level.
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: | Weight and balance advise |
Guys
Have just done a preliminary weighting of my uncovered airframe to figure
out where to place my corvair engine so I can make my motor mount. I want to
try to keep my cabanes vertical. Question is where do I want my CG point to
end up? Obviously between 15 and 20 inches aft of the LE. I am using a 17
gallon cowl fuel tank so I have calculated with me in the back seat (a
little over 200 lbs) and minimal fuel (say 2 gallons, 12 lbs), if the CG is
at the rear limit of 20" then with a full tank the CG will be in the center
of the range around 17 1/2". However doing it this way could lead to a
rearward CG problem with minimal fuel and heavier pilots (or a heavier me
some day). So I can have the minimal fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit
(19") and still be in the range with full fuel but that would limit lighter
weight pilots with full fuel (although I don't know any lightweight pilots,
what is the lightest Piet pilot you guys have ever seen?).
Am leaning toward designing for the minimum fuel CG an inch ahead of the
rear limit but would appreciate any advise.
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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 |
|
Subject: | Take heart Chris: Wood Gear Leg Nighmares |
Chris,
Maybe you can take comfort in the fact that your multiple attempts at
making your wood gear legs wasn't
done ALL in spruce like this dummy did. I thought I was good enough to
make the first set right from spruce----Hah,
yeah right ! Speaking of Wicks, they were really good to ship me out
one set of spruce blanks after the other each
time I screwed the gear legs up and finally on the third try I got the
charm. Those compound angle cuts are totally
unforgiving if you go the slightest bit too short---nothing fits.
The wood gear legs (for me anyway) were the single most difficult part
of the entire airplane but you can be assured
that your type of gear legs with the wire wheels will set your airplane
apart from every single other airplane and it is
the very first thing that people will admire and enjoy talking about,
looking at, and taking pictures of.
Mike C.
PS....the wood gear and wire wheels were well worth all the troubles,
headaches, gnashing of teeth, and money.
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 |
|
Pieters.....
Dan and I have ordered wood from Aircraft Spruce and did find some shortages
in the order. They corrected the problem relatively quick.
A.S.S. needs to understand the customers point of view and trust those of us
who have problems rather than lump everyone into the category of "unbelievable"
or "not our problem" attitude. Somewhere in my medical practice....we were once
told that if you listen well the patient will diagnose themselves and tell
you enough information to fix the problem....I believe it was called "Customer
Service."
Just my opinion.....
Ken H
Fargo, ND
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
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: | Tail wheel spring Part # |
Hello Everyone!
Is there an "off the shelf" part # for a tail wheel leaf spring? I have
seen quite a few people using them. Seems like a simpler and cleaner set up
than the original.
Thanks,
Dave
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: | Tail wheel spring Part # |
I originally used a leaf spring type tailwheel spring until I damaged
the gear in a forced landing. The resulting groundloop (after the main
axle broke) wiped the tailwheel off the fuselage, damaging one of the
longerons in the process. I had originally used a set of springs of a
Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser and they worked fine.
When I rebuilt it I went to the original Pietenpol swing-arm type
design, modified for a tailwheel instead of a skid. I rebuilt it after
my first attempt because it simply couldn't handle steering loads
without twisting badly (per Steve Eldridge's comments a couple of days
ago). The new version (which is still on the plane) has heavy .049"
wall tubing with across member welded in place near the hinge points to
keep it from twisting.
Even with the heavy tubing, the Pietenpol design is lighter than a leaf
spring (those things are really heavy), and it works better for a wooden
structure. The leaf spring design works well for steel tubing
fuselages, but the leaf spring puts an awful lot of load in just one
place when heavy side loads are applied (e.g., in a groundloop). If you
are certain you will never groundloop (no taildragger ever does that,
right?), it is fine.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Abramson
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wheel spring Part #
<davea@symbolicdisplays.com>
Hello Everyone!
Is there an "off the shelf" part # for a tail wheel leaf spring? I have
seen quite a few people using them. Seems like a simpler and cleaner
set up
than the original.
Thanks,
Dave
_________________________________________________
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 |
|
Subject: | Take heart- gear leg nightmare |
Mike,
I totally agree, that making those wood gear legs was the most difficult and
frustrating thing about the whole airplane without a dout. I made mine four
times, and although they look really good, I still could have been maybe one
degree closer with my cuts. I also made the lower gear fittings three
times. Here is some advice for those that have yet to make those lower gear
fittings. Don't attempt to make them until you have the wood legs cut right.
Then use paper patterns and make the fittings fit the gear legs that you have.
Here is a pic that might help the fabrication process. Got some of these
ideas from Mike C.and Jack P. (thank you).
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
Note two plumb bobs that piont to centerline drawn on 2 x 8 on floor. Ash
cross pieces should "point" to the spot where the tail skid plate would be.
(This according to the old timers at Brodhead)
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
Matt,
All of my posts are not showing up on the list for Pietenpolers. Do I need to
pay for this service?
Ken H
Fargo, ND
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
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 |
|
Yes, please send Matt Dralle a donation in November.
(even if you don't it should still work!)
Steve E
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KMHeide,
BA, CPO, FAAOP
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Dues
Matt,
All of my posts are not showing up on the list for Pietenpolers. Do I
need to pay for this service?
Ken H
Fargo, ND
________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel
<http://travel.yahoo.com/hotelsearchpage;_ylc=X3oDMTFtaTIzNXVjBF9TAzk3N
D
A3NTg5BF9zAzI3MTk0ODEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA21haWx0YWdsaW5lBHNsawNxMS0wNw--%0d%0a
> to find your fit.
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: | Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp |
No doubt others can top it, but I've been an Aircraft Spruce customer
for 15 years. Just this morning as I was going through my receipts for
my Stinson rebuild I flipped through probably 50-70 separate orders I've
made to them. They have made some errors, I've made some too. They
have made good on all the discrepancies. There was one time I
mis-ordered and didn't discover it for over a month after receiving the
'wrong' parts. I called them up and they helped me fix my error. It
was a $200 SIRS compass. They have priced matched a Comant antenna, and
credited my CC after the sale $18. I have noticed that wood (spruce)
sales have been a problem, but like others have said, they have
corrected the issue. I don't recall having to get ill-tempered, though
my patience has worn thin having to re-explain things as it goes up the
chain. I have made several suggestions to them about their web site,
and wishlists in particular. (a feature, buy the way that is really
cool!) They have been courteous and respectful. I imagine there is a
constant turn-over in front line order takers, and I think they are (on
the whole) well trained. I have used Wicks, Dillsburg, WagAero, Chief,
and others, and will continue to shop where I feel like. I think I
hold suppliers up to a pretty tall standard, and most of the time AS&S
measures up. What does it say about a company that will check its'
pulse in the real world by monitoring groups like this? I know this
isn't the first time. Check the archives and you might even find a post
or two by Jim Irwin. No, they aren't perfect, but they sure are not
among those who ignore their customers. I'm not paid or compensated for
my opinions, and I know I'd be in a world of hurt without my free annual
parts reference guide, er, AS&S catalog.
Steve E.
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: | Piet pics on the web |
Just noticed that there are a batch of great new Pietenpol pictures on
airport-data.com submitted by Mike Madrid (a professional photographer).
Check out the shot of Chuck coming in for a landing in NX770CG!
here's a link:
http://www.airport-data.com/search/search3.html?code=pietenpol
Bill C.
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length |
Here are a few pics that I imported into a CAD program, then sketched a
few lines over the image, to approximate the "ground level" and the top
longeron, then measured the angle. It's not really precise, since the
pictures are not perfectly parallel to the planes, and the ground
surface becomes "fuzzy" with grass, but it gives an approximation. One
thing that becomes apparent is that there do seem to be variations in
the resulting angles. About a 4 or 5 degree range, which backs up the
calculations arrived at by Chris Tracy.
Overall, I get the feeling that adegree or so this way or that from the
target (13=B0) ain't gonna hurt.
Bill C.
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: | Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length |
Pretty cool, Bill.
Jack Phillips
Hoping to fly NX899JP tomorrow
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length
Here are a few pics that I imported into a CAD program, then sketched a few
lines over the image, to approximate the "ground level" and the top longer
on, then measured the angle. It's not really precise, since the pictures ar
e not perfectly parallel to the planes, and the ground surface becomes "fuz
zy" with grass, but it gives an approximation. One thing that becomes appar
ent is that there do seem to be variations in the resulting angles. About a
4 or 5 degree range, which backs up the calculations arrived at by Chris T
racy.
Overall, I get the feeling that adegree or so this way or that from the tar
get (13=B0) ain't gonna hurt.
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 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Weight and balance advise |
Rick,
I designed the motor mount about 4" longer than normal for a o-235 lyco
so my weight (280lbs) with min. fuel would not get too close to the back
end of the envelope. One of the guys that flys my Piete is about 150lbs
and has to hold the nose up with back pressure on the stick when flying
with full tanks (about 12" forward of LE wings). He has min. problems
with authority of tail to control the plane's pitch. My trim tab could
have been a bit bigger on the elevator to help with his problem, also a
washer or two under the horiz stab front connecting point to fuse could
help if lighter pilots fly plane most of the time. The flat plane of
the horiz stab would act like a big trim tab if canted upward a few
degrees at leading edge. I figure a light 100lb pilot would have
trouble with my plane unless lead is added to the tail or the pilot sat
on a block of lead. The most dangerous situation is not making the
plane so it will always stall nose down. A flat tail heavy stall can't
be recovered. So I recommend you extend the motor mount even more
forward so you can fly from the back seat with max. 250 lbs, min. fuel
and still not be back behind the cg envelope. Remember the coverings on
the tail surfaces have a very long arm, plus the rear wheel has long
arm. You could under compensate for this even with your 200lbs. It's
easy to add weight to the tail later but harder to add weight to the
nose area.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:55 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight and balance advise
Guys
Have just done a preliminary weighting of my uncovered airframe to
figure out where to place my corvair engine so I can make my motor
mount. I want to try to keep my cabanes vertical. Question is where do I
want my CG point to end up? Obviously between 15 and 20 inches aft of
the LE. I am using a 17 gallon cowl fuel tank so I have calculated with
me in the back seat (a little over 200 lbs) and minimal fuel (say 2
gallons, 12 lbs), if the CG is at the rear limit of 20" then with a full
tank the CG will be in the center of the range around 17 1/2". However
doing it this way could lead to a rearward CG problem with minimal fuel
and heavier pilots (or a heavier me some day). So I can have the minimal
fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit (19") and still be in the range
with full fuel but that would limit lighter weight pilots with full fuel
(although I don't know any lightweight pilots, what is the lightest Piet
pilot you guys have ever seen?).
Am leaning toward designing for the minimum fuel CG an inch ahead of
the rear limit but would appreciate any advise.
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp |
I too have to give Spruce a little credit they have due. Kinda hated to
see Alexander Aero get sold to Spruce because it cut the competition and
price stability. But been dealing with Spruce since mid-80's have had
min. problems. Yes, a few order screw-ups but generally they were my
fault, didn't ask the right questions about the item I was seeing in
their catalog. Spruce always made good if it was their fault or mine.
Always prompt return credits. It's a big complex business now, but it
anyone is unhappy send a email directly to Jim Irwin or talk to him at
Oshcash or SunFun. This homebuilding business would be totally lost
without the likes of Spruce or Wicks etc. It took a lot of creativity
for guys like Bernard Pietenpol and the other genius of the golden age
of aviation to come up with flyable designs without the resource
suppliers we homebuilders have today. Now if only the EAA worked as
smoothly supporting scratch built homebuilders, it's a big business now
too.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Eldredge
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp
No doubt others can top it, but I've been an Aircraft Spruce customer
for 15 years. Just this morning as I was going through my receipts for
my Stinson rebuild I flipped through probably 50-70 separate orders I've
made to them. They have made some errors, I've made some too. They
have made good on all the discrepancies. There was one time I
mis-ordered and didn't discover it for over a month after receiving the
'wrong' parts. I called them up and they helped me fix my error. It
was a $200 SIRS compass. They have priced matched a Comant antenna, and
credited my CC after the sale $18. I have noticed that wood (spruce)
sales have been a problem, but like others have said, they have
corrected the issue. I don't recall having to get ill-tempered, though
my patience has worn thin having to re-explain things as it goes up the
chain. I have made several suggestions to them about their web site,
and wishlists in particular. (a feature, buy the way that is really
cool!) They have been courteous and respectful. I imagine there is a
constant turn-over in front line order takers, and I think they are (on
the whole) well trained. I have used Wicks, Dillsburg, WagAero, Chief,
and others, and will continue to shop where I feel like. I think I
hold suppliers up to a pretty tall standard, and most of the time AS&S
measures up. What does it say about a company that will check its'
pulse in the real world by monitoring groups like this? I know this
isn't the first time. Check the archives and you might even find a post
or two by Jim Irwin. No, they aren't perfect, but they sure are not
among those who ignore their customers. I'm not paid or compensated for
my opinions, and I know I'd be in a world of hurt without my free annual
parts reference guide, er, AS&S catalog.
Steve E.
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Main Landing Gear Length |
Yep. I may be off on the tubing sizes. I increased both gauge and
diameter, and added the cross member. Mine started failing due to the
twist induced in turns on the ground. The 'V' cannot resist the torque,
and bends just inboard of the spring near the V end. I couldn't imagine
it until I saw it. Adding the cross member gives it the rigidity it
needs.
Steve E
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
HelsperSew@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Main Landing Gear Length
Steve,
I used the.049 tubing. You still think it needs the extra member?
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from
AOL5326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom
"
target="_blank">AOL.com.
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Weight and balance advise |
Okay
Back on the road again in the later part of March. I'll be in the Atalanta area
25,26 and 27 then Tuscan 27,28,29 depart 30th am. Any flying piets or builders
in the area that wouldn't mind showing off their piets or projects?
Now that I have started building the plans are a little less user friendly and
taking a look at a finished piet and getting measurements and pictures of a work
in progress makes the task of understanding the drawings a bit more comprehensible.
I look forward to visiting.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: gbowen@ptialaska.net
Sent: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Weight and balance advise
Rick,
I designed the motor mount about 4" longer than normal for a o-235 lyco so my weight
(280lbs) with min. fuel would not get too close to the back end of the envelope.
One of the guys that flys my Piete is about 150lbs and has to hold the
nose up with back pressure on the stick when flying with full tanks (about
12" forward of LE wings). He has min. problems with authority of tail to control
the plane's pitch. My trim tab could have been a bit bigger on the elevator
to help with his problem, also a washer or two under the horiz stab front connecting
point to fuse could help if lighter pilots fly plane most of the time.
The flat plane of the horiz stab would act like a big trim tab if canted upward
a few degrees at leading edge. I figure a light 100lb pilot would have
trouble with my plane unless lead is added to the tail or the pilot sat on a block
of lead. The most dangerous situation is not making the plane so it will
always stall nose down. A flat tail heavy stall can
't be recovered. So I recommend you extend the motor mount even more forward
so you can fly from the back seat with max. 250 lbs, min. fuel and still not be
back behind the cg envelope. Remember the coverings on the tail surfaces have
a very long arm, plus the rear wheel has long arm. You could under compensate
for this even with your 200lbs. It's easy to add weight to the tail later
but harder to add weight to the nose area.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:55 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight and balance advise
Guys
Have just done a preliminary weighting of my uncovered airframe to figure out where
to place my corvair engine so I can make my motor mount. I want to try to
keep my cabanes vertical. Question is where do I want my CG point to end up?
Obviously between 15 and 20 inches aft of the LE. I am using a 17 gallon cowl
fuel tank so I have calculated with me in the back seat (a little over 200 lbs)
and minimal fuel (say 2 gallons, 12 lbs), if the CG is at the rear limit of
20" then with a full tank the CG will be in the center of the range around 17
1/2". However doing it this way could lead to a rearward CG problem with minimal
fuel and heavier pilots (or a heavier me some day). So I can have the minimal
fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit (19") and still be in the range with
full fuel but that would limit lighter weight pilots with full fuel (although
I don't know any lightweight pilots, what is the lightest Piet pilot you guys
have ever seen?).
Am leaning toward designing for the minimum fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit
but would appreciate any advise.
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL
at AOL.com.
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Main Landing Gear Length |
One more thing and I can't believe I forgot to mention this. The main reason
for the 13 degree target is this is what the 1933 plans show. If you assume
a 7-inch height to the tail skid using the height to the top longeron
(51-inches) on Drawing 1 (Tall wheels) you can calculate a 13 degree deck
angle. If you use the 48.5-inch measurement shown on drawing 3 for the
smaller wheels it drops down to 12 degrees. These reduce to 12.5 and 11.5
if you assume a 8 inch skid height. If you use your protractor and measure
the angle on the side view on Drawing 7 (small wheels), it is 12 degrees.
However, when I measured the side view drawing on the cover sheet of the
1937 Air Camper with 1960 Corvair Engine, I only get 10 degrees.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com
Message 26
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Gentlemen,
I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the
Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none
with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less
acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original
Pietenpol"?
Any comments on this subject would be appreciated.
Perry Rhoads
Message 27
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Steel vs Wood |
Perry,
N-1033B has a 4130 steel fuse, tail feathers, 0-235 engine and came in
about 670 lbs with battery.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Perry Rhoads
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood
Gentlemen,
I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the
Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none
with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less
acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original
Pietenpol"?
Any comments on this subject would be appreciated.
Perry Rhoads
Message 28
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Steel vs Wood |
Welcome to the group Perry
I chose wood because I was familiar with wood working and didn't know
how to weld. I would gather this is the reason why most choose the wood
construction over steel.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Perry Rhoads
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood
Gentlemen,
I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the
Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none
with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less
acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original
Pietenpol"?
Any comments on this subject would be appreciated.
Perry Rhoads
Message 29
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Axel location Clarifications |
Thanks Greg
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axel location Clarifications
>
> We must have been using rulers from Harbor Freight.......
>
> The axel location on NX18235 is 20" aft of the firewall. This was recorded
> during the W&B excercise.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns@comcast.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:14 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axel location Clarifications
>
>
>> <catdesigns@comcast.net>
>>
>> Hi, it's me again. Just a few last questions. After searching the
>> archives there are some things that need to be clarified about axel
>> placement.
>>
>> Greg Cardinal's and Dale Johnson's axel location sems to float around in
>> the archives. I've seen pictures of the plane and I know the axel is in
>> a fixed position.
>
>
>
Message 30
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Axel location Clarifications |
Thanks for that information. I will be installing a Lambert 266 radial on my
project--so will start from that number. Lowell Frank in Okauchee , WI has
done this already , so I should ask him as well. Brent Scott
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Message 31
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have heard the steel tube fuselage is actually lighter than the wood!
Believe it or not!
Dave
(Building with wood)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Catdesigns
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood
Welcome to the group Perry
I chose wood because I was familiar with wood working and didn't know how to
weld. I would gather this is the reason why most choose the wood
construction over steel.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Perry Rhoads <mailto:prhoads61@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood
Gentlemen,
I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the Pietenpol
photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none with the steel
tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less acceptable for some reason.?
Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original Pietenpol"?
Any comments on this subject would be appreciated.
Perry Rhoads
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 32
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: registration information |
So, if you fly under Sport Pilot, you still need bi-annual, right. I
need both before the weather gets too good.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:31 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: registration information
Raymond-- I flew my piet under the Sport Pilot regs this past summer
for a month
while I was out of medical. I see no reason why you can't register
your Piet as
a regular airplane with a standard N number and if you want to fly it
under the sport
rule it already meets the criteria.
Mike C.
Message 33
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length |
That's pretty clever Bill. Nice job.
Eric W.
(do not archive)
>From: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length
>Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:51:25 -0500
>
>
>Here are a few pics that I imported into a CAD program, then sketched a few
>lines over the image, to approximate the "ground level" and the top
>longeron, then measured the angle. It's not really precise, since the
>pictures are not perfectly parallel to the planes, and the ground surface
>becomes "fuzzy" with grass, but it gives an approximation. One thing that
>becomes apparent is that there do seem to be variations in the resulting
>angles. About a 4 or 5 degree range, which backs up the calculations
>arrived at by Chris Tracy.
>Overall, I get the feeling that adegree or so this way or that from the
>target (13) ain't gonna hurt.
>
>Bill C.
><< dnangle.jpg >>
><< ecvbangle.jpg >>
><< fpangle.jpg >>
><< jpangle.jpg >>
><< lwangle.jpg >>
><< smangle.jpg >>
><< wbangle.jpg >>
Message 34
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Main Landing Gear Length |
Hello Chris
Mine is a long fuselage with split gear (8.0x6 tires) and a leaf spring
tailwheel (like Mikeys), the deck angle is 11.5 degrees and here are the
measurements:
Vertical measure from floor to front landing gear attach fitting at
longeron:
30"
Rear attach fitting:
24"
Floor to bottom of tail post:
12"
Floor to center of main gear axles:
9"
Distance front landing gear fitting to tailpost:
161"
Rick
On 3/8/07, Catdesigns <Catdesigns@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am working on installing the wood style landing gear. According to my
> calculations to get a deck angle of 13 degrees I need the bottom of the axel
> to be 22 inches below the fuselage, measured down from the front fitting
> perpendicular to the upper longeron with the upper longeron level. This
> will require lengthening the wood landing gear 6.75 inches. If I compare
> my axel location to the split axel gear, it is a 5-inch extension. The need
> for this appears to be mostly due to the height of my tail wheel being 12
> inches, or 4.5-inches taller then the stock tail skid.
>
> Did anyone else lengthen the gear this much? Anyone see a problem in
> adding this much length? I should also add I widened the gear 6-inches to
> keep the same geometry in gear width.
>
> A search of the archives on this leads to some specific questions:
>
> Don Emch, you said you have a deck angle of 15 degrees and a tail
> wheel. Did you lengthen your gear and if so how much. Or is your high deck
> angle due only to the tall wheels.
>
> Jack Phillips, you mentioned having to add a step to get in with a 12 to
> 13 degree deck angle, did you lengthen your gear and if so how much?
>
> Mike Cuy, searching the archives you say your plane sits at 13 degrees and
> later say 11 to 12 degrees is where you set your deck angle. Which one is
> it and did you have to lengthen your gear legs to get it?
>
> Rick Holland, you mentioned that your lower longeron is 32-inches from the
> ground with a deck angle of 12 degrees. Where did you measure this from and
> did you lengthen your gear?
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris Tracy
>
> --------
> Chris Tracy
> WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99477#99477
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 35
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Main Landing Gear Length- baby bear's view |
Chris
You are just like me as far as the "busines staff meeting Piet design
sessions", I have more landing gear, fuel tank, etc. design diagrams in my
work notebook than computer algorithms. Beats being bored stiff at work.
Rick
On 3/8/07, Catdesigns <catdesigns@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Oscar,
>
> Your absolutely right. I tell my self to stop trying to be so perfect but
> I
> often refer to my self as the "Imperfect Perfectionist". I just have to
> have it right or I don't like it and rarely do I like anything I do
> because
> I know I could do it better if I did it again. The new gear legs will be
> the third set I will make. I've gotten quite good at it, if I do say so
> my
> self. The first set were out of pine (2x4's) and the second are spruce
> but
> to long. The last will be spruce. I will move on accepting that they may
> not be perfect but I can live with that.
>
> Actually, I truly enjoy the planning, the thinking, and the endless
> sketches
> of airplane parts (usually at work during meetings). Everywhere in my
> cube
> are pictures of plane parts, notes on how to do this and how to do that,
> old
> NACA papers and old EAA articles. Do you have any idea how excited I was
> to
> find a copy of ANC 18 and 19? That was a good day.I think I enjoy this as
> much as I enjoy thinking about flying it when its done.
>
> By the way, if I saved all this building for the winter, I don't how I
> could
> get all this work in the one month of winter here in California. Today's
> high 60's Saturday mid 70's. Sunday maybe 80.
>
> Thanks for the dimensions and the kick in the butt to get er' done. I
> waste
> most of my time thinking way to much.
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
> Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com
> Do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 7:32 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Main Landing Gear Length- baby bear's view
>
>
> > <taildrags@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Chris wrote-
> >
> >>Mike is at 13.5, Brian is just under 12 , Frank P. is just about 15
> >>degrees.
> >>Knowing Mike to be closer to 12 degrees, I assume these estimates to be
> >>a little steeper then reality. We know Jack is at 13 and Greg and Dale
> >>are
> >>at 12.5. Dom Emch has the steepest at 15. He also reported Frank P.
> >>to be about the same as his. Chuck G. at 11 degrees said it was a bit
> >>harder
> >>to get a good full stall landing.
> >
> > Mama Bear's bed is too soft, Papa Bear's bed is too hard, but Baby
> Bear's
> > bed (NX41CC, at 12.2 degrees deck angle sitting in the hangar, top
> > longeron) is just right! This airplane lands just about perfectly and I
> > haven't hit the tailwheel first yet. Sitting in the hangar in normal
> > trim, the dimension from the bottom of the aftmost edge of the tailpost
> to
> > the hangar floor is 12-1/2".
> >
> > What is funny is that I want to write in BIG, BOLD LETTERS the same
> thing
> > I heard so many times as long as I've been a homebuilder but never an
> > experimental airplane flyer... "JUST FINISH THE AIRPLANE AND FLY
> IT-! YOU
> > WILL NEVER STOP SMILING!". Gone are the endless discussions about this
> > and that, nuts and bolts, possible improvements. 41CC is pretty close
> to
> > a real authentic "Improved Plans Built" Air Camper and it flies
> > beautifully. It isn't perfect, isn't the right airplane for everyone,
> > isn't an instrument platform, will tax you on a long cross-country, but
> if
> > you know you're a Pietenpol person already, hurry up and finish your
> > airplane because it will scratch your itch and tickle your fancy just
> > right. Finish it and fly it, then you can improve and tweak it later!
> > Winter time is for modifying and reworking, but we're now getting into
> > springtime and that means flying so just put the glue on the wood or it
> > will never start curing.
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > San Antonio, TX
> > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
> > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more..then map the best
> > route! http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 36
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Steel vs Wood |
I have aPiet built from steel tubing powered with a Cont. A-65, and a 30
Ft. wing. It weighs 670 lb.
Bill Rewey has a Piet built with all wood powered by a Cont. A-65 and a
30 ft. wing and It weighs 670 lb.
About the one benefit my tube fuse has over the wood one is that it has
a door for the front cockpit.
Roman Bukolt NX20795
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Bowen
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood
Perry,
N-1033B has a 4130 steel fuse, tail feathers, 0-235 engine and came in
about 670 lbs with battery.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Perry Rhoads
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood
Gentlemen,
I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the
Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none
with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less
acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original
Pietenpol"?
Any comments on this subject would be appreciated.
Perry Rhoads
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 37
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Main Landing Gear Length |
Hi Chris,
My gear is the steel split axle basically right off of the plans. I'm using
19" rims with a 3.20/3.60 tire which makes the total tire height somewhere around
26". I went this route because of a picture I saw several years ago of Mr.
Pietenpol's 12988 that he built. He used the split axle gear with wire wheels.
My deck angle is around 15 degrees. Over the nose visibility isn't the
best in the three-point but it's easy to get used to. The landing characteristics
are really nice as long as I get it slow enough to stall into the three-point
touchdown, which with a little headwind seems ridiculously slow.
Not too long ago Frank Pavliga and I were discussing how similar our deck angles
were and how the view out of each others ships on the ground is almost the
same. He did mention that he used to have a different gear on his. It was
intentionally built with the axle moved forward. They didn't like that so they
built one with the correct proportions. They did make it proportional though
to the longer fuselage. The Flying and Glider Manual gear was designed for
the shorter Flying and Glider Manual fuelage. It is shorter than the short version
of the 1933 plans. Frank said he simply took the measurements from that
original gear and scaled them up to match the correct proportions of the longest
fuselage (the Corvair '60s fuselage). This gave the deck angle on his that
would have been similar to what would have been on the shortest fuselage Flying
and Glider Manual ship. He is currently running 21" rims. He used to have
18" rims, but those are now on the Waco 9.
My tailpost is probably somewhere around 9 or 10 inches off the ground. Probably
a couple inces higher than just having a skid. It's a 4" wheel and I kept
the spring pretty short.
http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Don%20Emch/dscn0380_596.jpg
Chris, I really enjoy your website. It's really great of you to provide this
resource to everyone. I know I could not have built mine without being able
to see other projects.
Really looking forward to our field firming up a little so I can get it dirty
again!
Don Emch
Nx899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99751#99751
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! --
|