Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:36 AM - Re: wide body (Robert Gow)
2. 07:09 AM - Re: Wide body. (Bill Church)
3. 07:39 AM - Re: Wide body. (Phillips, Jack)
4. 07:56 AM - Re: Wide body. (Steve Eldredge)
5. 08:43 AM - air freight (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
6. 09:11 AM - Re: Wide body. (Bill Church)
7. 09:34 AM - Re: air freight (Dave Abramson)
8. 12:37 PM - tailwheel leaf spring (Oscar Zuniga)
9. 02:29 PM - Re: twin piet (Walter Kahn)
10. 02:59 PM - Re: tailwheel leaf spring (Scott Schreiber)
11. 05:43 PM - Re: Wide body. (Graham Hansen)
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 |
|
Thanks - I'll try a mock-up. As for the flap - if you fly a T'craft or
similar you can fly it with the doors. Open the left door to bank right and
visa versa. Both doors to pitch up . . .
Never tried landing though.
Crazy but not stupid.
Bob.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Oscar
Zuniga
Sent: June 18, 2007 10:44 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wide body
I do all of my taxiing and a surprising amount of my flying with my left
elbow hanging out of the cockpit or at least resting on the edge with my
elbow out. I find it completely natural, kind of fits the style of that
era, and when the slipstream gets chilly I just tuck my arm back into the
cockpit and my head down behind the windscreen and I don't feel cramped.
However, I am 5'-10" and 150 lbs. so the Piet is a pretty nice fit for me
all around.
The throttle in the rear cockpit of 41CC is not pendant ("hanging down")
like the plans show, but upright as in most conventional quadrants, so the
knob is quite close to the top longeron and it falls to hand much more
naturally with my elbow hanging out. Were it lower down, I might not find
it so comfortable that way.
I also feel the urge to wave at people on the ground a lot and it's easy to
wave with my arm already out of the cockpit so I do, and they seem to always
be watching the airplane as I go by. Surprisingly, they almost always wave
back.... something I had never experienced in all of my spam can flying time
except for the time that I left the tag end of the seatbelt hanging out the
door ;o)
I was playing with the wing flop section the other day, in flight. If I
reach up and force it upward, it acts as a speed brake but also pitches the
nose up (duh!) Sometimes I feel like a little 55-year-old kid flying this
airplane but I justify it by saying that it is educational and
experimentation and will serve me in some useful capacity sometime ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp
33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&
encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
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 |
|
John wrote:
Major down side is the plywood usage. What should take an 1 eigth sheet
now takes more which will drive the cost up...
I am always surprised how much attention is given to the additional cost
of the plywood when widening the fuselage.
In my opinion, the only real concern would be the additional weight that
you'll be adding. I am going by memory here, but I think Jack Phillips
said he figured that the extra 1" of width added ten pounds to the
weight of his plane - additional plywood, spruce, fabric, paint, etc.
(you can correct that if it's wrong, Jack). But... if you need the
extra width, you need it. However, using ten pounds per added inch as a
basis, the 29" width would be adding considerable weight to your plane.
As for the added plywood cost, all you're talking about is an extra 4' x
4' sheet of 1/4" ply (which AS&S lists on their website today at $71.25
for Finnish Birch Aircraft Ply). To save a few bucks, just use Okoume
plywood, (which AS&S lists on their website today at $19.45 for a full
4' x 8' sheet, which would allow you to sheet the entire bottom in one
piece). Even if you are a scrounger, and your entire plane ends up
costing $10,000, an extra $100 for plywood is only 1% of the total. Not
really worth worrying about.
My $0.02 (Canadian)
Bill 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 |
|
Ahh, but to paraphrase another thread of emails, it's the shipping cost
that matters. I had already ordered my one sheet of plywood when I
decided to widen my fuselage. The second sheet cost more to ship than
the actual cost of the plywood. A 4' x 8' sheet of plywood can't be
shipped UPS and must go by truck, and that ain't cheap.
Other than the extra weight, I'm glad I made my fuselage an inch wider.
I'm not cramped for space and have room for a small six-pack cooler of
beer beside me when I'm flying (just kidding). It does give me room to
carry a water bottle, and a sack of sandwiches, as well as a sectional
chart or two. All those little creature comforts add up when you make a
long cross country, such as the 37 hours I spent flying mine to
Brodhead, Oshkosh and back home to North Carolina in 2005.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wide body.
John wrote:
Major down side is the plywood usage. What should take an 1 eigth sheet
now takes more which will drive the cost up...
I am always surprised how much attention is given to the additional cost
of the plywood when widening the fuselage.
In my opinion, the only real concern would be the additional weight that
you'll be adding. I am going by memory here, but I think Jack Phillips
said he figured that the extra 1" of width added ten pounds to the
weight of his plane - additional plywood, spruce, fabric, paint, etc.
(you can correct that if it's wrong, Jack). But... if you need the
extra width, you need it. However, using ten pounds per added inch as a
basis, the 29" width would be adding considerable weight to your plane.
As for the added plywood cost, all you're talking about is an extra 4' x
4' sheet of 1/4" ply (which AS&S lists on their website today at $71.25
for Finnish Birch Aircraft Ply). To save a few bucks, just use Okoume
plywood, (which AS&S lists on their website today at $19.45 for a full
4' x 8' sheet, which would allow you to sheet the entire bottom in one
piece). Even if you are a scrounger, and your entire plane ends up
costing $10,000, an extra $100 for plywood is only 1% of the total. Not
really worth worrying about.
My $0.02 (Canadian)
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 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 |
|
Or you could do like I did and found a local plywood supplier that sells
finish birch plywood in 50x50 inch squares and scarf joint it. Ever try
a scarf joint on a 1/8" piece of plywood? I did it for my sides and
=BC" for the bottom. Worked out great and I didn't have to pay shipping
on a 4x8. Took some time thought.
Steve E. (the scrounger)
BTW I finished my plane in flying condition for $5000 in 1997 dollars.
(no kidding!)
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Phillips, Jack
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:38 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wide body.
Ahh, but to paraphrase another thread of emails, it's the shipping cost
that matters. I had already ordered my one sheet of plywood when I
decided to widen my fuselage. The second sheet cost more to ship than
the actual cost of the plywood. A 4' x 8' sheet of plywood can't be
shipped UPS and must go by truck, and that ain't cheap.
Other than the extra weight, I'm glad I made my fuselage an inch wider.
I'm not cramped for space and have room for a small six-pack cooler of
beer beside me when I'm flying (just kidding). It does give me room to
carry a water bottle, and a sack of sandwiches, as well as a sectional
chart or two. All those little creature comforts add up when you make a
long cross country, such as the 37 hours I spent flying mine to
Brodhead, Oshkosh and back home to North Carolina in 2005.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wide body.
John wrote:
Major down side is the plywood usage. What should take an 1 eigth sheet
now takes more which will drive the cost up...
I am always surprised how much attention is given to the additional cost
of the plywood when widening the fuselage.
In my opinion, the only real concern would be the additional weight that
you'll be adding. I am going by memory here, but I think Jack Phillips
said he figured that the extra 1" of width added ten pounds to the
weight of his plane - additional plywood, spruce, fabric, paint, etc.
(you can correct that if it's wrong, Jack). But... if you need the
extra width, you need it. However, using ten pounds per added inch as a
basis, the 29" width would be adding considerable weight to your plane.
As for the added plywood cost, all you're talking about is an extra 4' x
4' sheet of 1/4" ply (which AS&S lists on their website today at $71.25
for Finnish Birch Aircraft Ply). To save a few bucks, just use Okoume
plywood, (which AS&S lists on their website today at $19.45 for a full
4' x 8' sheet, which would allow you to sheet the entire bottom in one
piece). Even if you are a scrounger, and your entire plane ends up
costing $10,000, an extra $100 for plywood is only 1% of the total. Not
really worth worrying about.
My $0.02 (Canadian)
Bill C.
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ics.com
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
- N
Message 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 |
|
is the way to go, not UPS for oversize stuff.
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 |
|
Yes, shipping costs are a definite factor in the total costs of building
one of these planes, especially when there are lots and lots of
shipments. Since I tend to lean towards the "scrounger" tendencies, I'll
be buying my plywood locally (Okoume, from Noah's Marine Supply) so
shipping will not be an issue for that item. For most on the list,
though, shopping locally is not an option, and I should have thought
about that before I wrote what I did about cost. Having said that, the
extra cost for another sheet of plywood plus shipping is likely to only
be an extra 2% on the cost of the plane, so my basic point remains.
Regarding the addition of an extra inch or so on the width of the
fuselage, I can see the reasons for wanting (or needing) that little bit
extra, and I am considering doing the same. I can see how a one-inch
thick sandwich would be much more appetizing than a one-eighth inch
thick sandwich. I will make up some sort of mock-up (fuselage, not
sandwich) before deciding.
Bill 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 |
|
Can anyone recommend a tail wheel leaf spring from ACSS? The "homebuilt"
leaf spring? I think it is a single leaf.
Thanks,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
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, June 19, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: air freight
is the way to go, not UPS for oversize stuff.
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: | tailwheel leaf spring |
I have the ACS "homebuilder special" leaf spring (it's just one leaf) on my
single-place, non-flying, partially-completed, VW-powered M-19 "Flying
Squirrel" and would consider it to be too light for the Pietenpol. I am
generalizing here, but based on the weight on the tailwheel of 41CC as well
as the lack of lateral stability of the single leaf on the "homebuilder's
special", I would use a multi-leaf spring myself.
Closed loop comment for Bill Church: I sent out your dataplate in
yesterday's mail. Sorry for the delay but you said you weren't in a hurry
for it.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
Picture this share your photos and you could win big!
http://www.GETREALPhotoContest.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
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 |
|
Hello guys, My name is Walt Kahn and I built N12043, starting when I was 14 in
high school. I had one A-65 in it and took it for an unlicensed test flight and
crashed. That was Feb 13,1966. I then kept the engine and sold the airframe
to Joe Halsmer, who did all the twin engine work and, if I remember right, had
it flying at Rockford 1967. The top engine had the prop on a long extension shaft.
On the shaft was a free-wheeling sheave for the second prop. The props were
on the same centerline, but had no connection to each other. That's why the
props are at funny angles to each other in photos. The idea was twin engine
reliability back in the good old days when A-65s were dirt cheap. The rear prop
was run by v-belts. You had to prop the rear prop and then grab the front one
for propping inches from the spinning rear one! The registry said the plane
was sold to someone in Kenosha. I wonder if there is a Broadhead connection. I
also heard it was donated to EAA Oshkosh, but no one seemed to know. Today I
fly a 1940 Luscombe 8C Silvaire (N40WK) which I plan on having at Blakesburg.
See you there. Walt Kahn
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=119506#119506
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: | Re: tailwheel leaf spring |
FWIW I used the matco one for the J3 and removed the one shortest leaf. It
seems ok with the plane in skeleton form and 240lbs in it.
-Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:29 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: tailwheel leaf spring
> <taildrags@hotmail.com>
>
> I have the ACS "homebuilder special" leaf spring (it's just one leaf) on
> my single-place, non-flying, partially-completed, VW-powered M-19 "Flying
> Squirrel" and would consider it to be too light for the Pietenpol. I am
> generalizing here, but based on the weight on the tailwheel of 41CC as
> well as the lack of lateral stability of the single leaf on the
> "homebuilder's special", I would use a multi-leaf spring myself.
>
> Closed loop comment for Bill Church: I sent out your dataplate in
> yesterday's mail. Sorry for the delay but you said you weren't in a hurry
> for it.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Picture this - share your photos and you could win big!
> http://www.GETREALPhotoContest.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
>
>
>
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 |
|
I built my Pietenpol with a 26 inch outside width from the firewall aft
to the vicinity of the rear instrument panel and tapered the fuselage
sides from there to the tailpost. A friend built a Piet from my jigs and
made his fuselage 26" wide, also. Neither of us regretted doing so and
the extra width is welcome when one needs to wear more clothing in cool
weather (not uncommon here in Alberta, Canada). I am about 5' 8" and
weigh about 175 lbs sans all the clothing I need to fly open cockpit
airplanes. Equipped to go aviating, I probably weigh considerably more
than 175 lbs!
As far as weight increase is concerned, my Piet weighs 630 lbs. empty
with a C85 engine. However, it is a pretty "Spartan" airplane with a
minimum of instruments in the rear cockpit only. The seat cushions are
rather thin and perhaps weigh 3 lbs. total for both seats. No electrical
system and a wooden propeller. A very lightweight tailwheel (caster
wheel) and 6.00 - 6 Shinn wheels with mechanical brakes from a
Taylorcraft keep the landing gear weight to a minimum. It seems that
these weight savings have offset any weight increase from the wider
fuselage. And I think I could have cancelled out that weight increase by
using lighter fabric than the 3.7 oz. I have on my a/c.
The wider fuselage is nice to have and I would do the same thing again
if I were to build another Pietenpol.
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
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! --
|