---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 06/19/07: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:36:19 AM PST US From: "Robert Gow" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: wide body 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:09:22 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wide body. From: "Bill Church" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:39:48 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wide body. From: "Phillips, Jack" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:56:34 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wide body. From: "Steve Eldredge" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:43:17 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: air freight From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]" is the way to go, not UPS for oversize stuff. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:45 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wide body. From: "Bill Church" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:34:09 AM PST US From: "Dave Abramson" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: air freight 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:37:17 PM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:29:50 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: twin piet From: "Walter Kahn" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:59:27 PM PST US From: "Scott Schreiber" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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" Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:29 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 11 ____________________________________ Time: 05:43:42 PM PST US From: "Graham Hansen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wide body. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.