---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 12/04/07: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:24 AM - Re: Digital Scale (MikeD) 2. 06:19 AM - Re: Re: Digital Scale (Glenn Thomas) 3. 07:14 AM - Re: (no subject) (Gene & Tammy) 4. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: Digital Scale (Gordon Bowen) 5. 11:31 AM - Re: Assembly milestone (Patrick Panzera) 6. 02:39 PM - (no subject) (RBush96589@aol.com) 7. 03:31 PM - Met some this summer, that would really love to learn to fly (walt evans) 8. 05:02 PM - Re: (no subject) (Gene & Tammy) 9. 07:05 PM - Re: Met some this summer, that would really love to learn to fly (Glenn Thomas) 10. 08:20 PM - Machined tail hinges (Mike Whaley) 11. 08:24 PM - Website for Pilots (Rcaprd@aol.com) 12. 08:55 PM - Re: Digital Scale (MikeD) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:24:00 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale From: "MikeD" Glenn Thomas wrote: > Resin 100 parts / Hardener 83 parts BY WEIGHT - From a call to System 3 > > No problem with my "discovery". I got the mfr ration by weighing what I visually compared. If you take your time, take your project seriously and measure carefully, you will be fine. > > I agree with every point Bill made and have been using same type of mixing process as he has and don't think new builders should have cause for concern if they have been measuring visually by equal volume and doing it carefully. It's quite true that with care and common sense volume mixing works alright. I find mixing by weight faster and easier, maybe coz I've done it that way for twenty years. In my opinion mixing by weight is more consistent and does not involve any interpretation of liquid levels or whatever. And the weight ratio is the "gospel" to use the term again, and I prefer to do things that way without an interpretive step in between. Yes to the other post - they are formulated so that the volume ratios end up at 1:1, using equivalent weight and specific gravity information. And erring a little bit of either side of ideal won't cause any significant problems, although the shift from ideal properties is certainly related to the level of error. You will also find the weight ratio on the data sheet - it is provided for those that prefer to mix by weight. I just find mixing by weight easier, and I trust it far more than volume mixing. To me, anytime you are mixing epoxy there is the possibility of error with any method. 100 to 83 is dead nuts simple - pour what looks like enough resin into a mixing vessel on a tared scale. Scribble the weight on a piece of paper beside you as backup to your memory. Multiply by 0.83 with a $2.99 calculator. Add that much curative. If you overshoot, pick out the excess if not blended by the motion of pouring, or divide the excess by 0.83 and add resin to adjust. Takes three times as long to write as to do. And to cross check things for those with a penchant for recording their every move - keeping a table of your batch weights (A&B) is fast and easy, and you can check back to look for errors should something happen. It's common practice in some industries to record those details for any composition involving mixing of two or more components. Next time I get the chance, it will be an interesting little exercise to mix a few batches by volume, recording the vessel + A weight and the total weight, and compare accuracy to batches mixed by weight. Do what works best for you, but I thought the significance of mixing by weight might be of interest to some. -------- Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150324#150324 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:19:54 AM PST US From: "Glenn Thomas" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale Hi Mike, I might have reacted a little quickly here. When I was starting out I would read a post on the forum, contemplate my approach and wonder if everything I had made thus far was junk, to learn later that it wasn't. That was very frustrating. My comment comes from knowing that this is a pretty big undertaking and we try and help each other take note without unnecessarily alarming folks that did it the wrong way when in reality they did it the hard way, or didn't do it the best way. I actually think I will do what you and Brian Kraut say from now on (mark the bottle 100 resin / 83 hardener) and measure up ...since you have caused me to pause on this topic. Now I don't feel like I wasted money on 3 scales. Thanks for the info and the opportunity to pause and reconsider. The information on my website was put there because a friend of mine simply mixes 1:1 by mass using a scale considering this technique highly precise. I knew he visited my site and this was a subtle way of informing him. I still think my "discovery" is right. ...but your is most accurate and I will continue as you have described. Thanks, Glenn On 12/4/07, MikeD wrote: > > > > Glenn Thomas wrote: > > Resin 100 parts / Hardener 83 parts BY WEIGHT - From a call to System 3 > > > > No problem with my "discovery". I got the mfr ration by weighing what I > visually compared. If you take your time, take your project seriously and > measure carefully, you will be fine. > > > > I agree with every point Bill made and have been using same type of > mixing process as he has and don't think new builders should have cause for > concern if they have been measuring visually by equal volume and doing it > carefully. > > > It's quite true that with care and common sense volume mixing works > alright. I find mixing by weight faster and easier, maybe coz I've done it > that way for twenty years. In my opinion mixing by weight is more consistent > and does not involve any interpretation of liquid levels or whatever. And > the weight ratio is the "gospel" to use the term again, and I prefer to do > things that way without an interpretive step in between. Yes to the other > post - they are formulated so that the volume ratios end up at 1:1, using > equivalent weight and specific gravity information. And erring a little bit > of either side of ideal won't cause any significant problems, although the > shift from ideal properties is certainly related to the level of error. You > will also find the weight ratio on the data sheet - it is provided for those > that prefer to mix by weight. > > I just find mixing by weight easier, and I trust it far more than volume > mixing. To me, anytime you are mixing epoxy there is the possibility of > error with any method. 100 to 83 is dead nuts simple - pour what looks like > enough resin into a mixing vessel on a tared scale. Scribble the weight on a > piece of paper beside you as backup to your memory. Multiply by 0.83 with > a $2.99 calculator. Add that much curative. If you overshoot, pick out the > excess if not blended by the motion of pouring, or divide the excess by > 0.83 and add resin to adjust. Takes three times as long to write as to do. > And to cross check things for those with a penchant for recording their > every move - keeping a table of your batch weights (A&B) is fast and easy, > and you can check back to look for errors should something happen. It's > common practice in some industries to record those details for any > composition involving mixing of two or more components. > > Next time I get the chance, it will be an interesting little exercise to > mix a few batches by volume, recording the vessel + A weight and the total > weight, and compare accuracy to batches mixed by weight. > > Do what works best for you, but I thought the significance of mixing by > weight might be of interest to some. > > -------- > Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150324#150324 > > -- Glenn Thomas Storrs, CT http://www.flyingwood.com ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:02 AM PST US From: "Gene & Tammy" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: (no subject) Robert, How did the weekend go?? If I ride my cycle down that way will I be able to see the strip from the road?(I'm riding down to Jackson later this week). Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: RBush96589@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 7:51 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject) Gene, I rent a 2300 ft grass strip with a t-hanger from a neighbor of mine about a half mile from my house.If you know where the law rd.exit 93 is off of i-40 it is about 4 miles north of there. ROBERT BUSH NX294RB ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- money wasters of 2007. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 11/24/2007 5:58 PM ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:06:08 AM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale The homebuilt "industry" has been mixing resins for bonding their planes for a heck of a lot of years. Rutan put some common sense in the use of two part epoxies for homebuilts bout 35 yrs ago now. Burt's first Varieze plans had you build a homemade scale to weigh resins/hardeners. The original plans described a weighing scale that utilized different "arms" from a centering pivot. The concept of "Arms" in weight/balance was something homebuilders understood. Cheap digital scales were not available at the time. The composite homebuilders use about 50 gals of resin/hardener to make their planes and all plans I know of use the weight ratio for mixing, one reason---it's the most accurate.. Most all epoxies promoted for use by homebuilders are very forgiving, the reason for this is because the resin part of the formula is a long polymer and it has a "equivalent weight" has a range, meaning-- the number of chemically reactive sites for the hardener to crosslink. The folks who make these resins like Shell or Dow or Ciba, sell their resins to formulators so they can decide what hardeners and diluents are good for the enduse. The formulators do their best to come up with a formula that is user friendly but also works well in the application. There are 100's of formulas that would work in homebuilding, but only a few that are promoted or approved by the original homebuilder designer. The benefit of this Piete thread is to inform builders they have have options and provide some help with decisions. A) weighing the resin/hardener to get the most accurate mix ratio is better technique. B) resin systems that are mixed 100:100 are more forgiving with mixed by volume. But many homebuilders use systems that require 3parts resin to 1 part hardener, or 2:1, these systems should be mixed by weight, it's simply better technique. C) in a previous posting, I discussed the cost to the homebuilder for using the wrong resin system or mis-mixing the system. The example I used was the roof collapse in the Boston Tunnel Big Dig. The resin system they used was a simple 100:100 mix by volume, it was made simple for the construction industry to bond bolts to concrete. It failed not because it was mis-mixed, but because the resin formulator sent the wrong product to the job site. The resin system had thermoplastic creep under strain, the resin set up "hard", seem initially to work ok, but slowly cold flowed when the weight of the concrete roof sagged the roof. System failed, someone died, millions of lost bucks, and a formulator in bankruptcy. Moral of story-------use the right epoxy system on your plane, use it correctly. The epoxy system holds your project together for it's entire life.......don't short change your knowledge of it's contribution to your safety. Do it right and you won't have to worry and you won't have to do it again. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "MikeD" Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 4:23 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale > > > Glenn Thomas wrote: >> Resin 100 parts / Hardener 83 parts BY WEIGHT - From a call to System 3 >> >> No problem with my "discovery". I got the mfr ration by weighing what I >> visually compared. If you take your time, take your project seriously >> and measure carefully, you will be fine. >> >> I agree with every point Bill made and have been using same type of >> mixing process as he has and don't think new builders should have cause >> for concern if they have been measuring visually by equal volume and >> doing it carefully. > > > It's quite true that with care and common sense volume mixing works > alright. I find mixing by weight faster and easier, maybe coz I've done it > that way for twenty years. In my opinion mixing by weight is more > consistent and does not involve any interpretation of liquid levels or > whatever. And the weight ratio is the "gospel" to use the term again, and > I prefer to do things that way without an interpretive step in between. > Yes to the other post - they are formulated so that the volume ratios end > up at 1:1, using equivalent weight and specific gravity information. And > erring a little bit of either side of ideal won't cause any significant > problems, although the shift from ideal properties is certainly related to > the level of error. You will also find the weight ratio on the data > sheet - it is provided for those that prefer to mix by weight. > > I just find mixing by weight easier, and I trust it far more than volume > mixing. To me, anytime you are mixing epoxy there is the possibility of > error with any method. 100 to 83 is dead nuts simple - pour what looks > like enough resin into a mixing vessel on a tared scale. Scribble the > weight on a piece of paper beside you as backup to your memory. Multiply > by 0.83 with a $2.99 calculator. Add that much curative. If you overshoot, > pick out the excess if not blended by the motion of pouring, or divide the > excess by 0.83 and add resin to adjust. Takes three times as long to write > as to do. And to cross check things for those with a penchant for > recording their every move - keeping a table of your batch weights (A&B) > is fast and easy, and you can check back to look for errors should > something happen. It's common practice in some industries to record those > details for any composition involving mixing of two or more components. > > Next time I get the chance, it will be an interesting little exercise to > mix a few batches by volume, recording the vessel + A weight and the total > weight, and compare accuracy to batches mixed by weight. > > Do what works best for you, but I thought the significance of mixing by > weight might be of interest to some. > > -------- > Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150324#150324 > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:31:55 AM PST US From: "Patrick Panzera" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Assembly milestone Sounds great! Thanks! Pat _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gcardinal Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Assembly milestone Hi Pat, I will forward this request to Greg Bacon. Greg is the current owner of Mountain Piet, the turbo-Subaru powered Piet that is undergoing a wing reconstruction after a landing mishap. Greg Cardinal ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Panzera Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Assembly milestone Beautiful job Dan, thanks for sharing. Gang, In the current issue of CONTACT! Magazine, our very own Oscar Zuniga presented an entertaining and well received article that explores the idea of building a Henderson Longster as a part 103 legal ultralight. Although our magazine usually doesn't delve into ultralights, I received a lot of mail asking for more "low and slow" and antique style aircraft, like what we use to get in To Fly. So with that, and motivated by Dan's inspirational photos, I'd like to ask the group to help me put together several Pietenpol articles that might help to showcase the gambit of creativity and craftsmanship spread throughout this community. I'm sure if I ask nicely, OZ can help spearhead this effort, and with that, maybe we can expand the scope of CONTACT! to include a regular presentation representing open cockpits and flying wires. I would most likely want to feature a minimum of three-four aircraft/projects. Unlike most magazines that think featuring something incomplete is taboo, we feel that our readers break down to the kind of "mechanics" (for a lack of a better word) that would love nothing more than spending an afternoon in a fellow builder's hanger, proposing over the work in progress. but I digress. I'd like to feature a 100% bone stock version of something that could have easily been hand-crafted by Bernard himself, back in the 30's. Of course since he pioneered the Corvair for use in experimental aviation, I'd like to see a Corvair powered version too. I'd also like to feature the most outrageous version available, maybe something with a turbo Sube, constant speed prop, glass cockpit, what ever. a "modern" version if you will. And then I'd like to feature something middle of the road; kinda like what Bernard would design/build today (and still be an Aircamper). hydraulic brakes, transponder, liberal use of composites or other modern materials, etc. or something that represents the current builder that's not 100% concerned about keeping to the plans. Thanks!!! Pat Panzera Editor@ContactMagazine.com _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of HelsperSew@aol.com Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:41 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Assembly milestone Guys, I have reached a milestone today. I was finally able to bring down my one-piece wing from the wall and assemble it to the fuselage. Boy does it feel good. Here are some pics to spur on the others behind me. Dan Helsper Poplar Grove, IL. href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com /Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:39:53 PM PST US From: RBush96589@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject) Gene, Saturday I had to do a little last minute tweak on the landing gear and finish making the cockpit covers so I did not get it up to the strip to put together.Then Sunday the weather was messy.so I am off work Thursday and I think I am going to put the wings and struts on it here at home and do a final weight and balance,since I did it before I painted it. I have an asphalt drive so it would be easier to do here than on a grass strip then this weekend take it up to the strip for the final assembly. yes you can see the strip from the road if you know where to look. If you are coming down Thursday or this weekend give me a call on my cell at 731 267 0578 and I will tell how to get here. Robert Bush **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 03:31:41 PM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Met some this summer, that would really love to learn to fly RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital ScaleLess than a mile from my house, met some that were longing to fly. walt evans NX140DL "No one ever learned anything by talking" Ben Franklin ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Kraut To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 2:08 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale Oh, and one other thing. I take a Sharpie and write "100" one one bottle and "83" on the other as soon as I get more T-88. Keeps down the confusion when mixing and chances for error. Brian Kraut Engineering Alternatives, Inc. www.engalt.com ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 05:02:12 PM PST US From: "Gene & Tammy" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: (no subject) Robert, If the weather is good I will make it thursday and give you a call. If I can be of any help getting your Piet ready let me know. Gene Cel 731-336-6893 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:11 PM PST US From: "Glenn Thomas" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Met some this summer, that would really love to learn to fly What a waste of a hangar! If only they knew what they were wandering around ignoring. On 12/4/07, walt evans wrote: > > Less than a mile from my house, met some that were longing to fly. > walt evans > NX140DL > > "No one ever learned anything by talking" > Ben Franklin > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Brian Kraut > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2007 2:08 PM > *Subject:* RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale > > > Oh, and one other thing. I take a Sharpie and write "100" one one bottle > and "83" on the other as soon as I get more T-88. Keeps down the confusion > when mixing and chances for error. > > > Brian Kraut > Engineering Alternatives, Inc. > www.engalt.com > > > * > > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > * > > -- Glenn Thomas Storrs, CT http://www.flyingwood.com ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:20:04 PM PST US From: "Mike Whaley" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Machined tail hinges I bought a set of those hinges (the official start of my Piet project, I suppose...) I haven't used them yet but everyone I showed them to was impressed with the quality, especially for $40 for 9. IIRC they were made by P.F. Beck in North Carolina. -Mike Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association http://www.ov-10bronco.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Michals" Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: [piet] RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vi Kaplers hinges > I am getting a little ahead of myself. I meant Brodhead '07. > > > do not archive > > Ryan Michals wrote: > Does anyone know who was selling the machined hinges adjacent to the Vi's hinges at Brodhead '08? I purchased the hinges but he had some other products I am interested in. > > Ryan M > > Scott Knowlton wrote: > .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Gents > > I purchased Vi's hinges three years ago at Broadhead. Bill is correct about the # 8 screws. I purchased 8-32 x 11/2 machine screws from Leavens Aviation in Toronto (ANM MS24693558) along with self locking nuts and washers. The countersink holes of Vi's hinges accept the machine screws heads perfectly. > > My two bits... > > Scott Knowlton > > > --------------------------------- > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vi Kaplers hinges > Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:17:19 -0500 > From: eng@canadianrogers.com > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > Carson, > I don't have Vi's hinges, so this isn't speaking from personal experience with them, but... > BHP's plans show the empennage hinges to be mounted with #8 screws. Let's make the very safe assumption that these will be sufficient to carry the load (based on a total of four screws per hinge assembly - two for each component). > Based on the dimension you have given, the holes in your hinges are .156" (5/32" diameter holes). Don't know the precision of your measurement (measured with a caliper or a ruler). In any case, the screw size closest to that hole is a #8 screw (.164" diameter). If I were you, I would go with #8-32 hardware (length to suit your particular build conditions - depending whether you recess the hinges into the wood or not). See if the screws will fit in the holes as-is. If necessary, open the holes in the hinges with a 11/64" drill (11/64" = .171", which will give you a nice .007" clearance). As I understand it, Vi's hinges are made of cast aluminum, so it wouldn't be a surprise at all if the holes were not perfect. > If > --------------------------------- > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you ">Try it now. > > > --------------------------------- > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:31 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Website for Pilots Check out this website!!! _"Over the Airwaves"_ (http://overtheairwaves.com/) **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:33 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Digital Scale From: "MikeD" Glenn Thomas wrote: > Hi Mike, > I might have reacted a little quickly here. When I was starting out I would read a post on the forum, contemplate my approach and wonder if everything I had made thus far was junk, to learn later that it wasn't. That was very frustrating. > > The information on my website was put there because a friend of mine simply mixes 1:1 by mass using a scale considering this technique highly precise. I knew he visited my site and this was a subtle way of informing him. I still think my "discovery" is right. ...but your is most accurate and I will continue as you have described. > > Thanks, > Glenn No worries Glen - my writing style occasionally comes out a little bombastic anyhow. My intention with the quoted word "discovery" was to highlight the fact that while the 1:1 volume ratio (fr T-88 that is) is correct, amounts of each component required to achieve that are determined using the reactivity data which is concerned only with weight (well, mass actually), not volume. Mixing by weight is generally accepted in industry as the right way to do things where tight control of properties is important. No intent to scare people, but only to pass on some info to show how they may be able to exercise more precise control over the consistency and quality of their adhesive mixes - hard to argue with the positives there. If your friend was mixing 1:1 by weight in an attempt to improve accuracy over mixing 1:1 by volume, hoo boy was he on the wrong track! [Embarassed] ... he had in fact ensured every batch would be as messed up as the others! Mike D. -------- Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150528#150528 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.