Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:45 AM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (Thomas Bernie)
2. 06:26 AM - Re: N number reservation (TOM STINEMETZE)
3. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: N number reservation (Phillips, Jack)
4. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: N number reservation (Gene Rambo)
5. 06:56 AM - Re: Re: N number reservation (hvandervoo@aol.com)
6. 07:09 AM - Re: Re: N number reservation (Roman Bukolt)
7. 07:23 AM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (Owen Davies)
8. 07:42 AM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (Bill Church)
9. 07:49 AM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (Bill Church)
10. 07:50 AM - NX (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
11. 07:52 AM - Re: Re: N number reservation (Ryan Mueller)
12. 08:10 AM - Re: NX (Gene Rambo)
13. 08:21 AM - Re: NX (TOM STINEMETZE)
14. 09:16 AM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (del magsam)
15. 09:49 AM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (Bill Church)
16. 10:06 AM - radio calls and NX (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
17. 10:51 AM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (Brian Kraut)
18. 11:14 AM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (hvandervoo@aol.com)
19. 12:31 PM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (Bill Church)
20. 12:47 PM - Take off roll (outofthebox50@YAHOO.COM)
21. 01:07 PM - Re: Take off roll (Phillips, Jack)
22. 02:45 PM - "moth" wing tank (Douwe Blumberg)
23. 03:37 PM - Re: "moth" wing tank (Steve Eldredge)
24. 04:55 PM - Re: covering wing roots made inexpensive (shad bell)
25. 05:46 PM - Re: "moth" wing tank (Ryan Michals)
26. 06:07 PM - Re: Take off roll (outofthebox50@yahoo.com)
27. 06:40 PM - Re: "moth" wing tank (jimd)
28. 06:48 PM - F-22 (T White)
29. 07:33 PM - Re: Take off roll (gcardinal)
30. 08:30 PM - Re: Homemade Turnbuckles (BScott116@aol.com)
31. 10:50 PM - Hardwire & Turnbuckles (Clif Dawson)
32. 11:22 PM - Re: Re: "moth" wing tank (Clif Dawson)
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: Homemade Turnbuckles |
I use an allen wrench, holding the nut with a custom made spanner (or
a vicegrip if I have clearance). It's not easy and you have to be
careful not to twist the cable, but once it's locked down it's fine.
On Mar 30, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Owen Davies wrote:
> >
>
> Thomas Bernie wrote:
>> I did my turnbuckles in a similar fashion (independently).
> How do you tighten them? There isn't much clearance to get a wrench
> in, much less actually turn the nut.
>
> Owen
>
>
Thomas Bernie
tsbe
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: | Re: N number reservation |
Don:
Using the NX would have been my first choice also. However the FAA
seems to have taken that option off the table. If you go to the FAA N
Number reservations website
(http://www.faa.gov/licenses%5Fcertificates/aircraft%5Fcertification/aircraft%5Fregistry/special%5Fnnumbers/)
you will find the following explanation: The FAA no longer issues
numbers beginning with NC, NX, NR, or NL. On some older aircraft, these
numbers may be displayed in accordance with FAR Part 45.22.
The site only allows you to begin with a number which is why I ended my
number with X. (Besides which "X-Ray" just sounds cool.) "Experimental
328 X-Ray inbound for low pass over the spaceport . . er, airport."
Tom Stinemetze
____ | ____
\8/
/ \
>>> EmchAir@aol.com 3/29/2008 8:23 AM >>>
>you know this, but if there are others that don't, remember if you use
NX at the front of your number when you paint it on the airplane it
takes the place of painting >EXPERIMENTAL on the fuselage near the
cockpit. Just a nice little bonus of building an older design.
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:STINEMETZE, TOM
TEL;WORK:620-245-2548
ORG:;ZONING & PLANNING
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:TOMS@MCPCITY.COM
N:STINEMETZE;TOM
TITLE:CITY SANITATION / ZONING ADMIN.
END:VCARD
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N number reservation |
The FAA will not ISSUE an NX number. However, you can still use the NX,
and avoid having to stencil "Experimental" on your airplane. Mine is
offically listed as N899JP, but I painted it on as NX899JP and the
Inspector from the FSDO did not bat an eye at that.
If you have a radio and call in to air traffice control, you can either
call yourself "Experimental " or "November X-Ray..." I like to call in
and just call myself "November X-Ray Eight Niner Niner Juliet Papa".
They invariably ask what kind of experimental I am. I tell them I'm a
Pietenpol Air Camper and ask for a groundspeed readout, which is usually
somewhere around 60 knots.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of TOM
STINEMETZE
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: N number reservation
Don:
Using the NX would have been my first choice also. However the FAA
seems to have taken that option off the table. If you go to the FAA N
Number reservations website
(http://www.faa.gov/licenses%5Fcertificates/aircraft%5Fcertification/air
craft%5Fregistry/special%5Fnnumbers/) you will find the following
explanation:
* The FAA no longer issues numbers beginning with NC, NX, NR, or NL. On
some older aircraft, these numbers may be displayed in accordance with
FAR Part 45.22.
<http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/CFB016AA
41963A1C86256A6900512337?OpenDocument>
The site only allows you to begin with a number which is why I ended my
number with X. (Besides which "X-Ray" just sounds cool.) "Experimental
328 X-Ray inbound for low pass over the spaceport . . er, airport."
Tom Stinemetze
____ | ____
\8/
/ \
>>> EmchAir@aol.com 3/29/2008 8:23 AM >>>
>you know this, but if there are others that don't, remember if you use
NX at the front of your number when you paint it on the airplane it
takes the place of painting >EXPERIMENTAL on the fuselage near the
cockpit. Just a nice little bonus of building an older design.
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is p
rohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
orsk - Portuguese
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N number reservation |
The option is not off of the table. All that this passage means is that
the FAA does not include the X with the issued number, a practice they
stopped in the 1940's. Display in accordance with Part 45.22 means that
you CAN put an X, or C, or R, after the N, as appropriate, and in the
case of an X, omit the "experimental" painted on the side.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: TOM STINEMETZE<mailto:TOMS@mcpcity.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: N number reservation
Don:
Using the NX would have been my first choice also. However the FAA
seems to have taken that option off the table. If you go to the FAA N
Number reservations website
(http://www.faa.gov/licenses%5Fcertificates/aircraft%5Fcertification/airc
raft%5Fregistry/special%5Fnnumbers/<http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certifica
tes/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/special_nnumbers/>) you
will find the following explanation:
a.. The FAA no longer issues numbers beginning with NC, NX, NR, or NL.
On some older aircraft, these numbers may be displayed in accordance
with FAR Part
45.22.<http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/CFB
016AA41963A1C86256A6900512337?OpenDocument>
The site only allows you to begin with a number which is why I ended
my number with X. (Besides which "X-Ray" just sounds cool.)
"Experimental 328 X-Ray inbound for low pass over the spaceport . . er,
airport."
Tom Stinemetze
____ | ____
\8/
/ \
>>> EmchAir@aol.com 3/29/2008 8:23 AM >>>
>you know this, but if there are others that don't, remember if you
use NX at the front of your number when you paint it on the airplane it
takes the place of painting >EXPERIMENTAL on the fuselage near the
cockpit. Just a nice little bonus of building an older design.
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: N number reservation |
Tom,
The X right after the N number is not part of your registration.
But a substitute for the 2" lettering " EXPERIMENTAL" near the cockpit
area.
You register with FAA without the X
For example N 15KV
But on the fuselage it says NX 15KV
Perfectly legal and in compliance with FAR Part 45.22.
Regards
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: TOM STINEMETZE <TOMS@mcpcity.com>
Sent: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 8:21 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: N number reservation
Don:
Using the NX would have been my first choice also. However the FAA
seems to have taken that option off the table. If you go to the FAA N
Number reservations website
(http://www.faa.gov/licenses%5Fcertificates/aircraft%5Fcertification/airc
raft%5Fregistry/special%5Fnnumbers/) you will find the following
explanation:
The FAA no longer issues numbers beginning with NC, NX, NR, or NL. On
some older aircraft, these numbers may be displayed in accordance with
FAR Part 45.22.
The site only allows you to begin with a number which is why I ended my
number with X. (Besides which "X-Ray"just sounds cool.)
"Experimental 328 X-Ray inbound for low pass over the spaceport . . er,
airport."
Tom Stinemetze
____ | ____
\8/
/ \
>>> EmchAir@aol.com 3/29/2008 8:23 AM >>>
>you know this, but if there are others that don't, remember if you use
NX at the front of your number when you paint it on the airplane it
takes the place of painting >EXPERIMENTAL on the fuselage near the
cockpit. Just a nice little bonus of building an older design.
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: | Re: N number reservation |
The way I understand it is that you get an N number from the FAA but
you can add the X after the N when you apply your number to the
plane. My N number is N20795 but on the plane it is NX20795 and the X
replaces the word "EXPERIMENTAL"
My reserved number for the Piet that I'm building is N 88XN but on the
plane it will be NX88XN which reads the same frontwards, backwards,
and upside down.
Roman Bukolt NX20795
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:21 AM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
> Don:
>
> Using the NX would have been my first choice also. However the FAA
> seems to have taken that option off the table. If you go to the FAA
> N Number reservations website (http://www.faa.gov/licenses%5Fcertificates/aircraft%5Fcertification/aircraft%5Fregistry/special%5Fnnumbers/
> ) you will find the following explanation:
> The FAA no longer issues numbers beginning with NC, NX, NR, or NL.
> On some older aircraft, these numbers may be displayed in accordance
> with FAR Part 45.22.
>
> The site only allows you to begin with a number which is why I ended
> my number with X. (Besides which "X-Ray" just sounds cool.)
> "Experimental 328 X-Ray inbound for low pass over the spaceport . .
> er, airport."
>
> Tom Stinemetze
>
>
> ____ | ____
> \8/
> / \
>
>
> >>> EmchAir@aol.com 3/29/2008 8:23 AM >>>
> >you know this, but if there are others that don't, remember if you
> use NX at the front of your number when you paint it on the airplane
> it takes the place of painting >EXPERIMENTAL on the fuselage near
> the cockpit. Just a nice little bonus of building an older design.
>
> <TOM STINEMETZE.vcf>
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: Homemade Turnbuckles |
Thomas Bernie wrote:
> <tsbernie@earthlink.net>
>
> I use an allen wrench, holding the nut with a custom made spanner (or
> a vicegrip if I have clearance). It's not easy and you have to be
> careful not to twist the cable, but once it's locked down it's fine.
Ahhh! That explains it. Thanks.
Owen
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: | Homemade Turnbuckles |
Well, on Saturday, I decided to do a little experimenting with using
solid
wire vs. cables, and building a sample homemade turnbuckle.
First, the solid wire experimenting:
I made a couple of jigs for bending the solid wire from scrap materials.
The
design of the jigs was based on information I have gathered over the
last
week - thanks to many listers (Santiago, Clif, John and others), and was
easy to build. Since it was all made from scrap, the cost was nothing. I
just happened to have a bit of .080" galvanized fence wire laying around
as
well. The jig to bend the loop in the end of the wire is pretty
straightforward, and worked well. The jig (if you want to call it that)
for
bending the ferrules was even more straightforward - just a piece of
rod,
ground down to approximately the right shape and size, and then driven
into
a block of hardwood. It also worked well. I made up a couple of
assemblies
to test out the jigs, and as expected, the second and third attempts
were
much better than the first. I think that after a doing a dozen or so, I
would get the technique down to a science (or at least obtain consistant
results). Overall I was pretty pleased with the finished product (for an
amateur) - looks good, and feels strong.
Second, the homemade turnbuckle:
My design for the homemade turnbuckle was based on two things. One was a
couple of low-resolution photos of the turnbuckles used on the Flitzer
biplanes. And the other was common sense (more or less) based on size
and
load carrying capacity. I made the ends of the turnbuckle from a couple
of
strips of 16ga steel (1/2" x 5"). Because this strip was small, it was
possible to form by hand, and then squeeze in a vise (with the 3/8" rod
in
place). The threaded and non-threaded inserts for each end were
fabricated
from a bit of 3/8"diameter stainless steel rod (1/2" long), on which I
ground down a flat section for the bolt to mate with. The threaded
portion
of the turnbuckle is a #10-32 allen bolt (hex socket stainless steel
machine
screw). Like any hex head bolt, the allen bolt only needs to be rotated
1/6
of a turn (or 60=B0) in order to position the wrench for the next
"crank",
but the allen bolt does not need any clearance around the head for a
wrench,
since the wrench fits inside the head. However, this is still a bit
tight
the way I built my prototype, and needs a bit of refinement - maybe 1/2"
rod
instead of 3/8". I also need to devise a method to incorporate a safety
wire, to prevent the tension from releasing.
I put all the parts together and screwed them to a hunk of 2x4, and
tightened up the turnbuckle, and it worked!
Photos and description have been posted on mykitplane.com:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReportDetail.cfm?BuildLogID=18
33
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReportDetail.cfm?BuildLogID=1
833&P
laneID=510&FName=Bill&LName=Church&PlaneName=Air%20Camper>
&PlaneID=510&FName=Bill&LName=Church&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
Note that all of this work was done in my basic garage workshop, with no
special equipment - just an angle grinder, a hammer, a drill press and a
bench vise.
Before using either of these products (solid wire bracing and homemade
turnbuckles) I would suggest doing some physical testing to determine
the
actual breaking strength(s) based on the actual materials used.
Bill 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: | Homemade Turnbuckles |
Tom,
Nice photo.
Your turnbuckles look very sililar to the Flitzer-style fittings. How are
they for adjusting? (pain in the butt, or just as annoying as regular
turnbuckles). Of course, the adjusting should be a one-time thing, so as
long as they work, the extra fiddling (if any) should be inconsequential, in
the long run.
Will you need to safety wire the assembly, or does the jam-nut do that for
you?
Thanks for sharing.
Bill C.
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 |
|
Plus NX just looks cool on an old airplane. Think of Charles
Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis----it was an experimental
and thus carried the same airframe markings. Tons of the air racing
planes carried NX as well so consider yourself
in good company----plus who wants to put the big EXPERIEMENTAL bumper
sticker anywhere on an airplane if you
don't have to ?
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: N number reservation |
Tom,
Part 45.22, referenced at the end of that statement, says this:
45.22 (b).
A small US registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a US registered aircraft
for which an experimental certificate has been issued under 21.191(d)
or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or as an amateur-built aircraft
and which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at least
30 years ago may be operated without displaying marks in accordance with
45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if:
1. It displays in accordance with 45.21 marks at least two inches high on each
side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the Roman capital
letter "N" followed by--
(i) The US registration number of the aircraft; or
(ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft:
"C" standard, "R" restricted, "L" limited, or "X" experimental
Hope that helps,
Ryan
TOM STINEMETZE <TOMS@mcpcity.com> wrote: Don:
Using the NX would have been my first choice also. However the FAA seems to have taken that option off the table. If you go to the FAA N Number reservations website (http://www.faa.gov/licenses%5Fcertificates/aircraft%5Fcertification/aircraft%5Fregistry/special%5Fnnumbers/) you will find the following explanation:
The FAA no longer issues numbers beginning with NC, NX, NR, or NL. On some older
aircraft, these numbers may be displayed in accordance with FAR Part 45.22.
The site only allows you to begin with a number which is why I ended my number
with X. (Besides which "X-Ray" just sounds cool.) "Experimental 328 X-Ray inbound
for low pass over the spaceport . . er, airport."
Tom Stinemetze
---------------------------------
OMG, Sweet deal for Yahoo! users/friends: Get A Month of Blockbuster Total Access,
No Cost. W00t
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 |
|
The racing planes often used NR for "Racing", although later on the R
became "Restricted"
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]<mailto:michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:30 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: NX
Plus NX just looks cool on an old airplane. Think of Charles
Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis----it was an experimental
and thus carried the same airframe markings. Tons of the air racing
planes carried NX as well so consider yourself
in good company----plus who wants to put the big EXPERIEMENTAL bumper
sticker anywhere on an airplane if you
don't have to ?
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 |
|
Thanks to all for the needed information concerning the use of "X" in
the N number. I may have to rethink my number after all since November
X-Ray 328 X-Ray sounds a little redundant.
Tom Stinemetze
____ | ____
\8/
/ \
>>> michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov 3/31/2008 9:30 AM >>>
Plus NX just looks cool on an old airplane. Think of Charles
Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis----it was an experimental
and thus carried the same airframe markings. Tons of the air racing
planes carried NX as well so consider yourself
in good company----plus who wants to put the big EXPERIEMENTAL bumper
sticker anywhere on an airplane if you
don't have to ?
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:STINEMETZE, TOM
TEL;WORK:620-245-2548
ORG:;ZONING & PLANNING
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:TOMS@MCPCITY.COM
N:STINEMETZE;TOM
TITLE:CITY SANITATION / ZONING ADMIN.
END:VCARD
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: | Homemade Turnbuckles |
Looks like a very nice arrangement Bill...Just thinking out loud here...maybe a
regular nico press ferrel that could clamp onto the wire instead of the wrapped
wire style. This might provide less "give". And Instead of feeding the wire
through the drilled holes in the turnbuckle, put a pin or bolt through the turnbuckle
and have the wire wrapped around that for less wear tendancies.
Del
Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com> wrote:
Well, on Saturday, I decided to do a little experimenting with using solid
wire vs. cables, and building a sample homemade turnbuckle.
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel@rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
OMG, Sweet deal for Yahoo! users/friends: Get A Month of Blockbuster Total Access,
No Cost. W00t
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 |
|
| Subject: | Homemade Turnbuckles |
Thanks for the input, Del.
As I wrote, I will need to do a bit more experimenting with this before
putting it in my plane. I plan to do a bit of tension testing of the bent
wire + ferrules to see how they hold up, and see if they do "give". I would
plan to pre-load them before installing in any case - to ensure that they
are "snug". And you are definitely right about not feeding the wire directly
through the drilled holes - I would probably use a clevis pin there - the
wire acting directly on the raw edge of the turnbuckle would NOT be a good
thing.
This was my first prototype - made with materials I had on hand. It's not a
final design, but I think it's on the right track.
Bill C.
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of del magsam
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Looks like a very nice arrangement Bill...Just thinking out loud
here...maybe a regular nico press ferrel that could clamp onto the wire
instead of the wrapped wire style. This might provide less "give". And
Instead of feeding the wire through the drilled holes in the turnbuckle, put
a pin or bolt through the turnbuckle and have the wire wrapped around that
for less wear tendancies.
Del
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 |
|
| Subject: | radio calls and NX |
Tom,
As others have pointed out, your FAA N-number doesn't recognize the X as
part of your registration so when you make radio calls you
don't use it, at least I don't since the X is merely a required airframe
marking showing that your plane is an experimental, amateur built.
My tailfeathers are NX48MC but the FAA Registration only shows N48MC and
I call it on my radio as "Experimental (or Pietenpol) Forty-eight
Mike-Charlie, entering left downwind at Columbia Station for runway 36"
Mike C.
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: | Homemade Turnbuckles |
Speaking of turnbuckles, I got a bunch of hardware store turnbuckles with my
plane. They have an aluminum body and steel eye bolts. Are people using
that type in their planes? They are kind of scarey looking to me.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Church
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:37 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Well, on Saturday, I decided to do a little experimenting with using solid
wire vs. cables, and building a sample homemade turnbuckle.
First, the solid wire experimenting:
I made a couple of jigs for bending the solid wire from scrap materials.
The design of the jigs was based on information I have gathered over the
last week - thanks to many listers (Santiago, Clif, John and others), and
was easy to build. Since it was all made from scrap, the cost was nothing. I
just happened to have a bit of .080" galvanized fence wire laying around as
well. The jig to bend the loop in the end of the wire is pretty
straightforward, and worked well. The jig (if you want to call it that) for
bending the ferrules was even more straightforward - just a piece of rod,
ground down to approximately the right shape and size, and then driven into
a block of hardwood. It also worked well. I made up a couple of assemblies
to test out the jigs, and as expected, the second and third attempts were
much better than the first. I think that after a doing a dozen or so, I
would get the technique down to a science (or at least obtain consistant
results). Overall I was pretty pleased with the finished product (for an
amateur) - looks good, and feels strong.
Second, the homemade turnbuckle:
My design for the homemade turnbuckle was based on two things. One was a
couple of low-resolution photos of the turnbuckles used on the Flitzer
biplanes. And the other was common sense (more or less) based on size and
load carrying capacity. I made the ends of the turnbuckle from a couple of
strips of 16ga steel (1/2" x 5"). Because this strip was small, it was
possible to form by hand, and then squeeze in a vise (with the 3/8" rod in
place). The threaded and non-threaded inserts for each end were fabricated
from a bit of 3/8"diameter stainless steel rod (1/2" long), on which I
ground down a flat section for the bolt to mate with. The threaded portion
of the turnbuckle is a #10-32 allen bolt (hex socket stainless steel machine
screw). Like any hex head bolt, the allen bolt only needs to be rotated 1/6
of a turn (or 60) in order to position the wrench for the next "crank",
but the allen bolt does not need any clearance around the head for a wrench,
since the wrench fits inside the head. However, this is still a bit tight
the way I built my prototype, and needs a bit of refinement - maybe 1/2" rod
instead of 3/8". I also need to devise a method to incorporate a safety
wire, to prevent the tension from releasing.
I put all the parts together and screwed them to a hunk of 2x4, and
tightened up the turnbuckle, and it worked!
Photos and description have been posted on mykitplane.com:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReportDetail.cfm?BuildLogID=1833&
PlaneID=510&FName=Bill&LName=Church&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
Note that all of this work was done in my basic garage workshop, with no
special equipment - just an angle grinder, a hammer, a drill press and a
bench vise.
Before using either of these products (solid wire bracing and homemade
turnbuckles) I would suggest doing some physical testing to determine the
actual breaking strength(s) based on the actual materials used.
Bill C.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Homemade Turnbuckles |
Bill,
On your home made turn buckle, why not place a nut in the middle and
have it soledered / brazed.
Or perhaps even loctite (680) to keep it form rotating.
Alternatively two small nuts "jammed"
It is then easily adjustable with a "hex" in the middle
my 2 cents
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 9:36 am
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Well, on Saturday, I decided to do a little experimenting with using
solid wire vs. cables, and building a sample homemade turnbuckle.
First, the solid wire experimenting:
I made a couple of jigs for bending the solid wire from scrap
materials. The design of the jigs was based on information I have
gathered over the last week - thanks to many listers (Santiago, Clif,
John and others), and was easy to build. Since it was all made from
scrap, the cost was nothing. I just happened to have a bit of .080"
galvanized fence wire laying around as well. The jig to bend the loop
in the end of the wire is pretty straightforward, and worked well. The
jig (if you want to call it that) for bending the ferrules was even
more straightforward - just a piece of rod, ground down to
approximately the right shape and size, and then driven into a block of
hardwood. It also worked well. I made up a couple of assemblies to test
out the jigs, and as expected, the second and third attempts were much
better than the first. I think that after a doing a dozen or so, I
would get the technique down to a science (or at least obtain
consistant results). OverallI was pretty pleased with the finished
product (for an amateur) - looks good, and feels strong.
Second, the homemade turnbuckle:
My design for the homemade turnbuckle was based on two things. One was
a couple of low-resolution photos of the turnbuckles used on the
Flitzer biplanes. And the other was common sense (more or less) based
on size and load carrying capacity. I made the ends of the turnbuckle
from a couple of strips of 16ga steel (1/2" x 5"). Because this strip
was small, it was possible to form by hand, and then squeeze in a vise
(with the 3/8" rod in place). The threaded and non-threaded inserts for
each end were fabricated from a bit of 3/8"diameter stainless steel rod
(1/2" long), on which I ground down a flat section for the bolt to mate
with. The threaded portion of the turnbuckle is a #10-32 allen bolt
(hex socket stainless steel machine screw). Like any hex head bolt, the
allen bolt only needs to be rotated 1/6 of a turn (or 60)in order to
position the wrench for the next "crank", but the allen bolt does not
need any clearance around the head for a wrench, since the wrench fits
inside the head. However, this is still a bit tight the way I built my
prototype, and needs a bit of refinement - maybe 1/2" rod instead of
3/8". I also need to devise a method to incorporate a safety wire, to
prevent the tension from releasing.
I put all the parts together and screwed them to a hunk of 2x4, and
tightened up the turnbuckle, and it worked!
Photos and description have been posted on mykitplane.com:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReportDetail.cfm?BuildLogID=1833&PlaneID=510&FName=Bill&LName=Church&PlaneName=Air%20Camper
Note that all of this work was done in my basic garage workshop, with
no special equipment - just an angle grinder, a hammer, a drill press
and a bench vise.
Before using either of these products (solid wire bracing and homemade
turnbuckles) Iwould suggest doing some physical testing to determine
the actual breaking strength(s) based on the actual materials used.
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: | Homemade Turnbuckles |
Now, there's a good idea.
Good thinking, Hans.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
hvandervoo@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Bill,
On your home made turn buckle, why not place a nut in the middle and have it
soledered / brazed.
Or perhaps even loctite (680) to keep it form rotating.
Alternatively two small nuts "jammed"
It is then easily adjustable with a "hex" in the middle
my 2 cents
Hans
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 |
|
The spec for take off roll says 150ft. I got the impression last week from some
of the guys that it was much longer than that. I watched some videos on youtube
and it seemed much longer than 150 ft. Have any of you guys with a flying
Piet ever tried to figure out your take off roll flying solo? I was wondering
what a more realistic number might be.
Thanks, Jeremy
DFW, TX
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
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 |
|
I can usually get off the ground in about 400 feet. 150 feet might be
possible with a 30 knot wind down the runway.
Getting off the ground is not a problem with a Pietenpol. The problem
comes when trying to climb over 120 foot trees at the end of the runway
(nobody ever told the trees in North Carolina that they are only
supposed to be 50 feet tall).
On a hot day, my rate of climb with a passenger is about 150 fpm.
Assuming that it is moving forward at 50 mph (73 feet per second), and
assuming I get off the ground after a 400 foot roll, that means I've got
a little under 1 minute to climb high enough to get over the trees at
the end of the runway. To be generous, let's say the trees are only 100
feet tall, so now I've got 40 seconds of flying time to get over the
trees. In that 40 seconds I will travel 40 x 73 or 2,920 feet. Problem
is, the runway is only 2500 feet long and I've already used 400 feet of
it before getting off the ground.
Solving the problem another way, if I take 400 feet to get off the
ground and then travel at 73 feet per second while climbing at 150 fpm
for the remaining 2100 feet of runway, I will be 71.92 feet high at the
end of the runway, or will impact the trees 28 feet below the treetop.
Hence my decision to not carry passengers out of my home field in the
Pietenpol.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
outofthebox50@YAHOO.COM
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:42 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Take off roll
The spec for take off roll says 150ft. I got the impression last week
from some of the guys that it was much longer than that. I watched some
videos on youtube and it seemed much longer than 150 ft. Have any of
you guys with a flying Piet ever tried to figure out your take off roll
flying solo? I was wondering what a more realistic number might be.
Thanks, Jeremy
DFW, TX
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
_________________________________________________
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify
the sender
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - Norsk
- Portuguese
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: | "moth" wing tank |
Hello,
For a long time, I've been thinking of "bumping" up the top of my wing
tank because I'd like to get an extra hour of fuel, so I'm looking for
around four, maybe five more gallons. It's really the only option I
have since I'm using a Ford and can't get the carb low enough for a nose
tank.
I'm thinking that if it wouldn't be too noticible on the ground since it
seems as if it only needs to come up a couple of inches.
I just can't figure the math though, if I generally follow the top
contour of the wing, and go almost to each side with the "bump" can
anyone estimate how high the highest spot would need to go to get about
five more gallons? My best guess is about 2.5 inches.
Also, it seems like it would make fueling easier if the cap was to one
side, but then I thought it might want to slosh out more in a bank than
if it was centered. Any thoughts or experience on this too?
Douwe
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: | "moth" wing tank |
A US gallon is 231 cubic inches. If you know the profile you want, and can
find the area of the airfoil-like shape and find your volume. With tools l
ike google sketchup you could have the exact tankage in a matter of minutes
....!
Steve E.
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douwe Blumberg
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:41 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: "moth" wing tank
Hello,
For a long time, I've been thinking of "bumping" up the top of my wing tank
because I'd like to get an extra hour of fuel, so I'm looking for around f
our, maybe five more gallons. It's really the only option I have since I'm
using a Ford and can't get the carb low enough for a nose tank.
I'm thinking that if it wouldn't be too noticible on the ground since it se
ems as if it only needs to come up a couple of inches.
I just can't figure the math though, if I generally follow the top contour
of the wing, and go almost to each side with the "bump" can anyone estimate
how high the highest spot would need to go to get about five more gallons?
My best guess is about 2.5 inches.
Also, it seems like it would make fueling easier if the cap was to one side
, but then I thought it might want to slosh out more in a bank than if it w
as centered. Any thoughts or experience on this too?
Douwe
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: | covering wing roots made inexpensive |
An easy place to get a piece of aluminum long enough to make it wrap from front
to back is a piece of facia metal at your local home depot or lowes. Just cut
off the 90 degree part and you have a 12 ft piece of 2 beaded aluminum. Then
to keep from using more than about 6 screws per side ( bottom only)... use a
2-3inch machine screw and a nut plate ,....... look at an old piper i think they
use this style. I'll try to get a pic on here, its hard to explain in words.
Shad
---------------------------------
No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet deal for Yahoo! users
and friends.
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: "moth" wing tank |
I'm thinking the same thing, maybe do it with a Riblett shape for extra (.001 lb,
lol) lift.
Ryan
Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hello,
For a long time, I've been thinking of "bumping" up the top of my wing tank because
I'd like to get an extra hour of fuel, so I'm looking for around four,
maybe five more gallons. It's really the only option I have since I'm using a
Ford and can't get the carb low enough for a nose tank.
I'm thinking that if it wouldn't be too noticible on the ground since it seems
as if it only needs to come up a couple of inches.
I just can't figure the math though, if I generally follow the top contour of
the wing, and go almost to each side with the "bump" can anyone estimate how
high the highest spot would need to go to get about five more gallons? My best
guess is about 2.5 inches.
Also, it seems like it would make fueling easier if the cap was to one side,
but then I thought it might want to slosh out more in a bank than if it was centered.
Any thoughts or experience on this too?
Douwe
---------------------------------
Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Blockbuster Total
Access now
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Take off roll |
Jack, what motor are you using, and do you have any idea of your rate of climb
flying solo?
Now let me see if I have the formula right? My runway is 600 ft. 400 ft to get
off and another 200 ft to clear the 5 ft fence at the end. At the 600 ft mark,
I should be at 6.8 ft agl, but does that 150 fpm acount for the downward thrust
from the human pucker factor, or since the opening of the cockpit is on
top, does the vacume in the seat actually draw air in from above and create added
lift?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinalhealth.com>
To:<pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Take off roll
I can usually get off the ground in about 400 feet. 150 feet might be
possible with a 30 knot wind down the runway.
Getting off the ground is not a problem with a Pietenpol. The problem
comes when trying to climb over 120 foot trees at the end of the runway
(nobody ever told the trees in North Carolina that they are only
supposed to be 50 feet tall).
On a hot day, my rate of climb with a passenger is about 150 fpm.
Assuming that it is moving forward at 50 mph (73 feet per second), and
assuming I get off the ground after a 400 foot roll, that means I've got
a little under 1 minute to climb high enough to get over the trees at
the end of the runway. To be generous, let's say the trees are only 100
feet tall, so now I've got 40 seconds of flying time to get over the
trees. In that 40 seconds I will travel 40 x 73 or 2,920 feet. Problem
is, the runway is only 2500 feet long and I've already used 400 feet of
it before getting off the ground.
Solving the problem another way, if I take 400 feet to get off the
ground and then travel at 73 feet per second while climbing at 150 fpm
for the remaining 2100 feet of runway, I will be 71.92 feet high at the
end of the runway, or will impact the trees 28 feet below the treetop.
Hence my decision to not carry passengers out of my home field in the
Pietenpol.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
outofthebox50@YAHOO.COM
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:42 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Take off roll
The spec for take off roll says 150ft. I got the impression last week
from some of the guys that it was much longer than that. I watched some
videos on youtube and it seemed much longer than 150 ft. Have any of
you guys with a flying Piet ever tried to figure out your take off roll
flying solo? I was wondering what a more realistic number might be.
Thanks, Jeremy
DFW, TX
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
_________________________________________________
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify
the sender
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - Norsk
- Portuguese
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: "moth" wing tank |
Not sure about a moth tank, but have been thinking about doing something else different.
My leading edge of my center section is mostly polished aluminum now,
and the top of the center section looks good in wood. Have no doubt the aluminum
is fine without covering, but anyone flying a piet that doesn't have the
center section covered with fabric? It has so many screws it seems like it would
be well attached, and I would like to be able to remove the tank without recovering
the center section.
Concerns are .. is the fairly thin plywood strong enough without the fabric covering,
and what would have decent UV protection, as the varnish on it is probably
not enough to cut it.
Any thoughts?
My tank is only 5.5 gallons, the main tank is about 15, which is more than I will
want to use without taking a break anyway.
Jim
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174033#174033
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 |
|
A Pietenpol's big brother. This F-22 was just restored at our airpark in
Florida and is awaiting FAA approval. 20+ years in restoration. You can
eat off this airplane.
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: Take off roll |
Using an A-65, operating at about 1000 lbs, from a 900' msl grass field,
with a 72 X 42 prop in light winds the take-off roll is about 350 - 450
feet.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: <outofthebox50@YAHOO.COM>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:42 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Take off roll
>
> The spec for take off roll says 150ft. I got the impression last week
> from some of the guys that it was much longer than that. I watched some
> videos on youtube and it seemed much longer than 150 ft. Have any of you
> guys with a flying Piet ever tried to figure out your take off roll flying
> solo? I was wondering what a more realistic number might be.
>
> Thanks, Jeremy
> DFW, TX
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
>
>
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: Homemade Turnbuckles |
Why not use drilled AN nut for safety wire?
In a message dated 3/31/2008 2:33:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
eng@canadianrogers.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
Now, there's a good idea.
Good thinking, Hans.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
hvandervoo@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Homemade Turnbuckles
Bill,
On your home made turn buckle, why not place a nut in the middle and have it
soledered / brazed.
Or perhaps even loctite (680) to keep it form rotating.
Alternatively two small nuts "jammed"
It is then easily adjustable with a "hex" in the middle
my 2 cents
Hans
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Hardwire & Turnbuckles |
These are Tiger Moth ones used on John Howroyd's Piet in
Victoria, BC, Canada. There's holes in the " nut " to stick a
rod in and turn. You can just barely see it above the formed
sheet metal bracket.
This plane is the oldest continuously registered aircraft in
Canada. John's Dad built it in 1932 and John rebuilt it a
number of years ago.
Clif
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: "moth" wing tank |
Lokk at the rear cabane and you'll see that the cross member
joining them is a tube, not any kind of "spar". The same is
joining the front cabanes. It's under that cover plate. The
tank is one unit with an indentation for the tube. Look
closely and you'll see the little U tube allowing drainage
from the front part int the main.
As for taking a break, my thinking is that I will be going to
places out here in the wild west where there won't be the
fuel I want. Having enough to get back will sometimes be
important.
Clif
Beryl Markham flew her Moth from Africa to England.
Maybe I could visit my ancestral home. :-)
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: "moth" wing tank
>
> Not sure about a moth tank, > My tank is only 5.5 gallons, the main tank
> is about 15, which is more than I will want to use without taking a break
> anyway.
>
> Jim
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174033#174033
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 6:21 PM
>
>
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! --
|