Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:52 AM - Re: Center wing question.. polished aluminum and wood OK? (jimd)
2. 06:57 AM - Re: Dumb wing spar mistake? (MikeD)
3. 08:12 AM - Re: registration and paint cans (Rick Holland)
4. 03:24 PM - Re: registration and paint cans (gcardinal)
5. 04:46 PM - Re: Bad news - broken fuel tank fitting & warning to builders (Andrea Vavassori)
6. 05:35 PM - tape edges (Douwe Blumberg)
7. 06:22 PM - Re: registration and paint cans (MikeD)
8. 07:59 PM - Dual Time (Peter W Johnson)
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: Center wing question.. polished aluminum and wood |
OK?
Regarding the alclad.. the inside surface is fine, it was the outside exposed surface
that I scraped, then sanded and polished. My intention is to have a polished
aluminum exterior surface, like that on Airstream campers and many Luscombes.
If I were painting it or I endup covering it, I would etch and prime it.
Had I known how much work it was going to be I would have etched and primed the
small shiny spot from removing the tape, then covered over it. Seeing the mirror
finish with the wood makes me want it to be finished that way, it really is
nice.
Wondered how to deal with fairings around it, so when I went to Stewart Systems
fabric class I asked about it, and they suggested using thin sheet metal for
fairings, (I was considering thick leather) and maintaining the wings color for
the fairing strips. That way the polished metal section and the wood sections
could attach to the wings cleanly and the gaps would be handled well, and it
would be pretty easy to attach and remove the fairings.
Jim
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176910#176910
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: Dumb wing spar mistake? |
owen5819(at)comcast.net wrote:
> MikeD wrote:
>
> > To me, if the three holes are acceptable where they are supposed to be, they
should be acceptable where they are accidentally - since nothing actually fills
the holes to replace the tensile properties, although fasteners could be
argued to at least provide some support under compression when called upon to
do so. Once you add doublers no worries IMHO.
> > I agree with your result, but the way you get there bothers me. For one
> >
>
> thing, it's not just three holes now, but six. That means interrupting
> twice as many of the load-carrying wood fibers and weakening the spar
> (in tension) twice as much as the designer allowed for. The doublers
> will take up the slack. After all, in an I-beam spar a single layer of
> 1/8 ply provides most of the strength. But let's be clear about what is
> going on here. One of us might have a project someday where it really
> does make a difference.
>
> Owen
I think you are reading too much into my reply. I didn't suggest that any spar
through-hole mistakes are acceptable. They obviously are not. I inferred from
the decription that since the holes were laid out for the same bracket, and the
spar was rotated about the spanwise midpoint by 180 degrees, the holes would
be in line. They certainly should be if the description is accurate. If the holes
are in line axially then significantly few new fibres are cut, assuming you
have a decent piece of spar stock with a majority of axial fibres to begin
with. Therefore, in this circumstance, I offered my opinion - all anyone can do
here - that the situation did not warrant major concern. If doubt remains then
it should be replaced or further rework made.
Mike D.
--------
Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176941#176941
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: registration and paint cans |
Greg
Have you ever heard of anyone successfully registering their Piet as a self
launching glider?
Rick
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM, gcardinal <gcardinal@comcast.net> wrote:
> *Hi Douwe,*
> **
> *Only one name in the "Manufacturer" box. If you are building with one or
> more people only one of you can be the manufacturer.*
> **
> *Model and serial number is your choice.*
> **
> *Do NOT attempt to register it as a "Glider, self-launching". It will add
> about 6 months to your paperwork schedule........*
> **
> *Greg Cardinal*
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
> *To:* pietenpolgroup <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:37 AM
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: registration and paint cans
>
> Hey,
>
> Please chime in re how to fill out my registration form so it doesn't get
> sent back. Manufacturer and model? serial number?
>
> Also, they want proof of purchase, how do you tell them it's experimental,
> is that the affidavit?
>
> Another subject, five gallon paint cans. Any great ideas for transfering
> dope and thinners out of them?? they splash that expensive stuff everywhere.
>
> Douwe
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
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: registration and paint cans |
We tried, unsuccessfully.
The FAR's state that the weight / wingspan requirements for certified
self-launching gliders do not apply to experimental aircraft. We assumed
that, because it was experimental, we were free to certify it however we
wished.
The inspector informed us that there is an FAA order that says
experimental motorgliders do have to meet the same criteria as certified
aircraft.
So our attempt was unsuccessful.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: registration and paint cans
Greg
Have you ever heard of anyone successfully registering their Piet as a
self launching glider?
Rick
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM, gcardinal <gcardinal@comcast.net>
wrote:
Hi Douwe,
Only one name in the "Manufacturer" box. If you are building with
one or more people only one of you can be the manufacturer.
Model and serial number is your choice.
Do NOT attempt to register it as a "Glider, self-launching". It will
add about 6 months to your paperwork schedule........
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: registration and paint cans
Hey,
Please chime in re how to fill out my registration form so it
doesn't get sent back. Manufacturer and model? serial number?
Also, they want proof of purchase, how do you tell them it's
experimental, is that the affidavit?
Another subject, five gallon paint cans. Any great ideas for
transfering dope and thinners out of them?? they splash that expensive
stuff everywhere.
Douwe
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
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: Bad news - broken fuel tank fitting & warning |
to builders
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 23:34:46 -0500, Steve Ruse wrote:
>I pulled the fuel tank out of the nose tonight, it literally took about twenty
minutes to remove the cover and fuel tank. What a simple job! It is great to
have something that is so easy to work on. Now I have some questions about
repairs to the tank:
Steve,
I've checked very carefully both groups of photos. It seems, at least
to me, that two things are worth noting:
1) The tank in itself seems good enough to do the job, and should be
kept.
2) The installation of the finger strainer flange was really very
poorly made but it can be re-done properly.
The reasons why the flange was pulled out are many:
1) It was not bonded to the underlying lamination at all
2) The holes in the outer portion of the flange are too small and too
many
3) It was only "bonded" with resin with no top laminations
Now let's see how it can be fixed. First, you say elsewhere that
safe-t-poxy was used for the lamination, so that is what you should
use. You should also look for some 8-10 bidirectional glass cloth,
twill weave, industrial grade (aviation grade is not really necessary)
and cotton flocks ("flox"). The work should be done without
interruptions i.e. you should always work with something "wet" under.
1) Remove all traces of the old bonding and roughen the surface of the
tank around the bottom hole in a radius of 3" + flange radius using a
60-80 grit sandpaper.
2) Remove all glue traces from the flange and enlarge the bonding
holes. Using a rattail file, file away material between two adiacent
small holes and enlarge the resulting slot with a large round file
until it becomes a large hole. Roughen both surfaces of the flange with
60-80 grit sandpaper and degrease it in lacquer thinner or MEK.
3) Prepare a small quantity of resin, then mix with flox until the
resulting paste does not run off. Spread a 1/8" thickness over the area
that should receive the flange. More if the area is not flat.
4) Press the flange into position. The flox paste must ooze out of ALL
the holes and around the flange itself. DO NOT EVER lift the flange
otherwise all the effort to make a leak-free joint will be wasted.
5) Very carefully level the oozed paste into the holes and around the
flange, taking away any excess.
6) Prepare three discs of fiberglass cloth with a 3/4" center hole: one
2" larger than the flange, one 4" larger and one 6" larger.
7) Place the small disc over the flange and through its threaded boss,
and laminate it down the usual way. Use an excess of resin, you want to
be sure that no delaminations/trapped air exist.
8) Place the middle disc over the freshly done small disc, with the
weave at 45 degrees with regard to the weave of the smaller disc, and
again laminate it down the usual way.
9) Place the larger disc over the freshly done middle disc, with the
weave at 45 degrees with regard to the weave of the middle disc, and
again laminate it down the usual way.
Done. You should now let the laminate cure fully and set completely,
perhaps leaving it untouched for a week, then test it for leaks using
real fuel (do NOT use water as it is more viscous, you can have no
leaks with water but leaks with fuel, been there done that).
This technique was taught to me many years ago by a professional worker
in the aerospace industry, and I used it in all my flange-related
fiberglass work.
SeeYa!
Andrea Vavassori
Volksplane VP-1 I-BYRA
EAA #348037
FCAP I-146
Homepage: http://andrea.modelberg.it
________________________________________________________________
Virus and Spam checked by NSS Srl - http://www.nssitaly.com
Compliant to DL #196 30/06/2003
Definition count: 606102
Definition date: 2008/03/11
MDAV version: 2.2.9
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 |
|
I'm spraying my wings and tail parts and wanted to know what you guys
did with the occassional pinked tape edget that just won't stay down.
The Ceconite manual just says to work them down with the iron, which
I've done, and do extra dope, which i've done and then to sand them.
Does the sanding knock them back once they're really stiff with dope?
Thanks,
Douwe
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: registration and paint cans |
douweblumberg(at)earthlin wrote:
>
> Another subject, five gallon paint cans. Any great ideas for transfering dope
and thinners out of them?? they splash that expensive stuff everywhere.
>
If they have the retactable spout and the lid is firmly attached, make sure when
you pour that you orient the spout to the top of the lid, so that you have to
get the can close to level to pour and you have better control. I've seen people
try to pour with the can near full and the spout low, and it is not pretty.
If it does not start to flow with the can horizontal and the spout at 12 o'clock,
you can slowly roll the can so the spout reached the liquid level gradually
and controllably.
If no spout - a pair of clean plastic containers, polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene
(PP) only, works well. So does unwaxed paper (like bathroom cups) but not
for straight solvents as they soak through mighty quickly. Polystyrene (PS)
will start dissolving and contaminate the material. Hold one in each hand and
have the destination vessel close at hand. Dip one to partially fill, lift clear
of the surface, then quickly stick the second container under the drip/stream,
and move both of them together to the destination vessel, and pour while pulling
the drip catcher away. When done pouring that dip, stick the drip catcher
back underneath and back to the 5 gal container. When done, let the stuff on
the transfer container walls drip back into the source container. I've transferred
hundreds of pounds of epoxy, solvents, and other materials over the years
this way in the lab, and it works great for me.
Make sense, yea/nay?
Mike D.
--------
Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177103#177103
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 |
|
Hi Guys,
What a difference some duel time makes!
I changed the wheels on my Piet to 6 x 8.00 aircraft wheels instead of
the
24 inch wire ones. On Monday I had some dual time with an experienced
tail
wheel pilot/instructor. The difference is very noticeable. Going from
=93this
airplane is squirrelly=94 to =93very docile, nice flyer=94. The Corvair
handled
the passenger (first time with two people on board) with no problems.
The
temps are all very good now, even a bit cold. The oil pressure worries
me a
little because it is getting too high! On climb out (around 3000 rpm) on
a
cool morning I can see between 60 and 80 psi. I=92ll have to take it for
a
long fly and see what happens when the engine is really warm.
I did some more circuit work this morning and found things a lot easier.
I
still have the adrenaline rush on a good landing but feel far more in
control.
I have just ordered a Zodiac 601 XL kit so no doubt that will have a
Corvair
on the front of it.
Check out the web site for some new pictures.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
HYPERLINK "http://www.cpc-world.com/"http://www.cpc-world.com
Checked by AVG.
15/04/2008
6:10 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! --
|