---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 05/27/08: 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:20 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Rates (Gene & Tammy) 2. 05:03 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Rates (gcardinal) 3. 06:07 AM - a Pietenpol Memorial Day (Oscar Zuniga) 4. 06:26 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Rates (hvandervoo@aol.com) 5. 06:51 AM - Fuel Flow Rates (Oscar Zuniga) 6. 07:04 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Rates (Steve Ruse) 7. 07:51 AM - Fuel Flow Rates (Oscar Zuniga) 8. 10:33 AM - Re: New $100 dollar breakfast location For Ohio Piets!! (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]) 9. 10:54 AM - Inspection holes (wing) (Oscar Zuniga) 10. 03:58 PM - Jay Anderson Prop (Gene & Tammy) 11. 04:21 PM - Re: Fuel Flow Rates (airlion@bellsouth.net) 12. 05:10 PM - Re: Fuel Flow Rates (Lagowski Morrow) 13. 05:12 PM - Re: Jay Anderson Prop (FTLovley) 14. 05:30 PM - Re: Jay Anderson Prop (AMsafetyC@aol.com) 15. 06:30 PM - Fuel Flow Rates (Oscar Zuniga) 16. 06:42 PM - Re: Jay Anderson Prop (Gordon Bowen) 17. 08:25 PM - Re: Jay Anderson Prop (Gary Boothe) 18. 11:24 PM - Re: Fuel Flow Rates (Clif Dawson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:20:22 AM PST US From: "Gene & Tammy" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates Have you considered buying a piece of 3/8th hose and seeing what you get. It should be a whole lot more. I have just about the same tank (17 gal nose tank) with 3/8th hose. I don't recall the flow rate but it is much higher than yours. If you need, I can run another test, using my tank, in a few days when I have the time. As a side note, I doubt if the last 4 gal in your tank is unuseable, if it is above the carb while in flying attitude. You may not be able to fly at full throttle thru all 4 gals but it could get you to a safe place to land. I never fly with less than an hours worth left over, just for safety. One of the main reason for airplane crashes is running out of gas. Just my two cents worth Gene ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:03:52 AM PST US From: "gcardinal" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates 3/8" tubing from a center section fuel tank resulted in a flow rate of 19 gph on NX18235. Greg Cardinal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene & Tammy" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:17 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates > > > Have you considered buying a piece of 3/8th hose and seeing what you get. > It should be a whole lot more. I have just about the same tank (17 gal > nose tank) with 3/8th hose. I don't recall the flow rate but it is much > higher than yours. If you need, I can run another test, using my tank, in > a few days when I have the time. > As a side note, I doubt if the last 4 gal in your tank is unuseable, if it > is above the carb while in flying attitude. You may not be able to fly at > full throttle thru all 4 gals but it could get you to a safe place to > land. I never fly with less than an hours worth left over, just for > safety. One of the main reason for airplane crashes is running out of > gas. > Just my two cents worth > Gene > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:07:54 AM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: a Pietenpol Memorial Day OZ and Corky's "Arsenal of Democracy"- http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/ar senal.jpgIt was too windy and gusty to fly yesterday, but the flag did fine . Oscar ZunigaAir Camper NX41CCSan Antonio, TXmailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:53 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates From: hvandervoo@aol.com Steve, 1/4" fuel line is to small you need at least 3/8", 1/4" should only be used for Vent line. Your fuel valve is OK, since the tread size is 1/4" Pipe treat, not the actual diameter. the ID of the valve is likely larger than 1/4" Your fuel flow at carburetor should be 3 to 4 times that of you fuel burn (fuel burn 6 GPH, flow 24 GPH) My system , 3/8" fuel line and Piper J3 nose tank, flows 6 gallons in 12 minutes (30 GPH) with the tail wheel in a ditch (stall configuration) regards Hans -----Original Message----- From: Steve Ruse Sent: Mon, 26 May 2008 7:28 pm Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates The fuel lines are 1/4" Aeroquip 666 (666-4), but the ID is only .188. There are two 16" lines, one from the tank to the gascolator and one from the gascolator to the carb. The ID of that hose is only .188, which initially caused me concern, but the company I ordered them from (www.aircrafthose.com) assured me that was fine for a gravity feed system, and that I should use it instead of a larger hose since those fittings were what were on my carb and gascolator. The valve does open all the way, I just installed it and checked it before installation. It is a new miniature 1/4" valve from Aircraft Spruce. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/minifv.php The cap is a cub-style cap with a cork float. It is only vented via the small opening around the 1/8" float rod and the tube it passes through. Removing the cap did not cause a noticeable different in the flow rate, so I don't believe it is a vacuum problem. Thanks for any input, Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene & Tammy" Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates > > Steve, the two questions I have is what size hose and do you have a vented > cap? I have also seen problems with fuel valves not opening all the way > even though the handle indicates it is full open. > Gene > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ruse" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 6:33 PM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates > > >> >> I just installed a new fuel valve, gascolator screen and fuel hoses on my >> plane, and decided I needed to test the fuel flow rate when I was done. >> I have an 18.3 gallon nose tank, and I expected the flow rate to be far >> more than adequate. It appears to be adequate, but is not as high as I >> hoped, so I'd like to get the opinion of more experienced people to >> determine what I need to do, if anything. >> >> I have an A-75. The chart indicates a maximum full throttle demand of >> about 6.3 gallons per hour. Of course, my burn rates in cruise are >> higher than what they should be according to the same table, so I think >> the actual max rate is probably also higher. For that reason, I'd be >> happy with a rate of at least 9-10 GPH, just for a safety margin. It >> took about 38 minutes to drain 5 gallons of fuel, a flow rate of about >> 7.9GPH. I started with 5 gallons of fuel, then when it got to four >> gallons, I noticed the flow rate had decreased substantially. I added >> another 5 gallons, and this increased the flow rate and it appeared to >> remain near constant as it drained from 9 gallons to 5 gallons. >> Obviously what I am trying to simulate is a full throttle climb with >> minimum useable fuel. >> >> A few questions: >> >> 1. - What is the MINIMUM acceptable flow rate for an A-75? >> >> 2. - Does the carburetor/needle assembly affect the flow rate? I tested >> the rate by simply disconnecting the hose from the carb, and keeping the >> hose at the same height as the carb inlet. Would the needle lower the >> fuel rate? >> >> 3. - Is ~7GPH adequate for an A-75 in your opinion? >> >> Something to consider for builders...because my tank is so low relative >> to the carb, I don't get adequate fuel pressure when the fuel level is >> low. As a result, I have about 4 gallons of fuel that is unusable, not >> because it won't reach the sump, but because of pressure. So I am always >> carrying around 25lbs of fuel for no reason other than to make the fire >> bigger after a crash. Somewhere before I have seen a specification for a >> minimum height of the tank outlet above the carburetor. Mine does not >> meet that spec, hence the reason for a large amount of unuseable fuel. >> The bottom of my tank is about 2"-3" above the carb when sitting on the >> ground. >> >> Of course before I fly it, I intend to do an extended ground run at full >> throttle to verify that flow is adequate. Any thoughts or shared >> experience on the subject would be appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Steve Ruse >> Norman, Ok >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Date: 5/22/2008 7:06 AM >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:51:18 AM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates To some of Steve's comments and questions- >I have an 18.3 gallon nose tank, and I expected the flow rate to be far more > than adequate The nose tank on 41CC is 16 U.S. gallons, more or less. Flow is adequate, but read on. > I have an A-75. The chart indicates a maximum full throttle demand of about > 6.3 gallons per hour. 41CC currently has an A65, which should consume 4 gallons/hr., but I'm preparing to install an A75 on it so this discussion is of interest to me. >Of course, my burn rates in cruise are higher than > what they should be according to the same table Burn rates for the A65 on my airplane seem to be pretty much spot-on with the 4 GPH figure. >I started with 5 gallons of fuel, then when it got to four gallons, I noticed the flow rate > had decreased substantially. I've noticed that with anything less than 6 gallons in my tank and with the tail down, flowrate is quite low and probably would only sustain idling or low power settings. In fact, it is not possible to get the final 4 or so gallons out of the system without raising the tail to level flying attitude because the fuel outlet and shutoff valve are lower than the carb float level, or at least the static head is insufficient to flow much fuel through the restrictions at that point. I have determined this both by repeatedly draining the tank on the ground, and by having had the engine quit due to fuel starvation in the flare to landing with the fuel indicator down to the "red" (the top inch of my float rod is painted red). Valuable lesson, but one that I don't care to learn again. > 1. - What is the MINIMUM acceptable flow rate for an A-75? I don't know but am interested to know what you find out. > 3. - Is ~7GPH adequate for an A-75 in your opinion? Since you're opening it up to opinions, I'd have to say "yes". I can't imagine 10HP jumping the fuel consumption from 4 to 7 gal./hr. >I have about 4 gallons of fuel that is unusable, not because it > won't reach the sump, but because of pressure. So I am always carrying > around 25lbs of fuel for no reason other than to make the fire bigger after > a crash. Well, I guess that's one way of looking at it, but you're in good company... I'd say quite a few of us have the identical setup and the only sure-fire way to make all of your fuel usable is to put it in the wing. I consider the final 4 gallons in my tank unusable except in level flight in emergency circumstances, and probably the final 6 gallons are only usable in the tail-low attitude, as you've found by testing and I've confirmed by... "testing" ;o) It's nice to know that I can use that fuel if I really, really have to... but the engine WILL quit the moment the tail comes down if I'm into that last 4 to 6 gallons. That still gives me 2 to 3 hrs.' flight time, which is still longer than I want to sit in the airplane in flight. When I had the tank out of the airplane during repairs, I carefully poured single gallons one by one into the tank to check the markings Corky had put on the float rod and was very puzzled at why he shorted himself the final few gallons' capacity. The float rod wouldn't move off the peg until there were a couple of gallons in the tank but I figured he was just being conservative. Nossir... he knew what he was doing and I should never have tested the limits of an old Cajun's smarts but I did, and maybe I'm a little smarter now, too. >Somewhere before I have seen a specification for a minimum height > of the tank outlet above the carburetor. Mine does not meet that spec, > hence the reason for a large amount of unuseable fuel. The bottom of my > tank is about 2"-3" above the carb when sitting on the ground. I'll bet that spec is in Tony Bingelis' books somewhere, as well as in Evans' Lightplane Designer book. I'll check tonight, but I'll bet the number will surprise you. Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:04:14 AM PST US From: Steve Ruse Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates Thanks Greg, that is exactly the type of information I need. I'm sure your flow rate was much higher since it was a center section tank though. Still, I'd be happy with 10GPH. Gene, I still have the original 3/8" hoses that I replaced. My next task is to re-install those hoses and fittings and re-test the flow rate. I know they are adequate because they have been working for near 500 hours. I suspect the flow rate will be at least 50% higher, because all of the IDs are substantially larger. Looks like I threw $120 in Aeroquip hoses and fittings down the drain. Anybody need two never used 16" Aeroquip 666-4 hoses with crimped AN fittings for brake lines? Thanks, Steve Ruse Norman, OK Quoting gcardinal : > > 3/8" tubing from a center section fuel tank resulted in a flow rate of > 19 gph on NX18235. > > Greg Cardinal > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene & Tammy" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:17 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates > > >> >> Have you considered buying a piece of 3/8th hose and seeing what >> you get. It should be a whole lot more. I have just about the same >> tank (17 gal nose tank) with 3/8th hose. I don't recall the flow >> rate but it is much higher than yours. If you need, I can run >> another test, using my tank, in a few days when I have the time. >> As a side note, I doubt if the last 4 gal in your tank is >> unuseable, if it is above the carb while in flying attitude. You >> may not be able to fly at full throttle thru all 4 gals but it >> could get you to a safe place to land. I never fly with less than >> an hours worth left over, just for safety. One of the main reason >> for airplane crashes is running out of gas. >> Just my two cents worth >> Gene >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:51:55 AM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates Fuel lines and fittings on 41CC are AN6 (3/8"). Oscar Zuniga NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:33:13 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: New $100 dollar breakfast location For Ohio Piets!! From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]" I'm getting hungry just reading your post Shad. Nice find. Nearer to Frankie P. and Don E. is Salem Air Park where Don reports (and others) of a great little new restaurant right on the field. Nice airport too with both E/W grass and pavement. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:54:35 AM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: Inspection holes (wing) Chrissi & Randi wrote- > Thanks for your very helpful web site, the pictures help to quickly answer a > lot of questions. Yes, they do. And one of the most helpful sites is Chris Tracy's nice compendium of photos at http://www.westcoastpiet.com . True enough that you only get thumbnails and you have to open them individually to find what you want, but at least all the pix are in one place. For example, look at Don Emch's and Frank Pavliga's airplanes to see if there are finish details there that help you. >attachment of the control horns >is it intended that the beam is filled in with a ply shim on each side before >attaching the horns? Does anyone have > pictures on their web site showing these installed? I'm sure someone has pix of that. I believe that's how the rudder horn is done on 41CC, the only such horn I've had actual experience with when I made repairs to it. >Also how is the covering material dealt with around these interruptions? I wondered about that myself, since it would seem that the heat shrinking operation would pull the fabric away from the protruding metal fitting and create a gap. I did somewhat the same as has already been mentioned... preshrink a round or square pinked patch to go over the part where it sticks through, then it won't pull away. You end up just making a slit in the fabric anyway, so it fits fairly tightly around the metal part. Some finish work I've seen is just incredible in spots like that... take a look at where the lift strut fittings come through the wing underside fabric of John Dilatush's "Mountain Piet" (now Craig Bacon's airplane), at http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/John%20Dilatush's%20Subaru-Powered%20Pietenpol/P6210018.jpg . He's used a pinked round doubler where the fitting comes through, and I defy you to find any gap around that penetration! Also interesting to note that John installed the rings for inspection covers at the wing drag bracing attachment locations but elected not to cut them in at this time. My guess would be that he also painted a number of inspection hole covers when he painted the wings, so they would match the paint perfectly if the time came to use them. Perfectionist! > Please excuse our ignorance, this old-fangled construction is new to us =) Wait till you get to the part about the empty oatmeal cardboard containers ;o) Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 03:58:15 PM PST US From: "Gene & Tammy" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Jay Anderson Prop Just had to show off my new Jay Anderson 76 X 38 scimitar prop. Flys as good as it looks. It's been too windy to get any reliable performance numbers but it climbs like an overweight homesick angel (which is outstanding for a Piet), Gene in Tennessee N502R ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:32 PM PST US From: airlion@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 05:10:22 PM PST US From: "Lagowski Morrow" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates Steve, does your fuel cap have a ram air tube facing forward?? My technical counselor insisted on my cap having one. Presumably to help with fuel flow. My tank is a Cub tank just behind the firewall. He is a national EAA judge, Grand champ. Corbin Baby Ace builder and a guy who gives Continental engine seminars at Oshkosh--Jim lagowski do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ruse" Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:28 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates > > > The fuel lines are 1/4" Aeroquip 666 (666-4), but the ID is only .188. > There are two 16" lines, one from the tank to the gascolator and one from > the gascolator to the carb. The ID of that hose is only .188, which > initially caused me concern, but the company I ordered them from > (www.aircrafthose.com) assured me that was fine for a gravity feed system, > and that I should use it instead of a larger hose since those fittings > were what were on my carb and gascolator. > > The valve does open all the way, I just installed it and checked it before > installation. It is a new miniature 1/4" valve from Aircraft Spruce. > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/minifv.php > > The cap is a cub-style cap with a cork float. It is only vented via the > small opening around the 1/8" float rod and the tube it passes through. > Removing the cap did not cause a noticeable different in the flow rate, so > I don't believe it is a vacuum problem. > > Thanks for any input, > > Steve > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gene & Tammy" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 6:57 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates > > >> >> >> Steve, the two questions I have is what size hose and do you have a >> vented cap? I have also seen problems with fuel valves not opening all >> the way even though the handle indicates it is full open. >> Gene >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Ruse" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 6:33 PM >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates >> >> >>> >>> >>> I just installed a new fuel valve, gascolator screen and fuel hoses on >>> my plane, and decided I needed to test the fuel flow rate when I was >>> done. I have an 18.3 gallon nose tank, and I expected the flow rate to >>> be far more than adequate. It appears to be adequate, but is not as >>> high as I hoped, so I'd like to get the opinion of more experienced >>> people to determine what I need to do, if anything. >>> >>> I have an A-75. The chart indicates a maximum full throttle demand of >>> about 6.3 gallons per hour. Of course, my burn rates in cruise are >>> higher than what they should be according to the same table, so I think >>> the actual max rate is probably also higher. For that reason, I'd be >>> happy with a rate of at least 9-10 GPH, just for a safety margin. It >>> took about 38 minutes to drain 5 gallons of fuel, a flow rate of about >>> 7.9GPH. I started with 5 gallons of fuel, then when it got to four >>> gallons, I noticed the flow rate had decreased substantially. I added >>> another 5 gallons, and this increased the flow rate and it appeared to >>> remain near constant as it drained from 9 gallons to 5 gallons. >>> Obviously what I am trying to simulate is a full throttle climb with >>> minimum useable fuel. >>> >>> A few questions: >>> >>> 1. - What is the MINIMUM acceptable flow rate for an A-75? >>> >>> 2. - Does the carburetor/needle assembly affect the flow rate? I tested >>> the rate by simply disconnecting the hose from the carb, and keeping the >>> hose at the same height as the carb inlet. Would the needle lower the >>> fuel rate? >>> >>> 3. - Is ~7GPH adequate for an A-75 in your opinion? >>> >>> Something to consider for builders...because my tank is so low relative >>> to the carb, I don't get adequate fuel pressure when the fuel level is >>> low. As a result, I have about 4 gallons of fuel that is unusable, not >>> because it won't reach the sump, but because of pressure. So I am >>> always carrying around 25lbs of fuel for no reason other than to make >>> the fire bigger after a crash. Somewhere before I have seen a >>> specification for a minimum height of the tank outlet above the >>> carburetor. Mine does not meet that spec, hence the reason for a large >>> amount of unuseable fuel. The bottom of my tank is about 2"-3" above the >>> carb when sitting on the ground. >>> >>> Of course before I fly it, I intend to do an extended ground run at full >>> throttle to verify that flow is adequate. Any thoughts or shared >>> experience on the subject would be appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Steve Ruse >>> Norman, Ok >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Date: 5/22/2008 7:06 AM >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Date: 5/25/2008 6:49 PM > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 05:12:34 PM PST US From: FTLovley Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Jay Anderson Prop Tell us more about Jay Anderson Props...where are they made..??...etc In a message dated 05/27/08 18:00:15 Central Daylight Time, zharvey@bellsouth.net writes: Just had to show off my new Jay Anderson 76 X 38 scimitar prop. Flys as good as it looks. It's been too windy to get any reliable performance numbers but it climbs like an overweight homesick angel (which is outstanding for a Piet), Gene in Tennessee N502R ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 05:30:17 PM PST US From: AMsafetyC@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Jay Anderson Prop Gene , that's a great look, nice job1 BTW what engine are you running? John **************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002) ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:13 PM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates Some info from Tony Bingelis' books: From "Sportplane Builder", he shows a gravity feed system that is almost a precise schematic/sketch of what's installed on 41CC, from fuel tank cap to carb inlet. In the text he gives rules of thumb for gravity feed systems but almost discounts the calculated minimum static head as being unrealistic by saying that there are many, many proven designs out flying with nowhere near that amount of head. The more realistic rules of thumb that he gives are to figure a minimum flowrate in takeoff configuration as 1.2 lbs. per HP-hr. or 150% of the takeoff fuel consumption rate. For a nominal 75 takeoff horsepower engine, the 1.2 lb./HP-hr gives 15 gallons per hour minimum flow. I couldn't find takeoff fuel consumption specs on the A75 but cruise consumption is given as 4.8 gal./hr. so for simplicity let's use 6 gal./hr. at takeoff power. Using that, the 150% gives a minimum required flow of 9 gal./hr. so there are two numbers that you can use to check against. Looking in "Tony Bingelis on Engines", he has a schematic/sketch very similar to the one from the earlier "Sportplane Builder" but in this one he clearly labels a minimum of 17" (0.5 psi static head) between the bottom of the fuel tank and the fuel inlet to the carb. My airplane does not have 17". I'll have to measure it (or estimate it) next time I have the cowling off but I'd be surprised if it's half that. Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 06:42:23 PM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Jay Anderson Prop Gene, It's a beaut, just like the one my N-1033B. Did you have to keep Jay's feet to the fire on del time, i did. but the work is very nice and the price is right. gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: Gene & Tammy To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:54 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Jay Anderson Prop Just had to show off my new Jay Anderson 76 X 38 scimitar prop. Flys as good as it looks. It's been too windy to get any reliable performance numbers but it climbs like an overweight homesick angel (which is outstanding for a Piet), Gene in Tennessee N502R ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:25:14 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Jay Anderson Prop I found this link to Barnstormers: http://www.barnstormers.com/contact_seller.php?to=32216 &id=236220&title=LOTS+OF+NEW+PROPELLERS&return=%2FPropeller%2C%2520Pusher%25 20Classifieds.html&PHPSESSID=b29e34feaa5 Looks like you have to fill out the questionnaire to get a response. Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion Tail done, working on fuselage (8 ribs down.) _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of FTLovley Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:10 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Jay Anderson Prop Tell us more about Jay Anderson Props...where are they made..??...etc In a message dated 05/27/08 18:00:15 Central Daylight Time, zharvey@bellsouth.net writes: Just had to show off my new Jay Anderson 76 X 38 scimitar prop. Flys as good as it looks. It's been too windy to get any reliable performance numbers but it climbs like an overweight homesick angel (which is outstanding for a Piet), Gene in Tennessee N502R _____ Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL on your phone. ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:03 PM PST US From: Clif Dawson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Flow Rates Rule of thumb is 1/2 lb per hour per hp. Assuming full 75 hp being used then that's 37.5 lb / hr, a little over 6 lb / hr flow. Anyway, my center section is pretty much done except for fuel tank and lexan skylights. :-) Clif > > > For a nominal 75 takeoff horsepower engine, the 1.2 lb./HP-hr gives 15 > gallons per hour minimum flow. I couldn't find takeoff fuel consumption > specs on the A75 but cruise consumption is given as 4.8 gal./hr. so for > simplicity let's use 6 gal./hr. at takeoff power. Using that, the 150% > gives a minimum required flow of 9 gal./hr. so there are two numbers that > you can use to check against. > > Oscar Zuniga ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.