Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:10 AM - Re: Minimum changes from original plans? (owen5819@comcast.net)
2. 06:14 AM - Re: cowling (H RULE)
3. 09:01 AM - Re: Rear seat install (Lagowski Morrow)
4. 10:18 AM - Re: Re: WHICH RIBLETT? (Tim Willis)
5. 01:22 PM - Re: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200 (Jonathan Ragle)
6. 01:37 PM - Re: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200 (Ben Charvet)
7. 06:38 PM - Re: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200 (Gene & Tammy)
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: Minimum changes from original plans? |
Among other interesting comments, Charles Loomis writes:
> I am building the steel fuselage, mild steel, ...
Nice to read this! You are the only other builder I've run into who is using mild
steel. In my case, it's because I enjoy welding and want the practice. It hurts
a bit, because I know in my heart that real Piets are made of wood. Then
again, at this point structural ERW is probably cheaper than wood, and no doubt
Mr. Pietenpol would approve of that. It's still nice to have validation.
I am strongly thinking of making mine a single-piece wing, just to save weight.
Has anyone done that? Anyone have any thoughts about it?
Finally, much as I hate to admit it, mere steel is probably "good enough," but
one day probably 20 years ago at Old Rhinebeck I got into conversation with a
fellow who was building a Piet. It was his second. He had managed to break his
first one by stalling it at 300 feet, freezing at the controls, and going in
straight down under full power. He had picked himself up from an enormous pile
of splinters, an engine-shaped bruise on his chest, and decided that the next
one would also be wood. Can't say I blame him.
Best of luck with your project. And quick progress, which will make your plane
a lot different from mine.
Owen
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 |
|
There is still nothing in the body of airlion@bellsouth.net emails.Just in case
nobody has told you.
----- Original Message ----
From: "airlion@bellsouth.net" <airlion@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 9:43:20 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: cowling
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: Rear seat install |
I have two bottom panels-one under the pilot seat to get at a control
bearing and the other to get at the elevator bell crank etc. The one
under the seat is 1/8" plywood and the other ,bigger one is 1/16"
plywood.--Jim Lagowski
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: HelsperSew@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rear seat install
On mine, in order to access the elevator bellcrank etc. I have
installed a removable aluminum panel on the underside of the airplane
held on with machine screws and T nuts. I can actually get my whole
upper torso in there with shoulders.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal
here.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8/27/2008 7:06 PM
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: WHICH RIBLETT? |
There are sure no rules on which Riblett to use.
What I was attempting to state regarding the Riblett 613.5 was in an answer to
a question
from a particular builder related to ther better Riblett for STOL performance.
The 613.5 offers
more lift and drag than the Riblett 612. The 613.5 is better for STOL. However,
your
choice of airfoil between the two depends on what you want. If you want a faster
cruise,
the 612 is better than the 613.5. If you need more lift, the 613.5 is better thatn
the 612.
Thus to me it seemed that if you had a Model A or Continental A-65, you would want
to
enhance the "meadow-hopping" capability of the Piet. If you had 100 hp or more,
then you
would likely have enough power and speed to have a decent climb with the Riblett
612,
allowing short takeoffs and good climbs, clearing 50 and 100 foot trees, steeples,
etc., and
also get a higher cruising speed, as you overcome more drag with power. Thus the
612
might be better in higher hp apps on Piets.
But there is no rule, and if you wanted more climb and shorter takeoffs and had
100 hp
or more on the plane, you still could mount the Riblett 613.5. Moreover, a builder
could
likely chop some wingspan off a 613.5 wing and have very similar TOTAL lift and
drag to a
full-spanned 612. BTW, Lowell Frank cut two feet off total wingspan with his 612,
as I recall.
Lastly, the pitching moments could vary a lot, as others have commented. The 613.5
might
have moments more like the Piet. I think Mr. Riblett stated that at one time.
We also had some discussions about which Riblett on a 601 or a KR-2, and whether
with light
hp, low weight, and a good airfoil, the LSA rules for weight, top speeds and landing
stalls
without flaps could be met. Off topic for Piets.
John W., thanks for the spreadsheets.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: johnwoods@westnet.com.au
>Sent: Aug 28, 2008 12:40 AM
>To: awmacklem@cox.net, pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: From print to jig...how?
>
>Allan,
>
>I posted this spreadsheet a while ago.
>Hope it helps.
>
>JohnW
>
>>---- Original Message ----
>>From: awmacklem@cox.net
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: From print to jig...how?
>>Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:52:11 -0500
>>
>><awmacklem@cox.net>
>>>
>>>Lowell,
>>>
>>>Two years ago at Brodhead I listened to your conversation regarding
>>the superiority of the GA30U-612 airfoil over BP's airfoil. In Tim
>>Willis' posting I read about the GA3OU 613.5 airfoil.
>>>
>>>If I am understanding the thread of conversation correctly the 612
>>airfoil seems to be preferred over the 613.5 for aircraft with 100+ hp. I'm
>>>intending to use a WW Corvair conversion for my Piet.
>>>
>>>Who should I contact to get a print, coordinates, and any notes
>>relating to the GA30U-612 airfoil?
>>>
>>>Please confirm my understanding in selecting the 612 airfoil.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Allan Macklem
>>>
>>>
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: | A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200 |
Many thanks! I think my dad talked me out of a swap though. He said "Why
turn an $8000 airplane into an $18=2C000 airplane?". I think I'm going to
buy an exercise bike instead. :)
pol-list@matronics.comSubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200
Jonathan=2CThis information came from Ron Wanttaja's Fly Baby page: http://
www.bowersflybaby.com/Another influential homebuilt=2C and a very informati
ve website. He says the engine info came from Harry Fenton=2C who was/is an
A&P who posted to their mailing list.----------------------------------Mot
or Mount AdaptabilityQuestion:I'm now looking at a KR2 with a C65 engine wh
ich means hand-propping <frown>. The external looks prettygood (in the pict
ure) and should be getting some interior pics and answers to lots of other
questions soon. I do like having the Continental motor. Do you happen to kn
ow if the motor mount for a C65 will work with a C85 or 0200? I'd like to w
ork towards the engine with a starter and more HP if possible.Answer:The mo
tor mount for the A-65 and C85 series is the same in that conical rubber bu
shings are used. As such=2C the overall dimensions from the engine mount l
ugs on the engine to the prop flange shaft remain the same. The C-90-12=2C
-14=2C 16 and O-200 have different mounts and the lugs are set further for
ward on the engine case. These engines can be mounted on the A-65 mount bu
t require about a 2" spacer to position the prop flange in the same locatio
n as the A-65. the C-85-12 will be your best choice for a low-hassle insta
llation. That's what I was able to find thus far. Maybe that will help give
you an idea.RyanOn Thu=2C Aug 28=2C 2008 at 8:33 AM=2C Jonathan Ragle <jon
95gt@hotmail.com> wrote:>> Do these all use the same engine mount? Anyone
know roughly the dimensional difference?>> >> Jonathan
_________________________________________________________________
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_
yahoo_082008
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: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200 |
Sounds like good advice. Hand proping isn't all that bad, and not
having an electrical system means you don't need a transponder.
Ben Charvet
Mims, Fl
1955 Baby Ace with Cont A-75
Pietenpol getting ready to cover (A-65)
Jonathan Ragle wrote:
> Many thanks! I think my dad talked me out of a swap though. He said
> "Why turn an $8000 airplane into an $18,000 airplane?". I think I'm
> going to buy an exercise bike instead. :)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:49:50 -0500
> From: rmueller23@gmail.com
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200
>
> Jonathan,
>
> This information came from Ron Wanttaja's Fly Baby page:
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/
> Another influential homebuilt, and a very informative website. He says
> the engine info came from Harry Fenton, who was/is an A&P who posted
> to their mailing list.
> ----------------------------------
> Motor Mount Adaptability
>
> Question:
> I'm now looking at a KR2 with a C65 engine which means hand-propping
> <frown>. The external looks prettygood (in the picture) and should be
> getting some interior pics and answers to lots of other questions
> soon. I do like having the Continental motor. Do you happen to know if
> the motor mount for a C65 will work with a C85 or 0200? I'd like to
> work towards the engine with a starter and more HP if possible.
>
> Answer:
> The motor mount for the A-65 and C85 series is the same in that
> conical rubber bushings are used. As such, the overall dimensions
> from the engine mount lugs on the engine to the prop flange shaft
> remain the same. The C-90-12, -14, 16 and O-200 have different mounts
> and the lugs are set further forward on the engine case. These
> engines can be mounted on the A-65 mount but require about a 2" spacer
> to position the prop flange in the same location as the A-65. the
> C-85-12 will be your best choice for a low-hassle installation.
>
> That's what I was able to find thus far. Maybe that will help give you
> an idea.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Jonathan Ragle <jon95gt@hotmail.com
> <mailto:jon95gt@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Do these all use the same engine mount? Anyone know roughly the
> dimensional difference?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> *
>
> st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ttp://forums.matronics.com
> =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find Out How
> <http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200 |
Hand propping is like flying with a tail wheel. Not many pilots do it
anymore and most that do wouldn't have it any other way.
Gene
N502R
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Ragle
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 3:22 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200
Many thanks! I think my dad talked me out of a swap though. He said
"Why turn an $8000 airplane into an $18,000 airplane?". I think I'm
going to buy an exercise bike instead. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:49:50 -0500
From: rmueller23@gmail.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A65 vs. C90 vs. O-200
Jonathan,
This information came from Ron Wanttaja's Fly Baby page:
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/
Another influential homebuilt, and a very informative website. He says
the engine info came from Harry Fenton, who was/is an A&P who posted to
their mailing list.
----------------------------------
Motor Mount Adaptability
Question:
I'm now looking at a KR2 with a C65 engine which means hand-propping
<frown>. The external looks prettygood (in the picture) and should be
getting some interior pics and answers to lots of other questions soon.
I do like having the Continental motor. Do you happen to know if the
motor mount for a C65 will work with a C85 or 0200? I'd like to work
towards the engine with a starter and more HP if possible.
Answer:
The motor mount for the A-65 and C85 series is the same in that
conical rubber bushings are used. As such, the overall dimensions from
the engine mount lugs on the engine to the prop flange shaft remain the
same. The C-90-12, -14, 16 and O-200 have different mounts and the lugs
are set further forward on the engine case. These engines can be
mounted on the A-65 mount but require about a 2" spacer to position the
prop flange in the same location as the A-65. the C-85-12 will be your
best choice for a low-hassle installation.
That's what I was able to find thus far. Maybe that will help give you
an idea.
Ryan
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Jonathan Ragle <jon95gt@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Do these all use the same engine mount? Anyone know roughly the
dimensional difference?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find Out How
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
8/29/2008 7:07 AM
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! --
|