Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:16 AM - Re: Peifer Plans (Richard Carden)
2. 04:42 AM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Jack Phillips)
3. 05:02 AM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Lagowski Morrow)
4. 10:21 AM - Re: radio install (airlion@bellsouth.net)
5. 10:39 AM - Re: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Jim)
6. 10:43 AM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Mark Roberts)
7. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Jim)
8. 11:00 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Tom Winter)
9. 01:33 PM - Corvair Engine Donation (chase143)
10. 02:03 PM - Re: Rehasing ()
11. 02:19 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (Will42)
12. 02:45 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (Wayne Bressler)
13. 03:03 PM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine Donation (Barry Davis)
14. 03:42 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (walt)
15. 05:03 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (amsafetyc@aol.com)
16. 05:03 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (amsafetyc@aol.com)
17. 05:24 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (Gary Boothe)
18. 05:52 PM - Flying an Idea (John Hofmann)
19. 06:35 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (chase143)
20. 06:52 PM - Time Sert, Corvair advise (shad bell)
21. 07:32 PM - Re: Time Sert, Corvair advise (Gene & Tammy)
22. 08:04 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (K5YAC)
23. 08:50 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Donation (chase143)
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: Peifer Plans |
Darrel: I also received my disk; I trust you got my check. Thanks for
your thoughtfulness. Dick Carden
On Jun 5, 2009, at 2:57 AM, Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either
> of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked
> Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> version
> of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text
> editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?
> Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 09-06-04&Archive=Pietenpol
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?
> Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 09-06-04&Archive=Pietenpol
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Thu 06/04/09: 27
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 05:02 AM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (H
> RULE)
> 2. 06:37 AM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> (Michael Perez)
> 3. 07:52 AM - Pfeifer Sport plans (Darrel Jones)
> 4. 08:45 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Rick Holland)
> 5. 08:48 AM - Re: Gross weight, and pilot wt (shad bell)
> 6. 10:08 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
> 7. 10:19 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
> (brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com)
> 8. 10:32 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (JohnC)
> 9. 12:56 PM - Re: Gross weight, and pilot wt (Rick Holland)
> 10. 01:19 PM - Re: Gross weight, and pilot wt (Mark Roberts)
> 11. 02:17 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> (Jack Phillips)
> 12. 02:46 PM - lift strut sizes (Richard Schreiber)
> 13. 02:46 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
> 14. 02:50 PM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Will42)
> 15. 03:55 PM - gross weight and pilot wt. (walt)
> 16. 04:04 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> (Bill Church)
> 17. 04:13 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> (Mark Roberts)
> 18. 05:05 PM - Re: lift strut sizes (Skip Gadd)
> 19. 05:52 PM - Re: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Darrel Jones)
> 20. 05:52 PM - Re: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Darrel Jones)
> 21. 05:59 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> (Jack Phillips)
> 22. 06:19 PM - Re: gross weight and pilot wt. (Mark Roberts)
> 23. 06:43 PM - Re: Re: Gross weight rating and
> modifications... (Jim)
> 24. 06:49 PM - Re: Re: Gross weight rating and
> modifications... (Jim)
> 25. 07:28 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> (Mark Roberts)
> 26. 07:54 PM - Re: gross weight and pilot wt. (ALAN LYSCARS)
> 27. 08:12 PM - Re: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Ray Krause)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:02:17 AM PST US
> From: H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
> Leave the wife and just take the overnight bag and you'll be fine;-)
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:22:01 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
> Hey All:
>
> I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and
> have a couple
> of questions.
>
> I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross
> weight for the plane.
> I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at
> somewhere
> around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs,
> and as I
> am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb
> wife and an
> over night bag...
>
> May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy
> tuck, but crud,
> if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
>
> Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder
> based on having
> a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it
> with the
> FAA...
>
> Thanks for the clairification and help!
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:37:21 AM PST US
> From: Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Losing weight/staying in shape is always a win/win idea even
> without a plan
> e in the picture.
> -
> Since you will be building your plane, you have control over it's
> weight. A
> lways build as light as you can/are comfortable with. This will
> yield the b
> est performance given whatever engine/electronics, etc you install.
> Start n
> ow at the beginning and think light through the entire build and
> you'll hav
> e the best chance for a good performer.
> -
> -
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:52:15 AM PST US
> From: Darrel Jones <wd6bor@vom.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
>
> I just received another request for a copy of the Pfeifer Sport plans,
> so thought I would check and make sure that everyone who requested a
> copy received them. So far I have sent out about 30 discs and heard
> back
> from about a third of those who requested the copies.
>
> Let me know if you asked for one but didn't receive it.
>
> See you at Brodhead!
>
> Darrel Jones
> Sonoma, CA
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:45:50 AM PST US
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
> From: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
>
> Darrel
>
> I received the disc, thank you. Do you have a paypal account so I
> can pay
> you for it? And is $5 enough?
>
> Rick Holland
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Darrel Jones <wd6bor@vom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I just received another request for a copy of the Pfeifer Sport
>> plans, so
>> thought I would check and make sure that everyone who requested a
>> copy
>> received them. So far I have sent out about 30 discs and heard
>> back from
>> about a third of those who requested the copies.
>>
>> Let me know if you asked for one but didn't receive it.
>>
>> See you at Brodhead!
>>
>> Darrel Jones
>> Sonoma, CA
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:48:51 AM PST US
> From: shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight, and pilot wt
>
>
> Guys, Isn't it ironic that we try so hard to save an ounce here and
> there w
> hile building, but most of us are still trying to loose the same
> 10-20 lbs
> for years and years.- You could build the Piet 20 lbs heavy and
> have more
> gizmos,(if you-wanted them)-if we lost the 20lbs.- Or we could incre
> ase the performance of our airplanes by not doing anything to the
> airplane
> itself, but just getting serious about or diet, excercise.- I guess
> that
> is the way it has been for a long time, and really, I don't think
> it's ever
> gonna change,- but for those that do make the commitment to slim
> it up,
> they wil have the better performing airplane, no matter whose
> airplane they
> fly.
> -
> Off my soap box now (before I break it)
> -
> Shad=0A=0A=0A
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:08:19 AM PST US
> From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
> Hey Darrel,
>
> Thanks I did get mine too. I don't care much for pay pal, however I
> have
> problem sending you a check. Please confirm that the 5er will do
> the job.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
> **************Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell
> %2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By)
>
> ________________________________ Message 7
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:19:06 AM PST US
> From: brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
> Darrel,
>
> I got my CD thanks, I hope you got the $5 I sent by snail mail.
>
>
> Brian
>
> SLC, UT
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> AMsafetyC@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
>
> Hey Darrel,
>
>
> Thanks I did get mine too. I don't care much for pay pal, however I
> have
> problem sending you a check. Please confirm that the 5er will do the
> job.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> John
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell
> =http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 8
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:32:58 AM PST US
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
> From: "JohnC" <jcalvert@trinityvideo.net>
>
>
> I got mine, hope you got the cash I sent back!
>
> John Calvert
>
> --------
> I just hope when it's my turn to reach up and touch the face of
> God, I don't poke
> him in the eye on accident.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246801#246801
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 9
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 12:56:18 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight, and pilot wt
> From: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
>
> You do make a good point Shad. I think homebuilders and pilots in
> general
> keep themselves in a little leaner and fitter than average. And not
> necessary to attract the hot chicks (which is the reason I do it), its
> primarily due to having the thought of flunking their flight physical
> constantly hanging over there head (kind of a Sword of Damocles).
> Must be
> real stressful for pilots that make there living flying.
>
> Rick
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM, shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Guys, Isn't it ironic that we try so hard to save an ounce here
>> and there
>> while building, but most of us are still trying to loose the same
>> 10-20 lbs
>> for years and years. You could build the Piet 20 lbs heavy and
>> have more
>> gizmos,(if you wanted them) if we lost the 20lbs. Or we could
>> increase the
>> performance of our airplanes by not doing anything to the airplane
>> itself,
>> but just getting serious about or diet, excercise. I guess that
>> is the way
>> it has been for a long time, and really, I don't think it's ever
>> gonna
>> change, but for those that do make the commitment to slim it up,
>> they wil
>> have the better performing airplane, no matter whose airplane they
>> fly.
>>
>> Off my soap box now (before I break it)
>>
>> Shad
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> ________________________________ Message 10
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:19:47 PM PST US
> From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight, and pilot wt
>
> You know, since I brought this up, you guys have made some good points
> about the weight around the midsection (can't do much with the
> fathead... I'm stuck with that). At 48 now, I need to be more aware of
> my health. The reason I am building a piet (well, ONE reason) is that
> it is an LSA qualified plane. I am diabetic and I don't pay as close
> attention as I needed to my condition. For the vast majority of my
> life I could not gain weight at all. 6'4" and skinny. Not so now. So,
> the encouragement to loose weight is well taken, and not just an
> aside. I still have my medical approved on a six year FAA variance
> (not sure that's the right term), but I have to have a physical every
> 2 years as normal, but a review/sign off every year. My problem is
> weight and no exercise (well, I DO fight the water pressure from the
> shower head every morning). So, I can do something about it still...
>
> Mark Roberts
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You do make a good point Shad. I think homebuilders and pilots in
>> general keep themselves in a little leaner and fitter than average.
>> And not necessary to attract the hot chicks (which is the reason I
>> do it), its primarily due to having the thought of flunking their
>> flight physical constantly hanging over there head (kind of a Sword
>> of Damocles). Must be real stressful for pilots that make there
>> living flying.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM, shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Guys, Isn't it ironic that we try so hard to save an ounce here and
>> there while building, but most of us are still trying to loose the
>> same 10-20 lbs for years and years. You could build the Piet 20 lbs
>> heavy and have more gizmos,(if you wanted them) if we lost the
>> 20lbs. Or we could increase the performance of our airplanes by not
>> doing anything to the airplane itself, but just getting serious
>> about or diet, excercise. I guess that is the way it has been for a
>> long time, and really, I don't think it's ever gonna change, but
>> for those that do make the commitment to slim it up, they wil have
>> the better performing airplane, no matter whose airplane they fly.
>>
>> Off my soap box now (before I break it)
>>
>> Shad
>>
>>
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Holland
>> Castle Rock, Colorado
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________ Message 11
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:17:42 PM PST US
> From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
> Mark,
>
>
> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to
> answer your
> questions:
>
>
> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire.
> If you
> want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop
> you. I
> believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless
> as a two
> seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in
> the 600 -
> 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a
> useful
> amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255)
> and your
> wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO
> baggage,
> no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight).
> The plane
> will fly well at that weight.
>
>
> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are
> a number
> of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
> comfortable seats,
> and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read
> than the
> ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew
> with full
> fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by
> myself
> and full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane
> flies
> very well.
>
>
> Empty Wt 745
>
> Full Fuel 90
>
> Me 200
>
> Wife 160
>
> Total - 1195
>
>
> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong
> enough to
> withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200
> is really
> pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it
> feels
> very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
> passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately,
> that
> tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
>
>
> If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs
> here),
> then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can
> give you
> some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
>
>
> 1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
> requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint.
> And more
> money.
> 2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
> with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer
> wing will
> weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20%
> to the
> wing area.
> 3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People will
> tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but
> somehow Mike
> Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks
> beautiful
> 4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated the
> Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire
> wheel type.
> The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and
> look cool),
> but if they were light race cars would still be running them.
> 5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
> fuselage
> 6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
> heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat
> smaller to take
> advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
> Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
> 7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
> 8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much
> more
> difficult to use
> 9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
> that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but it
> requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever
> the
> Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane
> paint (60
> lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the
> lightweight
> fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
> 10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
> in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You
> might
> suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
>
>
> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
> that went on
> my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
> airframe,
> so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I
> was more
> than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail
> after
> painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice
> glossy finish
> cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and
> repaint
> the entire airplane.
>
>
> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
> lbs than
> to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year -
> unfortunately, I've
> lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>
>
> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Mark Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Hey All:
>
>
> I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and
> have a
> couple of questions.
>
>
> I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross
> weight for the
> plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross
> was at
> somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the
> Piet's specs,
> and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with
> my 150 lb
> wife and an over night bag...
>
>
> May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy
> tuck, but
> crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
>
>
> Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder
> based on
> having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder
> registers it
> with the FAA...
>
>
> Thanks for the clairification and help!
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 12
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:46:41 PM PST US
> From: "Richard Schreiber" <lmforge@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: lift strut sizes
>
> Over the past couple of years, there has been a few posts talking
> about using streamline
> lift struts with a dimension of 1.78 x 1.06 x .049 from Wag Aero. The
> reports were that Bill Rewey stated that this size was perfectly
> adequate for
> a Pietenpol. I was wondering if anyone has used struts in this size
> range or
> would care to offer an opinion on the suitability for use.
>
>
> Rick Schreiber
>
> ________________________________ Message 13
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:46:41 PM PST US
> From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]"
> <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
> Mark-add wingspan. Cubs and Champs have six more feet of wing
> and can l
> ift more on the same horsepower due to more
> wing area.
>
> Jack's suggestions are very good and in addition I would add not to
> use any
> aluminum anywhere for cowlings/cockpit covers
> over .025" thick. Keep your fastener sizes for the cowling to a
> minimum an
> d don't space them too closely. Sometimes less is
> better---my seat and seat back are held in with three small
> Phillips screws
> . (the thing is hinged so I can inspect behind the seat
> and remove the seat center easily for inspections and finding
> sunglasses, g
> um, and other lost items during flight) Try to avoid
> adding gadgets unless you absolutely need them. Don't use 1/8"
> cables fo
> r rudder controls, tailfeather bracing, or aileron cables---
> they are way overkill and weigh much more than 3/32" cables.
> (same for t
> ailwheel steering cables) Fill your tires with helium too.
>
> So Mark-are you a private pilot, do you have a tailwheel
> endorsement or hav
> e you had tailwheel experience, dual ? Just curious.
>
> A mockpit is a good idea if you're a tall guy. I believe that
> Bill Church
> from Canada just completed a mockup cockpit as he's a fairly
> tall gent such as yourself.
>
> Mike C. in Ohio
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 14
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:50:59 PM PST US
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
> From: "Will42" <will@cctc.net>
>
>
> Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail.
>
> Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source
> of info when
> I start the tube Piet.
>
> Will
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246841#246841
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 15
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:55:12 PM PST US
> From: "walt" <waltdak@verizon.net>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
>
> sorry to rehash this,
> But my my Mentor, ( the designer and AP for Leo Leodenschlager<sp>)
> who
> I'm so glad to have ever met, always told me to build light.
> Build light, build light, he would say.
> My Piet, built to plans, execpt for a few little things, came in at
> 595#.
> I'm so glad cause it climbs like a rocket.
> No more white knuckle climeouts for me
> with an A-65
> I'm 230# at least and can take anyone. Sure climbs a little slower,
> but
> no problem.
>
> Ain't Life Grand.
>
>
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 16
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:04:46 PM PST US
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> From: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I'm the "fairly tall gent" from Canada that Mike Cuy mentioned in his
> last post.
> As Mike said, I have just built a "mockpit", which is basically the
> front 8 or 10 feet of the fuselage structure, but made from lumberyard
> spruce, ripped to size with the table saw, and glued together with
> carpenter's glue. I have about $30 invested in materials to build
> it. My
> main reason for building it was to see if I needed to make any
> alterations to the basic design, due to my height (6'-2"). But overall
> height is not the only factor, as some people have longer legs, and
> others have a longer torso. Two people of equal height may not fit
> into
> a particular airplane in the same way - one may not have enough
> legroom,
> while the other is fine. I've already decided that I'm going with the
> "long fuselage" because I have a "long fuselage", and the legroom
> seems
> all right, but I find the seatback to be too vertical (for me). I
> built
> the mockpit "to the plans", so that even if I was pretty sure I would
> need to change something, I would be able to see how I fit in the
> original design, without any changes. The fewer changes you make to
> the
> plans, the better, as every small alteration can impact on many other
> things. Building a mockpit will give you a real feel for how you will
> wear your plane, and whether you need to make any alterations to
> ensure
> that you will fit in the plane you build. It also gives you a good
> "practice run" at building the fuselage - we all generally do a
> slightly
> better job on the second attempt (of whatever).
>
> Bill C. (from Canada)
>
> PS: I have photos of my mockpit posted on the Mykitplane.com website,
> but it seems that the Builder's Logs are not accessible right now. The
> Photos and Files sections work fine, but the Builder's Logs do not. I
> was going to cut and paste a link to the photos, but I just get an
> error
> message when I try to access my Build Log. Anybody know what's up with
> that?
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 17
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:13:20 PM PST US
> From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
> Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
>
> weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was
>
> not sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight.
> Did some searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and
> now I can see why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.
>
> Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
> might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an
> aquaintance at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me
> if I needed him. That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large
> amount of difference it would be worth the try.
>
> While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
> corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More
> power equals higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on
> some of the kit planes websites..)...
>
> So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
>
> be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max
> (maybe 1250) :o/
>
> Mark Roberts
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>>
>> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I=99ll try to
> answer
>> your questions:
>>
>>
>> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If
>
>> you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop
>
>> you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
>> useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols
>> tend to weigh in the 600 =93 630 lb range. If your empty weight
> is 60
>> 0, by the time you add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons)
>
>> you are up to 660. You (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel wi
>
>> ll put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage, no handheld radio (
>
>> unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane will fly we
>
>> ll at that weight.
>>
>>
>> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a
>
>> number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
>> comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel =93 they
> are eas
>> ier for me to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross
>
>> weight so that if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I w
>
>> ould be right at gross. With me by myself and full fuel, I=99m
> pretty
>> close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies very well.
>>
>>
>> Empty Wt 745
>>
>> Full Fuel 90
>>
>> Me 200
>>
>> Wife 160
>>
>> Total - 1195
>>
>>
>> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
>> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong
>> enough to withstand 4.8 G=99s (3.2 G=99s with a 50% safety
> factor).
>> I feel 1200 is really pushing it for this airplane. I=99ve
> flown it a
>> t that weight, but it feels very heavy and won=99t climb well.
> At Bro
>> dhead, I will not carry any passenger that weighs over 175 (runway
> =99s
>> too short). Fortunately, that tends to limit my passengers to youn
>
>> g attractive females.
>>
>>
>> If you don=99t want to lose some weight (and we=99re not
> talking 5
>> lbs here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possib
>
>> le. I can give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasib
>
>> le for you:
>>
>>
>> Don=99t make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
> requir
>> es more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more
>
>> money.
>> Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
>> with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer
>> wing will weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would
>
>> add 20% to the wing area.
>> Build the standard fuselage =93 not the =9DLong=9D
> fuselage. People
>> will tell you you can=99t put a Continental on a short fuselage,
> but s
>> omehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very w
>
>> ell and looks beautiful
>> Build the =9CImproved=9D (don=99t say
> =9CCub-Style=9D, since it
>> predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight ax
>
>> le wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are
>
>> very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race cars would
>
>> still be running them.
>> The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
>> fuselage
>> Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
>> heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller
>
>> to take advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the
>> extra weight. Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any
>> wood except balsa.
>> Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
>> Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more
>
>> difficult to use
>> Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
>> that everyone says you need =93 not only is the fabric lighter,
> but it
>> requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever
>
>> the Stewart System uses). For Heaven=99s sake, don=99t
> use
>> polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my plane=99s 745 lbs are in
> paint). Wal
>> t Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane is the lig
>
>> htest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
>> Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters, in-
>> flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You
>> might suggest your wife fly naked =93 ladies clothes are
> notoriously h
>> eavy
>>
>>
>> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that
>
>> went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on
>
>> the airframe, so I wasn=99t totally surprised by my high empty
> weight.
>> However, I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fusel
>
>> age, wings and tail after painting and realized how much that polyur
>
>> ethane with its nice glossy finish cost me. By then it was too late
>
>> , unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint the entire airplane.
>>
>>
>> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
>> lbs than to do all these things. I=99ve lost 75 lbs this year
> =93
>> unfortunately, I=99ve lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>>
>>
>> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>>
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>>
>> NX899JP
>>
>> Raleigh, NC
>>
>>
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>> ] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>>
>>
>> Hey All:
>>
>>
>> I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and
>> have a couple of questions.
>>
>>
>> I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight
>
>> for the plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the
>> gross was at somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that
>> lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I
>> can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
>>
>>
>> May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy
>> tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a
>> kit plane :o\
>>
>>
>> Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder
>
>> based on having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the
>> builder registers it with the FAA...
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the clairification and help!
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
> =============
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ============ y>
>
> ________________________________ Message 18
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:05:41 PM PST US
> From: "Skip Gadd" <skipgadd@earthlink.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: lift strut sizes
>
> I belive you are talking about the mild steel streamline tubing. I
> am using it
> for lift and cabane struts, but haven't finished or flown mine yet.
> Dwane Talba's
> silver and black Corvair and Jim Kinsella's A65 Piets both use mild
> steel
> struts and I think Dwane's Piet is over 800 lbs.
> I believe they are suitable for a Piet.
> Skip
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Schreiber
> Sent: 6/4/2009 5:49:00 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: lift strut sizes
>
>
> Over the past couple of years, there has been a few posts talking
> about using streamline
> lift struts with a dimension of 1.78 x 1.06 x .049 from Wag Aero. The
> reports were that Bill Rewey stated that this size was perfectly
> adequate for
> a Pietenpol. I was wondering if anyone has used struts in this size
> range or
> would care to offer an opinion on the suitability for use.
>
>
> Rick Schreiber
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 19
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:52:47 PM PST US
> From: Darrel Jones <wd6bor@vom.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
>
> Will
>
> I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
>
> Darrel
>
> Will42 wrote:
>>
>> Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail.
>>
>> Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source
>> of info when
> I start the tube Piet.
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246841#246841
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 20
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:52:59 PM PST US
> From: Darrel Jones <wd6bor@vom.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
>
> John,
>
> I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
>
> Darrel
>
> JohnC wrote:
>>
>> I got mine, hope you got the cash I sent back!
>>
>> John Calvert
>>
>> --------
>> I just hope when it's my turn to reach up and touch the face of
>> God, I don't
> poke him in the eye on accident.
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246801#246801
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 21
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:59:38 PM PST US
> From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
> Extra power would be a good thing but bigger engines add weight,
> too. The
> Corvair engine is significantly heavier than a 100 HP O-200
> Continental, and
> far less reliable.
>
>
> Jack
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Mark Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
> weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I
> was not
> sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did
> some
> searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I
> can see
> why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.
>
>
> Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
> might
> make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an
> aquaintance at
> church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
> That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of
> difference it
> would be worth the try.
>
>
> While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
> corvair
> engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
> higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit
> planes websites..)...
>
>
> So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100
> HP be
> enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max
> (maybe 1250)
> :o/
>
>
> Mark Roberts
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
> <pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
>
> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to
> answer your
> questions:
>
>
> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire.
> If you
> want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop
> you. I
> believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless
> as a two
> seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in
> the 600 -
> 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a
> useful
> amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255)
> and your
> wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO
> baggage,
> no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight).
> The plane
> will fly well at that weight.
>
>
> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are
> a number
> of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
> comfortable seats,
> and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read
> than the
> ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew
> with full
> fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by
> myself
> and full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane
> flies
> very well.
>
>
> Empty Wt 745
>
> Full Fuel 90
>
> Me 200
>
> Wife 160
>
> Total - 1195
>
>
> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong
> enough to
> withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200
> is really
> pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it
> feels
> very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
> passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately,
> that
> tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
>
>
> If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs
> here),
> then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can
> give you
> some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
>
>
> 1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
> requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint.
> And more
> money.
> 2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
> with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer
> wing will
> weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20%
> to the
> wing area.
> 3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People will
> tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but
> somehow Mike
> Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks
> beautiful
> 4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated the
> Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire
> wheel type.
> The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and
> look cool),
> but if they were light race cars would still be running them.
> 5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
> fuselage
> 6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
> heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat
> smaller to take
> advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
> Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
> 7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
> 8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much
> more
> difficult to use
> 9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
> that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but it
> requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever
> the
> Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane
> paint (60
> lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the
> lightweight
> fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
> 10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
> in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You
> might
> suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
>
>
> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
> that went on
> my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
> airframe,
> so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I
> was more
> than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail
> after
> painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice
> glossy finish
> cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and
> repaint
> the entire airplane.
>
>
> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
> lbs than
> to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year -
> unfortunately, I've
> lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>
>
> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: <mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Mark Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Hey All:
>
>
> I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and
> have a
> couple of questions.
>
>
> I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross
> weight for the
> plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross
> was at
> somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the
> Piet's specs,
> and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with
> my 150 lb
> wife and an over night bag...
>
>
> May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy
> tuck, but
> crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
>
>
> Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder
> based on
> having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder
> registers it
> with the FAA...
>
>
> Thanks for the clairification and help!
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 22
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:19:56 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
> From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>
>
> Thanks Walt. After years of building Model Airplanes, I know the
> value of
> saving weight and building light...
> As far rehashing is concerned, I'm new to the group, so I hope I am
> not
> asking annoying questions. If someone can direct me to any archives
> that are
> searchable, I'll make sure I check there for info first.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM, walt <waltdak@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> sorry to rehash this,
>> But my my Mentor, ( the designer and AP for Leo
>> Leodenschlager<sp>) who I'm
>> so glad to have ever met, always told me to build light.
>> Build light, build light, he would say.
>> My Piet, built to plans, execpt for a few little things, came in
>> at 595#.
>> I'm so glad cause it climbs like a rocket.
>> No more white knuckle climeouts for me
>> with an A-65
>> I'm 230# at least and can take anyone. Sure climbs a little
>> slower, but no
>> problem.
>>
>> Ain't Life Grand.
>>
>>
>> walt evans
>> NX140DL
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________ Message 23
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:43:15 PM PST US
> From: Jim <jimboyer@hughes.net>
> Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and
> modifications...
>
>
> Hi Jack and all,
> I'm building a Piet with a Corvair and disagree with you analysis
> of Corvair being
> less reliable than the 0-200. William Wynne on his website tested
> both on
> a dyno and weighed them both. The 0-200 weighed (my memory) 240 lbs
> with accessories
> and the Corvair with all accessories including a starter weighed
> 245 lbs.
>
> On the dyno the 0-200 only pulled around 75 horsepower and the
> Corvair exceeded
> 100 hp; however I have also been told that at the rpm Corvairs are
> cruised at
> in Piets they are really making about 85 to 90 hp (still more than
> the 0-200).
>
> Admittedly mine is not yet running or flying so can only go by what
> is documented
> on Williams web site.
> Cheers,
> Jim Boyer
> Santa Rosa, CA
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, pietflyr@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
> Extra power would be a good thing but
> bigger engines add weight, too. The Corvair engine is
> significantly heavier
> than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and far less reliable.
>
>
> Jack
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13
> PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross
> weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
> weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I
> was not sure
> what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some
> searching
> on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why,
> as builders
> post differing weights on their sites.
>
>
> Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
> might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an
> aquaintance
> at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I
> needed him.
> That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of
> difference it would
> be worth the try.
>
>
> While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
> corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More
> power equals
> higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the
> kit planes
> websites..)...
>
>
> So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
> be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max
> (maybe 1250)
> :o/
>
>
> Mark Roberts
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
> <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. Ill try to
> answer your questions:
>
>
> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you
> desire. If you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs,
> nobody can
> stop you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
> useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols
> tend to weigh
> in the 600 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time
> you
> add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to
> 660. You
> (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and
> that is with
> NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty
> weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
>
>
> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There
> are a number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
> comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel they are
> easier for me
> to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so
> that
> if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at
> gross. With me by myself and full fuel, Im pretty close to that 1050
> figure, and the plane flies very well.
>
>
> Empty Wt 745
>
>
> Full
> Fuel 90
>
>
> Me
> 200
>
>
> Wife
> 160
>
>
> Total -
>
> 1195
>
>
> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong
> enough to
> withstand 4.8 Gs (3.2 Gs with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
> really pushing it for this airplane. Ive flown it at that weight,
> but it
> feels very heavy and wont climb well. At Brodhead, I will not
> carry any
> passenger that weighs over 175 (runways too short). Fortunately, that
> tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
>
>
> If you dont want to lose some weight (and were not talking 5 lbs
> here), then you will need to build your plane as light as
> possible. I can
> give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
>
>
> Dont make the fuselage any
> wider. Every inch of extra width requires more spruce, more
> plywood,
> more fabric, and more paint. And more money.
> Add about 4 to 6 feet to the
> wingspan. That would put it on par with a Piper Cub, and would
> decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will weigh a bit
> more but
> will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the wing area.
> Build the standard fuselage
> not the Long fuselage. People will tell you you cant put a
> Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike Cuy managed
> to do so and
> his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks beautiful
> Build the Improved (dont say
> Cub-Style, since it predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing
> gear, not
> the straight axle wire wheel type. The straight axle is
> heavy, and
> wire wheels are very strong (and look cool), but if they were
> light race
> cars would still be running them.
> The steel tube fuselage is
> considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
> Build with sitka
> spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but heavier. If you
> use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take
> advantage of
> the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
> Spruce has
> the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
> Use mahogany instead of birch
> plywood.
> Use Resorcinol instead of
> T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more difficult to use
> Use lightweight (uncertified)
> dacron fabric, not the medium weight that everyone says you
> need not
> only is the fabric lighter, but it requires less coating
> material (whether
> dope, polybrush or whatever the Stewart System uses). For
> Heavens
> sake, dont use polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my planes 745 lbs
> are in
> paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and
> his plane
> is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
> Obviously, avoid adding radios,
> electrical systems, starters, in-flight movies, de-icing boots
> and
> retractable landing gear. You might suggest your wife fly naked
> ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
>
>
> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
> that went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a
> datum on the
> airframe, so I wasnt totally surprised by my high empty weight.
> However,
> I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings
> and tail
> after painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its
> nice glossy
> finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-
> cover and
> repaint the entire airplane.
>
>
> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
> lbs than to do all these things. Ive lost 75 lbs this year
> unfortunately, Ive lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>
>
> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
>
> NX899JP
>
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
> 11:22 PM
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross
> weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Hey All:
>
>
> I have been
> looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a
> couple of questions.
>
>
> I would like to
> have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane.
> I think I
> saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere
> around 1050.
> I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I am
> 255 or so, I
> want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over
> night bag...
>
>
> May be a great
> reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud,
> if I'm gonna
> spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
>
>
> Is the gross
> weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on
> having a
> corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it
> with the FAA...
>
>
> Thanks for the
> clairification and help!
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://
> forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 24
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:49:58 PM PST US
> From: Jim <jimboyer@hughes.net>
> Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and
> modifications...
>
>
> Hi again Jack and all,
> I forgot to comment on the Corvair as less reliable than the 0-200.
> I don't have
> any information that says that is true. The 0-200 definitely has
> been around
> longer but Corvairs have been used in Piets since 1961 I believe
> and several
> have accumulated 500 to 700 hours of flight time to date. Corvairs
> now being
> used in KR's with one of the new 5th bearings have also now
> accumulated time of
> 350 and 400 plus hours. Having been a family member of a Cessna
> dealership we
> don't have any great records for Continentals or Lycomings.
> Jim Boyer
> Santa Rosa, CA
>
> PS. I really liked your and Mike's comments about building light.
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, pietflyr@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
> Extra power would be a good thing but
> bigger engines add weight, too. The Corvair engine is
> significantly heavier
> than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and far less reliable.
>
>
> Jack
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13
> PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross
> weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
> weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I
> was not sure
> what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some
> searching
> on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why,
> as builders
> post differing weights on their sites.
>
>
> Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
> might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an
> aquaintance
> at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I
> needed him.
> That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of
> difference it would
> be worth the try.
>
>
> While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
> corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More
> power equals
> higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the
> kit planes
> websites..)...
>
>
> So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
> be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max
> (maybe 1250)
> :o/
>
>
> Mark Roberts
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
> <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. Ill try to
> answer your questions:
>
>
> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you
> desire. If you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs,
> nobody can
> stop you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
> useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols
> tend to weigh
> in the 600 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time
> you
> add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to
> 660. You
> (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and
> that is with
> NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty
> weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
>
>
> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There
> are a number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
> comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel they are
> easier for me
> to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so
> that
> if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at
> gross. With me by myself and full fuel, Im pretty close to that 1050
> figure, and the plane flies very well.
>
>
> Empty Wt 745
>
>
> Full
> Fuel 90
>
>
> Me
> 200
>
>
> Wife
> 160
>
>
> Total -
>
> 1195
>
>
> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong
> enough to
> withstand 4.8 Gs (3.2 Gs with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
> really pushing it for this airplane. Ive flown it at that weight,
> but it
> feels very heavy and wont climb well. At Brodhead, I will not
> carry any
> passenger that weighs over 175 (runways too short). Fortunately, that
> tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
>
>
> If you dont want to lose some weight (and were not talking 5 lbs
> here), then you will need to build your plane as light as
> possible. I can
> give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
>
>
> Dont make the fuselage any
> wider. Every inch of extra width requires more spruce, more
> plywood,
> more fabric, and more paint. And more money.
> Add about 4 to 6 feet to the
> wingspan. That would put it on par with a Piper Cub, and would
> decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will weigh a bit
> more but
> will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the wing area.
> Build the standard fuselage
> not the Long fuselage. People will tell you you cant put a
> Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike Cuy managed
> to do so and
> his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks beautiful
> Build the Improved (dont say
> Cub-Style, since it predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing
> gear, not
> the straight axle wire wheel type. The straight axle is
> heavy, and
> wire wheels are very strong (and look cool), but if they were
> light race
> cars would still be running them.
> The steel tube fuselage is
> considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
> Build with sitka
> spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but heavier. If you
> use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take
> advantage of
> the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
> Spruce has
> the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
> Use mahogany instead of birch
> plywood.
> Use Resorcinol instead of
> T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more difficult to use
> Use lightweight (uncertified)
> dacron fabric, not the medium weight that everyone says you
> need not
> only is the fabric lighter, but it requires less coating
> material (whether
> dope, polybrush or whatever the Stewart System uses). For
> Heavens
> sake, dont use polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my planes 745 lbs
> are in
> paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and
> his plane
> is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
> Obviously, avoid adding radios,
> electrical systems, starters, in-flight movies, de-icing boots
> and
> retractable landing gear. You might suggest your wife fly naked
> ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
>
>
> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
> that went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a
> datum on the
> airframe, so I wasnt totally surprised by my high empty weight.
> However,
> I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings
> and tail
> after painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its
> nice glossy
> finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-
> cover and
> repaint the entire airplane.
>
>
> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
> lbs than to do all these things. Ive lost 75 lbs this year
> unfortunately, Ive lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>
>
> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
>
> NX899JP
>
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
> 11:22 PM
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross
> weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Hey All:
>
>
> I have been
> looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a
> couple of questions.
>
>
> I would like to
> have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane.
> I think I
> saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere
> around 1050.
> I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I am
> 255 or so, I
> want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over
> night bag...
>
>
> May be a great
> reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud,
> if I'm gonna
> spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
>
>
> Is the gross
> weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on
> having a
> corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it
> with the FAA...
>
>
> Thanks for the
> clairification and help!
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://
> forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 25
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:28:19 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>
>
>
> Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
>
> Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
>
> Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
> what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
> another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
> when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
> when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
> to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
> to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
> questions...).
> I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
> cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
> I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
> the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
> think:
>
> Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
> considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
> all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
> While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
> the spar's strength?
>
> Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
> further out to equalize the load a bit more?
>
> I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
> but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
> in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
> weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
> more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
> will buy me more gross weight capacity.
>
> However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
> saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
> Continental that's rebuilt...
>
>
> Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
> at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
> training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
> in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
> all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
> make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
> frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
> from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
> in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
> a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
> experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
> and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
> have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
> now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
> not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
>
> Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
> anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
> or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
> medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
> changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
>
> At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
> began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
> about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
> wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
>
> Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 26
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:54:12 PM PST US
> From: "ALAN LYSCARS" <alyscars@myfairpoint.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
>
> Mark..
>
> Please don't worry about "rehashing" on this List. We've all been new
> to this at one point in time, and I know you'll find these fellows
> to be
> a most patient lot. And, after all, there's no such thing as stupid
> questions.
>
> Al
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Roberts
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
>
>
> Thanks Walt. After years of building Model Airplanes, I know the
> value
> of saving weight and building light...
>
>
> As far rehashing is concerned, I'm new to the group, so I hope I am
> not asking annoying questions.
>
> ________________________________ Message 27
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:12:42 PM PST US
> From: "Ray Krause" <raykrause@frontiernet.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
>
> Darrel,
>
> I received the Cd and sent you a cash payment, did you get it?
> Thanks so
> much for your generous help. The Cd is a great addition to my
> "collection".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray Krause
>
> N51YX, Waiex, TD, Jab 3300 (1197), AeroCarb, Sensinich 54X62 wood
> prop,
> Dynon D-180, Garmin SL-30, 327, 296, 105 hrs.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Darrel Jones" <wd6bor@vom.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
>
>>
>> Will
>>
>> I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
>>
>> Darrel
>>
>> Will42 wrote:
>>>
>>> Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail.
>>> Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source
>>> of info
>>> when I start the tube Piet.
>>> Will
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246841#246841
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Mark,
Adding length to the wing will definitely change the loading on the spars.
Such a change needs to be analyzed thoroughly before doing it. It would be
prudent to move the lift strut attach point to the center of the wing panel
to keep the loads balanced (and the plane would look a bit odd if the struts
didn't go out to at least the center of the panel).
As for the reliability of Continentals versus Corvairs, I don't recall a
spate of Continentals breaking crankshafts in recent years. Of course, this
gets well into the range of opinions, but I don't much care for auto engine
conversions in aircraft, regardless of Bernard's views. The design mission
is just too different. A comment was made that an O-200 weighs 245 lbs with
accessories. I don't think that is true. Dry weight of the engine is 170
lbs, without accessories, which is within a couple of pounds of what an A65
Continental weighs, and a good 35 lbs less than a Corvair without a starter
or generator (according to William Wynne's website).
This is not to disparage those who choose to put Corvairs into their
Pietenpols. I admire their ambition and drive, in keeping with Experimental
Aircraft. I just live in part of the country that is not very pleasant for
forced landings. If I lived and flew in the midwest, where the biggest
problem in a forced landing is choosing which of a dozen good fields to land
in, my views might be different.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
questions...).
I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
think:
Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
the spar's strength?
Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
further out to equalize the load a bit more?
I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
will buy me more gross weight capacity.
However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
Continental that's rebuilt...
Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
Mark
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Jack, Great comments!! My empty weight with a metal prop, since
replaced with a wood prop, was 607 pounds, for the reasons you mentioned
in your e-mail. I will be doing a new weight check with the wood prop to
see if I'm under 600#
Jim Lagowski in a still cool northern Michigan
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer
your questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If
you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you.
I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as
a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in
the 600 - 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you
add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660.
You (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and
that is with NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in
your empty weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a
number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel - they are easier
for me to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight
so that if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be
right at gross. With me by myself and full fuel, I'm pretty close to
that 1050 figure, and the plane flies very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full Fuel 90
Me 200
Wife 160
Total - 1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough
to withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
really pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but
it feels very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry
any passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately,
that tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs
here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I
can give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
1.. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And
more money.
2.. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing
will weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20%
to the wing area.
3.. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People
will tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but
somehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well
and looks beautiful
4.. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated
the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel
type. The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and
look cool), but if they were light race cars would still be running
them.
5.. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
fuselage
6.. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to
take advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra
weight. Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except
balsa.
7.. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
8.. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much
more difficult to use
9.. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium
weight that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but
it requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever
the Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane
paint (60 lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the
lightweight fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of
(595 lbs).
10.. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You
might suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that
went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
airframe, so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight.
However, I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage,
wings and tail after painting and realized how much that polyurethane
with its nice glossy finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I
wanted to re-cover and repaint the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs
than to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year -
unfortunately, I've lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and
have a couple of questions.
I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight
for the plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross
was at somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the
Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this
bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy
tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit
plane :o\
Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder
based on having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder
registers it with the FAA...
Thanks for the clairification and help!
Mark
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06/04/09 05:53:00
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 |
|
Jack, I will see you in brodhead next month. Piet is not ready yet but close.
I lost your paper on the transponder install. I am ready for it now. Do I need
an encoder too? By the way, How much does a 0-200 weigh with starter and alternator.
My corvair is at 240 lbs. My last weight check was 751 lbs. It's probably
a little higher since I had to rebuild the center section gas tank which
hold 19 gallons(aluminium this time). Cheers, Gardiner Mason PS You would'nt
have to fly over all those mountainous trees if you flew down this way and then
to brodhead. I would like for you to see my project and I know the big piet
builders would like to see you too.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>
> Extra power would be a good thing but bigger engines add weight, too. The
> Corvair engine is significantly heavier than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and
> far less reliable.
>
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
>
> Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
> weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not
> sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some
> searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see
> why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.
>
>
>
> Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That might
> make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance at
> church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
> That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it
> would be worth the try.
>
>
>
> While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP corvair
> engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
> higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit
> planes websites..)...
>
>
>
> So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP be
> enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
> :o/
>
>
>
> Mark Roberts
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
>
>
> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer your
> questions:
>
>
>
> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If you
> want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you. I
> believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as a two
> seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in the 600 -
> 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a useful
> amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255) and your
> wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage,
> no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane
> will fly well at that weight.
>
>
>
> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a number
> of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having comfortable seats,
> and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read than the
> ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew with full
> fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by myself
> and full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies
> very well.
>
>
>
> Empty Wt 745
>
> Full Fuel 90
>
> Me 200
>
> Wife 160
>
> Total - 1195
>
>
>
> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
> withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is really
> pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it feels
> very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
> passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately, that
> tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
>
>
>
> If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs here),
> then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can give you
> some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
>
>
>
> 1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
> requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more
> money.
> 2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
> with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will
> weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the
> wing area.
> 3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People will
> tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike
> Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks
> beautiful
> 4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated the
> Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel type.
> The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and look cool),
> but if they were light race cars would still be running them.
> 5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
> fuselage
> 6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
> heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take
> advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
> Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
> 7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
> 8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more
> difficult to use
> 9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
> that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but it
> requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever the
> Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane paint (60
> lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight
> fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
> 10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
> in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You might
> suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
>
>
>
> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that went on
> my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the airframe,
> so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I was more
> than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail after
> painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy finish
> cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint
> the entire airplane.
>
>
>
> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs than
> to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year - unfortunately, I've
> lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>
>
>
> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: <mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
>
> Hey All:
>
>
>
> I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a
> couple of questions.
>
>
>
> I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the
> plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at
> somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs,
> and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb
> wife and an over night bag...
>
>
>
> May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but
> crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
>
>
>
> Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on
> having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it
> with the FAA...
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clairification and help!
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Jack and Mark,
Here is a snip from Williams Flycorvair.com website.
A Corvair motor ready to fly with electric start and alternator weighs about 225
lbs. with oil in it. A hand prop 65 Continental is 35 or 40 lbs. less than this.
A C-85 is about the same, if it is a -8 hand prop engine. The -12 C-85 with
a full electrical system weighs virtually the same as an O-200 or Corvair.
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
On Jun 5, 2009, pietflyr@bellsouth.net wrote:
Mark,
Adding length to the wing will definitely change the loading on the spars.
Such a change needs to be analyzed thoroughly before doing it. It would be
prudent to move the lift strut attach point to the center of the wing panel
to keep the loads balanced (and the plane would look a bit odd if the struts
didn't go out to at least the center of the panel).
As for the reliability of Continentals versus Corvairs, I don't recall a
spate of Continentals breaking crankshafts in recent years. Of course, this
gets well into the range of opinions, but I don't much care for auto engine
conversions in aircraft, regardless of Bernard's views. The design mission
is just too different. A comment was made that an O-200 weighs 245 lbs with
accessories. I don't think that is true. Dry weight of the engine is 170
lbs, without accessories, which is within a couple of pounds of what an A65
Continental weighs, and a good 35 lbs less than a Corvair without a starter
or generator (according to William Wynne's website).
This is not to disparage those who choose to put Corvairs into their
Pietenpols. I admire their ambition and drive, in keeping with Experimental
Aircraft. I just live in part of the country that is not very pleasant for
forced landings. If I lived and flew in the midwest, where the biggest
problem in a forced landing is choosing which of a dozen good fields to land
in, my views might be different.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
questions...).
I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
think:
Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
the spar's strength?
Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
further out to equalize the load a bit more?
I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
will buy me more gross weight capacity.
However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
Continental that's rebuilt...
Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
Mark
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Thanks Jack. It reinforces my view that building a plane requires
about as many hours in research as it does in construction time...
Mark
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Jack Phillips<pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Adding length to the wing will definitely change the loading on the spars.
> Such a change needs to be analyzed thoroughly before doing it. It would be
> prudent to move the lift strut attach point to the center of the wing panel
> to keep the loads balanced (and the plane would look a bit odd if the struts
> didn't go out to at least the center of the panel).
>
> As for the reliability of Continentals versus Corvairs, I don't recall a
> spate of Continentals breaking crankshafts in recent years. Of course, this
> gets well into the range of opinions, but I don't much care for auto engine
> conversions in aircraft, regardless of Bernard's views. The design mission
> is just too different. A comment was made that an O-200 weighs 245 lbs with
> accessories. I don't think that is true. Dry weight of the engine is 170
> lbs, without accessories, which is within a couple of pounds of what an A65
> Continental weighs, and a good 35 lbs less than a Corvair without a starter
> or generator (according to William Wynne's website).
>
> This is not to disparage those who choose to put Corvairs into their
> Pietenpols. I admire their ambition and drive, in keeping with Experimental
> Aircraft. I just live in part of the country that is not very pleasant for
> forced landings. If I lived and flew in the midwest, where the biggest
> problem in a forced landing is choosing which of a dozen good fields to land
> in, my views might be different.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:28 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
>
> Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
>
> Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
> what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
> another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
> when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
> when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
> to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
> to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
> questions...).
> I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
> cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
> I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
> the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
> think:
>
> Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
> considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
> all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
> While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
> the spar's strength?
>
> Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
> further out to equalize the load a bit more?
>
> I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
> but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
> in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
> weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
> more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
> will buy me more gross weight capacity.
>
> However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
> saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
> Continental that's rebuilt...
>
>
> Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
> at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
> training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
> in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
> all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
> make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
> frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
> from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
> in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
> a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
> experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
> and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
> have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
> now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
> not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
>
> Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
> anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
> or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
> medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
> changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
>
> At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
> began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
> about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
> wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
>
> Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
>
> Mark
>
>
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Jack and Mark,
Here is the URL of 0-200 test by William Wynne. It is under the HP, Torque, Thrust
heading if you go to the Flycorvair.com website.
For me it was very interesting reading (especially at first when not really familiar
with the Corvair) and did dispel some myths about the 0-200.
http://www.flycorvair.com/thrust.html
Thanks,
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
On Jun 4, 2009, pietflyr@bellsouth.net wrote:
Extra power would be a good thing but
bigger engines add weight, too. The Corvair engine is significantly heavier
than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and far less reliable.
Jack
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13
PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not sure
what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some searching
on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why, as builders
post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance
at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it would
be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit planes
websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
:o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
<pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. Ill try to
answer your questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you
desire. If you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can
stop you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh
in the 600 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you
add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You
(255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with
NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty
weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There
are a number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel they are easier for me
to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that
if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at
gross. With me by myself and full fuel, Im pretty close to that 1050
figure, and the plane flies very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full
Fuel 90
Me
200
Wife
160
Total -
1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 Gs (3.2 Gs with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
really pushing it for this airplane. Ive flown it at that weight, but it
feels very heavy and wont climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runways too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you dont want to lose some weight (and were not talking 5 lbs
here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can
give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
Dont make the fuselage any
wider. Every inch of extra width requires more spruce, more plywood,
more fabric, and more paint. And more money.
Add about 4 to 6 feet to the
wingspan. That would put it on par with a Piper Cub, and would
decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will weigh a bit more but
will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the wing area.
Build the standard fuselage
not the Long fuselage. People will tell you you cant put a
Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and
his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks beautiful
Build the Improved (dont say
Cub-Style, since it predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not
the straight axle wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and
wire wheels are very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race
cars would still be running them.
The steel tube fuselage is
considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
Build with sitka
spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but heavier. If you
use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take advantage of
the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight. Spruce has
the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
Use mahogany instead of birch
plywood.
Use Resorcinol instead of
T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more difficult to use
Use lightweight (uncertified)
dacron fabric, not the medium weight that everyone says you need not
only is the fabric lighter, but it requires less coating material (whether
dope, polybrush or whatever the Stewart System uses). For Heavens
sake, dont use polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my planes 745 lbs are in
paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane
is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
Obviously, avoid adding radios,
electrical systems, starters, in-flight movies, de-icing boots and
retractable landing gear. You might suggest your wife fly naked
ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
that went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
airframe, so I wasnt totally surprised by my high empty weight. However,
I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail
after painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy
finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and
repaint the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
lbs than to do all these things. Ive lost 75 lbs this year
unfortunately, Ive lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been
looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a couple of questions.
I would like to
have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane. I think I
saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere around 1050.
I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I
want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
May be a great
reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna
spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross
weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on having a
corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it with the FAA...
Thanks for the
clairification and help!
Mark
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Re: Pfeifer Sport plans |
Been away for a while, and have obviously missed something. Pfeifer
Sport plans? What is the Pfeifer sport? Google doesn't know, so I
have to ask.
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: | Corvair Engine Donation |
Hello all,
I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers) which is
in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and conversion, when I
had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65. Before I list it on Craig's
List (just to get it out of the shop), I would like to donate it to a fellow
Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group building a Pietenpol. I also have
several WW conversion parts and manuals I will throw in. If interested, feel
free to drop me an email off line: chase143@aol.com
See you at Brodhead!
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
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 |
|
Alan Lycars wrote:
Time: 07:54:12 PM PST US
From: "ALAN LYSCARS" <alyscars@myfairpoint.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
Mark..
Please don't worry about "rehashing" on this List. We've all been new
to this at one point in time, and I know you'll find these fellows to be
a most patient lot. And, after all, there's no such thing as stupid
questions.
Al
-------------------
Al, there IS such a thing as a stupid question. It's the one that you didn't ask
that in hindsight you should have asked. Valuable information not gathered
is another thing that should be on the list of things that are useless to a
pilot...
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
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: Corvair Engine Donation |
Good for you Steve; I don't need the engine but it gives me a good feeling to see
people who aren't greedy for a buck. I'm sure someone will be most grateful
to get the engine.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247002#247002
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Engine Donation |
That will be gone fast! A very generous offer, indeed.
Do not archive
Wayne Bressler Jr.
Taildraggers, Inc.
taildraggersinc.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2009, at 4:30 PM, "chase143" <chase143@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial
> numbers) which is in good shape. I started taking it apart for
> cleaning and conversion, when I had a change of heart. I am now
> going with an A65. Before I list it on Craig's List (just to get it
> out of the shop), I would like to donate it to a fellow Pietenpol
> Builder, or perhaps a school/group building a Pietenpol. I also have
> several WW conversion parts and manuals I will throw in. If
> interested, feel free to drop me an email off line: chase143@aol.com
>
> See you at Brodhead!
>
> Steve
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Engine Donation |
Wish I was a little closer, it's a long way to Georgia. The first Corvair I
built runs great and am about ready to build another one.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Will42
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 5:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair Engine Donation
Good for you Steve; I don't need the engine but it gives me a good feeling
to see people who aren't greedy for a buck. I'm sure someone will be most
grateful to get the engine.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247002#247002
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: | Re: Corvair Engine Donation |
Steve,
Very generous of you.
It shows the type of people on this list.
PS I have a tach I want to give away
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "chase143" <chase143@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
>
> Hello all,
> I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers)
> which is in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and
> conversion, when I had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65.
> Before I list it on Craig's List (just to get it out of the shop), I would
> like to donate it to a fellow Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group
> building a Pietenpol. I also have several WW conversion parts and manuals
> I will throw in. If interested, feel free to drop me an email off line:
> chase143@aol.com
>
> See you at Brodhead!
>
> Steve
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
>
>
>
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: | Re: Corvair Engine Donation |
I have a project the needs a each among many other things
John
------Original Message------
From: walt
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Sent: Jun 5, 2009 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
Steve,
Very generous of you.
It shows the type of people on this list.
PS I have a tach I want to give away
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "chase143" <chase143@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
>
> Hello all,
> I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers)
> which is in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and
> conversion, when I had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65.
> Before I list it on Craig's List (just to get it out of the shop), I would
> like to donate it to a fellow Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group
> building a Pietenpol. I also have several WW conversion parts and manuals
> I will throw in. If interested, feel free to drop me an email off line:
> chase143@aol.com
>
> See you at Brodhead!
>
> Steve
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
>
>
>
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
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: | Re: Corvair Engine Donation |
Hey Steve
That's a great offer I am camping in assateague, just arrived for this weekend.
Where are you?
John
------Original Message------
From: chase143
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Sent: Jun 5, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
Hello all,
I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers) which is
in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and conversion, when I
had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65. Before I list it on Craig's
List (just to get it out of the shop), I would like to donate it to a fellow
Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group building a Pietenpol. I also have
several WW conversion parts and manuals I will throw in. If interested, feel
free to drop me an email off line: chase143@aol.com
See you at Brodhead!
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
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: | Corvair Engine Donation |
Steve / Walt,
Good karma...but for some reason I just thought of a sign I saw behind the
bar, "FREE BEER TOMORROW."
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(13 ribs down.)
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of walt
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
Steve,
Very generous of you.
It shows the type of people on this list.
PS I have a tach I want to give away
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "chase143" <chase143@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine Donation
>
> Hello all,
> I have a corvair engine in Southern Maryland (desirable serial numbers)
> which is in good shape. I started taking it apart for cleaning and
> conversion, when I had a change of heart. I am now going with an A65.
> Before I list it on Craig's List (just to get it out of the shop), I would
> like to donate it to a fellow Pietenpol Builder, or perhaps a school/group
> building a Pietenpol. I also have several WW conversion parts and manuals
> I will throw in. If interested, feel free to drop me an email off line:
> chase143@aol.com
>
> See you at Brodhead!
>
> Steve
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246993#246993
>
>
>
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 |
|
Fellow Pietephiles:
As Brodhead, that other flyin in Wisconsin and the 80th Celebration
fast approach, I have started to design my T-Shirts which the "Bratmen
of Brodhead" will be sporting this year. I thought I would take a stab
at another design or two for the masses. Let me know if there is any
interest and I will put them up on CafePress and you can order as many
as you want to wear. Also I can customize the photo in the middle
pretty easily if you don't like Mike Cuy. I actually think he is okay
considering he is one of my greatest friends. Let me know what you
think or contact me off list at johnnyskyrocket@me.com
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
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: | Re: Corvair Engine Donation |
No, the beer was free today (lol), but now its gone. Thanks all, but a gentleman
in VA (pretty close by), spoke up first. Looks like he is building a Zenith
601 AND a Pietenpol. And I thought I was busy with a Piet and an RV-8. Anyway,
glad to help and donate to the spirit of aircraft building. I could never repay
everyone for the great advice I get on this forum. Everyone keep up the great
work.
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247031#247031
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 |
|
| Subject: | Time Sert, Corvair advise |
Group, Well today we got the annual done on NX92GB after a month of strung
out work.- It was almost ready 2 weeks ago untill a sparkplug thread stri
pped out.- For all you building Corvair engines, take this warning: Insta
ll Time Sert threaded inserts (google time sert for there web page and info
)-in all your sparkplug holes before installing heads!!!!!!!!- If you b
ought a set of heads from Falcon or Wynne they are probably in there alread
y.- Nothing worse than getting ready for test runs and then having to tak
e the stupid head off to fix threads in- a spark plug hole, order parts e
tc, and other advise is DO NOT USE HELICOILS!- I know helicoils have been
used forever, but we lost a crank in part to a bad helicoil that worked do
wn into the combustion chamber and caused detonation.- As far as my exper
iance with Corvairs in our airplane yes we have had our problems, but I hav
e seen people with "Real" airplane engines have just as many headaches.-
Stay informed with other fellow corvair, or VW or whatever conversion, bui
lders and keep tabs on others problems, and successes, so you will know wha
t to look out for so you prevent failures.- Certified aircraft engine pil
ots have the luxury, (or headache) of faa issued A.D.'s to keep failures fr
om hapening, or cause them- to spend huge $$$$$$$ for something that may
or may not be a problem.- If you build a Corvair, chances are yes you wil
l have to tinker a bit with your engine from time to time, but the parts yo
u will have to buy are far less expensive than there fellow aircraft engine
parts.- Depending on what day of the week it is, my preferance between C
ontinental, Lycoming, or Corvair does change, but since we have worked thro
ugh the big problems, and learned an enormous amount about engines in gener
al, overall I am having fun flying (and maintaining)-the Corvair.
-
Hope to see you all at Brodhead!!
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Time Sert, Corvair advise |
I really think the answer to all this "what's the best engine", is to
decide what engine you will feel the safest behind. After all, that's
what supposed to keep your Piet (and you) in the air. If a rubber
band engine makes you feel safe, go for it. The advice I'd give is
don't believe everything any engine builder tells you. Remember, their
trying to sell you something and history tells us that salesman tend to
lie, or at the very least, exaggerate. When we talk about how expensive
replacement parts are, keep in mind how expensive reconstructive surgery
is, after an airplane accident.
It's best to worry about things while your on the ground, so you don't
have to worry about them while your in the air.
The only thing worse than being on the ground on a nice day, looking up
into the sky and saying "Oh, I wish I was up there", is being up there
and looking down, during an emergency, and saying, "Oh, I wish I was
down there!".
Gene, in Sunny, Beautiful Tennessee
----- Original Message -----
From: shad bell
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Time Sert, Corvair advise
Group, Well today we got the annual done on NX92GB after a month
of strung out work. It was almost ready 2 weeks ago untill a sparkplug
thread stripped out. For all you building Corvair engines, take this
warning: Install Time Sert threaded inserts (google time sert for there
web page and info) in all your sparkplug holes before installing
heads!!!!!!!! If you bought a set of heads from Falcon or Wynne they
are probably in there already. Nothing worse than getting ready for
test runs and then having to take the stupid head off to fix threads in
a spark plug hole, order parts etc, and other advise is DO NOT USE
HELICOILS! I know helicoils have been used forever, but we lost a crank
in part to a bad helicoil that worked down into the combustion chamber
and caused detonation. As far as my experiance with Corvairs in our
airplane yes we have had our problems, but I have seen people with
"Real" airplane engines have just as many headaches. Stay informed with
other fellow corvair, or VW or whatever conversion, builders and keep
tabs on others problems, and successes, so you will know what to look
out for so you prevent failures. Certified aircraft engine pilots have
the luxury, (or headache) of faa issued A.D.'s to keep failures from
hapening, or cause them to spend huge $$$$$$$ for something that may or
may not be a problem. If you build a Corvair, chances are yes you will
have to tinker a bit with your engine from time to time, but the parts
you will have to buy are far less expensive than there fellow aircraft
engine parts. Depending on what day of the week it is, my preferance
between Continental, Lycoming, or Corvair does change, but since we have
worked through the big problems, and learned an enormous amount about
engines in general, overall I am having fun flying (and maintaining) the
Corvair.
Hope to see you all at Brodhead!!
Shad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06/05/09 17:55:00
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: | Re: Corvair Engine Donation |
Way cool.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247044#247044
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: | Re: Corvair Engine Donation |
John,
Forgot to mention. We've camped at assateague before, beautiful. Just make sure
your food is secure or the wild horse will get into it, seriously. If you have
time, we are on the "mainland", 25 miles south of Annapolis. Feel free to stop
by and provide feedback on my fuselage progress. We will be at the antique
boat show in Rock Hall sometime over the weekend. Give us a try. cell 240-678-8371
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247051#247051
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! --
|