Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:04 AM - Re: aluminum paint prep (shad bell)
2. 06:11 AM - Christmas in late June (Lawrence Williams)
3. 08:02 AM - Re: Christmas in late June (899PM)
4. 08:23 AM - Re: Christmas in late June (Mark Roberts)
5. 08:41 AM - Re: Re: Christmas in late June (Mark Roberts)
6. 08:51 AM - Re: Christmas in late June (Ryan Mueller)
7. 08:52 AM - Waxing on about Community... (Mark Roberts)
8. 09:11 AM - Re: Christmas in late June (Mark Roberts)
9. 09:27 AM - Re: Re: Oscar's engine mount lengthening-- 2 3/4" further forward than plans (Jim)
10. 09:48 AM - Re: aluminum paint prep (Tim Willis)
11. 09:55 AM - Re: Waxing on about Community... (Ameet Savant)
12. 10:07 AM - Re: Christmas in late June (Kip and Beth Gardner)
13. 10:46 AM - Re: Christmas in late June (Ryan Mueller)
14. 11:09 AM - Fuse. longerons bending (Michael Perez)
15. 11:14 AM - Re: Christmas in late June (Tim Willis)
16. 11:33 AM - Re: Fuse. longerons bending (Gary Boothe)
17. 11:38 AM - Re: Fuse. longerons bending (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
18. 11:50 AM - Re: Fuse. longerons bending (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
19. 01:09 PM - Re: Fuse. longerons bending (Bill Church)
20. 01:37 PM - Re: Fuse. longerons bending (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
21. 01:44 PM - Re: Passenger Door (womenfly2)
22. 02:11 PM - Re: Fuse. longerons bending (Dave Abramson)
23. 02:11 PM - Re: Christmas in late June (Jack Phillips)
24. 02:14 PM - Re: Fuse. longerons bending (Jack Phillips)
25. 02:20 PM - Re: Christmas in late June (Jack Phillips)
26. 02:40 PM - Re: Fuse. longerons bending (Bill Church)
27. 03:15 PM - Prop install (skellytown flyer)
28. 03:43 PM - Re: Prop install (Barry Davis)
29. 03:55 PM - Re: Christmas in late June (Mark Roberts)
30. 04:21 PM - Re: Christmas in late June (helspersew@aol.com)
31. 06:19 PM - Re: aluminum paint prep (Lloyd Smith)
32. 07:33 PM - seeing the instruments (Oscar Zuniga)
33. 08:03 PM - Re: seeing the instruments (H RULE)
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: aluminum paint prep |
I would recomend alumiprep, and alodine 1201 as prep work for your aluminum
.- If you cant get it localy or don't want to buy it, then at- least sc
uff it with scotch brite to take off the shine, and use an etch primer (aut
omotive). And clean it very well!! wear gloves prior to picking it up after
cleaning, your oily skin will keep paint from sticking.- That should giv
e you a good "bite" for your top coats of color
--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> wrote:
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: aluminum paint prep
link.net>
Hey,
I'm getting ready to paint my cowling.- I know I need to etch aluminum pr
ior
to priming but can I leave it shiney or do I need to lightly sand it to
scuff it up and give it some tooth?
Douwe
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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: | Christmas in late June |
To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify the plans
and build a good airplane but if you build to the plans, you'll have a gre
at one." ie. Don't dribble way your time and talent trying to reinvent some
thing. You've chosen to build a genuine, old-timey flying machine so, just
DO IT!
-
Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of getting of
f the ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some have bastardized it
into a role for which it was never intended and then wonder why their 850#
hulk is no fun to fly. Sure, they can twist a key to start it, talk to ATC
and fly (legally) after dark but so can a spam can. The point has been mis
sed and the soul has been taken out of it.
-
Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be really, rea
lly sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put it on. There will be
a boatload-of your own ideas and solutions incorporated into "your" airp
lane as you build it without you having to pre-engineer things before you h
ave even had a chance to get intimate with the plans.
-
I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set of plan
s for an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat it like the pi
ece of Americana that it is and keep it true to it's roots. Isn't that what
attracted you to it in the first place?
-
Larry
counting down from 25 days to go=0A=0A=0A
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: Christmas in late June |
Mark,
It's your creation, build it anyway you want.
I'll echo previous comments....to a point. Do be very cautious about major changes.
I've been around Piets long enough to know that it IS the plans built or
very close to plans build planes that come out light and fly well. As an engineer,
its in my blood to make changes, tweaks, mods, improvements. etc.....I made
a lot of minor changes early on in the building process that I have since gone
back and "corrected" to plans. Some I kept. The one major change that I have
no regrets about is widening the fuse 2" and deepening it by 3" between the
pits. You have to think long term about the effect the changes will have on other
assemblies. Deepening the fuse made changes in the gear dims a necessity,
no big deal.... I wanted to move the axle forward a few inches anyway. I fixtured
the axle in location(in space) and cut gear tubes to suit. Don't make any
particular process any more complex than the simple (end result) solution that
suits. Deepening the fuse affected the lift struts as well, again no big deal.
I will hang the wings on the center section, brace the locations and measure
for struts. Don't procrastinate like I did trying to draw out the entire ship
in CAD. Spend that time studying the plans and building wing ribs. I have studied
the plans for nearly ten years now...to the point that they have nearly
become soft tissue....EVERY time I get them out I see something new or something
dawns on me as to intent.
If you are after a plane that looks, flies and smells like a 1930's era ship, then
you chose the best! If not.....well, there are lots of others to look at.
--------
PAPA MIKE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250753#250753
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Christmas in late June |
Larry:
I agree with you 100% in regards to the changing of the plans to modify the
plane into something it was never intended to be. In fact, one of the things
that drew me to the plane was it's simplicity.
The reason for my mentioning modifications is I was looking at widening the
fuse a bit to fit my frame (6'4", currently 250 lbs and losing) and I'd like
to see what a 26" wide fuse would do to the design parameters of the build.
What parts would need modification and what sizes they'd be. I also read
somewhere about making the fuse about 2" deeper, but I don't know if that is
something I will try... I am tall, and I'd like to fit better in the plane
to enjoy the experience of flying it when I finish, but re-designing a
perfectly good airframe is not my expertise.
I appreciate your advice, as I agree with the principle behind it whole
heartedly.
Mark
Waiting on $$ now for wood :oD
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Lawrence Williams <lnawms@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify the plans
> and build a good airplane but if you build to the plans, you'll have a great
> one." ie. Don't dribble way your time and talent trying to reinvent
> something. You've chosen to build a genuine, old-timey flying machine so,
> just DO IT!
>
> Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of getting
> off the ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some have bastardized
> it into a role for which it was never intended and then wonder why their
> 850# hulk is no fun to fly. Sure, they can twist a key to start it, talk to
> ATC and fly (legally) after dark but so can a spam can. The point has been
> missed and the soul has been taken out of it.
>
> Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be really,
> really sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put it on. There will
> be a boatload of your own ideas and solutions incorporated into "your"
> airplane as you build it without you having to pre-engineer things before
> you have even had a chance to get intimate with the plans.
>
> I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set of
> plans for an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat it like the
> piece of Americana that it is and keep it true to it's roots. Isn't that
> what attracted you to it in the first place?
>
> Larry
> counting down from 25 days to go
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Christmas in late June |
Hey Papa Mike:
I just replied to Larry and echoed your post. I have read enough on the
thread now to know that mod's to the plane, especially by a rank amature
(hey! I got 44 years of building MODEL airplanes :o) is not the plane I
want. The only mod's to the airframe that I am wanting to see, is what the
additional 2" or so in fuse width at the seats will do to the other
dimensions. I also am curious about the additional depth to the fuse at the
pilot's seat, as I am 6'4" and don't know if the fuse is deep enough.
As to the MAIN reason I am building in CAD first, I need to save some $$ for
the first wood and glue purchase. I will be building almost entirely in
Poplar, and I can get enough to get most of the fuse done for about $100
here locally. I will need to plane it down my self, and cut it into sticks
but that's part of the fun! I plan to use certified Spruce for the spars
when I get that far, but I think the rest will be poplar.
Other than that I don't want to change anything (well, maybe the front
passenger door I saw on Mike and Victor Groah's plane... THAT was very
nice...)
Thanks for the advice!
Mark
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:00 AM, 899PM <rockriverrifle@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> It's your creation, build it anyway you want.
>
> I'll echo previous comments....to a point. Do be very cautious about major
> changes. I've been around Piets long enough to know that it IS the plans
> built or very close to plans build planes that come out light and fly well.
> As an engineer, its in my blood to make changes, tweaks, mods, improvements.
> etc.....I made a lot of minor changes early on in the building process that
> I have since gone back and "corrected" to plans. Some I kept. The one major
> change that I have no regrets about is widening the fuse 2" and deepening it
> by 3" between the pits. You have to think long term about the effect the
> changes will have on other assemblies. Deepening the fuse made changes in
> the gear dims a necessity, no big deal.... I wanted to move the axle forward
> a few inches anyway. I fixtured the axle in location(in space) and cut gear
> tubes to suit. Don't make any particular process any more complex than the
> simple (end result) solution that suits. Deepening the fuse affected the
> lift struts!
> as well, again no big deal. I will hang the wings on the center section,
> brace the locations and measure for struts. Don't procrastinate like I did
> trying to draw out the entire ship in CAD. Spend that time studying the
> plans and building wing ribs. I have studied the plans for nearly ten years
> now...to the point that they have nearly become soft tissue....EVERY time I
> get them out I see something new or something dawns on me as to intent.
>
> If you are after a plane that looks, flies and smells like a 1930's era
> ship, then you chose the best! If not.....well, there are lots of others to
> look at.
>
> --------
> PAPA MIKE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250753#250753
>
>
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: Christmas in late June |
Mark,
The thing to do before worrying about modifying the design by making it
either wider or deeper would be to try a Piet on for size. Per your height,
you would probably want to look at the Corvair/Continental "long fuselage".
You could either build a mockup out of whatever wood you have lying about,
or better yet just find another builder/owner that has a completed fuselage
or flying airplane. I'm sure someone out there on the Left Coast would let
you sit in their Piet, for nothing more than an adult beverage or two.
Either way, I would find out if fit is going to be an issue before you
embark upon the add'l changes, expense, and weight that such mods would
incur.
Ryan
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>wrote:
> Larry:
> I agree with you 100% in regards to the changing of the plans to modify the
> plane into something it was never intended to be. In fact, one of the things
> that drew me to the plane was it's simplicity.
>
> The reason for my mentioning modifications is I was looking at widening the
> fuse a bit to fit my frame (6'4", currently 250 lbs and losing) and I'd like
> to see what a 26" wide fuse would do to the design parameters of the build.
> What parts would need modification and what sizes they'd be. I also read
> somewhere about making the fuse about 2" deeper, but I don't know if that is
> something I will try... I am tall, and I'd like to fit better in the plane
> to enjoy the experience of flying it when I finish, but re-designing a
> perfectly good airframe is not my expertise.
>
> I appreciate your advice, as I agree with the principle behind it whole
> heartedly.
>
> Mark
> Waiting on $$ now for wood :oD
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Lawrence Williams <lnawms@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify the
>> plans and build a good airplane but if you build to the plans, you'll have a
>> great one." ie. Don't dribble way your time and talent trying to reinvent
>> something. You've chosen to build a genuine, old-timey flying machine so,
>> just DO IT!
>>
>> Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of getting
>> off the ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some have bastardized
>> it into a role for which it was never intended and then wonder why their
>> 850# hulk is no fun to fly. Sure, they can twist a key to start it, talk to
>> ATC and fly (legally) after dark but so can a spam can. The point has been
>> missed and the soul has been taken out of it.
>>
>> Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be really,
>> really sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put it on. There will
>> be a boatload of your own ideas and solutions incorporated into "your"
>> airplane as you build it without you having to pre-engineer things before
>> you have even had a chance to get intimate with the plans.
>>
>> I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set of
>> plans for an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat it like the
>> piece of Americana that it is and keep it true to it's roots. Isn't that
>> what attracted you to it in the first place?
>>
>> Larry
>> counting down from 25 days to go
>>
>
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: | Waxing on about Community... |
Pieters:
As of now, I am only about 30 days or so into this particular obsession in
my life. At 48 and a half (when did we stop counting the 1/2's?) I have had
a few, but this is one I have wanted to make the plunge into for a very
several years. Over the brief 43 of those years (my first airplane ride
which hooked me was when I was 5) I have wanted to build an airplane, and
even did at 6 out of a radio flyer wagon and a 1 x 8 plank I put across it
for a wing, and a 2 x 4 with plywood for a tail group. My Dad refused to tow
me down the road to get 'airspeed' to test the design, which frustrated me
to no end.
I know like many of you, I looked for a long time and even bought plans for
other designs before eventually returning to the Piet for reasons I've
posted before.
But here is the reason for my diatribe today: In the last 30 day's, I've see
someone GIVE away a Corvair engine, and also, Spruce Wood for wings to
whomever replied to the email first. Offered to a bunch of people that many
here will never meet face to face due to distance and economics, but still
offered and connected due to community.
Like you, I've been a member of other lists, groups and clubs, but this
bunch does seem to share some of that sense of community that, as Mr.
Pietenpol is said to have done, would warm up their engine when someone
needed to be flown to the hospital in bad weather.
* *I was the lucky recipient of the spruce wing stock that Jim offered up.
That will actually allow me to start my project.
I just wonder if the attraction of the design draws people that share the
1930's value system of helping others as well. Certainly seems so.
Mark
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: Christmas in late June |
Good point. I have already been to Mike Groah's shop and saw his Piet in
progress, and sat in the seat. It is indeed too small for my shoulders,
although not overly so. But as long as i am going to be building from
scratch, I'd like to widen it up a bit...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The thing to do before worrying about modifying the design by making it
> either wider or deeper would be to try a Piet on for size. Per your height,
> you would probably want to look at the Corvair/Continental "long fuselage".
> You could either build a mockup out of whatever wood you have lying about,
> or better yet just find another builder/owner that has a completed fuselage
> or flying airplane. I'm sure someone out there on the Left Coast would let
> you sit in their Piet, for nothing more than an adult beverage or two.
> Either way, I would find out if fit is going to be an issue before you
> embark upon the add'l changes, expense, and weight that such mods would
> incur.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Larry:
>> I agree with you 100% in regards to the changing of the plans to modify
>> the plane into something it was never intended to be. In fact, one of the
>> things that drew me to the plane was it's simplicity.
>>
>> The reason for my mentioning modifications is I was looking at widening
>> the fuse a bit to fit my frame (6'4", currently 250 lbs and losing) and I'd
>> like to see what a 26" wide fuse would do to the design parameters of the
>> build. What parts would need modification and what sizes they'd be. I also
>> read somewhere about making the fuse about 2" deeper, but I don't know if
>> that is something I will try... I am tall, and I'd like to fit better in the
>> plane to enjoy the experience of flying it when I finish, but re-designing a
>> perfectly good airframe is not my expertise.
>>
>> I appreciate your advice, as I agree with the principle behind it whole
>> heartedly.
>>
>> Mark
>> Waiting on $$ now for wood :oD
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Lawrence Williams <lnawms@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>>> To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify the
>>> plans and build a good airplane but if you build to the plans, you'll have
a
>>> great one." ie. Don't dribble way your time and talent trying to reinvent
>>> something. You've chosen to build a genuine, old-timey flying machine so,
>>> just DO IT!
>>>
>>> Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of getting
>>> off the ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some have bastardized
>>> it into a role for which it was never intended and then wonder why their
>>> 850# hulk is no fun to fly. Sure, they can twist a key to start it, talk to
>>> ATC and fly (legally) after dark but so can a spam can. The point has been
>>> missed and the soul has been taken out of it.
>>>
>>> Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be really,
>>> really sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put it on. There will
>>> be a boatload of your own ideas and solutions incorporated into "your"
>>> airplane as you build it without you having to pre-engineer things before
>>> you have even had a chance to get intimate with the plans.
>>>
>>> I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set of
>>> plans for an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat it like the
>>> piece of Americana that it is and keep it true to it's roots. Isn't that
>>> what attracted you to it in the first place?
>>>
>>> Larry
>>> counting down from 25 days to go
>>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | Re: Oscar's engine mount lengthening-- 2 3/4" further |
forward than plans
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
Pietenpol builder with Corvair
Hi John,
If I had it to do over I would move the rear instrument panel forward by 2 or 3
inches and recline the rear seat back. This will give much needed room in the
rear cockpit, a more comfortable cockpit and put the instrument panel where it
can be seen without using tri-focals.
And I don't even have mine ready to fly yet!!!!! but its getting ever closer.
Jim
On Jun 29, 2009, jfay1950@gmail.com wrote:
What we have done on our piets, (my partner Dave and I) is move the corvairs we
are planning to use 4 inches forward. But we are doing it by moving the firewall
four inches ahead of where the plans have it, thus extending the front cockpit
legroom by four inches, and also expanding the luggage compartment we are
building over the passenger's legs.
But we have only built the sides of the fuselages, and have not assembled them,
so we have no idea if this will be a success or might cause some unforeseen problems.
John Fay
in Peoria
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: aluminum paint prep |
Shad, is that either alumiprep OR alodine 1201?
Also, I have always heard to start before the aluminum treatment products with
a good scrubbing with water and Dawn dishwashing liquid, to remove any grease
or film from the Al. rolling plant, etc.
I am not yet at the aluminum stage, but want to be, and am getting closer.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: shad bell
Sent: Jun 30, 2009 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aluminum paint prep
I would recomend alumiprep, and alodine 1201 as prep work for your aluminum. If
you cant get it localy or don't want to buy it, then at least scuff it with
scotch brite to take off the shine, and use an etch primer (automotive). And
clean it very well!! wear gloves prior to picking it up after cleaning, your oily
skin will keep paint from sticking. That should give you a good "bite" for
your top coats of color
--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> wrote:
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: aluminum paint prep
Hey,
I'm getting ready to paint my cowling. I know I need to etch aluminum prior
to priming but can I leave it shiney or do I need to lightly sand it to
scuff it up and ww.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
_sp; --> ht= --> <A href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" ="=====
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: Waxing on about Community... |
My 2 cents on this:
I visited a local GN-1 builder/pilot before I joined the list. I tried the plane
on for size. We couldn't fly because she was going to get a new engine and he
hadn't taken her out of hibernation as it was barely Spring then.
Bob is one of the friendliest, most helpful guy I ever met. (Aren't all Bob's in
aviation great?) He said something that stuck with me- "You can build any airplane
you want, but you will not find better people than Pietenpol builders".
Now, he does not belong to this list. He completed his GN-1 some 30 years ago.
After I joined the list I was pleasantly surprised to see nothing has changed in
those 30 years. Pieters are still just as nice as they were before. Who wouldn't
want to belong to this group?
I hope to be at least 1/2 as nice and generous as others have been to me.
Keep up the good work!
Ameet Savant
Omaha, NE
--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Waxing on about Community...
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 10:47 AM
> Pieters:
> As of now, I am only about 30 days or so into
> this particular obsession in my life. At 48 and a half (when
> did we stop counting the 1/2's?) I have had a few, but
> this is one I have wanted to make the plunge into for a very
> several years. Over the brief 43 of those years (my first
> airplane ride which hooked me was when I was 5) I have
> wanted to build an airplane, and even did at 6 out of a
> radio flyer wagon and a 1 x 8 plank I put across it for a
> wing, and a 2 x 4 with plywood for a tail group. My Dad
> refused to tow me down the road to get 'airspeed' to
> test the design, which frustrated me to no end.
>
> I know like many of you, I looked for a long
> time and even bought plans for other designs before
> eventually returning to the Piet for reasons I've posted
> before.
> But here is the reason for my diatribe today: In
> the last 30 day's, I've see someone GIVE away a
> Corvair engine, and also, Spruce Wood for wings to whomever
> replied to the email first. Offered to a bunch of people
> that many here will never meet face to face due to distance
> and economics, but still offered and connected due to
> community.
>
> Like you, I've been a member of other lists,
> groups and clubs, but this bunch does seem to share some of
> that sense of community that, as Mr. Pietenpol is said to
> have done, would warm up their engine when someone needed to
> be flown to the hospital in bad weather.
>
> I was the luckyrecipientof
> thesprucewing stock that Jim offered up. That will
> actually allow me to start my project.
> I just wonder if the attraction of the design
> draws people that share the 1930's value system of
> helping others as well. Certainly seems so.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
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: Christmas in late June |
Mark,
Several folks on this list have widened the fuse by 2 inches (I think
Jack Phillips for one?) & can probably give you some advice on what's
involved. I seem to recall comments about the fact that widening
increases the material costs , as some pieces can no longer all be
cut from a single piece of 4 x 8 ply?
Kip Gardner
On Jun 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Good point. I have already been to Mike Groah's shop and saw his
> Piet in progress, and sat in the seat. It is indeed too small for
> my shoulders, although not overly so. But as long as i am going to
> be building from scratch, I'd like to widen it up a bit...
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Ryan Mueller
> <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The thing to do before worrying about modifying the design by
> making it either wider or deeper would be to try a Piet on for
> size. Per your height, you would probably want to look at the
> Corvair/Continental "long fuselage". You could either build a
> mockup out of whatever wood you have lying about, or better yet
> just find another builder/owner that has a completed fuselage or
> flying airplane. I'm sure someone out there on the Left Coast would
> let you sit in their Piet, for nothing more than an adult beverage
> or two. Either way, I would find out if fit is going to be an issue
> before you embark upon the add'l changes, expense, and weight that
> such mods would incur.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Mark Roberts
> <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Larry:
>
> I agree with you 100% in regards to the changing of the plans to
> modify the plane into something it was never intended to be. In
> fact, one of the things that drew me to the plane was it's simplicity.
>
> The reason for my mentioning modifications is I was looking at
> widening the fuse a bit to fit my frame (6'4", currently 250 lbs
> and losing) and I'd like to see what a 26" wide fuse would do to
> the design parameters of the build. What parts would need
> modification and what sizes they'd be. I also read somewhere about
> making the fuse about 2" deeper, but I don't know if that is
> something I will try... I am tall, and I'd like to fit better in
> the plane to enjoy the experience of flying it when I finish, but
> re-designing a perfectly good airframe is not my expertise.
>
> I appreciate your advice, as I agree with the principle behind it
> whole heartedly.
>
> Mark
> Waiting on $$ now for wood :oD
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Lawrence Williams
> <lnawms@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify
> the plans and build a good airplane but if you build to the plans,
> you'll have a great one." ie. Don't dribble way your time and
> talent trying to reinvent something. You've chosen to build a
> genuine, old-timey flying machine so, just DO IT!
>
> Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of
> getting off the ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some
> have bastardized it into a role for which it was never intended and
> then wonder why their 850# hulk is no fun to fly. Sure, they can
> twist a key to start it, talk to ATC and fly (legally) after dark
> but so can a spam can. The point has been missed and the soul has
> been taken out of it.
>
> Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be
> really, really sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put
> it on. There will be a boatload of your own ideas and solutions
> incorporated into "your" airplane as you build it without you
> having to pre-engineer things before you have even had a chance to
> get intimate with the plans.
>
> I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set
> of plans for an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat
> it like the piece of Americana that it is and keep it true to it's
> roots. Isn't that what attracted you to it in the first place?
>
> Larry
> counting down from 25 days to go
>
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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: Christmas in late June |
A good time to toss out the reminder that the Pietenpol list has searchable
archives located at: http://www.matronics.com/search. For example, a search
of the archives reveals the following message that Jack wrote back in Nov
'04:
-------------------------
A few thoughts on widening the fuselage. I did that on my Pietenpol, and if
I were to do it over I would still make it wider than plans. I widened mine
by 1", making it 25" wide. Mine is the long fuselage version. I'm 6'2" and
200 lbs and felt I needed the extra room in the cockpit. I have flown short
fuselage, standard width Piets, and they are just a little too tight for me.
There are downsides to widening it, though. They are:
1. Weight. Long fuselage Piets tend to be heavier than standrd length
Piets, most weighing in around 700 to 750 lbs according to Doc Mosher's
survey at Brodhead a few years ago. Making it wider adds more weight. Mine
weighs 735 lbs, which is a tad over 100 lbs heavier than Mike Cuy's. It
shows in its climb performance.
2. Cost. Ol' Bernard knew what he was doing, designing the plane to be as
economical as possible. the stand width allows a 48" sheet of plywood to be
plit lengthwise and make two pieces that will fitthe fuselage. Making it
any wider requires two sheets, with lots of waste.
3. Complexity. Widening the fuselage means the cabane struts are spaced
further apart, which requires modification to the wing. One little change
snowballs into several changes, rippling throughout the airframe. As I can
recall, those changes included:
a. Making the centersection spar longer (I went ahead and made mine 6"
longer to give me more fuel capacity)
b. Making the fuselage taller, to keep the proportions with the wider
fuselage (not a bad thing - it gives more room in the instrument panel)
Again, if I had it to do over, I would still make it wider. Just realize
there are downsides to it, most notably weight. Sure makes it nice on those
cold mornings when I have to wear a heavy leather jacket to fly it
comfortably, though.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
----------------------------------
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Kip and Beth Gardner <
kipandbeth@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mark,
> Several folks on this list have widened the fuse by 2 inches (I think Jack
> Phillips for one?) & can probably give you some advice on what's involved.
> I seem to recall comments about the fact that widening increases the
> material costs , as some pieces can no longer all be cut from a single piece
> of 4 x 8 ply?
>
> Kip Gardner
>
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: | Fuse. longerons bending |
>From what I gather, the longerons for the fuselage are bent in the jig dry.
(the curved bottom)- After the sides are built in the jig, has anyone ex
perienced the top longerons being pulled down by the bottom longerons as th
ey try to un-bend?
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: Christmas in late June |
Corky made the fuselage on my project 3 inches wider than plans, and it helps in
the shoulders and elbows, big time. I
am 6'1" and 260 lbs. I still had to widen and heighten the "shinholes" around
the passenger seat, and would have liked to have the fuze-- or least the instrument
panel-- two more inches taller. Corky can attest to my original fit problems
as we looked for mayonnaise or fiberglass release compound to get me out
of the cockpit.
Corky also made the center wing 36 inches wide. Whether with a cutout or a flipper,
the greater width allows the pilot's shoulder to clear the center wing stuff
better, getting in and out. I have seen one Piet that was 42" across the
center wing, and it cants out the cabanes quite a bit, but so what, if the hardware
is adapted, for it's another triangulation. And that could make space
for a great center wing tank.
BTW, I also have a short fuze Piet of standard build and my elbows will not fit
inside it, and my entire hand and wrist aligns inside where the instrument panel
would be. My oversize ass actually fits in it OK, but with the standard cutouts
around the passenger seat, my feet fit only without shoes, and the shins
hit, too. If I keep that fuze, I might build a single place Piet with more
leg room and baggage area, and a larger tank. Who knows... one project at a time.
As Jack says, you need enough room to fly the plane comfortably, and may thus have
to take some weight penalties. You may need more power than an A-65 or Model
A if you get the plane weight over 700 pounds. What engine do you plan?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Mueller
Sent: Jun 30, 2009 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
A good time to toss out the reminder that the Pietenpol list has searchable archives located at: http://www.matronics.com/search. For example, a search of the archives reveals the following message that Jack wrote back in Nov '04:
-------------------------
A few thoughts on widening the fuselage. I did that on my Pietenpol, and if
I were to do it over I would still make it wider than plans. I widened mine
by 1", making it 25" wide. Mine is the long fuselage version. I'm 6'2" and
200 lbs and felt I needed the extra room in the cockpit. I have flown short
fuselage, standard width Piets, and they are just a little too tight for me.
There are downsides to widening it, though. They are:
1. Weight. Long fuselage Piets tend to be heavier than standrd length
Piets, most weighing in around 700 to 750 lbs according to Doc Mosher's
survey at Brodhead a few years ago. Making it wider adds more weight. Mine
weighs 735 lbs, which is a tad over 100 lbs heavier than Mike Cuy's. It
shows in its climb performance.
2. Cost. Ol' Bernard knew what he was doing, designing the plane to be as
economical as possible. the stand width allows a 48" sheet of plywood to be
plit lengthwise and make two pieces that will fitthe fuselage. Making it
any wider requires two sheets, with lots of waste.
3. Complexity. Widening the fuselage means the cabane struts are spaced
further apart, which requires modification to the wing. One little change
snowballs into several changes, rippling throughout the airframe. As I can
recall, those changes included:
a. Making the centersection spar longer (I went ahead and made mine 6"
longer to give me more fuel capacity)
b. Making the fuselage taller, to keep the proportions with the wider
fuselage (not a bad thing - it gives more room in the instrument panel)
Again, if I had it to do over, I would still make it wider. Just realize
there are downsides to it, most notably weight. Sure makes it nice on those
cold mornings when I have to wear a heavy leather jacket to fly it
comfortably, though.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
----------------------------------
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Mark,
Several folks on this list have widened the fuse by 2 inches (I think Jack Phillips
for one?) & can probably give you some advice on what's involved. I seem
to recall comments about the fact that widening increases the material costs
, as some pieces can no longer all be cut from a single piece of 4 x 8 ply?
Kip Gardner
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: | Fuse. longerons bending |
Michael,
The bracing seems to be such that the lower longerons cannot pull the
straightness out of the uppers. You will find the whole process a
non-event,
taking less than =BD a day.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(13 ribs down=85)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:00 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuse. longerons bending
>From what I gather, the longerons for the fuselage are bent in the jig
dry.
(the curved bottom) After the sides are built in the jig, has anyone
experienced the top longerons being pulled down by the bottom longerons
as
they try to un-bend?
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: | Re: Fuse. longerons bending |
I have a 27 inch inside and 29" outside dimension that I carried from the
firewall to the back of the pilots seat and had no problems with dry bending
or changes to the upper longerons
John
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JunestepsfooterNO62)
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuse. longerons bending |
I would make 2 suggestions though:
First: Do not add gusset plates until after the bend. Before the bend on
the flat the gusset plates keep the structure rigid and work against you as a
force to try to over come. Adding them after the bend is made , they work
to hold the new shape and help to reduce the opposing forces reducing the
tension.
Second; I found doing the tail match up the angles are harder to cut after
the fact, you may want to omit the very last piece at the tail and all it
in once you have the structure bent into shape and not completely glued up
so you caqn work on fitting the 2 halves together more neatly on a single
piece of wood rather than the 2 pieces that make up the tail post
Just some things I learned and others I wish I would have considered.
John
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JunestepsfooterNO62)
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: | Fuse. longerons bending |
You might want to re-think delaying the installation of the gussets
until after bringing the two sides together.
Firstly, the gussets go on both faces of the fuselage sides, and the
cross pieces butt up to the face of the inside gussets. You would have
to notch all of your interior gussets around the cross pieces.
And secondly, there was a posting on the List not that long ago from a
builder who built his fuselage sides without gussets, and when flexing
them to bring the tail ends together, the whole thing fell apart. The
strength of the glue joint relies almost entirely on the gussets.
Ideally, one would build the two fuselage sides pre-curved to the
correct shape, but that isn't practical. The curvature in the fuselage
sides is pretty gentle, and spruce is flexible enough to bend without
difficulty with the gussets in place.
Bill C.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse. longerons bending
Do not add gusset plates until after the bend. Before the bend on the
flat the gusset plates keep the structure rigid and work against you as
a force to try to over come. Adding them after the bend is made , they
work to hold the new shape and help to reduce the opposing forces
reducing the tension.
John
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: | Re: Fuse. longerons bending |
Did mine without the gussets in place and it worked out great. I also read
of a similar account with gussets in place and the guy fount it impossible
to get the bend and eventually ended up having some wood relieve the stress
by breaking. I guess its a matter of who's account one is willing to
follow and which suggestions to go
I have had no problems out of mine and did not have to stretch or stress
the gussets to bend so they now act as a force that holds the bend and
resists the tendency for the bent wood to return to shape.
John
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JunestepsfooterNO62)
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: Passenger Door |
Hi All, still around and my plans are still available. Click on the link above,
thanks for posting it!
Cheers,
Keri-Ann
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250831#250831
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: | Fuse. longerons bending |
per the plans..... you apply the gussets to boht sides before joining
together.... If memory serves...
Cheers,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Church
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:06 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Fuse. longerons bending
You might want to re-think delaying the installation of the gussets until
after bringing the two sides together.
Firstly, the gussets go on both faces of the fuselage sides, and the cross
pieces butt up to the face of the inside gussets. You would have to notch
all of your interior gussets around the cross pieces.
And secondly, there was a posting on the List not that long ago from a
builder who built his fuselage sides without gussets, and when flexing them
to bring the tail ends together, the whole thing fell apart. The strength of
the glue joint relies almost entirely on the gussets.
Ideally, one would build the two fuselage sides pre-curved to the correct
shape, but that isn't practical. The curvature in the fuselage sides is
pretty gentle, and spruce is flexible enough to bend without difficulty with
the gussets in place.
Bill C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:46 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse. longerons bending
Do not add gusset plates until after the bend. Before the bend on the flat
the gusset plates keep the structure rigid and work against you as a force
to try to over come. Adding them after the bend is made , they work to hold
the new shape and help to reduce the opposing forces reducing the tension.
John
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: | Christmas in late June |
Correct, Kip. Except I only widened mine to 25". That still required an
entire extra sheet of aircraft grade Plywood (and shipping). That is one
change I would definitely not do if I had it to do over. The 24" cockpit is
plenty big enough. I'm 6'2" and over 200 lbs and I fit just fine in the
standard cockpit. Snug, but what are you going to do, start dancing? For
what it's worth, very few airplanes allocate 22" width per occupant. My old
Cessna 140 was only 35" wide, for two people to sit side by side - now THAT
was tight! My RV-4 is about 21" between the longerons (I'll have to measure
it someday, but it is nowhere near as wide as my Pietenpol), and it is
comfortable enough.
Making it wider did little for comfort but definitely increased the cost and
definitely increased the weight. It also forced changes to ripple
throughout the rest of the project, such as landing gear geometry, cabane
fittings, and engine mount.
The first time you fly on a really hot day you will begrudge every little
change you made that added weight.
As Walt Evans is fond of saying, "Simplicate and add Lightness".
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kip and Beth
Gardner
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Mark,
Several folks on this list have widened the fuse by 2 inches (I think Jack
Phillips for one?) & can probably give you some advice on what's involved. I
seem to recall comments about the fact that widening increases the material
costs , as some pieces can no longer all be cut from a single piece of 4 x 8
ply?
Kip Gardner
On Jun 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Good point. I have already been to Mike Groah's shop and saw his Piet in
progress, and sat in the seat. It is indeed too small for my shoulders,
although not overly so. But as long as i am going to be building from
scratch, I'd like to widen it up a bit...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
The thing to do before worrying about modifying the design by making it
either wider or deeper would be to try a Piet on for size. Per your height,
you would probably want to look at the Corvair/Continental "long fuselage".
You could either build a mockup out of whatever wood you have lying about,
or better yet just find another builder/owner that has a completed fuselage
or flying airplane. I'm sure someone out there on the Left Coast would let
you sit in their Piet, for nothing more than an adult beverage or two.
Either way, I would find out if fit is going to be an issue before you
embark upon the add'l changes, expense, and weight that such mods would
incur.
Ryan
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>
wrote:
Larry:
I agree with you 100% in regards to the changing of the plans to modify the
plane into something it was never intended to be. In fact, one of the things
that drew me to the plane was it's simplicity.
The reason for my mentioning modifications is I was looking at widening the
fuse a bit to fit my frame (6'4", currently 250 lbs and losing) and I'd like
to see what a 26" wide fuse would do to the design parameters of the build.
What parts would need modification and what sizes they'd be. I also read
somewhere about making the fuse about 2" deeper, but I don't know if that is
something I will try... I am tall, and I'd like to fit better in the plane
to enjoy the experience of flying it when I finish, but re-designing a
perfectly good airframe is not my expertise.
I appreciate your advice, as I agree with the principle behind it whole
heartedly.
Mark
Waiting on $$ now for wood :oD
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Lawrence Williams <lnawms@yahoo.com> wrote:
To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify the plans
and build a good airplane but if you build to the plans, you'll have a great
one." ie. Don't dribble way your time and talent trying to reinvent
something. You've chosen to build a genuine, old-timey flying machine so,
just DO IT!
Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of getting off
the ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some have bastardized it
into a role for which it was never intended and then wonder why their 850#
hulk is no fun to fly. Sure, they can twist a key to start it, talk to ATC
and fly (legally) after dark but so can a spam can. The point has been
missed and the soul has been taken out of it.
Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be really,
really sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put it on. There will
be a boatload of your own ideas and solutions incorporated into "your"
airplane as you build it without you having to pre-engineer things before
you have even had a chance to get intimate with the plans.
I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set of plans
for an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat it like the piece
of Americana that it is and keep it true to it's roots. Isn't that what
attracted you to it in the first place?
Larry
counting down from 25 days to go
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuse. longerons bending |
Not if the plywood sides are glued on before removing it from the jig
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuse. longerons bending
>From what I gather, the longerons for the fuselage are bent in the jig dry.
(the curved bottom) After the sides are built in the jig, has anyone
experienced the top longerons being pulled down by the bottom longerons as
they try to un-bend?
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Christmas in late June |
Having just read Ryan's post where I was quoted as saying that I would
advocate making the fuselage wider, that post was written in the winter,
when performance is not a problem and bulky clothing is. I just flew mine
this afternoon on a 96 degree day - solo. Performance was fine. But last
Wednesday, I flew it with my wife (who is NOT particularly heavy) on a 94
degree day and we barely cleared the trees, which don't start until you are
a good 400 yards from the end of the 3100' runway. So I'm changing my
recommendation - You need TWO Pietenpols. One with a standard fuselage and
as light as possible for summer flying, and a larger one for the winter.
Preferably with a canopy and a heater.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
<timothywillis@earthlink.net>
Corky made the fuselage on my project 3 inches wider than plans, and it
helps in the shoulders and elbows, big time. I
am 6'1" and 260 lbs. I still had to widen and heighten the "shinholes"
around the passenger seat, and would have liked to have the fuze-- or least
the instrument panel-- two more inches taller. Corky can attest to my
original fit problems as we looked for mayonnaise or fiberglass release
compound to get me out of the cockpit.
Corky also made the center wing 36 inches wide. Whether with a cutout or a
flipper, the greater width allows the pilot's shoulder to clear the center
wing stuff better, getting in and out. I have seen one Piet that was 42"
across the center wing, and it cants out the cabanes quite a bit, but so
what, if the hardware is adapted, for it's another triangulation. And that
could make space for a great center wing tank.
BTW, I also have a short fuze Piet of standard build and my elbows will not
fit inside it, and my entire hand and wrist aligns inside where the
instrument panel would be. My oversize ass actually fits in it OK, but with
the standard cutouts around the passenger seat, my feet fit only without
shoes, and the shins hit, too. If I keep that fuze, I might build a single
place Piet with more leg room and baggage area, and a larger tank. Who
knows... one project at a time.
As Jack says, you need enough room to fly the plane comfortably, and may
thus have to take some weight penalties. You may need more power than an
A-65 or Model A if you get the plane weight over 700 pounds. What engine do
you plan?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Mueller
Sent: Jun 30, 2009 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
A good time to toss out the reminder that the Pietenpol list has searchable
archives located at: http://www.matronics.com/search. For example, a search
of the archives reveals the following message that Jack wrote back in Nov
'04:
-------------------------
A few thoughts on widening the fuselage. I did that on my Pietenpol, and if
I were to do it over I would still make it wider than plans. I widened mine
by 1", making it 25" wide. Mine is the long fuselage version. I'm 6'2" and
200 lbs and felt I needed the extra room in the cockpit. I have flown short
fuselage, standard width Piets, and they are just a little too tight for me.
There are downsides to widening it, though. They are:
1. Weight. Long fuselage Piets tend to be heavier than standrd length
Piets, most weighing in around 700 to 750 lbs according to Doc Mosher's
survey at Brodhead a few years ago. Making it wider adds more weight. Mine
weighs 735 lbs, which is a tad over 100 lbs heavier than Mike Cuy's. It
shows in its climb performance.
2. Cost. Ol' Bernard knew what he was doing, designing the plane to be as
economical as possible. the stand width allows a 48" sheet of plywood to be
plit lengthwise and make two pieces that will fitthe fuselage. Making it
any wider requires two sheets, with lots of waste.
3. Complexity. Widening the fuselage means the cabane struts are spaced
further apart, which requires modification to the wing. One little change
snowballs into several changes, rippling throughout the airframe. As I can
recall, those changes included:
a. Making the centersection spar longer (I went ahead and made mine 6"
longer to give me more fuel capacity)
b. Making the fuselage taller, to keep the proportions with the wider
fuselage (not a bad thing - it gives more room in the instrument panel)
Again, if I had it to do over, I would still make it wider. Just realize
there are downsides to it, most notably weight. Sure makes it nice on those
cold mornings when I have to wear a heavy leather jacket to fly it
comfortably, though.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
----------------------------------
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Kip and Beth Gardner
<kipandbeth@earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark,
Several folks on this list have widened the fuse by 2 inches (I think Jack
Phillips for one?) & can probably give you some advice on what's involved.
I seem to recall comments about the fact that widening increases the
material costs , as some pieces can no longer all be cut from a single piece
of 4 x 8 ply?
Kip Gardner
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuse. longerons bending |
I've never heard of such a thing happening, but if it did, THAT guy
should consider himself VERY lucky. If his longerons snapped from the
relatively small forces imposed on them by bending to join at the tail,
his wood must have been extremely inferior, and would not have held up
to the stresses it would see in flight.
As long as the gussets get properly glued in place, it doesn't really
make any difference whether they are glued on before or after the sides
get brought together. The stresses imposed on the gussets by bringing
the sides together are insignificant, and the forces required to bring
the two sides together are not big either. The vast majority of
Pietenpols have been built with the gussets installed first, so it can't
be that big a problem. It's really up to each builder to decide how to
put his plane together - I just don't see any real advantage to
installing the gussets later.
Bill C.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse. longerons bending
I also read of a similar account with gussets in place and the guy fount
it impossible to get the bend and eventually ended up having some wood
relieve the stress by breaking.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Well I'm about ready to bolt the prop on my Corvair-it's been sitting safely in
the living room since I got it home from Arizona.it looks like a Tennessee Prop
and I don't know if I got the torque recommendations from DJ or not.but I can
probably find them on the net.What I'm wondering is if there is a proper clocking
of the prop on the Corvair crank to help with vibrations or prevent cracking?
Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250848#250848
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
With the engine set to #1 cylinder on TDC, set your prop to horizontal.
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of skellytown
flyer
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:14 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop install
Well I'm about ready to bolt the prop on my Corvair-it's been sitting safely
in the living room since I got it home from Arizona.it looks like a
Tennessee Prop and I don't know if I got the torque recommendations from DJ
or not.but I can probably find them on the net.What I'm wondering is if
there is a proper clocking of the prop on the Corvair crank to help with
vibrations or prevent cracking? Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250848#250848
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Christmas in late June |
Well, heck. It's 106 degrees here today, and it hovers for a fair amount of
time at about 98 or so most days from June to September. Starts to cool off
a BIT in October. So I guess I'll have to watch every ounce.
I was thinking of only adding 2" to the fuse, as the 20" at the shoulders at
the pilot's seat is not the most comfortable. I am guessing though that
keeping it 24" to the rear of the pilot's seat then bending back toward the
tail would be OK??
No real added weight there, but accomplishing the same full 22" at the
shoulders.... and tthe material costs, (Mainly the plywood sheets) would
remain essentially the same...
Mark
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>
> Having just read Ryan's post where I was quoted as saying that I would
> advocate making the fuselage wider, that post was written in the winter,
> when performance is not a problem and bulky clothing is. I just flew mine
> this afternoon on a 96 degree day - solo. Performance was fine. But last
> Wednesday, I flew it with my wife (who is NOT particularly heavy) on a 94
> degree day and we barely cleared the trees, which don't start until you are
> a good 400 yards from the end of the 3100' runway. So I'm changing my
> recommendation - You need TWO Pietenpols. One with a standard fuselage and
> as light as possible for summer flying, and a larger one for the winter.
> Preferably with a canopy and a heater.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:12 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
>
> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>
> Corky made the fuselage on my project 3 inches wider than plans, and it
> helps in the shoulders and elbows, big time. I
> am 6'1" and 260 lbs. I still had to widen and heighten the "shinholes"
> around the passenger seat, and would have liked to have the fuze-- or least
> the instrument panel-- two more inches taller. Corky can attest to my
> original fit problems as we looked for mayonnaise or fiberglass release
> compound to get me out of the cockpit.
>
> Corky also made the center wing 36 inches wide. Whether with a cutout or a
> flipper, the greater width allows the pilot's shoulder to clear the center
> wing stuff better, getting in and out. I have seen one Piet that was 42"
> across the center wing, and it cants out the cabanes quite a bit, but so
> what, if the hardware is adapted, for it's another triangulation. And that
> could make space for a great center wing tank.
>
> BTW, I also have a short fuze Piet of standard build and my elbows will not
> fit inside it, and my entire hand and wrist aligns inside where the
> instrument panel would be. My oversize ass actually fits in it OK, but
> with
> the standard cutouts around the passenger seat, my feet fit only without
> shoes, and the shins hit, too. If I keep that fuze, I might build a single
> place Piet with more leg room and baggage area, and a larger tank. Who
> knows... one project at a time.
>
> As Jack says, you need enough room to fly the plane comfortably, and may
> thus have to take some weight penalties. You may need more power than an
> A-65 or Model A if you get the plane weight over 700 pounds. What engine
> do
> you plan?
>
> Tim in central TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Mueller
> Sent: Jun 30, 2009 1:35 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
>
> A good time to toss out the reminder that the Pietenpol list has searchable
> archives located at: http://www.matronics.com/search. For example, a
> search
> of the archives reveals the following message that Jack wrote back in Nov
> '04:
>
> -------------------------
> A few thoughts on widening the fuselage. I did that on my Pietenpol, and
> if
> I were to do it over I would still make it wider than plans. I widened
> mine
> by 1", making it 25" wide. Mine is the long fuselage version. I'm 6'2"
> and
> 200 lbs and felt I needed the extra room in the cockpit. I have flown
> short
> fuselage, standard width Piets, and they are just a little too tight for
> me.
>
> There are downsides to widening it, though. They are:
>
> 1. Weight. Long fuselage Piets tend to be heavier than standrd length
> Piets, most weighing in around 700 to 750 lbs according to Doc Mosher's
> survey at Brodhead a few years ago. Making it wider adds more weight. Mine
> weighs 735 lbs, which is a tad over 100 lbs heavier than Mike Cuy's. It
> shows in its climb performance.
>
> 2. Cost. Ol' Bernard knew what he was doing, designing the plane to be as
> economical as possible. the stand width allows a 48" sheet of plywood to
> be
> plit lengthwise and make two pieces that will fitthe fuselage. Making it
> any wider requires two sheets, with lots of waste.
>
> 3. Complexity. Widening the fuselage means the cabane struts are spaced
> further apart, which requires modification to the wing. One little change
> snowballs into several changes, rippling throughout the airframe. As I can
> recall, those changes included:
>
> a. Making the centersection spar longer (I went ahead and made mine 6"
> longer to give me more fuel capacity)
> b. Making the fuselage taller, to keep the proportions with the wider
> fuselage (not a bad thing - it gives more room in the instrument panel)
>
> Again, if I had it to do over, I would still make it wider. Just realize
> there are downsides to it, most notably weight. Sure makes it nice on
> those
> cold mornings when I have to wear a heavy leather jacket to fly it
> comfortably, though.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> ----------------------------------
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Kip and Beth Gardner
> <kipandbeth@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
> Several folks on this list have widened the fuse by 2 inches (I think Jack
> Phillips for one?) & can probably give you some advice on what's involved.
> I seem to recall comments about the fact that widening increases the
> material costs , as some pieces can no longer all be cut from a single
> piece
> of 4 x 8 ply?
>
>
> Kip Gardner
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Christmas in late June |
Larry,
AMEN!!!
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Williams <lnawms@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 30, 2009 8:04 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify the plans and
build a good airplane but if you build to the plans, you'll have a great one."
ie. Don't dribble way your time and talent trying to reinvent something. You've
chosen to build a genuine, old-timey flying machine so, just DO IT!
?
Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of getting off the
ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some have bastardized it into a
role for which it was never intended and then wonder why their 850# hulk is no
fun to fly. Sure, they can twist a key to start it, talk to ATC and fly (legally)
after dark but so can a spam can. The point has been missed and the soul
has been taken out of it.
?
Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be really, really
sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put it on. There will be a boatload?of
your own ideas and solutions incorporated into "your" airplane as you
build it without you having to pre-engineer things before you have even had a
chance to get intimate with the plans.
?
I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set of plans for
an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat it like the piece of
Americana that it is and keep it true to it's roots. Isn't that what attracted
you to it in the first place?
?
Larry
counting down from 25 days to go
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aluminum paint prep |
A good scrubbing with a degreaser first will help the following treatments
work better. When prepping wheels at work for paint, I scrub the alumiprep
into the aluminum with a burgundy scotchbrite pad. On new sheet metal, a
finer pad would be fine. Rinse well with water, then apply the alodine.
It's available in two types, one will leave a light golden color, the other
is clear. If you're painting, either work equally well, if leaving natural,
use clear. When applying the alodine, do not allow it to dry on the part.
Keep it moistened with alodine for 3-5 minutes, then rinse with clear
water. As stated, use gloves to prevent skin oils from contaminating the
part. A good two part primer is recommended. The one we use on our wheels
is a water borne primer with hardly any odor. Then follow with your
topcoat. Follow the manufcturers recommendations, many times if you go
beyond a certain time after priming, you need to scuff the part prior to top
coating.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Tim Willis <timothywillis@earthlink.net>wrote:
> timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>
> Shad, is that either alumiprep OR alodine 1201?
>
> Also, I have always heard to start before the aluminum treatment products
> with a good scrubbing with water and Dawn dishwashing liquid, to remove any
> grease or film from the Al. rolling plant, etc.
>
> I am not yet at the aluminum stage, but want to be, and am getting closer.
>
> Tim in central TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shad bell
> Sent: Jun 30, 2009 7:59 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aluminum paint prep
>
>
> I would recomend alumiprep, and alodine 1201 as prep work for your
> aluminum. If you cant get it localy or don't want to buy it, then at least
> scuff it with scotch brite to take off the shine, and use an etch primer
> (automotive). And clean it very well!! wear gloves prior to picking it up
> after cleaning, your oily skin will keep paint from sticking. That should
> give you a good "bite" for your top coats of color
>
> --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: aluminum paint prep
> To: "pietenpolgroup" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:01 PM
>
>
> douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
>
> Hey,
>
> I'm getting ready to paint my cowling. I know I need to etch aluminum
> prior
> to priming but can I leave it shiney or do I need to lightly sand it to
> scuff it up and ww.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> _sp; --> ht= --> <A href="
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution" ="=====
>
>
--
If we don't try, we don't do. And if we don't do, then why are we on this
earth?
Jimmy Stewart, "Shenandoah"
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | seeing the instruments |
Jim;
I worried about seeing the instruments. I need "cheaters" or
bifocals to see things up close and the restrictions on my
airman medical say I need to have corrective lenses when I
fly. I wear contact lenses for distant vision but for near
vision I always carry reading glasses with me when I fly but
I've never had occasion to take them out because I can always
see what needs to be seen without them. I have NO digital
displays or instruments but if I did, I might need those readers
to see some of the text. With analog gauges, a quick glance
shows me what I need to know without hesitating or guessing.
Can you tell that I'm a "steam gauge" type of guy? ;o)
When I fly X-C, I fly with a kneeboard and a folded sectional,
with my route of flight laid out and highlighted. I have not
had any problem seeing my next checkpoint on the chart, down
on my knee in the cockpit.
I'm in a little bit of trouble if I have to read the airport
info or radio frequencies in tiny print on the chart or if I
need to read the tenths and hundredths of tach time in the little
window on the tach but, oddly enough, I have no trouble dialing
in the altimeter reading (barometric pressure) in the Kollsman
window. I can read every gauge on the panel and everything in
the panel of 41CC is a dial instrument, set in the stock
configuration per plans, and with the green-yellow-red ranges
marked on the gauges. Even a child can tell if everything is
in the green and that's all you need to see in flight. When
you're flying a Piet, the first one or two digits on the right
of any gauge readout don't interest you anyway ;o)
Don't over-think this stuff. If you sit in the shop and worry
about what-ifs, you'll worry yourself silly and you'll never
finish the airplane. I am also a scuba diver and I tend to use
the same philosophy in my dive gear... simple and lean. I
have to laugh as I watch gadget freaks waddle off with things
hanging from clips and lanyards all over their suits and BCs,
and with plotters and aids and gizmos on every D-ring and strap...
and they get so consumed with what might happen that they never
enjoy the dive. Me, I fly the airplane and just check the
gauges to confirm what the airplane and engine are telling me.
The Piet talks real pretty and sweet, and only an occasional
glance at the gauges is needed to confirm what the airplane
tells you.
I never thought I'd say this since I'm an engineer and a
detailer, CAD designer and an experimenter, but the Piet design
is well proven for over 80 years now, so I'm going to join the
chorus and here goes: "build it to the plans and you'll do
just fine!"
Any changes you want to make, you can make after you fly off
those test hours or after you start your NEXT Piet and are
enjoying flying your first one!!!! Yes, there are repeat
offenders on this list... I already have a set of landing gear
and a Corvair engine and prop for my next Air Camper.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 33
| 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: seeing the instruments |
I bought from Aircraft Spruce a set of focal lenses which fit right into yo
ur goggles.They are flexible;you just spit on them and move them into place
and then leave them there.They stay in place unless you lift them off to m
ove them to another set of goggles if you wish.I find they work quite well
and I am considering ordering another set for another set of goggles which
-I have.I need them for reading.They even funtion for reading the instrum
ents in the front cockpit.I think I paid around $20 for them but you may fi
nd them cheaper elsewhere.-=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______________________________
_=0AFrom: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>=0ATo: Pietenpol List <pieten
pol-list@matronics.com>=0ASent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:31:49 PM=0ASubjec
t: Pietenpol-List: seeing the instruments=0A=0A--> Pietenpol-List message p
osted by: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>=0A=0A=0AJim;=0A=0AI worried
about seeing the instruments.- I need "cheaters" or=0Abifocals to see thi
ngs up close and the restrictions on my=0Aairman medical say I need to have
corrective lenses when I=0Afly.- I wear contact lenses for distant visio
n but for near=0Avision I always carry reading glasses with me when I fly b
ut=0AI've never had occasion to take them out because I can always=0Asee wh
at needs to be seen without them.- I have NO digital=0Adisplays or instru
ments but if I did, I might need those readers=0Ato see some of the text. W
ith analog gauges, a quick glance=0Ashows me what I need to know without he
sitating or guessing.=0ACan you tell that I'm a "steam gauge" type of guy?
- ;o)=0A=0AWhen I fly X-C, I fly with a kneeboard and a folded sectional,
=0Awith my route of flight laid out and highlighted.- I have not=0Ahad an
y problem seeing my next checkpoint on the chart, down=0Aon my knee in the
cockpit.=0A=0AI'm in a little bit of trouble if I have to read the airport
=0Ainfo or radio frequencies in tiny print on the chart or if I=0Aneed to r
ead the tenths and hundredths of tach time in the little=0Awindow on the ta
ch but, oddly enough, I have no trouble dialing=0Ain the altimeter reading
(barometric pressure) in the Kollsman=0Awindow.- I can read every gauge o
n the panel and everything in=0Athe panel of 41CC is a dial instrument, set
in the stock=0Aconfiguration per plans, and with the green-yellow-red rang
es=0Amarked on the gauges.- Even a child can tell if everything is=0Ain t
he green and that's all you need to see in flight. When=0Ayou're flying a P
iet, the first one or two digits on the right=0Aof any gauge readout don't
interest you anyway ;o)=0A=0ADon't over-think this stuff.- If you sit in
the shop and worry=0Aabout what-ifs, you'll worry yourself silly and you'll
never=0Afinish the airplane.- I am also a scuba diver and I tend to use
=0Athe same philosophy in my dive gear... simple and lean.- I=0Ahave to l
augh as I watch gadget freaks waddle off with things=0Ahanging from clips a
nd lanyards all over their suits and BCs,=0Aand with plotters and aids and
gizmos on every D-ring and strap...=0Aand they get so consumed with what mi
ght happen that they never=0Aenjoy the dive.- Me, I fly the airplane and
just check the=0Agauges to confirm what the airplane and engine are telling
me.=0AThe Piet talks real pretty and sweet, and only an occasional=0Aglanc
e at the gauges is needed to confirm what the airplane=0Atells you.=0A=0AI
never thought I'd say this since I'm an engineer and a=0Adetailer, CAD desi
gner and an experimenter, but the Piet design=0Ais well proven for over 80
years now, so I'm going to join the=0Achorus and here goes: "build it to th
e plans and you'll do=0Ajust fine!"=0A=0AAny changes you want to make, you
can make after you fly off=0Athose test hours or after you start your NEXT
Piet and are=0Aenjoying flying your first one!!!!- Yes, there are repeat
=0Aoffenders on this list... I already have a set of landing gear=0Aand a C
orvair engine and prop for my next Air Camper.=0A=0AOscar Zuniga=0AAir Camp
er NX41CC=0ASan Antonio, TX=0Amailto: taildrags@hotmail.com=0Awebsite at ht
========================
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! --
|