---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 06/30/09: 33 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:04:38 AM PST US From: shad bell 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 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 wrote: From: Douwe Blumberg 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:11:39 AM PST US From: Lawrence Williams 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:02:15 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Christmas in late June From: "899PM" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:23:34 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June From: Mark Roberts 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:41:57 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Christmas in late June From: Mark Roberts 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:51:36 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:52:48 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Waxing on about Community... From: Mark Roberts 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:29 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June From: Mark Roberts 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 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:27:36 AM PST US From: Jim Subject: Re: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:55 AM PST US From: Tim Willis Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 wrote: From: Douwe Blumberg 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= --> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 wrote: > From: Mark Roberts > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:07:39 AM PST US From: Kip and Beth Gardner 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:36 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June From: Ryan Mueller 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:09:36 AM PST US From: Michael Perez 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 ex perienced the top longerons being pulled down by the bottom longerons as th ey try to un-bend? ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 11:14:08 AM PST US From: Tim Willis Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:33:04 AM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:23 AM PST US From: AMsafetyC@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:20 AM PST US From: AMsafetyC@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:09:12 PM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Fuse. longerons bending From: "Bill Church" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:37:40 PM PST US From: AMsafetyC@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:44:13 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Passenger Door From: "womenfly2" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:24 PM PST US From: "Dave Abramson" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:25 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:14:53 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:24 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:40:57 PM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Fuse. longerons bending From: "Bill Church" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:54 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop install From: "skellytown flyer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:43:16 PM PST US From: "Barry Davis" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop install 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:55:28 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June From: Mark Roberts 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 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 > > > > 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:38 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June From: helspersew@aol.com Larry, AMEN!!! Dan Helsper Poplar Grove, IL -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Williams 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:19:57 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aluminum paint prep From: Lloyd Smith 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 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 wrote: > > > From: Douwe Blumberg > Subject: Pietenpol-List: aluminum paint prep > To: "pietenpolgroup" > 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= --> > -- 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:33:22 PM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:03:19 PM PST US From: H RULE Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 =0ATo: Pietenpol List =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 =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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.