Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:44 AM - Re: Everything but a Pietenpol (Robert Ray)
2. 05:50 AM - Fuselage wedges on sides (Michael Perez)
3. 06:49 AM - Re: Fuselage wedges on sides (Jack Phillips)
4. 06:51 AM - stick height-- phone books (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
5. 06:51 AM - Cub stick height (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
6. 07:14 AM - Re: Fuselage wedges on sides (Ryan Mueller)
7. 07:15 AM - Fuselage wedges on sides (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
8. 07:16 AM - Re: stick height-- phone books (Tim Willis)
9. 07:39 AM - Re: Fuselage wedges on sides (Ed G.)
10. 07:43 AM - Re: Fuselage wedges on sides (Michael Perez)
11. 08:09 AM - Re: Fuselage wedges on sides (Michael Perez)
12. 08:39 AM - engine stand (jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com)
13. 08:39 AM - Re: Fuselage wedges on sides (Michael Perez)
14. 08:53 AM - Another sketch (Michael Perez)
15. 09:06 AM - Re: landing like a Champ (Bill Church)
16. 09:41 AM - Re: Another sketch (Ed G.)
17. 09:42 AM - seat height and a little more on tailwheel flying (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
18. 10:11 AM - Re: Another sketch (Michael Silvius)
19. 10:11 AM - Re: engine stand (Dave Abramson)
20. 10:14 AM - Re: Fuselage wedges on sides (Ryan Mueller)
21. 10:41 AM - Re: engine stand (Ryan Mueller)
22. 11:11 AM - Re: engine stand (John Hofmann)
23. 11:11 AM - Re: Fuselage wedges on sides (Michael Perez)
24. 11:23 AM - Re: engine stand (jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com)
25. 12:13 PM - Re: engine stand (jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com)
26. 12:42 PM - Re: Another sketch (Bill Church)
27. 12:45 PM - Re: Another sketch (Bill Church)
28. 01:43 PM - Re: engine stand (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
29. 02:25 PM - Re: engine stand (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
30. 02:26 PM - New Directors for EAA (Jack Phillips)
31. 02:36 PM - Re: engine stand (Doug Dever)
32. 02:43 PM - engine stand (Oscar Zuniga)
33. 03:05 PM - Re: engine stand (Ryan Mueller)
34. 04:17 PM - MERFI, 9 days away (shad bell)
35. 04:25 PM - Re: engine stand (Kip and Beth Gardner)
36. 04:45 PM - Re: MERFI, 9 days away (amsafetyc@aol.com)
37. 04:45 PM - Re: New Directors for EAA (amsafetyc@aol.com)
38. 07:04 PM - Building or Flying (Doug Dever)
39. 07:13 PM - alternative to nicopress (Oscar Zuniga)
40. 07:23 PM - Re: alternative to nicopress (Robert Ray)
41. 08:08 PM - Re: Another sketch (Robert Ray)
42. 08:32 PM - Re: engine stand (mr-fix-all)
43. 09:08 PM - Re: Re: engine stand (Jim)
44. 09:39 PM - Re: Re: engine stand (Ryan Mueller)
45. 11:51 PM - In your ear headset-diy (Clif Dawson)
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: Everything but a Pietenpol |
I've heard that Britain was once covered with oaks but many were used to
build ships for the Navy.
Russell
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/6106265/Dozens-of-artists-transform-a-100ft-tall-oak-tree-into-art.html
>
> Ryan
>
> do not archive
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | Fuselage wedges on sides |
The plans call for wedges in certain locations on the sides of the fuselage
. I have attached a picture of what the prints show and what I am doing. On
the left of the vertical piece, the print shows the angled piece attaching
as shown at the bottom. On the right of the vertical, the way I am cutting
my pieces to fit. (Angle cut both sides of the piece to fit up against ver
tical piece.)
-
Cutting in this way, I wonder if the wedge is necessary?- Using the print
sized 2-1/4" gussets, the wedge for "my side" of the drawing are very, ver
y small.
-
(Having said all of this, I am using the wedges to fill the area under the
gussets....just curious if it is required.)
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: | Fuselage wedges on sides |
Depends entirely on how hard you land. Under normal conditions, the wedges
are probably not necessary at all. If you can guarentee you will never make
a really hard landing, don't put them in.
Understand that a lot of this airplane (like most airplanes) is
"overdesigned" for normal circumstances. Frankly, I want an airplane that
can handle extraordianry circumstances and not fail. It's your choice.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides
The plans call for wedges in certain locations on the sides of the fuselage.
I have attached a picture of what the prints show and what I am doing. On
the left of the vertical piece, the print shows the angled piece attaching
as shown at the bottom. On the right of the vertical, the way I am cutting
my pieces to fit. (Angle cut both sides of the piece to fit up against
vertical piece.)
Cutting in this way, I wonder if the wedge is necessary? Using the print
sized 2-1/4" gussets, the wedge for "my side" of the drawing are very, very
small.
(Having said all of this, I am using the wedges to fill the area under the
gussets....just curious if it is required.)
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: | stick height-- phone books |
Oscar-- just sit on a phone book when you're flying and you won't have to modify
your
stick height at all. My seat is 2" higher than plans (boy was that stupid)
so it feels just about right.
You're right about the Coors Light but Jack Phillips good friend Jim Dukeman (an
avid, avid Young Eagles coordinator and all round nice guy) came by when John
Hofmann, Jack, and I were setting up tents and dinning canopies on a hot afternoon
at Oshkosh a month ago and offered us ice (I mean ice cold) cold brews
and you know how they say when someone else does the cooking it always tastes
better-- same with this scenario. It was just the right refreshment at just
the right time in just the right setting, and I wasn't thinking about work, home
chores, car repairs, taking the dogs to the vet, or how my 85 year old mother
is doing in Florida. Life IS GOOD !
Mike C.
And Oscar, FYI, this time of year we call them camp fire side chats. We'll move
the chats indoors about November if that works for you Texans.
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: | Cub stick height |
Oscar-- I too have always felt tha the sticks in Cubs were high-- or the
seats too low. I think it is the latter. Just my opinion--your mileage may
vary.
Mike C.
(PS-- and while I'm giving observations--- I truly believe that the Pietenpol is
a nicer flying airplane than both the Cub and Champ and I have much time in
both types.
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: Fuselage wedges on sides |
If it calls for wedges, I would say use wedges.....otherwise it wouldn't
call for wedges. :)
Any particular reason for wanting to make two mitered cuts to fit the
crossmembers instead of one?
I believe in one of Tony B's books he gives examples of the various ways you
could fit crossmembers when building wing ribs, and those principles would
carry over to the fuselage. It doesn't so much matter how you fit the
intersection of crossmembers and longerons. You gain no more strength from
your double mitered joint on the right than is given by the plans fitment on
the left, as zero strength is derived from the butt joints of
crossmember-longeron-crossmember. All of the strength of that joint comes
from the gussets tying everything together. The plans fitment requires only
one mitered cut; multiply that out over all the pieces you have to fit and
you'll save some time and hassle.
As an aside, the plans fitment on the left appears to cover more surface
area, but I would imagine that's because this is not an exact, scale
representation of the joint/gusset....
Ryan
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> The plans call for wedges in certain locations on the sides of the
> fuselage. I have attached a picture of what the prints show and what I am
> doing. On the left of the vertical piece, the print shows the angled piece
> attaching as shown at the bottom. On the right of the vertical, the way I am
> cutting my pieces to fit. (Angle cut both sides of the piece to fit up
> against vertical piece.)
>
> Cutting in this way, I wonder if the wedge is necessary? Using the print
> sized 2-1/4" gussets, the wedge for "my side" of the drawing are very, very
> small.
>
> (Having said all of this, I am using the wedges to fill the area under the
> gussets....just curious if it is required.)
>
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: | Fuselage wedges on sides |
Hi Mike--
Most of the wedges go in places where you'll be bolting in things
like:
Landing gear let fittings,
Motor mount fittings,
cabane strut fittings,
So you want those wedges in there to give your bolts something to go thru
that is solid in addition to giving the fittings a nice solid block of meat
to transfer the loads to. Use the wedges.
Mike C.
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: stick height-- phone books |
Mike, a serious question and an observation.
Why was the 2" higher seat dumb-- was it more wind on the pilot on cool days?
I would think the seat would be more comfortable, esp. lessening pulling on the
back of the legs, but maybe more height makes the instruments harder to read,
unless the panel is slanted. Pls reply.
I live about 100 miles north of Oscar, and wore long pants outside 6 days last
winter. Winter is a non-event. OTOH, we just had the hottest summer in Texas
history-- period. The 100F plus days may be over, but the 10-day forecast here
is for highs of 92-99. Yes, autumn is coming. Oscar might start wearing a
jacket in his Piet in December.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
>Sent: Sep 3, 2009 8:45 AM
>To: "pietenpol-list@matronics.com" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: stick height-- phone books
>
>
>Oscar-- just sit on a phone book when you're flying and you won't have to modify
your
>stick height at all. My seat is 2" higher than plans (boy was that stupid)
>so it feels just about right.
>
>You're right about the Coors Light but Jack Phillips good friend Jim Dukeman (an
avid, avid Young Eagles coordinator and all round nice guy) came by when John
Hofmann, Jack, and I were setting up tents and dinning canopies on a hot afternoon
at Oshkosh a month ago and offered us ice (I mean ice cold) cold brews
and you know how they say when someone else does the cooking it always tastes
better-- same with this scenario. It was just the right refreshment at just
the right time in just the right setting, and I wasn't thinking about work, home
chores, car repairs, taking the dogs to the vet, or how my 85 year old mother
is doing in Florida. Life IS GOOD !
>
>Mike C.
>
>And Oscar, FYI, this time of year we call them camp fire side chats. We'll move
the chats indoors about November if that works for you Texans.
>
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: | Fuselage wedges on sides |
WQith all due respect=2C If you spent the time it took to redesign that joi
nt building it to the plans you would be done by now and on to the next ste
p. And that joint has been working for eighty years. Just my two cents. Ed
G.
From: speedbrake@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides
The plans call for wedges in certain locations on the sides of the fuselage
. I have attached a picture of what the prints show and what I am doing. On
the left of the vertical piece=2C the print shows the angled piece attachi
ng as shown at the bottom. On the right of the vertical=2C the way I am cut
ting my pieces to fit. (Angle cut both sides of the piece to fit up against
vertical piece.)
Cutting in this way=2C I wonder if the wedge is necessary? Using the print
sized 2-1/4" gussets=2C the wedge for "my side" of the drawing are very=2C
very small.
(Having said all of this=2C I am using the wedges to fill the area under th
e gussets....just curious if it is required.)
_________________________________________________________________
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYC
B_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
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: | Fuselage wedges on sides |
Understood Jack.=C2- As I said, I will be using them. I am also going to
add them to the struts where the cabanes attach as well. (Tip from Mike C.)
--- On Thu, 9/3/09, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides
Depends entirely on how hard you land.=C2- Under normal conditions, the w
edges are probably not necessary at all.=C2- If you can guarentee you wil
l never make a really hard landing, don=99t put them in.
=C2-
Understand that a lot of this airplane (like most airplanes) is =9Cov
erdesigned=9D for normal circumstances.=C2- Frankly, I want an airp
lane that can handle extraordianry circumstances and not fail.=C2- It
=99s your choice.
=C2-
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
=C2-
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto: owner-pietenpol-li
st-server@matronics.com ] On Behalf Of Michael Perez
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides
=C2-
The plans call for wedges in certain locations on the sides of the fuselage
. I have attached a picture of what the prints show and what I am doing. On
the left of the vertical piece, the print shows the angled piece attaching
as shown at the bottom. On the right of the vertical, the way I am cutting
my pieces to fit. (Angle cut both sides of the piece to fit up against ver
tical piece.)
=C2-
Cutting in this way, I wonder if the wedge is necessary?=C2- Using the pr
int sized 2-1/4" gussets, the wedge for "my side" of the drawing are very,
very small.
=C2-
(Having said all of this, I am using the wedges to fill the area under the
gussets....just curious if it is required.)
=C2-
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: | Fuselage wedges on sides |
One miter cut is not a redesign. It is also very easy to do. I am using the
wedges, as stated in my original post, it just seemed that with the miter
cuts, that wedge gap was filled in better and I wondered if the wedge would
be a necessity. (and maybe someone else has done such a thing, there was d
iscussion on it before, or other planes use the doubled mitered cuts.) I do
n't know, so I ask.--Even so, I am quite far along with my build and st
ill have the rest of my life to finish it...no need to build to please anot
her persons time frame. (With all due respect.)
--- On Thu, 9/3/09, Ed G. <flyboy_120@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Ed G. <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides
#yiv615743333 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv615743333 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
WQith all due respect, If you spent the time it took to redesign that joint
building it to-the plans you would be done by now and on to the next ste
p. And that joint has been working for eighty years. Just my two cents. Ed
G.
-
From: speedbrake@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides
The plans call for wedges in certain locations on the sides of the fuselage
. I have attached a picture of what the prints show and what I am doing. On
the left of the vertical piece, the print shows the angled piece attaching
as shown at the bottom. On the right of the vertical, the way I am cutting
my pieces to fit. (Angle cut both sides of the piece to fit up against ver
tical piece.)
-
Cutting in this way, I wonder if the wedge is necessary?- Using the print
sized 2-1/4" gussets, the wedge for "my side" of the drawing are very, ver
y small.
-
(Having said all of this, I am using the wedges to fill the area under the
gussets....just curious if it is required.)
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now.
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 |
|
All,
I won't know till later today, but I may have found an entire garage kept
66 corvair, with 110 hp engine, for 400 bucks, and while I am still early
in the building phase of my plane, I don't want to pass this up. Does
anyone have drawings/plans/sketches for a corvair engine stand. My
thoughts are to remove the engine and then rid myself of the car, so as to
avoid undo yipping from the better half, put the engine on a stand and
that way I can begin conversion, during construction down times. And yes
I have ordered my conversion manual.
Jake
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: Fuselage wedges on sides |
Ryan, it appears to me that if an angled piece as I showed, were to take a
shock load of some sort, it's tip would be forced to slide into the vertica
l piece, putting the glue joint in a shear situation. I don't know if the t
ip would then just curl up as the piece came loose, or what? I don't know.
With the double miter, that same shock load is somewhat shared with the ver
tical piece; -you have the two glue joints of the double mitered piece as
well as the glue joint of the vertical to the longeron.- It just seems t
o me to be a better, solid more load dispersing way to do it.- (I could b
e wrong, it has happened before) If we have fuselage cross members being br
oken, a lot of other things have gone wrong as well...
-
If what you say is true that the gussets-make up-100% of the joint stre
ngth, would that mean that the wood crossmembers would not need to touch, t
hat there could be a sizable gap?-
-
Sorry, but I did not take the time to draw the picture to scale, (that woul
d open up the door for more- "If you didn't spend so much time drawing sc
ale pictures, you could have had the plane done by now." nonsense, but I be
lieve the surface area for the glue joint on the double miter has not chang
ed, it was just moved from the longeron only to both it and the vertical.
-
I am not here to debate, but when others ask questions to my questions, It
then opens up even MORE questions and I like to hear what you all have to s
ay.
--- On Thu, 9/3/09, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides
If it calls for wedges, I would say use wedges.....otherwise it wouldn't ca
ll for wedges. :)
Any particular reason for wanting to make two mitered cuts to fit the cross
members instead of one?
I believe in one of Tony B's books he gives examples of the various ways yo
u could fit crossmembers when building wing ribs, and those principles woul
d carry over to the fuselage. It doesn't so much matter how you fit the int
ersection of crossmembers and longerons. You gain no more strength from you
r double mitered joint on the right than is given by the plans fitment on t
he left, as zero strength is derived from the butt joints of crossmember-lo
ngeron-crossmember. All of the strength of that joint comes from the gusset
s tying everything together. The plans fitment requires only one mitered cu
t; multiply that out over all the pieces you have to fit and you'll save so
me time and hassle.
As an aside, the plans fitment on the left appears to cover more surface ar
ea, but I would imagine that's because this is not an exact, scale represen
tation of the joint/gusset....
Ryan
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net> wr
ote:
The plans call for wedges in certain locations on the sides of the fuselage
. I have attached a picture of what the prints show and what I am doing. On
the left of the vertical piece, the print shows the angled piece attaching
as shown at the bottom. On the right of the vertical, the way I am cutting
my pieces to fit. (Angle cut both sides of the piece to fit up against ver
tical piece.)
-
Cutting in this way, I wonder if the wedge is necessary?- Using the print
sized 2-1/4" gussets, the wedge for "my side" of the drawing are very, ver
y small.
-
(Having said all of this, I am using the wedges to fill the area under the
gussets....just curious if it is required.)
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 |
|
Here is another sketch, not to scale with the glue joints highlighted. Is o
n better then the other? I don't want to drag this out more then it needs t
o be, but I am curious. Thanks again...and if I come across in my posts as
a non-advice taking know it all, I am not trying to be. I have a lot of ide
as and questions and some, if not most will show up here on the list.- "Y
ou may fire when ready."
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: | landing like a Champ |
Regarding the control stick on the Pietenpol, I'm not sure what the UK
version of the plans show, but I do recall seeing several British
cockpit shots with a zig-zag shaped control stick. So I tried searching
the UK Pietenpol site for some appropriate images - but they've recently
re-designed the site, and a lot of the photos are no longer there.
However, Chris Tracy's westcoastpiet.com site pulls through once more -
here are a couple of shots that show the style of stick I'm referring
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/G-BUCO%20Pictures/Cockpit.JPG
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/G-BUCO%20Pictures/DSCF0017.JPG
I also recall a photo of a Piet that was at Brodhead a few years ago
that had a Spitfire-style control stick, with a ring at the top, but I
can't track down a shot of that right now.
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar
Zuniga
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:29 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: landing like a Champ
--> <taildrags@hotmail.com>
... Flying my airplane for more than an hour or so, I sometimes wonder
if the grip might not be more comfortable if it had a cant or angle to
it like a helicopter or fighter plane stick grip rather than being
straight up and down at the handle. I find that my hand wants to hold
the butt end of the stick for awhile rather than the grip part, to give
my hand a rest. I've just never seen a Piet with anything other than a
straight stick grip, with the exception of one or maybe two of the Brit
ones who used the teardrop-loop grip of the old WWI planes, leather
lacing and all...
Oscar Zuniga
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 |
|
Add the blocking to your diagram and highlight the glue lines. Now which ha
s more glue surface and which joint has the larger thus stronger mass? I be
lieve you will find that the origional does.
From: speedbrake@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another sketch
Here is another sketch=2C not to scale with the glue joints highlighted. Is
on better then the other? I don't want to drag this out more then it needs
to be=2C but I am curious. Thanks again...and if I come across in my posts
as a non-advice taking know it all=2C I am not trying to be. I have a lot
of ideas and questions and some=2C if not most will show up here on the lis
t. "You may fire when ready."
_________________________________________________________________
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYC
B_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
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: | seat height and a little more on tailwheel flying |
Hi Tim,
My thinking in raising the seat was to get better visibility over the nose during
takeoff
and landing but unlike some of the WWII fighters where you can crank up your seat
for takeoff
and landing we obviously don't have that luxury in the Piet so for everything but
takeoff
and landing my upper body is out too far in the wind and the wind beats you up
after a while.
My solution should have been to just add cushions until I liked the view and then
could always
yank a cushion out after takeoff and before landing--if I even needed to do that.
There are some Piets with steep deck angles so in building my landing gear I tried
to keep mine
fairly shallow like the angle you'd have on a Champ and that helped with my forward
visibility.
You never really see anything over the nose anyway and especially so with a passenger
so your
runway alignment method comes from visual cues just on either side of the fuselage.
When I first transitioned into flying tailwheels it was in a tired old Champ that
my friend Joe
from church and I bought for $7,000 in 1989. Joe flew Champs for years so after
we got the plane
home he rode in the back seat and let me fly it from the front (off of grass) and
I was astounded
at the visibility--it was excellent.
After I flew off the required 15 hours with an instructor (to be insurable) we
both got bored after
about 6 hours and he decided to put me in the back seat. At first it was really
hard not seeing
over the nose but you quickly learn to just look ahead and use your peripheral
vision to sense
alignment and when you need a correction. And as long as I'm rambling on like
a school girl we
started on calm days with me in the front seat flying off of sod runways. After
a while we flew
on more windy days then transition to hard surface paved runways and then flew
on some REALLY windy
days and then worked in windy days with nasty, gusty crosswinds. Then he put
me in the back seat and we repeated that whole process starting on grass on calm
days.
As a side note I went FIFTEEN years without flying a nosewheel airplane and loved
every minute of it.
When I broke that string of years I was totally blessed to be offered to fly an
older gents Mooney
Mite and boy....was that thing FUN !!! I was just glad the termites joined hands
in the wings when
I pulled a few g's doing some big old wingovers.
Mike C.
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: Another sketch |
Shouldn't the centerline of all members intersect through the same
point?
As I recall it is so on the GN1 drawings.
Michael in Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Perez
Here is another sketch, not to scale with the glue joints
highlighted. Is on better then the other? I don't want to drag this out
more then it needs to be, but I am curious. Thanks again...and if I come
across in my posts as a non-advice taking know it all, I am not trying
to be. I have a lot of ideas and questions and some, if not most will
show up here on the list. "You may fire when ready."
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 |
|
Hey jake! Where are you? You have a picture of the car??? Curious......
Dave
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:38 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engine stand
All,
I won't know till later today, but I may have found an entire garage kept
66 corvair, with 110 hp engine, for 400 bucks, and while I am still early
in the building phase of my plane, I don't want to pass this up. Does
anyone have drawings/plans/sketches for a corvair engine stand. My
thoughts are to remove the engine and then rid myself of the car, so as to
avoid undo yipping from the better half, put the engine on a stand and that
way I can begin conversion, during construction down times. And yes I have
ordered my conversion manual.
Jake
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: Fuselage wedges on sides |
Michael,
One could also argue that by double mitering the diagonal you have now
created a wedge, with the tip of that wedge trying to shear the
vertical-longeron joint. That counter argument, or your original argument
are moot points, as these are not individual members only butt jointed
together, but are instead all combined together by the gussets, so that loa
d
is spread throughout the joint.
Here is a comment by Tony B, regarding the diagonals in wing ribs....same
principles/form of construction, just scaled up a bit, and an illustration:
"There are two schools of thought about fitting the diagonals. One believes
the ends should be beveled, or mitered, to fit tightly against the cap stri
p
and the adjacent upright or diagonal. The other believes the ends can simpl
y
be cut square with the corners butted against the cap strip and adjacent
upright or diagonal. Take your choice. In my opinion, the method used
doesn=92t matter. A well glued and gussetted wing rib joint is virtually
indestructible. Try to break one apart and see for yourself."
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/images/building/wood/1Making%20Woo
d%20Wing%20Ribs-3.gif
Not necessarily trying to engage in debate either. Just sharing my thoughts
and opinions on your questions, and trying to see where you're coming from.
Time for lunch! Have a good day,
Ryan
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>wr
ote:
> Ryan, it appears to me that if an angled piece as I showed, were to take
a
> shock load of some sort, it's tip would be forced to slide into the verti
cal
> piece, putting the glue joint in a shear situation. I don't know if the t
ip
> would then just curl up as the piece came loose, or what? I don't know. W
ith
> the double miter, that same shock load is somewhat shared with the vertic
al
> piece; you have the two glue joints of the double mitered piece as well
as
> the glue joint of the vertical to the longeron. It just seems to me to b
e a
> better, solid more load dispersing way to do it. (I could be wrong, it h
as
> happened before) If we have fuselage cross members being broken, a lot of
> other things have gone wrong as well...
>
> If what you say is true that the gussets make up 100% of the joint
> strength, would that mean that the wood crossmembers would not need to
> touch, that there could be a sizable gap?
>
> Sorry, but I did not take the time to draw the picture to scale, (that
> would open up the door for more "If you didn't spend so much time drawin
g
> scale pictures, you could have had the plane done by now." nonsense, but
I
> believe the surface area for the glue joint on the double miter has not
> changed, it was just moved from the longeron only to both it and the
> vertical.
>
> I am not here to debate, but when others ask questions to my questions, I
t
> then opens up even MORE questions and I like to hear what you all have to
> say.
>
> --- On *Thu, 9/3/09, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 9:58 AM
>
> If it calls for wedges, I would say use wedges.....otherwise it wouldn't
> call for wedges. :)
>
> Any particular reason for wanting to make two mitered cuts to fit the
> crossmembers instead of one?
>
> I believe in one of Tony B's books he gives examples of the various ways
> you could fit crossmembers when building wing ribs, and those principles
> would carry over to the fuselage. It doesn't so much matter how you fit t
he
> intersection of crossmembers and longerons. You gain no more strength fro
m
> your double mitered joint on the right than is given by the plans fitment
on
> the left, as zero strength is derived from the butt joints of
> crossmember-longeron-crossmember. All of the strength of that joint comes
> from the gussets tying everything together. The plans fitment requires on
ly
> one mitered cut; multiply that out over all the pieces you have to fit an
d
> you'll save some time and hassle.
>
> As an aside, the plans fitment on the left appears to cover more surface
> area, but I would imagine that's because this is not an exact, scale
> representation of the joint/gusset....
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net<h
ttp://us.mc833.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
>> The plans call for wedges in certain locations on the sides of the
>> fuselage. I have attached a picture of what the prints show and what I a
m
>> doing. On the left of the vertical piece, the print shows the angled pie
ce
>> attaching as shown at the bottom. On the right of the vertical, the way
I am
>> cutting my pieces to fit. (Angle cut both sides of the piece to fit up
>> against vertical piece.)
>>
>> Cutting in this way, I wonder if the wedge is necessary? Using the prin
t
>> sized 2-1/4" gussets, the wedge for "my side" of the drawing are very, v
ery
>> small.
>>
>> (Having said all of this, I am using the wedges to fill the area under t
he
>> gussets....just curious if it is required.)
>>
>
> *
>
> " target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piete
npol-List
> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
> *
>
===========
w.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===========
===========
com/contribution
===========
> *
>
>
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: engine stand |
Jake,
No stand needed, just use the bellhousing. Leave the bellhousing on, and
stand the engine upright on the bellhousing. You can then strip all the
accouterments off to get at the basic long block, take the heads, cylinders,
pistons and rods off, etc. Once you have it stripped down that far it will
be much lighter and easy to deal with; you can lay the case down on some
wood blocking, remove the bellhousing, and split the case. Remember to drain
the oil before you tip it up and start disassembling it.
You say it's garage kept....make sure to still verify that the engine turns,
if possible. Good luck!
Ryan
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com>wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I won't know till later today, but I may have found an entire garage kept
> 66 corvair, with 110 hp engine, for 400 bucks, and while I am still early
> in the building phase of my plane, I don't want to pass this up. Does
> anyone have drawings/plans/sketches for a corvair engine stand. My
> thoughts are to remove the engine and then rid myself of the car, so as to
> avoid undo yipping from the better half, put the engine on a stand and that
> way I can begin conversion, during construction down times. And yes I have
> ordered my conversion manual.
>
>
> Jake
>
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: engine stand |
OR, you could take the $400 and throw it in the street. Then junk the
car and engine and buy an A-65 or O-200. Of course your mileage may
vary.
do not archive
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
> Jake,
>
> No stand needed, just use the bellhousing. Leave the bellhousing on,
> and stand the engine upright on the bellhousing. You can then strip
> all the accouterments off to get at the basic long block, take the
> heads, cylinders, pistons and rods off, etc. Once you have it
> stripped down that far it will be much lighter and easy to deal
> with; you can lay the case down on some wood blocking, remove the
> bellhousing, and split the case. Remember to drain the oil before
> you tip it up and start disassembling it.
>
> You say it's garage kept....make sure to still verify that the
> engine turns, if possible. Good luck!
>
> Ryan
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-
> electric.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I won't know till later today, but I may have found an entire garage
> kept 66 corvair, with 110 hp engine, for 400 bucks, and while I am
> still early in the building phase of my plane, I don't want to pass
> this up. Does anyone have drawings/plans/sketches for a corvair
> engine stand. My thoughts are to remove the engine and then rid
> myself of the car, so as to avoid undo yipping from the better half,
> put the engine on a stand and that way I can begin conversion,
> during construction down times. And yes I have ordered my
> conversion manual.
>
>
> Jake
>
>
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuselage wedges on sides |
Thanks Ryan, good intell.- I guess I generated a little extra work on my
part... if nothing else, I got better at making miter cuts and slightly bet
ter at drawing using PAINT on the computer...--
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 |
|
Dave,
in between Waterloo and Independence Iowa, as soon as my son calls me
back I will know if it's what I am looking for. if it is I will post a
pic
Jake
"Dave Abramson" <davea@symbolicdisplays.com>
Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
09/03/2009 11:59 AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@matronics.com
To
<pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
cc
Subject
RE: Pietenpol-List: engine stand
Hey jake! Where are you? You have a picture of the car??? Curious......
Dave
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [
mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:38 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engine stand
All,
I won't know till later today, but I may have found an entire garage kept
66 corvair, with 110 hp engine, for 400 bucks, and while I am still early
in the building phase of my plane, I don't want to pass this up. Does
anyone have drawings/plans/sketches for a corvair engine stand. My
thoughts are to remove the engine and then rid myself of the car, so as to
avoid undo yipping from the better half, put the engine on a stand and
that way I can begin conversion, during construction down times. And yes
I have ordered my conversion manual.
Jake
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the MessageL
abs Email Security System.
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Re: engine stand |
John,
That's a definite possibility the problem is that here in my neck of the
woods, I am surrounded by corn and John Deere Green, so finding Aircraft
engine parts, is about as easy as finding a virgin, (excluding ugly sheep)
and I firmly believe that 6 beats 4 any day of the week. ;-)
do not archive
Jake
John Hofmann <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com>
Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
09/03/2009 12:58 PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@matronics.com
To
pietenpol-list@matronics.com
cc
Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: engine stand
OR, you could take the $400 and throw it in the street. Then junk the car
and engine and buy an A-65 or O-200. Of course your mileage may vary.
do not archive
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
Jake,
No stand needed, just use the bellhousing. Leave the bellhousing on, and
stand the engine upright on the bellhousing. You can then strip all the
accouterments off to get at the basic long block, take the heads,
cylinders, pistons and rods off, etc. Once you have it stripped down that
far it will be much lighter and easy to deal with; you can lay the case
down on some wood blocking, remove the bellhousing, and split the case.
Remember to drain the oil before you tip it up and start disassembling it.
You say it's garage kept....make sure to still verify that the engine
turns, if possible. Good luck!
Ryan
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com>
wrote:
All,
I won't know till later today, but I may have found an entire garage kept
66 corvair, with 110 hp engine, for 400 bucks, and while I am still early
in the building phase of my plane, I don't want to pass this up. Does
anyone have drawings/plans/sketches for a corvair engine stand. My
thoughts are to remove the engine and then rid myself of the car, so as to
avoid undo yipping from the better half, put the engine on a stand and
that way I can begin conversion, during construction down times. And yes
I have ordered my conversion manual.
Jake
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the MessageL
abs Email Security System.
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
The answer to your question depends on what the joint is to be used for.
If it will be ungussetted, and butt-glued on the orange lines, and the
diagonal member will be subjected to upward forces, then the lower joint
is better. BUT if you are talking about this joint being used for the
side of a Pietenpol fuselage, where the joints will be adequately
gussetted (and blocked where called for), then there is no appreciable
benefit of one over the other. Especially in the foreward part of the
fuselage, where the entire sides are completely covered by a huge
gusset.
Ryan referred to the gussets supplying all of the strength in a
gussetted joint. While not 100% true (the butt joint does provide an
insignificant amount of strength), this is a good way to look at things.
The gussets are FAR more important than the mitering (or not) of the
sticks behind the gusset. Refer to the three attachments, which are
clips from articles written by the late, great Tony Bingelis. The glue
joint between a diagonal (or longeron) and the gusset can be looked at
as an edge joint, therefore, the bigger the contact area between the
stick and the gusset, the more strength can be transferred from the
spruce to the plywood. As you can see in the Rib Joint Options sketch,
in the upper left corner, Bingelis shows a wing rib with the diagonals
cut square (no angled cuts). This could prove to be a time-saving
technique for anyone mass-producing wing ribs - but the craftsman in me
simply would not allow myself to do it - yet it will not compromise the
integrity of the rib.
Michael, in your original sketch, where you have the gusset indicated,
the horizontal line of the gusset shouls extend to the other edge of the
diagonal (for either option). This will practically double the contact
area between the diagonal and the gusset, and thus make the joint much
stronger. I have added (in red) a couple of lines to illustrate.
On a side note, I've gotta say what a great resource the EAA has now
that all past issues of Sport Aviation are now digitally archived and
available for free access by all EAA members. I just went to the
archives and did a search, and found what I was looking for. Just
accessing the archives is worth the membership fee.
Bill C.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another sketch
Here is another sketch, not to scale with the glue joints highlighted.
Is on better then the other? I don't want to drag this out more then it
needs to be, but I am curious. Thanks again...and if I come across in my
posts as a non-advice taking know it all, I am not trying to be. I have
a lot of ideas and questions and some, if not most will show up here on
the list. "You may fire when ready."
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 |
|
Michael (in Maine),
If there were no gussets being glued to the sticks, yes, that would be
the way to go (such as with a welded steel frame). With the wooden
frame, properly gussetted, the mis-alignment is inconsequential.
Strangely enough, if you look at the Pietenpol plans (1933 version), the
steel tube drawing doesn't detail the joints like that, but the steel
tube drawings in the older, F&G Manual drawings DO detail the joints
like that. I would go with the details in the F&G Manual if I was
building a steel tube fuse (which I'm not).
Bill C.
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 |
|
OR, you could take the $400 and throw it in the street. Then junk the car a
nd engine and buy an A-65 or O-200. Of course your mileage may vary.
I like John's advice but would put this twist on it. Buy the car as is fo
r $400 then put it on ebay, Craig's List, or Clark's http://www.corvair.c
om/user-cgi/main
and get whatever you can-- $1,000 maybe, $1,500 and put that money into a r
eal aircraft engine like John says above.
Mike C.
do not archive
PS-I know, Bernard used a Corvair in some of his Pietenpols but check with
Falcon Insurance, Avemco and such and see if they will insure a homebuilt w
ith a car engine. Some will not. Of course some fly with no insurance.
..another risky thing to do.
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: engine stand |
here is the real question, if Bernerd had the resources to buy a liberty or
a model A with all things being equal. What would he have used? An
aircraft engine of a Model A engine?
I do not discount the look, sound and feel and reliability of the Model A
engine, however we are looking at the work of a forward thinking man who's
only obvious constraint was cash, given the cash to purchase either (wwbb)
What would Bernie buy?
John
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
=JulystepsfooterNO115)
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: | New Directors for EAA |
I just got my new Sport Aviation and read that three new directors of EAA
are Homebuilders, and include Barry Davis, who formed the "Big Piet"
builder's group. Way to go Barry! We actually have a Pietenpol builder on
the EAA Board of Directors. Maybe my letter to Tom Poberezny after the
Pietenpols got short shrift in the Homebuilt Review at OSH did some good
(actually, I expect they had already chosen Barry at that time). I did
recommend to Poberezny that when he retires in two years, one of the
requirements for his successor should be that he/she had actually built an
airplane.
Congratulations, Barry!
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
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 |
|
Boy=2C
Some of us are touchy about those non certified powerplants =3Bo. I=2C fo
r one=2C would probably use an A65 which can be had reasonable. But the C85
s get kinda pricey. (Some of us are on a budget) and then there is that no
stalgia thing. Don't forget the Funk was certified with an automotive powe
rplant (Ford Model B) and yes they can be insured. might cost a bit more
=2C but you can get it. And hey I can go on and on about the engine failur
es my dad had with some of those certified things. Granted most have been
cured with ADs. I would be perfectly comfortable with a corvair or VW pow
ering mine or a Ford. But hey=2C that's me. According to my wife I'm nuts
anyway. I just just look at her and say=2C "You married me and were fully
aware."
Much pun intended.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: engine stand
OR=2C you could take the $400 and throw it in the street. Then junk the car
and engine and buy an A-65 or O-200. Of course your mileage may vary.
I like John=92s advice but would put this twist on it. Buy the car as is
for $400 then put it on ebay=2C Craig=92s List=2C or Clark=92s http://www
.corvair.com/user-cgi/main
and get whatever you can-- $1=2C000 maybe=2C $1=2C500 and put that money in
to a real aircraft engine like John says above.
Mike C.
do not archive
PS=97I know=2C Bernard used a Corvair in some of his Pietenpols but check w
ith Falcon Insurance=2C Avemco and such and see if they will insure a homeb
uilt with a car engine. Some will not. Of course some fly with no insu
rance=85another risky thing to do.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-U
S:WM_HYGN_faster:082009
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 |
|
Mikee wrote-
>Bernard used a Corvair in some of his Pietenpols
>but check with Falcon Insurance, Avemco and such and
>see if they will insure a homebuilt with a car engine.
The Ford 'A' engine is straight out of a car. You mean
they won't insure Piets with Fords, either?
>Of course some fly with no insurance...another risky thing to do.
I admit it... I fly barefoot (uninsured). No law
requires insurance and I think there are already too
many laws trying to protect us from lawsuits and lawyers
anyway, not to mention insurance requirements. I know,
I know... it is there to protect my widowed wife and
all the innocent people I kill on the way into the
ground, not my sorry butt if something happens.
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: engine stand |
I spoke with Bob Mackey (sp?) not too long ago at the Falcon Insurance
Oshkosh office and he stated they will insure a Pietenpol with a Corvair, if
the engine is built using William Wynne's methods
and parts. I don't know about cost as I did not get a quote at that time,
but they will definitely insure the combination.
Ryan
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mikee wrote-
>
> >Bernard used a Corvair in some of his Pietenpols
> >but check with Falcon Insurance, Avemco and such and
> >see if they will insure a homebuilt with a car engine.
>
> <snip>
Message 34
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: | MERFI, 9 days away |
Guys, Who plans on going to the mid eastern regional fly-in on the Sat the
12th?- It is at Urbana Grimes Airport.- They do have grass, and pavemen
t.- I am planning on flying over, leaving around 9am or so.- So if any
of you want to fly over togeather let me know, I can even gas you up here a
t centerburg (100LL).- I went last year and had a pretty good time, but t
he weather was kind of crapy in the a.m.- Let me know, my buddy might fly
over with his cub as well, so I might have to go practice my "slower" flig
ht to keep from out running him.
-
Missing out on the good flying weather due to replacing all the brake lines
on my truck, and fixing the rear bumper on my wifes car, and no they are n
ot related.
Shad=0A=0A=0A
Message 35
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: engine stand |
Or as my wife & I both say to each other on occasion - it was a
package deal.
Kip Gardner
In Beautiful North Canton, OH, just down the road from Stow.
On Sep 3, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Doug Dever wrote:
> Boy,
>
> Some of us are touchy about those non certified powerplants ;o.
> I, for one, would probably use an A65 which can be had reasonable.
> But the C85s get kinda pricey. (Some of us are on a budget) and
> then there is that nostalgia thing. Don't forget the Funk was
> certified with an automotive powerplant (Ford Model B) and yes
> they can be insured. might cost a bit more, but you can get it.
> And hey I can go on and on about the engine failures my dad had
> with some of those certified things. Granted most have been cured
> with ADs. I would be perfectly comfortable with a corvair or VW
> powering mine or a Ford. But hey, that's me. According to my wife
> I'm nuts anyway. I just just look at her and say, "You married me
> and were fully aware."
>
> Much pun intended.
>
>
> Doug Dever
> In beautiful Stow Ohio
>
>
> From: michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:18:00 -0500
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: engine stand
>
> OR, you could take the $400 and throw it in the street. Then junk
> the car and engine and buy an A-65 or O-200. Of course your mileage
> may vary.
>
>
> I like John=92s advice but would put this twist on it. Buy the car
> as is for $400 then put it on ebay, Craig=92s List, or Clark=92s
> http://www.corvair.com/user-cgi/main
> and get whatever you can-- $1,000 maybe, $1,500 and put that money
> into a real aircraft engine like John says above.
>
> Mike C.
>
> do not archive
>
> PS=97I know, Bernard used a Corvair in some of his Pietenpols but
> check with Falcon Insurance, Avemco and such and see if they will
> insure a homebuilt with a car engine. Some will not. Of course
> some fly with no insurance=85another risky thing to do.
>
>
> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ronics.com
> ww.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> Hotmail=AE is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
> Try it now.
>
>
Message 36
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: MERFI, 9 days away |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 37
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: New Directors for EAA |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Message 38
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: | Building or Flying |
Kip=2C
Are you building or have a piet flying? I would like to get a look at one
under construction as well as completed.
And yes Canton is beautiful. Always fly Airtran out of CAK when I travel.
A friend of mine used to be a controller there in the 80's before he got a
job flying for Rubbermaid.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
do not archive
_________________________________________________________________
With Windows Live=2C you can organize=2C edit=2C and share your photos.
http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery
Message 39
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: | alternative to nicopress |
Speaking of this month's Sport Aviation, in it there is
a nifty article on doing cable ends (thimbles) the
old-timey way, wire-wrapped and soldered. The article
is by a guy who is building a Piet, apparently not on
this list since I don't recognize the name, and it has
excellent photos and narrative on how to do cable ends
the old-style way correctly. Answered a couple of my
questions, such as why the wire wraps skip periodically
and leave a gap (to allow inspection to verify that
the cables have not slipped relative to one another)
and why the cable end is cut at an angle rather than
squarely. Really nice, and I'd say it's essential for
anyone who is building their Piet utilizing the early
methods to achieve the early look.
Even better, the author shows how to make a very secure
clamping arrangement to hold the thimble and cables in
place while the wire wraps and soldering are done. The
very same setup would be perfect for holding everything
while doing nicopress sleeves. My own experience with
them is by using the low-cost clamping tool that has
been discussed in a recent thread. My experience with
that tool is that it can be done but it takes a great
deal of patience and more hands than most of us have,
especially when installing nicos on smaller cable that
tends to squirm and move around. 1/8" cable (and larger,
if you are using any) is less problem than the smaller
stuff.
41CC actually has a couple of cable-end thimbles that
are done with wire whipping and solder. I don't know if
Joe Czaplicki or Corky corbett did them but there they
are.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 40
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: alternative to nicopress |
I have used that method to put loops in rope before also.
works good. Time consuming.
russell
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Speaking of this month's Sport Aviation, in it there is
> a nifty article on doing cable ends (thimbles) the
> old-timey way, wire-wrapped and soldered. The article
> is by a guy who is building a Piet, apparently not on
> this list since I don't recognize the name, and it has
> excellent photos and narrative on how to do cable ends
> the old-style way correctly. Answered a couple of my
> questions, such as why the wire wraps skip periodically
> and leave a gap (to allow inspection to verify that
> the cables have not slipped relative to one another)
> and why the cable end is cut at an angle rather than
> squarely. Really nice, and I'd say it's essential for
> anyone who is building their Piet utilizing the early
> methods to achieve the early look.
>
> Even better, the author shows how to make a very secure
> clamping arrangement to hold the thimble and cables in
> place while the wire wraps and soldering are done. The
> very same setup would be perfect for holding everything
> while doing nicopress sleeves. My own experience with
> them is by using the low-cost clamping tool that has
> been discussed in a recent thread. My experience with
> that tool is that it can be done but it takes a great
> deal of patience and more hands than most of us have,
> especially when installing nicos on smaller cable that
> tends to squirm and move around. 1/8" cable (and larger,
> if you are using any) is less problem than the smaller
> stuff.
>
> 41CC actually has a couple of cable-end thimbles that
> are done with wire whipping and solder. I don't know if
> Joe Czaplicki or Corky corbett did them but there they
> are.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
Message 41
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: Another sketch |
I tested a rib, if you look at the old glider manuals you'll see them sand
bagging a rib,
I took a couple of boards and cut them down to the size of spars, I then
took
a rib that I wanted to destroy, gussetts one side only (not completed) I
glued the
rib in the middle of the 3 foot section of fake spars, I then set both ends
of the fake spar on saw horses, I then added 500 lb's of weight, nothing
broke,
I then went to a friend's house and got 500 pounds of tractor wheel weights
and placed 1000 pounds on the rib, WOW's all I could think.
this was 3/8 by 1/4 boat grade DF with 1/16 gl-2 birch gussets.
Most of the cross members didn't even set flush but gapped filled with raka
epoxy
and silica.
russell
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com> wrote:
> The answer to your question depends on what the joint is to be used for.
> If it will be ungussetted, and butt-glued on the orange lines, and the
> diagonal member will be subjected to upward forces, then the lower joint is
> better. BUT if you are talking about this joint being used for the side of a
> Pietenpol fuselage, where the joints will be adequately gussetted (and
> blocked where called for), then there is no appreciable benefit of one over
> the other. Especially in the foreward part of the fuselage, where the entire
> sides are completely covered by a huge gusset.
> Ryan referred to the gussets supplying all of the strength in a gussetted
> joint. While not 100% true (the butt joint does provide an insignificant
> amount of strength), this is a good way to look at things. The gussets are
> FAR more important than the mitering (or not) of the sticks behind the
> gusset. Refer to the three attachments, which are clips from articles
> written by the late, great Tony Bingelis. The glue joint between a diagonal
> (or longeron) and the gusset can be looked at as an edge joint, therefore,
> the bigger the contact area between the stick and the gusset, the more
> strength can be transferred from the spruce to the plywood. As you can see
> in the Rib Joint Options sketch, in the upper left corner, Bingelis shows a
> wing rib with the diagonals cut square (no angled cuts). This could prove to
> be a time-saving technique for anyone mass-producing wing ribs - but the
> craftsman in me simply would not allow myself to do it - yet it will not
> compromise the integrity of the rib.
>
> Michael, in your original sketch, where you have the gusset indicated, the
> horizontal line of the gusset shouls extend to the other edge of the
> diagonal (for either option). This will practically double the contact area
> between the diagonal and the gusset, and thus make the joint much stronger.
> I have added (in red) a couple of lines to illustrate.
>
> On a side note, I've gotta say what a great resource the EAA has now that
> all past issues of Sport Aviation are now digitally archived and available
> for free access by all EAA members. I just went to the archives and did a
> search, and found what I was looking for. Just accessing the archives is
> worth the membership fee.
>
> Bill C.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael Perez
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:53 AM
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Another sketch
>
> Here is another sketch, not to scale with the glue joints highlighted.
> Is on better then the other? I don't want to drag this out more then it
> needs to be, but I am curious. Thanks again...and if I come across in my
> posts as a non-advice taking know it all, I am not trying to be. I have a
> lot of ideas and questions and some, if not most will show up here on the
> list. "You may fire when ready."
>
Message 42
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: engine stand |
OK, folks here it is, the problem is I can't definitively ID the motor, Specs:
1965 Corvair, says 500 on the fender, was licensed and driving through Jan of this
year, when the owner lost their license. apparently "garage" kept meant until
last year
See pictures: Car has 53596 miles, I was able to turn the drive pulley, the belt
was absent, so I gripped the main Harmonic balancer and turned it over a
1/4 of a turn.
it has 2 carbs, so it isn't a turbo, other than that I can't verify it's a 110
HP.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I checked the everything bracket and couldn't
find any numbers
help
Jake
--------
"Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter, and
those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261353#261353
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091710b_618.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091710a_194.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709c_924.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709b_172.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709a_141.jpg
Message 43
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: engine stand |
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
Pietenpol builder with Corvai
Hi Jake,
What is your problem? It is a 1965 Corvair which means it is a 95, 110, 140 or
180 hp. All of them have the right case, right crankshaft, and unless it is
a california smog machine it probably has the right heads as well.
The car is worth the $400 to the local Corsa club or parted out. You will have
cylinder, rod, and head cores toexchange or have rebuilt for aircraft use. BUY
IT.
Do you have WW's book on corvair engine building? Or The Corvair Junkyard Primer
which gives all the engine/car information to identify what you have.
Quit cutting bait and fish!!!
Jim B.
On Sep 3, 2009, mr-fix-all <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com> wrote:
OK, folks here it is, the problem is I can't definitively ID the motor, Specs:
1965 Corvair, says 500 on the fender, was licensed and driving through Jan of this
year, when the owner lost their license. apparently "garage" kept meant until
last year
See pictures: Car has 53596 miles, I was able to turn the drive pulley, the belt
was absent, so I gripped the main Harmonic balancer and turned it over a 1/4
of a turn.
it has 2 carbs, so it isn't a turbo, other than that I can't verify it's a 110
HP.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I checked the everything bracket and couldn't
find any numbers
help
Jake
--------
"Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter, and those
that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261353#261353
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091710b_618.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091710a_194.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709c_924.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709b_172.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709a_141.jpg
Message 44
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: engine stand |
If it's the original engine it should be correct, as Jim stated. It couldn't
hurt to check the block code to verify though. I overlaid the illustration
on where to find the block code from the Green manual on top of one of the
photos you sent. Hopefully this is clear enough:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmueller23/3885609199/sizes/o/
You'll have to dig through the grime to reveal the code, but it is there.
You are interested in the last two letters of the code. If they are:
RD, RF, RH, RX, RK, RA, RE, RG, RJ: it's a 95 or 110hp engine. Good to go.
RS, RU, RV, RW, AC, AD: these are 95 or 110hp 'smog' engines. Everything but
the heads are useable. You'll have to find a proper set of non-smog 95 to
110hp heads.
If by some oddball reason you find the following codes: YN, YM, ZF, ZG, YC,
YL, Z, ZH, ZD.....then for some reason a 1964 engine has been put into this
car. That should not be the case, but it's a 44 year old car, so who knows.
If it is a '64 code, then the only way to ensure that it would be usable
would be to remove everything from the engine to allow removal of the top
cover so you could physically verify that the crank has '8409' numbers on
it. As I said though, that is highly unlikely.
Hope that helps,
Ryan
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Jim <jimboyer@hughes.net> wrote:
>
>
> Jim Boyer
> Santa Rosa, CA
> Pietenpol builder with Corvai
>
> Hi Jake,
> What is your problem? It is a 1965 Corvair which means it is a 95, 110,
> 140 or 180 hp. All of them have the right case, right crankshaft, and
> unless it is a california smog machine it probably has the right heads as
> well.
>
> The car is worth the $400 to the local Corsa club or parted out. You will
> have cylinder, rod, and head cores toexchange or have rebuilt for aircraft
> use. BUY IT.
>
> Do you have WW's book on corvair engine building? Or The Corvair Junkyard
> Primer which gives all the engine/car information to identify what you
> have.
>
> Quit cutting bait and fish!!!
> Jim B.
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2009, mr-fix-all <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com> wrote:
>
> jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com>
>
> OK, folks here it is, the problem is I can't definitively ID the motor,
> Specs:
>
> 1965 Corvair, says 500 on the fender, was licensed and driving through Jan
> of this year, when the owner lost their license. apparently "garage" kept
> meant until last year
>
> See pictures: Car has 53596 miles, I was able to turn the drive pulley, the
> belt was absent, so I gripped the main Harmonic balancer and turned it over
> a 1/4 of a turn.
>
> it has 2 carbs, so it isn't a turbo, other than that I can't verify it's a
> 110 HP.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. I checked the everything bracket and
> couldn't find any numbers
>
> help
>
> Jake
>
> --------
> "Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter, and
> those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261353#261353
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091710b_618.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091710a_194.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709c_924.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709b_172.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/0903091709a_141.jpg
>
>
Message 45
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: | In your ear headset-diy |
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t 917
From my EAA email.
Clif
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! --
|