---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 09/03/09: 45 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:44:24 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Everything but a Pietenpol From: Robert Ray 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:09 AM PST US From: Michael Perez 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.) ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:06 AM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:51:24 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" 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 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:51:31 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:38 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:15:00 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:24 AM PST US From: Tim Willis Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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]" >Sent: Sep 3, 2009 8:45 AM >To: "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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:39:20 AM PST US From: "Ed G." Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:59 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 wrote: From: Jack Phillips 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:42 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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. wrote: From: Ed G. 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:36 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: engine stand From: jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:36 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 wrote: From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:53:31 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another sketch 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:06:16 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: landing like a Champ From: "Bill Church" 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 --> ... 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:41:49 AM PST US From: "Ed G." Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Another sketch 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:47 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:11:23 AM PST US From: "Michael Silvius" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:11:36 AM PST US From: "Dave Abramson" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:40 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage wedges on sides From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 * wrote: > > > From: Ryan Mueller > 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:41:54 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engine stand From: Ryan Mueller 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:11:18 AM PST US From: John Hofmann 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:11:32 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:23:08 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: engine stand From: jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com 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" Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com 09/03/2009 11:59 AM Please respond to pietenpol-list@matronics.com To 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:13:27 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engine stand From: jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com 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 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:42:23 PM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Another sketch From: "Bill Church" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:45:29 PM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Another sketch From: "Bill Church" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:43:58 PM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: engine stand 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:25:33 PM PST US From: AMsafetyC@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:26:49 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:36:11 PM PST US From: Doug Dever Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: engine stand 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:43:37 PM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: engine stand 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:05:34 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engine stand From: Ryan Mueller 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 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. > > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 04:17:39 PM PST US From: shad bell Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:47 PM PST US From: Kip and Beth Gardner Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:11 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: MERFI, 9 days away From: amsafetyc@aol.com U2hhZC4gUmVtaW5kZXIgYmVuZGl4IG1hZ3MgYW5kIGJveCBwcmljaW5nDQoNCkpvaG4NClNlbnQg ZnJvbSBteSBWZXJpem9uIFdpcmVsZXNzIEJsYWNrQmVycnkNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNz YWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IHNoYWQgYmVsbCA8YXZpYXRvcmJlbGxAeWFob28uY29tPg0KDQpEYXRl OiBUaHUsIDMgU2VwIDIwMDkgMTI6MDc6MzYgDQpUbzogPHBpZXRlbnBvbC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmlj cy5jb20+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBQaWV0ZW5wb2wtTGlzdDogTUVSRkksIDkgZGF5cyBhd2F5DQoNCg0K DQpHdXlzLCBXaG8gcGxhbnMgb24gZ29pbmcgdG8gdGhlIG1pZCBlYXN0ZXJuIHJlZ2lvbmFsIGZs eS1pbiBvbiB0aGUgU2F0IHRoZSAxMnRoP6AgSXQgaXMgYXQgVXJiYW5hIEdyaW1lcyBBaXJwb3J0 LqAgVGhleSBkbyBoYXZlIGdyYXNzLCBhbmQgcGF2ZW1lbnQuoCBJIGFtIHBsYW5uaW5nIG9uIGZs eWluZyBvdmVyLCBsZWF2aW5nIGFyb3VuZCA5YW0gb3Igc28uoCBTbyBpZiBhbnkgb2YgeW91IHdh bnQgdG8gZmx5IG92ZXIgdG9nZWF0aGVyIGxldCBtZSBrbm93LCBJIGNhbiBldmVuIGdhcyB5b3Ug dXAgaGVyZSBhdCBjZW50ZXJidXJnICgxMDBMTCkuoCBJIHdlbnQgbGFzdCB5ZWFyIGFuZCBoYWQg YSBwcmV0dHkgZ29vZCB0aW1lLCBidXQgdGhlIHdlYXRoZXIgd2FzIGtpbmQgb2YgY3JhcHkgaW4g dGhlIGEubS6gIExldCBtZSBrbm93LCBteSBidWRkeSBtaWdodCBmbHkgb3ZlciB3aXRoIGhpcyBj dWIgYXMgd2VsbCwgc28gSSBtaWdodCBoYXZlIHRvIGdvIHByYWN0aWNlIG15ICJzbG93ZXIiIGZs aWdodCB0byBrZWVwIGZyb20gb3V0IHJ1bm5pbmcgaGltLg0KoA0KTWlzc2luZyBvdXQgb24gdGhl IGdvb2QgZmx5aW5nIHdlYXRoZXIgZHVlIHRvIHJlcGxhY2luZyBhbGwgdGhlIGJyYWtlIGxpbmVz IG9uIG15IHRydWNrLCBhbmQgZml4aW5nIHRoZSByZWFyIGJ1bXBlciBvbiBteSB3aWZlcyBjYXIs IGFuZCBubyB0aGV5IGFyZSBub3QgcmVsYXRlZC4NClNoYWQNCg0KDQogICAgICANCg0K ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:28 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New Directors for EAA From: amsafetyc@aol.com QWxsbGxsbGxsbGxyaWdodCBCYXJyeSBncmVhdCBnb2luZyEgTm93IGRvIGl0IGxpa2UgeWEgbWVh bnQgaXQgc29uLCBJIHNheSBzb24hIE5pY2UgYm95IGJlIGhlIGRvbid0IGxpc3RlbiENCg0KSm9o bg0KU2VudCBmcm9tIG15IFZlcml6b24gV2lyZWxlc3MgQmxhY2tCZXJyeQ0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdp bmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogIkphY2sgUGhpbGxpcHMiIDxwaWV0Zmx5ckBiZWxsc291 dGgubmV0Pg0KDQpEYXRlOiBUaHUsIDMgU2VwIDIwMDkgMTQ6NDE6MDMgDQpUbzogPHBpZXRlbnBv bC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBQaWV0ZW5wb2wtTGlzdDogTmV3IERpcmVj dG9ycyBmb3IgRUFBDQoNCg0KSSBqdXN0IGdvdCBteSBuZXcgU3BvcnQgQXZpYXRpb24gYW5kIHJl YWQgdGhhdCB0aHJlZSBuZXcgZGlyZWN0b3JzIG9mIEVBQQ0KYXJlIEhvbWVidWlsZGVycywgYW5k IGluY2x1ZGUgQmFycnkgRGF2aXMsIHdobyBmb3JtZWQgdGhlICJCaWcgUGlldCINCmJ1aWxkZXIn cyBncm91cC4gIFdheSB0byBnbyBCYXJyeSEgIFdlIGFjdHVhbGx5IGhhdmUgYSBQaWV0ZW5wb2wg YnVpbGRlciBvbg0KdGhlIEVBQSBCb2FyZCBvZiBEaXJlY3RvcnMuICBNYXliZSBteSBsZXR0ZXIg dG8gVG9tIFBvYmVyZXpueSBhZnRlciB0aGUNClBpZXRlbnBvbHMgZ290IHNob3J0IHNocmlmdCBp biB0aGUgSG9tZWJ1aWx0IFJldmlldyBhdCBPU0ggZGlkIHNvbWUgZ29vZA0KKGFjdHVhbGx5LCBJ IGV4cGVjdCB0aGV5IGhhZCBhbHJlYWR5IGNob3NlbiBCYXJyeSBhdCB0aGF0IHRpbWUpLiAgSSBk aWQNCnJlY29tbWVuZCB0byBQb2JlcmV6bnkgdGhhdCB3aGVuIGhlIHJldGlyZXMgaW4gdHdvIHll YXJzLCBvbmUgb2YgdGhlDQpyZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZm9yIGhpcyBzdWNjZXNzb3Igc2hvdWxkIGJl IHRoYXQgaGUvc2hlIGhhZCBhY3R1YWxseSBidWlsdCBhbg0KYWlycGxhbmUuDQoNCkNvbmdyYXR1 bGF0aW9ucywgQmFycnkhDQoNCkphY2sgUGhpbGxpcHMNCk5YODk5SlANClJhbGVpZ2gsIE5DDQoN Cg= ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 07:04:12 PM PST US From: Doug Dever Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:13:40 PM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:23:16 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: alternative to nicopress From: Robert Ray 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:08:20 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Another sketch From: Robert Ray 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:32:45 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: engine stand From: "mr-fix-all" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:34 PM PST US From: Jim Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:30 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: engine stand From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:32 PM PST US From: "Clif Dawson" Subject: Pietenpol-List: In your ear headset-diy http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t 917 From my EAA email. Clif ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.