---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 11/15/09: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:42 PM - Certified Engine question (Ben Charvet) 2. 04:03 PM - Re: Certified Engine question (Jack Phillips) 3. 04:03 PM - Re: Certified Engine question (Jack Phillips) 4. 06:39 PM - Re: Certified Engine question (Don Emch) 5. 07:04 PM - Re: UK built-up wing spar (Robert Ray) 6. 08:17 PM - Piet Flying (Perry Rhoads) 7. 08:55 PM - Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 (Graham Hansen) 8. 09:14 PM - Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 005 (Graham Hansen) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:42:54 PM PST US From: Ben Charvet Subject: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would drive the insurance folks nuts. I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than its engine/prop anyway. This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a tough choice. My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are concerned? Thanks Ben Charvet ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:03:07 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question Oh, I never answered your question. I left the original dataplate on the engine. It was riveted to the crankcase and was all but illegible, but it's still there. Jack Phillips NX899JP Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:40 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would drive the insurance folks nuts. I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than its engine/prop anyway. This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a tough choice. My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are concerned? Thanks Ben Charvet ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:03:37 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question Ben, I rebuilt my A65, with no logbooks at all. I built it under the supervision of an IA, but he didn't turn a wrench on it, and didn't sign anything off. I made a new log for it, with the following notation: "Recording Tach time: 0.00 Hours; Total Time in Service: Unknown; Overhauled engine in accordance with Continental Overhaul Manual to "New" limits. Installed the following overhauled components: Crankcase, overhauled by Divco, Inc. "Yellow Tag" WDC#79640. Crankshaft, S/N S111199-2, overhauled by Aircraft Specialties, Connecting rods S111199-2, overhauled by Aircraft Specialties, Rocker Arms P/N 639615, overhauled by Triad Aviation. The following parts were magnafluxed by Triad Aviation: Crankshaft Gear, Camshaft Gear, Oil Pump Impellers. Installed the following new parts: Camshaft (P/N 4546) - Fresno Air Parts; Cam Followers (8) (P/N 21608) - Fresno Air Parts; Millennium Cylinders (S/N 65A01988/89/90/91 - Superior Air Parts; Magnetos (Slick 4333), new Unison ignition harness, UREM40E Sparkplugs. Overhauled Stromberg NAS3-A1 Carburetor with stainless steel needle valve. Installed Brackett air filter, BA-4106. Installed new stainless steel intake pipes." I dated that notation July 8, 2002, which was when I built the engine. Then, when the FAA came out to inspect the airplane (I used the local FSDO, rather than a DAR. The DAR wanted $500 to inspect it. The FAA was free, but I had to wait a week for them to come out.), the inspector asked me to make the following notation in the log: Date 10/5/2004; Recording Tach Time 00.77 hours; "I certify that I have inspected this engine and propeller in accordance with the scope and details of Appendix D to Part 43 and found it to be in a condition for safe operation" Signed: J.C. Phillips (Repairman- Pending) That was all there was to it. The inspector was aware that I had rebuilt the engine, and that it had a certificated prop. He signed off the airplane with a 25 hour phase 1 test period. I think the FAA Inspectors are actually quite a bit more lenient than the DAR's are (probably because they don't worry about the FAA breathing over their shoulders like the DARs do). Good luck, Jack Phillips NX899JP Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:40 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by. Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear. I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good. Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild. So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case, crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would drive the insurance folks nuts. I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date. I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than its engine/prop anyway. This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a tough choice. My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are concerned? Thanks Ben Charvet ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:39:42 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Certified Engine question From: "Don Emch" Ben, Jack's experience sounds exactly like mine. I also had the FAA do the inspection. They had me write a similar entry in my logbook. He was aware that I had done a large amount of the work on the engine too. It's almost like that didn't even matter. I also didn't have an IA signature. As a side note. Although these engines are super simple and there are many overhaul shops out there, the guys that truly know these engines (the small Continentals) are getting harder and harder to come by. I would encourage anyone that has access to a mechanic that is very knowledgeable on these engines to soak up as much info as you can. Learn and understand your engine well. They really are remarkable little engines. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272992#272992 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:04:46 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: UK built-up wing spar From: Robert Ray Who approved it the Queen or Prince Charles? Russell McRay On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote: > Will he sell them to Canadians? > > Ryan > > do not archive > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM, wrote: > >> Over the years I as well as others have been unsuccessfully in getting >> the UK spar plans. The person who designed the spar will not sell them to >> anyone in the U.S. due to liability concerns. >> >> Chris >> Sacramento, CA >> WestCoastPiet.com >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Lloyd Smith >> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:34 AM >> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: UK built-up wing spar >> >> Oscar, I have looked at the built up spars as well, and it is hard to >> determine how they are constructed from photos. I have searched for a place >> to order the PFA drawings for this spar, but all I have found is Mr. >> Trextor's drawings of his proposed spar. It looks doable, but I'm >> interested in the necessity of intercostals where the ribs attach, filler >> blocks where fittings attach, etc. These things are just as important as >> the spanwise loads because that's how we hang the fuse from the wing, :-) >> >> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Oscar Zuniga wrote: >> >>> taildrags@hotmail.com> >>> >>> >>> Is the built-up (box) wing spar that is approved >>> for use in the U.K. a 3/4" thick spar or 1"? I've >>> looked at pictures of one (Paul Shenton's, I believe) >>> and can't see how it could possibly be 3/4". >>> >>> Oscar Zuniga >>> Air Camper NX41CC >>> San Antonio, TX >>> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com >>> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net >>> >>> ========== >>> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com >>> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >>> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>> le, List Admin. >>> ========== >>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List >>> ========== >>> http://forums.matronics.com >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists >> or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." --British >> publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954) >> >> * >> >> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com >> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com >> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com >> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List >> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >> * >> >> * >> >> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com >> >> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >> >> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> * >> >> > * > > * > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:17:28 PM PST US From: "Perry Rhoads" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Flying Just a few random Pietenpol flying pictures from yesterday in central Illinois. I can't let this thing sit in the hangar all winter !!! Perry Rhoads N12939 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:55:16 PM PST US From: "Graham Hansen" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 Group, Today, November 15th, is the 39th anniversary of the first flight of my Pietenpol. Due to other commitments, I flew it yesterday because after 39 years a day either way didn't seem significant. Here is a shot taken over the nose before the camera battery gave up because of the cold (about 35 degrees F.). I'll send another shot taken on this flight in a following post. Cheers, Graham Hansen (in central Alberta, Canada) The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:14:21 PM PST US From: "Graham Hansen" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 005 Group, Here is another shot taken toward the port side showing lots of landing spots (stubble fields) in case of an engine failure. This little airplane has been a great source of pleasure to me, and I hope all of you have as much fun with your Pietenpols as I have had with mine. Cheers, Graham Hansen (in central Alberta, Canada) The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.