Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:23 AM - Re: O-235 purchase (Billy McCaskill)
2. 02:47 AM - Re: Re: O-235 purchase (Ben Charvet)
3. 03:11 AM - Re: Re: O-235 purchase (Mike Volckmann)
4. 03:14 AM - Re: Re: O-235 purchase (Jack Phillips)
5. 03:33 AM - Re: Flycorvair.com update, Brodhead mentions and some topical pics (Jack)
6. 08:01 AM - Re: Plans Question (Gene Rambo)
7. 08:23 AM - Re: Plans Question (Michael Perez)
8. 08:23 AM - Re: Plans Question (Michael Perez)
9. 09:27 AM - Re: Plans Question (Ryan Mueller)
10. 09:34 AM - Re: O-235 purchase (GliderMike)
11. 10:03 AM - Re: multiple messages-- server fouled up?-- ATTENTION, MATRONICS (Tim Willis)
12. 10:50 AM - Re: Re: engine run-up (Rick Holland)
13. 11:01 AM - Re: Re: engine run-up (Ryan Mueller)
14. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: O-235 purchase (Doug Dever)
15. 02:34 PM - Plans question (helspersew@aol.com)
16. 02:36 PM - Rib drawing (JGriff)
17. 02:48 PM - Re: O-235 purchase (GliderMike)
18. 02:49 PM - Re: Rib drawing (Ryan Mueller)
19. 03:05 PM - Re: Rib drawing (Rick Holland)
20. 03:34 PM - Re: Rib drawing (Jim Markle)
21. 03:44 PM - Re: Rib drawing (Greg Cardinal)
22. 03:51 PM - Re: Rib drawing (JGriff)
23. 04:02 PM - Re: Rib drawing (Jim Boyer)
24. 04:07 PM - Re: Re: engine run-up (Gary Boothe)
25. 04:22 PM - Re: Re: engine run-up (Jeff Boatright)
26. 04:57 PM - Re: FSDO's (shad bell)
27. 05:23 PM - Re: Rib drawing (Jack Phillips)
28. 05:52 PM - Lycoming 0290 for Piet ? (Don Rucker)
29. 06:57 PM - Re: GN-1 (TriScout)
30. 07:06 PM - Re: Continental A65 to A75 (was GN-1) (TriScout)
31. 07:56 PM - Re: Lycoming 0290 for Piet ? (GliderMike)
32. 08:23 PM - Re: Lycoming 0290 for Piet ? (Billy McCaskill)
33. 08:40 PM - Re: Looking for a piet (taildragger21)
34. 08:48 PM - Re: Re: O-235 purchase (Doug Dever)
35. 08:59 PM - Re: Plans Question (Gene Rambo)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 purchase |
This is great info to keep in mind when getting ready to choose your powerplant.
Thanks for posting this, Mike!
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310355#310355
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 purchase |
\
I'll just relate my experience. The* FAA inspector* who did my
airworthiness inspection knew that I'd rebuilt my engine myself (A-65),
and had no problem giving me a 25 hour test period. My repairman
certificate has no restrictions on doing the annual condition
inspection. Others on the list have had similar experience.
Ben Charvet
On 8/28/2010 2:30 AM, GliderMike wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "GliderMike"<glidermikeg@yahoo.com>
>
> I'm not wanting to sound like a nay-sayer, but, for what its worth, if you use
a certificated engine in an experimental, and intend to keep it as a certificated
engine, all the components and accessories need to be PMA stuff, and all
the accessories such as mags and starters, have to be on the TCDS (type certificate
data sheet) for that engine for it to stay as a certificated engine. Also,
you will have to have an A&P who has an IA do the annual on the engine (and
prop, if you are shooting for the 25 hour test flight time), if you intend
to keep the engine and prop as a certificated set. The prop would also have to
be a model that was listed on the TCDS for the engine for everything to qualify
for the 25 hour flight test, instead of 40 hour. Any deviation from the TCDS
makes it experimental.
>
> Disadvantages (some of the disadvantages) of a certificated engine and prop -
probably higher repair costs in parts, as they have to be PMA parts, and an A&P
would have to sign off on any minor repairs, and an A&P with an IA will have
to sign off on major repairs and on the annual on the powerplant. The builder
(if he gets a repairman certificate for the airplane, can still sign off the
yearly condition inspection on the airframe. (Type Certificated stuff gets
annual inspections, experimental stuff gets yearly condition inspections. Most
everyone on this list already knows this, but in case there are any who weren't
aware, I thought I'd throw that in.)
>
> Advantages (some of the advantages) of a certificated engine and prop - generally
(no guarantees, but usually) higher likelihood of good reliability, and
definitely higher resale value if all the paperwork is kept up.
>
> In my opinion, if you can afford it, the certificated engine is the way to go.
My two cents worth. There are others who will disagree, who have had excellent
success with their experimental engines, and probably just as many, if not
more, who will agree with the certificated engine idea.
>
> Mike Glasgow
> FAA A&P; FAA Repairman N777WG
>
> --------
> HOMEBUILDER
> Will WORK for Spruce
> Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
> GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310354#310354
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 purchase |
Mike,=0A=0AAlong this same thought path-I have a question.-=0A=0AI know
that an Amateur Built Experimental needs to have a conditional Inspection
=0Aonce per year, and that-the person holding the repairman's certificate
for the =0Aairplane or and A&P(with or without-IA)-can do this conditi
onal-inspection.- =0A=0A=0AMy question is that if the airplane-has an
Experimental Exhibition-Airworthiness =0Acertificate does it still need
a conditional inspection or does it need an =0AAnnual and if it is a condit
ional inspection-does the A&P need IA.=0A-Mike Volckmann =0A=0AThe only
thing we ever learn from history is that we never learn from history. =0AG
eorge Bernard Shaw =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFro
m: GliderMike <glidermikeg@yahoo.com>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0A
Sent: Fri, August 27, 2010 11:30:15 PM=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: O-235
keg@yahoo.com>=0A=0AI'm not wanting to sound like a nay-sayer, but, for wha
t its worth, if you use a =0Acertificated engine in an experimental, and in
tend to keep it as a certificated =0Aengine, all the components and accesso
ries need to be PMA stuff, and all the =0Aaccessories such as mags and star
ters, have to be on the TCDS (type certificate =0Adata sheet) for that engi
ne for it to stay as a certificated engine.- Also, you =0Awill have to ha
ve an A&P who has an IA do the annual on the engine (and prop, if =0Ayou ar
e shooting for the 25 hour test flight time), if you intend to keep the =0A
engine and prop as a certificated set.- The prop would also have to be a
model =0Athat was listed on the TCDS for the engine for everything to quali
fy for the 25 =0Ahour flight test, instead of 40 hour.- Any deviation fro
m the TCDS makes it =0Aexperimental.=0A=0ADisadvantages (some of the disadv
antages) of a certificated engine and prop - =0Aprobably higher repair cost
s in parts, as they have to be PMA parts, and an A&P =0Awould have to sign
off on any minor repairs, and an A&P with an IA will have to =0Asign off on
major repairs and on the annual on the powerplant.- The builder (if =0Ah
e gets a repairman certificate for the airplane, can still sign off the yea
rly =0Acondition inspection on the airframe.- (Type Certificated stuff ge
ts annual =0Ainspections, experimental stuff gets yearly condition inspecti
ons.- Most =0Aeveryone on this list already knows this, but in case there
are any who weren't =0Aaware, I thought I'd throw that in.)=0A=0AAdvantage
s (some of the advantages) of a certificated engine and prop - =0Agenerally
(no guarantees, but usually) higher likelihood- of good reliability, =0A
and definitely higher resale value if all the paperwork is kept up.=0A=0AIn
my opinion, if you can afford it, the certificated engine is the way to go
.- =0AMy two cents worth.- There are others who will disagree, who have
had excellent =0Asuccess with their experimental engines, and probably jus
t as many, if not more, =0Awho will agree with the certificated engine idea
.=0A=0AMike Glasgow=0AFAA A&P; FAA Repairman N777WG=0A=0A--------=0AHOMEBUI
LDER=0AWill WORK for Spruce=0ALong flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
=0AGliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:
=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310354#310354=0A=0A=0A
===================
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 purchase |
That mirrors my experience exactly, Ben. I rebuilt my A65 (had to make a
new log, as the old logs were lost). Still got the 25 hr flyoff. My
inspection was done by the FSDO, not a DAR
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: O-235 purchase
\
I'll just relate my experience. The FAA inspector who did my airworthiness
inspection knew that I'd rebuilt my engine myself (A-65), and had no
problem giving me a 25 hour test period. My repairman certificate has no
restrictions on doing the annual condition inspection. Others on the list
have had similar experience.
Ben Charvet
On 8/28/2010 2:30 AM, GliderMike wrote:
<mailto:glidermikeg@yahoo.com> <glidermikeg@yahoo.com>
I'm not wanting to sound like a nay-sayer, but, for what its worth, if you
use a certificated engine in an experimental, and intend to keep it as a
certificated engine, all the components and accessories need to be PMA
stuff, and all the accessories such as mags and starters, have to be on the
TCDS (type certificate data sheet) for that engine for it to stay as a
certificated engine. Also, you will have to have an A&P who has an IA do
the annual on the engine (and prop, if you are shooting for the 25 hour test
flight time), if you intend to keep the engine and prop as a certificated
set. The prop would also have to be a model that was listed on the TCDS for
the engine for everything to qualify for the 25 hour flight test, instead of
40 hour. Any deviation from the TCDS makes it experimental.
Disadvantages (some of the disadvantages) of a certificated engine and prop
- probably higher repair costs in parts, as they have to be PMA parts, and
an A&P would have to sign off on any minor repairs, and an A&P with an IA
will have to sign off on major repairs and on the annual on the powerplant.
The builder (if he gets a repairman certificate for the airplane, can still
sign off the yearly condition inspection on the airframe. (Type
Certificated stuff gets annual inspections, experimental stuff gets yearly
condition inspections. Most everyone on this list already knows this, but
in case there are any who weren't aware, I thought I'd throw that in.)
Advantages (some of the advantages) of a certificated engine and prop -
generally (no guarantees, but usually) higher likelihood of good
reliability, and definitely higher resale value if all the paperwork is kept
up.
In my opinion, if you can afford it, the certificated engine is the way to
go. My two cents worth. There are others who will disagree, who have had
excellent success with their experimental engines, and probably just as
many, if not more, who will agree with the certificated engine idea.
Mike Glasgow
FAA A&P; FAA Repairman N777WG
--------
HOMEBUILDER
Will WORK for Spruce
Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310354#310354
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flycorvair.com update, Brodhead mentions and some |
topical pics
Ryan thanks for sharing, great history!
Jack
DSM
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 6:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Flycorvair.com update, Brodhead mentions and
some topical pics
http://flycorvair.com/hangar.html
William Wynne has added an update to his website, and there is a fair amount
there that is of interest to Pietenpolers (even if you don't like
Corvairs!).
Ryan
do not archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I had thought it was 1" square=2C but do not have plans in fornt of me. If
they are 1" x 3/4=2C then the 1" is in the fore and aft plane=2C 3/4" tall
as shown in the drawing Ryan posted.
Gene
> From: catdesigns@att.net
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
> Date: Fri=2C 27 Aug 2010 22:57:58 -0700
>
>
> True Mike but look on the steel split axel gear page upper right drawing
=2C it
> clearly says the front ash cross piece is 2"x1" with the ends tapered to
> 3/4".
>
> Fortunately either way works.
>
> Now on the original fuselage (wood landing gear) there are no ash cross
> braces. There are 1"x3/4" spruce cross braces. What orientation the 1"
> dimension should be is debatable.
>
> Welcome to the world of Pietenpol drawings.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento=2C Ca
> Westcoastpiet.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Perez
> Sent: Friday=2C August 27=2C 2010 3:06 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
>
> --> <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Just checked my plans and both ash pieces are shown on the fuselage page.
> Both pieces are 3/4" X 2".
>
> Yes=2C I really should keep the floor and shop a little cleaner.
>
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> Www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The original question was referring to the "wood" landing gear, not the spl
it axle. Those wood pieces would be different for the different style gear
used.- I am curious as to what the "original fuselage" plans are. My fuse
lage plan is dated 1933 and shows the 2" X 3/4" ash.
-
-
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sat, 8/28/10, Chris <catdesigns@att.net> wrote:
From: Chris <catdesigns@att.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
True Mike but look on the steel split axel gear page upper right drawing, i
t
clearly says the front ash cross piece is 2"x1" with the ends tapered to
3/4".
Fortunately either way works.
Now on the original fuselage (wood landing gear) there are no ash cross
braces.- There are 1"x3/4" spruce cross braces.- What orientation the 1
"
dimension should be is debatable.
Welcome to the world of Pietenpol drawings.
Chris
Sacramento, Ca
Westcoastpiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
--> <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
Just checked my plans and both ash pieces are shown on the fuselage page.
Both pieces are 3/4" X 2".
Yes, I really should keep the floor and shop a little cleaner.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
Www.karetakeraero.com
le, List Admin.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I can post a small picture of that part of the plan I am referring to if it
would help. By now, (or by the time we get it figured out) the original po
ster will have his gear finished.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sat, 8/28/10, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
From: Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
I had thought it was 1" square, but do not have plans in fornt of me.- If
they are 1" x 3/4, then the 1" is-in the fore and aft plane, 3/4" tall a
s-shown-in the drawing Ryan posted.
-
Gene
-
> From: catdesigns@att.net
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:57:58 -0700
>
>
> True Mike but look on the steel split axel gear page upper right drawing,
it
> clearly says the front ash cross piece is 2"x1" with the ends tapered to
> 3/4".
>
> Fortunately either way works.
>
> Now on the original fuselage (wood landing gear) there are no ash cross
> braces. There are 1"x3/4" spruce cross braces. What orientation the 1"
> dimension should be is debatable.
>
> Welcome to the world of Pietenpol drawings.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, Ca
> Westcoastpiet.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Perez
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:06 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
>
> --> <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Just checked my plans and both ash pieces are shown on the fuselage page.
> Both pieces are 3/4" X 2".
>
> Yes, I really should keep the floor and shop a little cleaner.
>
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> Www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Plans Question |
Hi Michael,
The "original" plans (that we can still find) would be the drawings that
were published in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual. Those contain the
shortest fuselage, the wood landing gear, etc. They are obviously very small
drawings compared to full size plans, and would be a little difficult to
build from.
The plans available from the family are the "Improved" plans from '33. The
"improvements" are the split axle gear, slightly longer fuselage, and I
don't recall the rest of the top of my head.
Ryan
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
The original question was referring to the "wood" landing gear, not the
split axle. Those wood pieces would be different for the different style
gear used. I am curious as to what the "original fuselage" plans are. My
fuselage plan is dated 1933 and shows the 2" X 3/4" ash.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On *Sat, 8/28/10, Chris <catdesigns@att.net>* wrote:
From: Chris <catdesigns@att.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
<catdesigns@att.net<http://us.mc833.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=catdesigns@att.net>
>
True Mike but look on the steel split axel gear page upper right drawing, it
clearly says the front ash cross piece is 2"x1" with the ends tapered to
3/4".
Fortunately either way works.
Now on the original fuselage (wood landing gear) there are no ash cross
braces. There are 1"x3/4" spruce cross braces. What orientation the 1"
dimension should be is debatable.
Welcome to the world of Pietenpol drawings.
Chris
Sacramento, Ca
Westcoastpiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com<http://us.mc833.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com<http://us.mc833.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>]
On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
--> <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net<http://us.mc833.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
>
Just checked my plans and both ash pieces are shown on the fuselage page.
Both pieces are 3/4" X 2".
Yes, I really should keep the floor and shop a little cleaner.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
Www.karetakeraero.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List< -->
http://forums.matronbsp;
- List Contribution Web Site -http://www======================
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
*
*
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 purchase |
It is my understanding that for an engine to remain a certificated engine, it has
to have an annual done by someone with an IA, and all the parts and accessories
have to be PMA parts and accessories. I also suspect the 25 hour versus
the 40 hour test flight time when using an engine that was originally certificated
may be up to the interpretation of the inspector issuing the airworthiness
certificate. The aircraft I built was a hot air balloon, and I placed my own
serial numbers on everything I used that had been originally PMA parts with
serial numbers, so none of it required an IA for the yearly condition inspection.
I don't own it now, and it is more than a thousand miles from where I now
live, so I don't have access to the airworthiness certificate and limitations.
I do remember I only had a ten hour flight test requirement on it, because
it was a balloon.
I had a light system that was built with identical parts used in another light
system that had been approved with a Form 337, and a FSDO inspector from my area
told me it wasn't legal, because there was no indication the parts were PMA
parts, even though the system had been approved under a Form 337 at another FSDO
office, with identical (read same manufacturers and part numbers) parts.
It is all subject to interpretation. I borrowed a portable self contained transponder
from a friend, and had my local IA install it (basically do a Form 337
for my aircraft) on my balloon, and someone from the local FSDO said it wasn't
legal, even though another FSDO inspector from a different FSDO had said it
was.
An experimental exhibition aircraft will probably only require a yearly condition
inspection, but the airworthiness certificate should indicate whether an annual
is required, or a yearly condition inspection is required. An A&P (with
or without an IA) or a person holding a Repairman's Certificate for the particular
aircraft should be eligible to do a condition inspection. The limitations
on the airworthiness certificate should indicate which type inspection is required.
I'm not an attorney, so I am not legal counsel for matters that fall
into areas of interpretation.
If I had an experimental with a certificated engine in it, I personally would probably
want to have someone with an IA do an annual on the engine, to know for
sure it would remain a certificated engine, and have a higher resale value,
if I planned to sell it sometime in the near future. If I planned to keep it
forever, I probably wouldn't go to the extra expense. The resale value of a certificated
engine is (normally) going to be higher than the resale of an experimental
engine. If you plan to keep it forever, or don't feel the extra expense
outweighs the potential resale value, it doesn't matter. Sort of like buying
a new car that you are going to keep until the wheels fall off, versus buying
a used car that you intend to part with in 3 years. I've personally had better
success with new cars lasting longer than used cars I have had, because
I know how they've been taken care of, and how they've been driven from day one.
Some people have different experiences.
As with all things, everything is subject to interpretation. Which, in my opinion,
is why everything that has to do with aviation has gotten so expensive.
If we could keep the ambulance chasers away, the costs wouldn't keep going up.
There are those that would argue that the ambulance chasers are part of what
keeps the general public safer, and that argument does have some merit. There
was a guy who bought a trike in my general area, and tried to fly it out of
a baseball field, and crashed. Rumor control had it, he had no flight training,
and the news people indicated he hit power lines. Fortunately, no one other
than the pilot was hurt. He didn't survive. The people who are heavily into
controlling everything would outlaw trikes, or anything else that can be improperly
used, to protect the general public. My opinion (everybody has one) is
the pilot was at fault, for not using any common sense, and tried to fly the
aircraft without the necessary skill or knowledge about flying. Instances like
this, fuel the fire for everything being registered, and operated within the
limitations of the registration, with dire consequences for the violators and
their estates.....
Part of what I have figured out over the years, is don't ask too many questions,
don't attract any more attention than absolutely necessary, do everything as
close to what you read the rules to be, and keep your nose as clean as possible.
Again, my two cents worth.
do not archive
--------
HOMEBUILDER
Will WORK for Spruce
Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310390#310390
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | multiple messages-- server fouled up?-- ATTENTION, |
MATRONICS
Skip, thanks for catching that. It seems to have cleared up now.
Tim in central TX
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: Skip Gadd <skipgadd@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Aug 27, 2010 4:56 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: multiple messages-- server fouled up?-- ATTENTION,
MATRONICS
>
>
>Tim, so far the only ones who have said anything about multiple messages
>have earthlink dot net addresses.
>Skip at earthlink, sometimes getting more than 6 copies.
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Tim Willis <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>> To: matronics piet site <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Date: 8/27/2010 3:56:37 PM
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: multiple messages-- server fouled up?--
>ATTENTION, MATRONICS
>>
><timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>>
>> The last two days including the present, I am occassionally only getting
>one message from board members, but often 2,3,4 or 6 copies of the same
>post.
>>
>> Something is wrong with our server.
>> Tim in central TX
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine run-up |
Am going to add a skull cap spinner on my corvair also, figure it may
improve airflow around the center of the prop a little.
rick
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:13 PM, skellytown flyer <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>wrote:
> skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
>
> Thanks- and after re-reading the post it should have said about 224 was the
> highest CHT I saw. and I ran it again at Dusk when I could see the timing
> mark a lot better and I had it dead on 32 degrees. a little cooler air temp
> and I didn't make as many runs it never got over about 202 CHT. I will
> install the top cowl now and may even put the big spinner back on- Wynn
> claims it adds a lot to the cooling and air flow I think. I like the looks a
> lot better without it but guess performance is something too. I'd kinda like
> to find a cheap deal on one of the little skull cap type spinners. now if I
> could get the dad gummed Datcon brand tach to calibrate. Raymond do not
> archive.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310336#310336
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine run-up |
Jess says they look like a boob....in case you wanted to have a different
perspective on it. :P
Ryan
do not archive
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am going to add a skull cap spinner on my corvair also, figure it may
> improve airflow around the center of the prop a little.
>
> rick
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:13 PM, skellytown flyer <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Thanks- and after re-reading the post it should have said about 224 was
>> the highest CHT I saw. and I ran it again at Dusk when I could see the
>> timing mark a lot better and I had it dead on 32 degrees. a little cooler
>> air temp and I didn't make as many runs it never got over about 202 CHT. I
>> will install the top cowl now and may even put the big spinner back on- Wynn
>> claims it adds a lot to the cooling and air flow I think. I like the looks a
>> lot better without it but guess performance is something too. I'd kinda like
>> to find a cheap deal on one of the little skull cap type spinners. now if I
>> could get the dad gummed Datcon brand tach to calibrate. Raymond do not
>> archive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310336#310336
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 purchase |
Mike=2C
a lot of the circumstances you cite are not spelled out in the FAR's and ye
s=2C they are up to interpretation. However it does specify in the regs t
hat for an experimentl airplane with a certified engine/propeller combinati
on the fly off time is 25hrs. I don't think there is much left to interpre
tation. But=2C then again=2C we are talking about our wonderful government
. nothing would suprise me.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: O-235 purchase
> From: glidermikeg@yahoo.com
> Date: Sat=2C 28 Aug 2010 09:33:50 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that for an engine to remain a certificated engine
=2C it has to have an annual done by someone with an IA=2C and all the part
s and accessories have to be PMA parts and accessories. I also suspect the
25 hour versus the 40 hour test flight time when using an engine that was o
riginally certificated may be up to the interpretation of the inspector iss
uing the airworthiness certificate. The aircraft I built was a hot air ball
oon=2C and I placed my own serial numbers on everything I used that had bee
n originally PMA parts with serial numbers=2C so none of it required an IA
for the yearly condition inspection. I don't own it now=2C and it is more t
han a thousand miles from where I now live=2C so I don't have access to the
airworthiness certificate and limitations. I do remember I only had a ten
hour flight test requirement on it=2C because it was a balloon.
>
> I had a light system that was built with identical parts used in another
light system that had been approved with a Form 337=2C and a FSDO inspector
from my area told me it wasn't legal=2C because there was no indication th
e parts were PMA parts=2C even though the system had been approved under a
Form 337 at another FSDO office=2C with identical (read same manufacturers
and part numbers) parts. It is all subject to interpretation. I borrowed a
portable self contained transponder from a friend=2C and had my local IA in
stall it (basically do a Form 337 for my aircraft) on my balloon=2C and som
eone from the local FSDO said it wasn't legal=2C even though another FSDO i
nspector from a different FSDO had said it was.
>
> An experimental exhibition aircraft will probably only require a yearly c
ondition inspection=2C but the airworthiness certificate should indicate wh
ether an annual is required=2C or a yearly condition inspection is required
. An A&P (with or without an IA) or a person holding a Repairman's Certific
ate for the particular aircraft should be eligible to do a condition inspec
tion. The limitations on the airworthiness certificate should indicate whic
h type inspection is required. I'm not an attorney=2C so I am not legal cou
nsel for matters that fall into areas of interpretation.
>
> If I had an experimental with a certificated engine in it=2C I personally
would probably want to have someone with an IA do an annual on the engine
=2C to know for sure it would remain a certificated engine=2C and have a hi
gher resale value=2C if I planned to sell it sometime in the near future. I
f I planned to keep it forever=2C I probably wouldn't go to the extra expen
se. The resale value of a certificated engine is (normally) going to be hig
her than the resale of an experimental engine. If you plan to keep it forev
er=2C or don't feel the extra expense outweighs the potential resale value
=2C it doesn't matter. Sort of like buying a new car that you are going to
keep until the wheels fall off=2C versus buying a used car that you intend
to part with in 3 years. I've personally had better success with new cars l
asting longer than used cars I have had=2C because I know how they've been
taken care of=2C and how they've been driven from day one. Some people have
different experiences.
>
> As with all things=2C everything is subject to interpretation. Which=2C i
n my opinion=2C is why everything that has to do with aviation has gotten s
o expensive. If we could keep the ambulance chasers away=2C the costs would
n't keep going up. There are those that would argue that the ambulance chas
ers are part of what keeps the general public safer=2C and that argument do
es have some merit. There was a guy who bought a trike in my general area
=2C and tried to fly it out of a baseball field=2C and crashed. Rumor contr
ol had it=2C he had no flight training=2C and the news people indicated he
hit power lines. Fortunately=2C no one other than the pilot was hurt. He di
dn't survive. The people who are heavily into controlling everything would
outlaw trikes=2C or anything else that can be improperly used=2C to protect
the general public. My opinion (everybody has one) is the pilot was at fau
lt=2C for not using any common sense=2C and tried to fly the aircraft witho
ut the necessary skill or knowledge a!
> bout flying. Instances like this=2C fuel the fire for everything being re
gistered=2C and operated within the limitations of the registration=2C with
dire consequences for the violators and their estates.....
>
> Part of what I have figured out over the years=2C is don't ask too many q
uestions=2C don't attract any more attention than absolutely necessary=2C d
o everything as close to what you read the rules to be=2C and keep your nos
e as clean as possible.
>
> Again=2C my two cents worth.
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> HOMEBUILDER
> Will WORK for Spruce
> Long flights=2C smooth air=2C and soft landings=2C
> GliderMike=2C aka Mike Glasgow
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310390#310390
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Ryan said:
The "original" plans (that we can still find) would be the drawings that
were published in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual
Not so fast Ryan. My recollection is, that there very well might be some
early sketches in my possession from the packet of "lost" BHP papers that
are entrusted with me, that pre-date the Flying and Glider Manual. Unfort
unately, the Costco pickle jar cannot be opened for ANY reason, prior to
the "once per calendar year" routine, so as to preserve them from exposur
e to oxygen. The next scheduled opening event is 5/25/2011. So FYI y'all
might want to get your queries repaired.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't
give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to plot
out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since
the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the drawing
and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct
because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch
dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years
past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting it
out?
Thanks.
Jamie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310413#310413
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 purchase |
The interpretation comes into play, when the certified engine has non PMA parts
and accessories installed, and is rebuilt by someone other than a person with
an A&P rating. If there isn't a paperwork trail on a part going back to Noah
and the Ark, it most likely isn't PMA approved, at which time the certified engine
does not conform to the TCDS, and is no longer a certified engine. My understanding
is, the engine and/or propeller has to conform to the TCDS to continue
to be a certified engine. The builder can get a repairman's Certificate
after it is completed, but he didn't have one when the engine was rebuilt. Obviously,
some FSDO people see this as OK. I suspect there are some who don't
see it as OK.
My last two cents.
I get wound up by involving myself in discussions like this, and begin to wonder
why I took the time and went to the expense to get an A&P rating. Especially
since I have been looking for a job for nearly 4 months since getting the rating.
Everyone wants at least 3 to 5 years experience.
--------
HOMEBUILDER
Will WORK for Spruce
Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310416#310416
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!
Ryan
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff <jgriffith19@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't
give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to
plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since
the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the
drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct
because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch
dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years
past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting
it out?
> Thanks.
> Jamie
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310413#310413
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I used it, I checked the coordinates and also found it right on.
rick
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM, JGriff <jgriffith19@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I
> didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was
> going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to
> use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double
> checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I
> assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge.
> Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing
> improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it
> instead of plotting it out?
> Thanks.
> Jamie
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310413#310413
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
My rib layout was the same. Everything measured exactly, so I layed out a straight
line on my mdf (after making a copy at Kinkos) and lined it up and applied
some spray adhesive and got busy building ribs. If I was to do it again I believe
I would seal up the mdf just to make sure no moisture would change it's
size...probably not an issue, but couldn't hurt.
You could spend countless hours analysing the pros and cons of using that piece
of paper. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, just not something that gets me
all tingly...
Also, right between the nose piece gussets there's enough room to write something...I
wrote the date each one came out of the jig..see attached.
I say just line it up good and get started. And be sure to let us know how it
feels when you take that first rib out of the jig...
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: JGriff <jgriffith19@comcast.net>
>Sent: Aug 28, 2010 4:35 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib drawing
>
>
>I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't
give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to
plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since
the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the
drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct
because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch
dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years
past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting
it out?
>Thanks.
>Jamie
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310413#310413
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jamie,
As Ryan, Rick and Jim indicated, go ahead and use the supplied drawing
without fear.
NX18235 was built using that rib drawing and has happily flown 240+ hours.
No worries......
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: "JGriff" <jgriffith19@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:35 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib drawing
>
> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I
> didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was
> going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not
> to use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just
> double checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58"
> which I assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or
> trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot
> on. Has the drawing improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it -
> has anyone else used it instead of plotting it out?
> Thanks.
> Jamie
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310413#310413
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks for the quick answers and encouragement. I'll go with the drawing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310424#310424
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I used it after I measured it like you did. If its spot on for the spar dim
ension its on for the rest.
Just=C2- the concern is that paper will expand or contact depending on hu
midity etc. If you do your rib jig right away its not going to move.
Cheers,
Jim B.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JGriff" <jgriffith19@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 2:35:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib drawing
I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I did
n't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was goi
ng to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to us
e it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double
checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I
assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge.
Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawin
g improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used
it instead of plotting it out?
Thanks.
Jamie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310413#310413
===========
===========
MS -
===========
e -
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine run-up |
Hmmmm...how can I get two..?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(20 ribs down.)
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: engine run-up
Jess says they look like a boob....in case you wanted to have a different
perspective on it. :P
Ryan
do not archive
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com> wrote:
Am going to add a skull cap spinner on my corvair also, figure it may
improve airflow around the center of the prop a little.
rick
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:13 PM, skellytown flyer <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
Thanks- and after re-reading the post it should have said about 224 was the
highest CHT I saw. and I ran it again at Dusk when I could see the timing
mark a lot better and I had it dead on 32 degrees. a little cooler air temp
and I didn't make as many runs it never got over about 202 CHT. I will
install the top cowl now and may even put the big spinner back on- Wynn
claims it adds a lot to the cooling and air flow I think. I like the looks a
lot better without it but guess performance is something too. I'd kinda like
to find a cheap deal on one of the little skull cap type spinners. now if I
could get the dad gummed Datcon brand tach to calibrate. Raymond do not
archive.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310336#310336
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engine run-up |
You should already come equipped with two. You
may prefer the style offered on the other gender,
but with enough beer, brats, and chips, your two
could look ...vaguely... similar!
If you did not come equipped with two, I suggest
you send your body back for a refund!
Alternatively, you may have a future with the
circus.
Do not archive
>Hmmmm=8A..how can I get two=8A.?
>
>Gary Boothe
>Cool, Ca.
>Pietenpol
>WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
>Tail done, Fuselage on gear
>(20 ribs down=8A)
>Do not archive
>
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]
>On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
>Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 11:00 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: engine run-up
>
>Jess says they look like a boob....in case you
>wanted to have a different perspective on it.
>:P
>
>Ryan
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Guys, one thing that I have found is that every fsdo interperates the FAR's
differently.- What one says is- A-O-K, will be a violation with anothe
r.- Many of the FAR's are so grey that it takes 10 min of study to interp
erate one sentence.- Then, add to that the ego's of some FAA inspectors w
ithin the same fsdo.- I have been an A+P for the airlines for 10 + years,
and can tell you that those who can't do, supervise, those who can't do ei
ther, go to the faa.- My best advise for anyone is when it comes to a maj
or concern, such as wheather or not the engine needs an a+p to sign off the
overhaul, or changing parts not on the TCDS, etc etc, and it is going to b
e a major factor in your making a purchase, call the fsdo and check with th
em 1st.-
-
"We're here to help."
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I used the supplied rib template.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JGriff
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib drawing
I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I
didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was
going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to
use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double
checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I
assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge.
Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing
improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it
instead of plotting it out?
Thanks.
Jamie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310413#310413
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lycoming 0290 for Piet ? |
Help!
I have found a local, 0 time since factory remanufacture Lycoming 0290
(125hp) cheap. It is complete. When I say cheap I am talking less than a
Covair project. This seems an excessive amount of horsepower for a Piet.
Best I can determine this model 0290 weighs 240lb dry. That is not much
different than a model =93A=94 from a weigh perspective. Does anyone know o
f a
successful Piet flying with a 0290? The owner is going to list it Monday so
I must act quickly.
All thoughts welcome.
Thanks,
Don
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks a bunch Roman/Jeff/Ben/Kevin..
Sorry if I tend to reply late, I fly Int'l cargo and left the message when in Brazil
.. or Germany..I think. Yeah, Don in GA said he built a Piet way back when,
so I'd think he would understand the drag of a Piet. All excellent stuff.
Hmmm, now I'm wondering if I should give the 72x42 pitch that Don said is 'standard'
for the A65 some more thought. He did say that it would be plenty safe
to change the size/pitch, since I'll be operating it as an experimental. .. larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310438#310438
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Continental A65 to A75 (was GN-1) |
Thanks Dan/Oscar...
U guys are the guru's.. I've got the cd's w/maint manuals for the continentals
on them and I'm starting to browse and learn from them. This forum is priceless..
Larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310439#310439
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming 0290 for Piet ? |
It would definitely raise the service ceiling, and increase the performance if
you fly anywhere the density altitude is higher. The excess horsepower won't
make a big difference in cruise in anything except fuel consumption, but it will
make a difference in take off and climb performance, especially at heavier
weights.
--------
HOMEBUILDER
Will WORK for Spruce
Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310440#310440
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming 0290 for Piet ? |
It's only an excessive amount of power if you open the throttle all the way, and
nobody said you need to open the throttle all the way all the time. Extra power
is nice to have when you need it!
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310444#310444
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a piet |
Any more opinions on this plane?? It is a LONG drive..LOL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310448#310448
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 purchase |
You have a point=2C but I don't think that is interpretation. That would b
e bending and some inspectors might be willing to bend more than others.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: O-235 purchase
> From: glidermikeg@yahoo.com
> Date: Sat=2C 28 Aug 2010 14:48:28 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
> The interpretation comes into play=2C when the certified engine has non P
MA parts and accessories installed=2C and is rebuilt by someone other than
a person with an A&P rating. If there isn't a paperwork trail on a part goi
ng back to Noah and the Ark=2C it most likely isn't PMA approved=2C at whic
h time the certified engine does not conform to the TCDS=2C and is no longe
r a certified engine. My understanding is=2C the engine and/or propeller ha
s to conform to the TCDS to continue to be a certified engine. The builder
can get a repairman's Certificate after it is completed=2C but he didn't ha
ve one when the engine was rebuilt. Obviously=2C some FSDO people see this
as OK. I suspect there are some who don't see it as OK.
>
> My last two cents.
>
> I get wound up by involving myself in discussions like this=2C and begin
to wonder why I took the time and went to the expense to get an A&P rating.
Especially since I have been looking for a job for nearly 4 months since g
etting the rating. Everyone wants at least 3 to 5 years experience.
>
> --------
> HOMEBUILDER
> Will WORK for Spruce
> Long flights=2C smooth air=2C and soft landings=2C
> GliderMike=2C aka Mike Glasgow
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310416#310416
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
get what figured out?? My first response to him was correct and still stan
ds. He asked about the dimensions of the ash piece when using the wooden g
ear=2C and I correctly pointed out that per the plans=2C there is no ash pi
ece in the fuselage when building the wooden gear. The only ash is the blo
ck at the bottom of the gear=2C which I assume he is not asking about. He
can=2C of course=2C build to the later plans which include an ash piece=2C
and then modify his gear fittings accordingly=2C but his original question
was answered the same day.
Gene
do not archive
From: speedbrake@sbcglobal.net
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
I can post a small picture of that part of the plan I am referring to if it
would help. By now=2C (or by the time we get it figured out) the original
poster will have his gear finished.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sat=2C 8/28/10=2C Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
From: Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
I had thought it was 1" square=2C but do not have plans in fornt of me. If
they are 1" x 3/4=2C then the 1" is in the fore and aft plane=2C 3/4" tall
as shown in the drawing Ryan posted.
Gene
> From: catdesigns@att.net
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
> Date: Fri=2C 27 Aug 2010 22:57:58 -0700
>
>
> True Mike but look on the steel split axel gear page upper right drawing
=2C it
> clearly says the front ash cross piece is 2"x1" with the ends tapered to
> 3/4".
>
> Fortunately either way works.
>
> Now on the original fuselage (wood landing gear) there are no ash cross
> braces. There are 1"x3/4" spruce cross braces. What orientation the 1"
> dimension should be is debatable.
>
> Welcome to the world of Pietenpol drawings.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento=2C Ca
> Westcoastpiet.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Perez
> Sent: Friday=2C August 27=2C 2010 3:06 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plans Question
>
> --> <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Just checked my plans and both ash pieces are shown on the fuselage page.
> Both pieces are 3/4" X 2".
>
> Yes=2C I really should keep the floor and shop a little cleaner.
>
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> Www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenp
ol-List
et=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|