Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:16 AM - Re: EAA Forums - off topic (Charles Campbell)
2. 06:24 AM - Re: Re: Piet vs. GN-1 (Charles Campbell)
3. 06:30 AM - Re: Re: Engine out (Charles Campbell)
4. 06:43 AM - Re: Re: Engine out (Charles Campbell)
5. 06:45 AM - Re: A65-8 Run Up (TriScout)
6. 07:05 AM - Re: Engine Out and Glider Rating (Woodflier@aol.com)
7. 01:17 PM - Re: Piet vs. GN-1 (Mild Bill)
8. 01:36 PM - Re: A65 spark plugs (Dan Yocum)
9. 04:34 PM - Jointer - Planer Do I Need It (Ryan M)
10. 05:08 PM - Re: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It (gboothe5@comcast.net)
11. 05:41 PM - Re: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It (airlion)
12. 06:26 PM - Re: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It (Gene Rambo)
13. 06:33 PM - Re: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It (tools)
14. 06:47 PM - Re: Engine out (tools)
15. 07:28 PM - Re: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It (Bill Church)
16. 09:52 PM - Pietenpol Sky Scout 10718 (K5YAC)
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: EAA Forums - off topic |
The Piet forum is all I can keep up with! Don't need another one. Tried to
get on the Corvair forum, but never could get on -- don't know why. C
----- Original Message -----
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: EAA Forums - off topic
>
> I'm sure that many of you are already aware of this, but just in case the
> Pietenpol mailing list isn't enough to entertain you through the day...
> the new EAA Forums are finally up and running. Yes, it's true, they
> finally $#!tcanned the Oshkosh365 forum and fired up a Vbulletin powered
> forum. Big improvement.
>
> Anyhow... they were supposed to lite it up after Oshkosh, but it looks
> like it went live in mid-July. There were ~400 members signed on
> yesterday... today there are over 800. Hopefully it will be an active
> community for those that want to share ideas and organize events.
>
> www.eaaforums.org
>
> Do not archive
>
> --------
> Mark Chouinard
> Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349147#349147
>
>
>
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: Piet vs. GN-1 |
OK! I'm building my Piet directly according to the plans (with a few minor
changes, like aileron hinges) but, I had a full-size copy of the GN-1 wing
rib before I got my Piet plans. So I built my rib jig and thus the ribs per
the GN-1 wing. So, I will have a GN-1 wing on a Piet body with a Corvair
engine. (What a mish-mash) Sooooo. What cabane dimensions should I use?
I'm almost to that point in the building process. Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mild Bill" <whfrank@charter.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:11 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet vs. GN-1
>
>
> SteveR wrote:
>> I have a GN-1, built (finished) in 1983. It has about 700 hours total
>> time on it, about 400 of those are mine. I've also flow "true" Piets, and
>> they fly nearly identical. My wing does have negative camber, and to me
>> is visually identical to the Piet wing.
>>
>> The wing is much higher than the Piet, which makes getting in and out
>> much easier. However, I wonder if this doesn't slow my plane down due to
>> the elevator being trimmed down to counteract the up-pitching moment from
>> the wing's drag being so far above the cg & thrustline (in addition to
>> the up-pitching moment of the wing itself).
>
> Well, just playing devil's advocate here, but....
>
> If your wing has negative camber, which I take to mean undercamber, then
> its pitching moment is about the same as the infamous FC-10's, namely, a
> walloping big dose of negative pitching moment. Since this means that the
> wing by itself wants to pitch the whole airplane nose down, the increased
> nose up moment from the higher placed wing may provide a better
> "counterbalance" to the wing's pitching moment, thereby reducing the
> amount of downward lift required from the horizontal tail to balance
> things out, thereby reducing the induced drag from the horizontal tail,
> thereby....
>
> INCREASING the cruising speed of your GN-1 !!!
>
> By a tenth of a mile per hour or so. :D
>
> --------
> Bill Frank
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349143#349143
>
>
>
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 |
|
I'm using 8.00 X 6 tires. I won't be able to go into quite as many hay
fields as you but almost! Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum@fnal.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Engine out
>
>
> On 08/10/2011 06:57 AM, Don Emch wrote:
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Don Emch"<EmchAir@aol.com>
>>
>> Dan, those are 8.50 x 6. I think your Piet needs those too. I've
>> thought about putting together a set for mine and just switching back and
>> forth between tall tires and really cool hayfield 8.5 x 6's whenever the
>> mood strikes.
>
> My 8.00x4 Cub tires are pretty good, but those 8.50x6 look like I could
> get into (and out of) a bunch more bean, corn, or hay fields.
>
> Thanks!
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Dan Yocum
> Fermilab 630.840.6509
> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
>
>
>
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 |
|
A good friend of mine, a CFI, was teaching his daughter in a
Taylorcraft. He gave her anengine out and she picked out what they
thought was a good field. He decided to let her go until just before
touch down. Low and behold, after they got too low to pull out of the
field they saw a single wire going across the field at about the
mid-point. She added full power to try to miss the wire, but it caught
the landing gear and they ended up upside down in the farmer's field.
All the damage was done to the top of the wing so a recover job fixed
most of the damage. Moral !!! Don't EVER take a simulated emergency
too low unless you have advance knowledge of the field.
My $.02 worth. Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: mark lee
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Engine out
Jack thanks for sharing your experiences with us. At a future point
that may be soon or later I'll be looking for a relevant CFI. You may be
able to help in that dept.Or you may be able to tell me where to find
what I need.My personal timeline is a bit up in the air but the
resources are coming along very well.One thing I would like covered
more,is getting the proper flight training.Maybe not all the time, as
this is a builders networking site.But the subject is very important and
I'm sure that I'm not alone.
do not archive
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Jack Phillips
<pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Hi Larry,
Outstanding that you practice engine out procedures on your own!
Just don=92t get too low before adding the power back in. As a CFI, I
make sure that I cover engine out procedures on every BFR I do. I
usually pick a field that is not readily visible to the pilot, then have
him/her do a maneuver (I actually prefer to pull the throttle while they
are doing "clearing turns" prior to beginning a maneuver so it takes a
few seconds to wrap their head around the fact that they just lost the
engine). It doesn't matter if they find the field that I had chosen, as
long as a) they choose a field suitable to land in and, b) they set up a
glide that will actually make the field. Once the glide is established
I'll put the power back in, without ever letting them get lower than
about 500' AGL. Then we=92ll discuss the likely results. I remember
one pilot at Smith Mountain Lake that chose a field and remembered the
wind direction and set up his landing into the wind. Unfortunately, the
terrain around the lake is fairly mountainous and his choice to land
into the wind (which was only blowing about 5 knots) meant he was
landing downhill and heading for the water. He realized his mistake but
too late to make it to another field. Had this been a real forced
landing, he would have been swimming. If he had chosen to land uphill,
it would have been a very easy landing to make, even if it was downwind.
It's good practice (and helps pass the time on a long cross-country)
to constantly be looking for fields where you can make a successful
forced landing, and keep that field in mind until you find another one
further ahead, then start looking again. Understand that in a
Pietenpol, the glide ratio is not very good (actually, it is similar to
that of the Space Shuttle, which is awful), so your radius of search is
pretty small. The good news is it doesn't take a very big field to put
a Pietenpol down in, but you might have to take it out by truck.
I've never had a total power failure, but I have had two forced
landings due to partial power failures. Both were preventable. The
first was in a J-3 Cub in Tennessee many years ago. The local A&P had
pulled the spark plugs to clean them (we had been having magneto
problems that summer) and forgot to torque one of them. The plug blew
out while I was on a cross-country, and the engine would only maintain
about 1200 RPM - not enough to keep it in the air. I was over
Interstate 40 but didn't want to land on the busy highway and remembered
a pasture about a mile back. I made a safe landing in the pasture and
found the plug still hanging on the harness. After borrowing a 7/8"
deep socket from the farmer I re-installed the plug and flew the plane
out of the pasture and back home.
The second was with my Pietenpol, after I had inserted some
stainless steel wool in the carb heat muffs to increase heat transfer.
I did some fairly extensive ground testing and verified (I thought) the
wool was secure, and then flew it for several hours, checking it after
each flight. Then I flew a photo mission on a cold (29=B0 F) morning
over a lake just west of Raleigh, NC. I was having trouble keeping up
with the Aviat Husky photo plane and was picking up carburetor ice. I
pulled on full carburetor heat and continued flying at full throttle to
keep up with the Husky. Just as we finished the shoot, the wool came
loose and was immediately sucked into the carburetor (obviously, my
testing should have been done at full throttle, and cruise speeds). The
RPM dropped to about 1200 and I immediately went to best glide speed,
which on my plane is 55 mph. I was 800=92 AGL and the VSI said I was
coming down at 400 fpm. I was over a forest but heading for the closest
airfield, which was about 4 miles away. As I came over US Highway 64 I
was at 200=92 and still well over a mile from the strip so I opted to
land on the highway. As I set up to land, I realized a pickup truck was
right where I needed to be, so I had to pull the nose up and let him get
in front of me. Then, to keep from stalling I nosed down and literally
flew it into the ground, hitting fairly hard and bouncing. I recovered
from the bounce and landed it 3-point and was congratulating myself for
having survived when the right wing started to drop. Full left aileron
and full left rudder weren=92t enough to keep it on the road and it went
off into the ditch on the right and groundlooped. Only after it stopped
did I realize the axle had broken when I first hit and I was trailing
the right wheel by the brakeline. Only time I=92ve ever put a scratch
on an airplane.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ozarkflyer
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:59 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Engine out
<lragan@hotmail.com>
Thanks for all of the great input and personal experiences. I'm just
trying to find out things others have experienced and hoping to have
enough sense to check for those obvious things that could cause a
problem. Even the not-so-obvious things. My experience has been limited
to C-150/52, C-172 and C-182 so you can see my curiosity regarding other
types of ac and engines. I have no experience with tail-draggers or
stick controls but hopefully that issue will be resolved within the next
couple of months.
The value of practicing engine out procedures seems to be
in-valuable but my experience is that it is never practiced during a
BFR. Even through 3 CFI's who have given me the BFR, so I just do it on
my own.
Larry Ragan
Mountain View, AR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349114#349114
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Re: A65-8 Run Up |
Thanks...
I've got the overhaul manual in hard copy. I suspect that I'll have to revisit
the throttle linkage first. It was 41 deg out w/Density Alt about 4k, but I would
still like to see at least 2100 r's to get a warm fozzy. Maybe new plugs would
do the trick as well..
Ler
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349174#349174
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: Engine Out and Glider Rating |
Dan, I didn't know you were a fellow glider-guider. No wonder I liked you
from the get-go. I've been a glider pilot since I was 16. Did you see Barry
Schiff's article in AOPA Pilot magazine a few months ago on the value of
learning to fly gliders? Great piece.
Matt
From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Engine out
All,
I've said it before and I'll say it again - getting my glider rating was
one of the best things ever I ever did and made me a much better pilot
over all.
Talk about the ultimate engine out experience. Every time you pull the
tow release knob you are committed to land exactly one time. And the
winner is the one who can stay aloft the longest, glide the farthest,
and spot land that sucker exactly on a dime.
That is all. As you were.
Dan
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Piet vs. GN-1 |
Do you know exactly which wing section the GN-1 plans use?
Hmm.... This might be informative:
http://gn-1aircamper.blogspot.com/
If the coordinates given under the heading "XFOIL Blended Airfoil Ordinates" on
that site produce a section that looks exactly (or very nearly) like the section
on the ribs you built, then we may be in business. Those coordinates were
presumably fed into XFOIL to generate the plot under the previous heading "XFOIL
Version 6.96 Analysis GN-1 Aircamper Airfoil at Stall Speed". The wing angle
of incidence relative to the top longerons in the cabane area can be determined
by knowing the difference between the zero lift and cruising lift angles of
attack read off the plot. (Plus knowing the angle between the top longerons
and the horizon in level cruising flight in case they are not parallel.)
For those with sharp eyes who noticed that the plot is only for the Reynolds number
at stall speed: Yes, the airfoil will probably be slightly more efficient
at cruise speed, so the angle of attack for the cruise coefficient of lift might
be slightly lower than the value read off the plot, but the difference won't
be significant.
--------
Bill Frank
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349205#349205
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: A65 spark plugs |
I forgot to mention, I've got unshielded plugs and harness - the kind
with the clip on that are exposed to the elements (and rain at Brodhead).
Sorry for the confusion and thanks for your time!
Dan
On 08/10/2011 07:57 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips"<pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>
> I'm slowly replacing the Unison plugs in my A65 with Champions. The
> Champions cost more but seem to last much longer and resist fouling better.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> steve@wotelectronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:18 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A65 spark plugs
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: steve@wotelectronics.com
>
> I use the REM-37BY projected nose plugs in my A-75. When I bought them
> about 3 years ago they were Autolite/Unison and about $15 each.
> Autolite stopped production and Tempest took over. Now they are about
> $23. Champion's version is nearly $30.
>
> The 37BY was made specifically for the C-152 with the O-235 I believe.
> The projected nose design is to prevent lead fouling. It also results
> in I believe about a 3%-5% increase in horsepower...I forget where I
> read that. I thought those were both good things so that is what I am
> using. I believe these are recommended for the O-320 and O-360 also.
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/temptestplugs8.php
>
> Steve Ruse
> Norman, OK
>
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:50:59 -0500, Dan Yocum wrote:
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Dan Yocum<yocum@fnal.gov>
>>
>> I had the condition inspection done on N8031 the other day. Almost
>> felt my wallet jump out of my back pocket when the left rear cylinder
>> wouldn't initially hold more than 30lbs of pressure, but after
>> whacking the valves with a rubber mallet and wiggling the prop back
>> and forth a little it came up to 70lbs. The engine was cold - I
>> should have run her a little to loosen up the rings. Live an' learn.
>>
>> My A&P/IA says I should get 4 new bottom plugs. I've got Auburn
>> 185T-8 plugs almost all the way around, but Auburn was sold to
>> Champion a while back so I probably won't be able to find those,
>> again
>> (maybe at Fresno Air Parts...).
>>
>> Does any other Continental pilot have any suggestions on what I
>> should get, instead?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> Dan Yocum
>> Fermilab 630.840.6509
>> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
>> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
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: | Jointer - Planer Do I Need It |
Hey guys I have a old Craftsman planer-joiner that's taking up room in my s
hop that I got from a-relative. Do I need it for the Piet or can everythi
ng be done with a table saw? I don't know how to use it, I tried it once an
d it scared the heck out of me.=0A=0ARyan
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: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It |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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: | Re: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It |
Ryan, you can use it to plan down wood for spars. It would pay for itself if you
can find the wood. Cheers, Gardiner
________________________________
From: Ryan M <aircamperace@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, August 11, 2011 7:30:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It
Hey guys I have a old Craftsman planer-joiner that's taking up room in my shop
that I got from a relative. Do I need it for the Piet or can everything be done
with a table saw? I don't know how to use it, I tried it once and it scared the
heck out of me.
Ryan
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: | Jointer - Planer Do I Need It |
Ryan=2C you do not need or want that. A real planer is a good thing and a
very useful tool=2C but that joiner is not very useful. If you ever see an
old woodworker missing a finger=2C I guarantee it was done on a joiner.
Gene
From: aircamperace@yahoo.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It
Hey guys I have a old Craftsman planer-joiner that's taking up room in my s
hop that I got from a relative. Do I need it for the Piet or can everything
be done with a table saw? I don't know how to use it=2C I tried it once an
d it scared the heck out of me.
Ryan
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: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It |
That is actually a jointer. A jointer/planer is a rather specialized combination
tool, that isn't very common.
A planer will have some sort of provision for allowing the tool to merely change
the thickness of the wood while maintaining the planed face parallel to the
other side.
A jointer is designed to get one face of the wood flat, and one edge flat and perpendicular
to that first face. A planer then conditions the remaining face,
a table saw then takes care of the fourth side to a specific width.
This jointer can only surface a 6" wide board. In practice, you would want a jointer
as wide as your planer. Most home shops buy wood already surfaced, so
most jointers are only used to "joint" the wood, which is to say, make one edge
REALLY straight for good glue ups edge to edge, to make a wider board (as in
a table top). This jointer generally had that in mind when made and marketed.
Although made during the years when Craftsman, like many others, had some quality
control issues, it's a really nice design, that uses a parallelogram geometry
for table movement. Properly adjusted, and it's very adjustable, it's a gem.
However, not much resale value, and probably not super useful in building a Piet.
The bed is much too short for proper surfacing of a board 15 feet long. And
once you get one face cleaned up, there is no way to ensure when you do the
opposite side, that it will be parallel to the first in two planes, which it
needs to be.
If my friends over on the old woodworking machine forum catch me saying this, I'll
be ousted... but the little relatively inexpensive 12" "lunchbox" planers
available from Lowes, Home Depot (for example) will do a fine job of dimensioning
your lumber for a piet project.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349231#349231
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 |
|
Ok guys, already mentioned my lack of experience in the light civil world... I
was talking to my dad, who was taking a BFR some years ago with a guy, that liked
engine out practice...
This guy tricked my dad into doing something with the tank switch in something,
a single engine something with two tanks apparantly, rented for the flight, and
SHUT DOWN THE ENGINE. ALL ONE OF THEM!!!
I was STUNNED. During checkrides when I was flying the twin engine Lockheed S-3B
Viking, we were supposed to shut down an engine and do an inflight restart.
I always flatly refused. While the NATOPS check guys were always senior to
me, I was the aircraft commander, in the left seat. Simply refused. We have
VERY NICE simulators, PERFECT for that sort of thing.
Anyway, my next question was to ask my dad if he then shoved the guy out of the
airplane, to help the glide ratio! Dad picked out a good field, it all looked
good, they restarted the engine and went along with the check ride. Dad thought
it was good practice. Actually, I think it was over the airport they were
flying out of that day.
Is that normal?
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349232#349232
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Jointer - Planer Do I Need It |
Maybe if you could post a larger photo...
Just kidding.
What you have there is a very useful tool ... if you're joining boards together
- like for a tabletop. For building a Piet, I can think of no parts that would
benefit from it.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349237#349237
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 |
|
Subject: | Pietenpol Sky Scout 10718 |
I stumbled across the original Sky Scout (10718) by complete accident this morning.
A friend informed me that an original Pietenpol airplane was in our area.
I was surprised that I had not heard of this sooner, but as it turns out, the
new owner (Fred Houston - a model T restorer) has only had the airplane for about
a year. Fred runs a storage facility, but several of the buildings along
the front of the property resemble an old 1930s town. Inside his shop are several
antiques and Ford Model-T related items. A pretty neat place to have a look
at a genuine piece of Pietenpol history right in the ol back yard. Enjoy the
photos.
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1462061128410.45716.1739931453&l=ef485b561a&type=1
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349241#349241
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! --
|