Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:58 AM - Re: external static port (helspersew@aol.com)
2. 06:24 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Charles Campbell)
3. 06:31 AM - Re: Different thot about door (AircamperN11MS)
4. 06:41 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Kip and Beth Gardner)
5. 07:06 AM - Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (giacummo)
6. 07:40 AM - Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (giacummo)
7. 07:58 AM - Re: External static ports (Woodflier@aol.com)
8. 08:05 AM - Re: Different thot about door (Mild Bill)
9. 08:21 AM - Re: external static port (Hans Van Der Voort)
10. 08:24 AM - Re: Different thot about door (AircamperN11MS)
11. 08:27 AM - Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (AircamperN11MS)
12. 08:27 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
13. 08:27 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Ryan Mueller)
14. 09:08 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Charles Campbell)
15. 09:10 AM - Re: Re: Different thot about door (Charles Campbell)
16. 09:31 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Perry Rhoads)
17. 09:31 AM - Re: Re: Different thot about door (Dan Yocum)
18. 09:40 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Ryan Mueller)
19. 09:42 AM - Re: Different thot about door (AircamperN11MS)
20. 09:43 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (John Hofmann)
21. 09:43 AM - Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (AircamperN11MS)
22. 09:44 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
23. 09:52 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Perry Rhoads)
24. 09:54 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (TOM STINEMETZE)
25. 10:31 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Dan Yocum)
26. 10:47 AM - Re: external static port (Ben Charvet)
27. 11:02 AM - Re: Re: Different thot about door (Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG FORSCOM)
28. 11:58 AM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (JerryGrogan)
29. 12:08 PM - Re: Re: Different thot about door (Gboothe5)
30. 12:13 PM - Re: Re: Different thot about door (mike Hardaway)
31. 12:57 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (airlion)
32. 01:58 PM - Re: Different thot about door (AircamperN11MS)
33. 02:24 PM - Re: Re: Different thot about door (Jack)
34. 02:31 PM - Re: Re: Different thot about door (Jack)
35. 03:02 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Gene Rambo)
36. 03:54 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Doug Dever)
37. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Doug Dever)
38. 04:23 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Gene Rambo)
39. 05:28 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (helspersew@aol.com)
40. 06:00 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Jack Phillips)
41. 06:10 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (mark lee)
42. 06:42 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Gene Rambo)
43. 07:23 PM - Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Don Emch)
44. 08:58 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Jim Boyer)
45. 09:23 PM - Re: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door (Doug Dever)
46. 09:32 PM - Piet Front Step (Perry Rhoads)
47. 09:35 PM - More Front Step (Perry Rhoads)
48. 11:02 PM - Re: Re: Different thot about door (Greg Cardinal)
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: external static port |
My ASI is so wildly erratic that I don't even look at it. Tried different s
tatic port locations to no avail. Admittedly I haven't checked to see if th
e ASI is OK yet. I bought it on Ebay. Maybe if I just hook up a vinyl pitot
tube to the back and hold it into the windstream to see if it registers be
tter? When I was at Brodhead Billy Mcaskil (sp) suggested I put a straw on
the pitot to get it more ahead of the wing LE to see if that helped....it d
idn't. Oh well, who needs airspeed in a Piet anyway?
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Could Keri Ann's design be incorporated in a fuselage that is basically
complete except for the side plywood and turtle deck? How can I get a
set of her plans? C
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Dever
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
If you want a door, why not just use Kerri Ann's plans. Proven
design. Just my .02
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
> From: mario.giacummo@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:09:21 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
<mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
>
> Bill,
>
> I agree with you, open and closing with bolts it's an uncomfortable
idea, but I think (I did't see any statistic about) that the major time
the piets fly with just the pilot.. about dimenssions, of course, it
just an idea, not a design.
> I do not messure anything yet, i am going to do it.. so from yours
three points I am going to see 2, the lenght of the fitting, and how to
fix the square tube to the wood without damage to much de longeron.
>
> --------
> Mario Giacummo
> http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349859#349859
>
>
> Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>===
>
>
>
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: Different thot about door |
I have a door in my steel tube piet. It's a great addition to the plane. I fly
it quite often with the door open. The only noticeable difference is that I
get more wind up my pant leg. Bad thing to do in the winter though. Burrr!
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349945#349945
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Charles,
I once asked her if it was possible to incorporate it into a fuse with
the sides already on & she said yes, but with some difficulty and the
finished product might not be as good as if starting from scratch.
I'd think it would be a lot easier if you don't have the plywood on
yet. Hopefully, you haven't varnished anything yet either.
She posts to the list on a regular basis, so her contact info is in
the archive.
Kip Gardner
On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Charles Campbell wrote:
> Could Keri Ann's design be incorporated in a fuselage that is
> basically complete except for the side plywood and turtle deck? How
> can I get a set of her plans? C
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Doug Dever
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:38 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
> If you want a door, why not just use Kerri Ann's plans. Proven
> design. Just my .02
>
> Doug Dever
> In beautiful Stow Ohio
>
>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
> > From: mario.giacummo@gmail.com
> > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:09:21 -0700
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I agree with you, open and closing with bolts it's an
> uncomfortable idea, but I think (I did't see any statistic about)
> that the major time the piets fly with just the pilot.. about
> dimenssions, of course, it just an idea, not a design.
> > I do not messure anything yet, i am going to do it.. so from yours
> three points I am going to see 2, the lenght of the fitting, and how
> to fix the square tube to the wood without damage to much de longeron.
> >
> > --------
> > Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349859#349859
> >
> >
> > Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> >===
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://
> www.matronics.com/c
>
>
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
womenfly2 wrote:
> giacummo ... what you are doing here is a very unsafe and uncalculated engineered
design.
>
> ... but what do I know.
Keri-ann, I am not doing anything wrong, I am just puting an idea on the table
to discuss it, analyze it, and may be make functional and safe design; I think
there are lot of members with head enough to resolv this problem.
Regards.
[/i][/u]
--------
Mario Giacummo
http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349949#349949
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door, just the idea and if
it could be possible to do it or not; if no, why, and if yes.. I am intersted
in this because is a fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot
of people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for them... an "open
design" of the door, this one or an other one...
So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it look in place.
the measures are what they are, measures, without any engineering on it, may be
they could be larger or shorter, thiker or thiner walls, or a bad solution at
all; lets search for a proof of concept.
Regards.
--------
Mario Giacummo
http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
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: External static ports |
Dan asked-
>is anyone else using an external static port, or is
>everyone just leaving the static ports open on the back of
>their instruments?
Dan, I just drilled small holes in some plastic plugs that fit the
plumbing holes in the back of the altimeter and airspeed. I don't know whether
that affected the accuracy of the indications - the altimeter is a 1-pointer
non-sensitive instrument anyhow. All seems to work ok and a lot simpler.
Based on my airspeed indications when Jack and Kevin and I flew up to
Oshkosh, and what Jack was indicating, we were pretty close on our readings.
Matt Paxton
NX629ML
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: Different thot about door |
"Air Camper, thy name is DRAG."
Leaving the door off will add a cup of drag to a big bucketful of existing drag.
'Tain't no big ting, mon.
--------
Bill Frank
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349961#349961
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: external static port |
Mark langford has a method on his website to check and calibrate an ASI
http://www.n56ml.com/airspeed_calibration/
Hans
NX15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: helspersew <helspersew@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2011 6:59 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: external static port
My ASI is so wildly erratic that I don't even look at it. Tried different s
tatic port locations to no avail. Admittedly I haven't checked to see if th
e ASI is OK yet. I bought it on Ebay. Maybe if I just hook up a vinyl pitot
tube to the back and hold it into the windstream to see if it registers be
tter? When I was at Brodhead Billy Mcaskil (sp) suggested I put a straw on
the pitot to get it more ahead of the wing LE to see if that helped....it d
idn't. Oh well, who needs airspeed in a Piet anyway?
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
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: Different thot about door |
Bill,
I agree, Door open or closed, Pull the power back then throw out a brick and see
where you are going to land.
A friend of mine actually gave me a brick to carry for that reason. He said it
would save some precious time looking for a suitable landing field in case of
an engine failure. I haven't needed it yet. :-)
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349964#349964
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
I think your metal fittings would outweigh the wood modes in Kerri-anns design.
Stay with what works.
Just saying,
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349966#349966
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Mario,
At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it roughed in
and supported with a design that made sense and transferred the loads both
down and around the proposed opening, not doing the math or analysis
planned as a next step. Before fully committing to the door I stopped and I
decided against it, for the following reasons:
There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the airframe,
cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no sense, and to tell
you the truth frightened me to a point that I would have no piece of mind
wondering if the other longerons were able to support the load and flexing
moments placed on them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger that may
be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't make sense either.
plenty of smaller people that want to ride and require no doors or reasonable
accommodations, ADA compliant
The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change that may
weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and take passengers on
occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong airframe integrity for the
occasional passenger. Makes no sense here either
There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can and do fit
easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to accommodate the
unfitting few? repeat of the point
I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the once or twice rider.
makes no sense
here either
I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I don't ask for
nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and weight preclude that. I
understand it, I accept it and I make no excuses for it. That's the way it
is and I make no bones about it. Weight and balance, flying over gross are
just two of the important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess
with something that needs not be compromised ?
I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will greatly
appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather that going through it on
an
attempted takeoff.
Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the commitment of
poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish people. And the opinion of the
writer bearing no value to anyone determined to kill themselves or others
though poor decision making.
John
Safe in the morning
In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "giacummo"
<mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door, just the idea
and if it could be possible to do it or not; if no, why, and if yes.. I am
intersted in this because is a fact that it is not easy to go into the
front for a lot of people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for
them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other one...
So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it look in place.
the measures are what they are, measures, without any engineering on it,
may be they could be larger or shorter, thiker or thiner walls, or a bad
solution at all; lets search for a proof of concept.
Regards.
--------
Mario Giacummo
http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
If you're bound and determined to put a door in a wood fuselage Piet, then
why not just use the design that has already been done....and flown? There's
your proof of concept:
https://sites.google.com/site/pietenpolplanpackages/pietenpol-plan-packages/suppemental-plan-packages
Ryan
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:38 AM, giacummo <mario.giacummo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door, just the idea
> and if it could be possible to do it or not; if no, why, and if yes.. I am
> intersted in this because is a fact that it is not easy to go into the front
> for a lot of people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for
> them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other one...
>
> So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it look in place.
> the measures are what they are, measures, without any engineering on it,
> may be they could be larger or shorter, thiker or thiner walls, or a bad
> solution at all; lets search for a proof of concept.
>
>
> Regards.
>
> --------
> Mario Giacummo
> http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
>
>
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
I haven't learned (or taught myself) how to use the archives. I guess
I'd better get hot and learn how. And, no, I haven't put on the plywood
sides as yet or put on any varnish. I am waiting to put in the
controls, cables, seats, etc so that it will be easier than having to
lean over into the cockpit(s) to do that. I have to build the left wing
and varnish those before I get restarted on the fuselage.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Charles,
I once asked her if it was possible to incorporate it into a fuse with
the sides already on & she said yes, but with some difficulty and the
finished product might not be as good as if starting from scratch. I'd
think it would be a lot easier if you don't have the plywood on yet.
Hopefully, you haven't varnished anything yet either.
She posts to the list on a regular basis, so her contact info is in
the archive.
Kip Gardner
On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Charles Campbell wrote:
Could Keri Ann's design be incorporated in a fuselage that is
basically complete except for the side plywood and turtle deck? How can
I get a set of her plans? C
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Dever
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
door
If you want a door, why not just use Kerri Ann's plans. Proven
design. Just my .02
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
> From: mario.giacummo@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:09:21 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
<mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
>
> Bill,
>
> I agree with you, open and closing with bolts it's an
uncomfortable idea, but I think (I did't see any statistic about) that
the major time the piets fly with just the pilot.. about dimenssions, of
course, it just an idea, not a design.
> I do not messure anything yet, i am going to do it.. so from
yours three points I am going to see 2, the lenght of the fitting, and
how to fix the square tube to the wood without damage to much de
longeron.
>
> --------
> Mario Giacummo
> http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349859#349859
>
>
> Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>===
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
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: Different thot about door |
Yeah! I was wondering why anyone would be troubled by additional drag on a
Piet. It would be like spitting in the ocean.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mild Bill" <whfrank@charter.net>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Different thot about door
>
> "Air Camper, thy name is DRAG."
>
> Leaving the door off will add a cup of drag to a big bucketful of existing
> drag.
>
> 'Tain't no big ting, mon.
>
> --------
> Bill Frank
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349961#349961
>
>
>
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: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was built
by Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the left rear
gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the front a complete
non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed 210lbs for a ride, and
he had no trouble getting in the front. I've gotten in the front myself,
very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than doors.
Perry Rhoads
N12939
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Mario,
At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it
roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and transferred
the loads both down and around the proposed opening, not doing the math
or analysis planned as a next step. Before fully committing to the door
I stopped and I decided against it, for the following reasons:
There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
airframe, cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no sense,
and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I would have no
piece of mind wondering if the other longerons were able to support the
load and flexing moments placed on them. Just too scary for me to want
to fly with
Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger that
may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't make sense
either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride and require no doors
or reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change that
may weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and take
passengers on occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong airframe
integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense here either
There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can and
do fit easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to accommodate
the unfitting few? repeat of the point
I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the once or
twice rider. makes no sense
here either
I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I don't ask
for nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and weight preclude
that. I understand it, I accept it and I make no excuses for it. That's
the way it is and I make no bones about it. Weight and balance, flying
over gross are just two of the important aspects of consideration in
aviation. Why mess with something that needs not be compromised ?
I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will greatly
appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather that going through
it on an attempted takeoff.
Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the commitment
of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish people. And the opinion
of the writer bearing no value to anyone determined to kill themselves
or others though poor decision making.
John
Safe in the morning
In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
<mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door, just the
idea and if it could be possible to do it or not; if no, why, and if
yes.. I am intersted in this because is a fact that it is not easy to go
into the front for a lot of people for many reasons, so, lets think in
something for them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other
one...
So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it look in
place.
the measures are what they are, measures, without any engineering on
it, may be they could be larger or shorter, thiker or thiner walls, or a
bad solution at all; lets search for a proof of concept.
Regards.
--------
Mario Giacummo
http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
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: Different thot about door |
Meh. You guys need to forget about the door. Here's the reason why -
none of the passengers in this picture needed a door to get into Greg's
Air Camper:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t405&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=d167a429aefbbcba276624e75f8fd395
Looks like an excellent reason to forego the door - it limits the
passengers to a small subset of people!
Dan
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Combine that with raising the cabanes a couple of inches (which Pietenpol
did in his later years, and many others since), and a simple helping hand
for your passenger and explanation of technique, and it's even easier....
Ryan
do not archive
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Perry Rhoads <prhoads61@frontiernet.net>wrote:
> **
> With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was built by
> Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the left rear gear
> leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the front a complete non
> issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed 210lbs for a ride, and he had
> no trouble getting in the front. I've gotten in the front myself, very
> easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
>
> If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than doors.
>
> Perry Rhoads
> N12939
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
> Mario,
>
> At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it roughed in
> and supported with a design that made sense and transferred the loads both
> down and around the proposed opening, not doing the math or analysis planned
> as a next step. Before fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided
> against it, for the following reasons:
>
> There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the airframe,
> cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no sense, and to tell you
> the truth frightened me to a point that I would have no piece of mind
> wondering if the other longerons were able to support the load and flexing
> moments placed on them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
>
> Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger that may be
> too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't make sense either.
> plenty of smaller people that want to ride and require no doors or
> reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
>
> The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change that may
> weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and take passengers on
> occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong airframe integrity for the
> occasional passenger. Makes no sense here either
>
> There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can and do fit
> easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to accommodate the
> unfitting few? repeat of the point
>
> I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
> compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the once or twice
> rider. makes no sense
> here either
>
> I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I don't ask for
> nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and weight preclude that. I
> understand it, I accept it and I make no excuses for it. That's the way it
> is and I make no bones about it. Weight and balance, flying over gross are
> just two of the important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess
> with something that needs not be compromised ?
>
> I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will greatly
> appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather that going through it
> on an attempted takeoff.
>
> Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the commitment of
> poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish people. And the opinion of the
> writer bearing no value to anyone determined to kill themselves or
> others though poor decision making.
>
> John
>
> Safe in the morning
>
>
> In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
>
> >
>
> I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door, just the idea
> and if it could be possible to do it or not; if no, why, and if yes.. I am
> intersted in this because is a fact that it is not easy to go into the front
> for a lot of people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for
> them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other one...
>
> So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it look in place.
> the measures are what they are, measures, without any engineering on it,
> may be they could be larger or shorter, thiker or thiner walls, or a bad
> solution at all; lets search for a proof of concept.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
> --------
> Mario Giacummo
> http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
>
>
> **
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different thot about door |
I have a 98 lbs wife with back problems. She would not be able to fly in the Piet
if it weren't for the door. I have taken guys as tall as 6" 6" and others
as heavy as 250lbs up in mine. Very tight fit, but with the door I made it happen.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349984#349984
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Dan Yocum has something like that too. I am thinking of doing it with
502Rocket this winter.
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2424 American Lane
Madison, WI 53704
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Aug 19, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Perry Rhoads wrote:
> With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was built
by Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the left rear
gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the front a complete
non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed 210lbs for a ride, and
he had no trouble getting in the front. I've gotten in the front myself,
very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
>
> If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than
doors.
>
> Perry Rhoads
> N12939
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
> Mario,
>
> At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it
roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and transferred
the loads both down and around the proposed opening, not doing the math
or analysis planned as a next step. Before fully committing to the door
I stopped and I decided against it, for the following reasons:
>
> There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
airframe, cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no sense,
and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I would have no
piece of mind wondering if the other longerons were able to support the
load and flexing moments placed on them. Just too scary for me to want
to fly with
>
> Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger that
may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't make sense
either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride and require no doors
or reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
>
> The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change that
may weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and take
passengers on occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong airframe
integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense here either
>
> There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can and
do fit easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to accommodate
the unfitting few? repeat of the point
>
> I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the once or
twice rider. makes no sense
> here either
>
> I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I don't ask
for nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and weight preclude
that. I understand it, I accept it and I make no excuses for it. That's
the way it is and I make no bones about it. Weight and balance, flying
over gross are just two of the important aspects of consideration in
aviation. Why mess with something that needs not be compromised ?
>
> I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will greatly
appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather that going through
it on an attempted takeoff.
>
> Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the commitment
of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish people. And the opinion
of the writer bearing no value to anyone determined to kill themselves
or others though poor decision making.
>
> John
>
> Safe in the morning
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
<mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
>
> I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door, just the
idea and if it could be possible to do it or not; if no, why, and if
yes.. I am intersted in this because is a fact that it is not easy to go
into the front for a lot of people for many reasons, so, lets think in
something for them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other
one...
>
> So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it look in
place.
> the measures are what they are, measures, without any engineering on
it, may be they could be larger or shorter, thiker or thiner walls, or a
bad solution at all; lets search for a proof of concept.
>
>
> Regards.
>
> --------
> Mario Giacummo
> http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Taller caban struts help too.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349986#349986
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Perry,
Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
John
In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was built by
Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the left rear gear
leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the front a complete non
issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed 210lbs for a ride, and he had no
trouble getting in the front. I've gotten in the front myself, very easily
and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than doors.
Perry Rhoads
N12939
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: _AMsafetyC@aol.com_ (mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com)
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Mario,
At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it roughed
in and supported with a design that made sense and transferred the loads
both down and around the proposed opening, not doing the math or analysis
planned as a next step. Before fully committing to the door I stopped and I
decided against it, for the following reasons:
There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the airframe,
cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no sense, and to tell
you the truth frightened me to a point that I would have no piece of mind
wondering if the other longerons were able to support the load and flexing
moments placed on them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger that may
be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't make sense either.
plenty of smaller people that want to ride and require no doors or
reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change that may
weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and take passengers on
occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong airframe integrity for the
occasional passenger. Makes no sense here either
There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can and do
fit easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to accommodate the
unfitting few? repeat of the point
I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the once or twice rider.
makes no sense
here either
I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I don't ask for
nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and weight preclude that. I
understand it, I accept it and I make no excuses for it. That's the way it
is and I make no bones about it. Weight and balance, flying over gross are
just two of the important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess
with something that needs not be compromised ?
I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will greatly
appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather that going through it on
an
attempted takeoff.
Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the commitment of
poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish people. And the opinion of the
writer bearing no value to anyone determined to kill themselves or others
though poor decision making.
John
Safe in the morning
In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door, just the idea
and if it could be possible to do it or not; if no, why, and if yes.. I am
intersted in this because is a fact that it is not easy to go into the
front for a lot of people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for
them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other one...
So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it look in place.
the measures are what they are, measures, without any engineering on it,
may be they could be larger or shorter, thiker or thiner walls, or a bad
solution at all; lets search for a proof of concept.
Regards.
--------
Mario Giacummo
http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
I'll get a picture tomorrow.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Perry,
Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
John
In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was
built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the
left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the front
a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed 210lbs for a
ride, and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've gotten in the
front myself, very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than
doors.
Perry Rhoads
N12939
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
door
Mario,
At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it
roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and transferred
the loads both down and around the proposed opening, not doing the math
or analysis planned as a next step. Before fully committing to the door
I stopped and I decided against it, for the following reasons:
There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
airframe, cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no sense,
and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I would have no
piece of mind wondering if the other longerons were able to support the
load and flexing moments placed on them. Just too scary for me to want
to fly with
Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't make
sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride and require no
doors or reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
that may weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and take
passengers on occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong airframe
integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense here either
There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can
and do fit easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to
accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the once or
twice rider. makes no sense
here either
I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I don't
ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and weight
preclude that. I understand it, I accept it and I make no excuses for
it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about it. Weight and
balance, flying over gross are just two of the important aspects of
consideration in aviation. Why mess with something that needs not be
compromised ?
I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will greatly
appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather that going through
it on an attempted takeoff.
Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish people. And
the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone determined to kill
themselves or others though poor decision making.
John
Safe in the morning
In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
<mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door, just
the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not; if no, why, and if
yes.. I am intersted in this because is a fact that it is not easy to go
into the front for a lot of people for many reasons, so, lets think in
something for them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other
one...
So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it look in
place.
the measures are what they are, measures, without any
engineering on it, may be they could be larger or shorter, thiker or
thiner walls, or a bad solution at all; lets search for a proof of
concept.
Regards.
--------
Mario Giacummo
http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
All this talk about how hard it is to get into a Piet. I have absolutely
no problem getting in either the pilot's or passenger's seat on mine and I
am a short but substantial 220 lbs of 60+-year old. Here's a photo of my
arrangement that might help you out.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
do not archive
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
steps on it, but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
pretty good.
https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724546
Dan
On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM, AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> Perry,
> Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> John
> In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
>
> With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the
> left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> 210lbs for a ride, and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> gotten in the front myself, very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
> If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than doors.
> Perry Rhoads
> N12939
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> door
>
> Mario,
> At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it
> roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening,
> not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it,
> for the following reasons:
> There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> airframe, cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> sense, and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> and require no doors or reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
> The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> that may weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and
> take passengers on occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong
> airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> here either
> There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can
> and do fit easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to
> accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
> compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> once or twice rider. makes no sense
> here either
> I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I
> don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and
> weight preclude that. I understand it, I accept it and I make no
> excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> it. Weight and balance, flying over gross are just two of the
> important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> something that needs not be compromised ?
> I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> John
> Safe in the morning
> In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> Time, mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
>
> <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
>
> I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door,
> just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not;
> if no, why, and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for
> them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other
> one...
>
> So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> look in place.
> the measures are what they are, measures, without any
> engineering on it, may be they could be larger or shorter,
> thiker or thiner walls, or a bad solution at all; lets
> search for a proof of concept.
>
>
> Regards.
>
> --------
> Mario Giacummo
> http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: external static port |
I had two used ASI's laying around, and did the same proceedure to pick
the more accurate of the two. I Don't look at it much, either. It
seems like the Pietenpol talks to you. It takes off when its ready,
cruises as fast as it wants, and touches down when it is ready
(sometimes before I am)
Ben
On 8/19/2011 11:19 AM, Hans Van Der Voort wrote:
> Mark langford has a method on his website to check and calibrate an ASI
>
> http://www.n56ml.com/airspeed_calibration/
> Hans
> NX15KV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: helspersew <helspersew@aol.com>
> To: pietenpol-list <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2011 6:59 am
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: external static port
>
> My ASI is so wildly erratic that I don't even look at it. Tried
> different static port locations to no avail. Admittedly I haven't
> checked to see if the ASI is OK yet. I bought it on Ebay. Maybe if I
> just hook up a vinyl pitot tube to the back and hold it into the
> windstream to see if it registers better? When I was at Brodhead Billy
> Mcaskil (sp) suggested I put a straw on the pitot to get it more ahead
> of the wing LE to see if that helped....it didn't. Oh well, who needs
> airspeed in a Piet anyway?
> Dan Helsper
> Puryear, TN
>
>
> *
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
> *
>
>
> *
--
Ben Charvet, PharmD
Staff Pharmacist
Parrish Medical center
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different thot about door |
Shelly, It won't be long and I'll be stateside. Some leave time and then my next
assignment to Fort Sam Houston. So I will be in the area and perhaps we can
swap rides. The difference in riding in an nice old car and on on motorcycle.
Both have their place.
Blue Skies,
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: IT Girl <shlizbth@gmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Different thot about door
>
> Not sure about all of that Steve, but come on over when you get home, and we'll
give you a ride.... If you can find you way back to
> G'town. It won't be like riding in your Bonanza... it'll be
> better. We will even buy lunch.
>
> --------
> Shelley Tumino
> IT Girl
> wife of "Axel"
> NX899KP
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349906#349906
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
I love the gear Tom. Very nice and simple.
Thanks
Jerry Grogan
Sky Classic Aircraft
515-243-0094
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of TOM
STINEMETZE
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
All this talk about how hard it is to get into a Piet. I have absolutely no
problem getting in either the pilot's or passenger's seat on mine and I am a
short but substantial 220 lbs of 60+-year old. Here's a photo of my
arrangement that might help you out.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
do not archive
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different thot about door |
Greg is The Man!
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yocum
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Different thot about door
Meh. You guys need to forget about the door. Here's the reason why -
none of the passengers in this picture needed a door to get into Greg's
Air Camper:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t405&start=0&postdays=0&postord
er=asc&highlight=&sid=d167a429aefbbcba276624e75f8fd395
Looks like an excellent reason to forego the door - it limits the
passengers to a small subset of people!
Dan
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: Different thot about door |
When you land, be sure to taxi a little ways to get out of the way of the
falling brick.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:22 AM, AircamperN11MS <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>wrote:
> Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
>
> Bill,
>
> I agree, Door open or closed, Pull the power back then throw out a brick
> and see where you are going to land.
>
> A friend of mine actually gave me a brick to carry for that reason. He
> said it would save some precious time looking for a suitable landing field
> in case of an engine failure. I haven't needed it yet. :-)
>
> --------
> Scott Liefeld
> Flying N11MS since March 1972
> Steel Tube
> C-85-12
> Wire Wheels
> Brodhead in 1996
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349964#349964
>
>
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: Idea about front cockpit side door |
I have a front door and what I did was to add another longeron from the firewall
all the way back to back of rear seat 7 inches below the top longeron. Then
I cut in the door and it has worked fine. It even survived a tornado. Gardiner
--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov> wrote:
> From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 1:28 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
>
> Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe
> whenever anyone
> steps on it, but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so
> it must be
> pretty good.
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724546
>
> Dan
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM, AMsafetyC@aol.com
> wrote:
> > Perry,
> > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good
> idea!
> > John
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> > prhoads61@frontiernet.net
> writes:
> >
> > With all this talk of doors, I
> wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > built by Ed Sampson. He welded
> a small,simple piece of tube onto the
> > left rear gear leg facing to
> the front. It makes getting into the
> > front a complete non issue.
> I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > 210lbs for a ride, and he had
> no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > gotten in the front myself,
> very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
> > If you have split, Cub like
> gear legs, there's an easier way than doors.
> > Perry Rhoads
> > N12939
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original
> Message -----
> > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com
> <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday,
> August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
> > *Subject:* Re:
> Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > door
> >
> > Mario,
> > At one point I
> was all set to install the front pit door, had it
> > roughed in and
> supported with a design that made sense and
> > transferred the
> loads both down and around the proposed opening,
> > not doing the
> math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > fully committing
> to the door I stopped and I decided against it,
> > for the
> following reasons:
> > There are 4
> longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > airframe,
> cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > sense, and to
> tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > would have no
> piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > were able to
> support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > them. Just too
> scary for me to want to fly with
> > Making that
> major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > that may be too
> large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > make sense
> either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > and require no
> doors or reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
> > The occasional
> large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > that may weaken
> the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and
> > take passengers
> on occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong
> > airframe
> integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > here either
> > There are plenty
> small, light weight and flexible folks that can
> > and do fit
> easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to
> > accommodate the
> unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > I just can seem
> to justify cutting a major structural component,
> > compromising the
> integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > once or twice
> rider. makes no sense
> > here either
> > I am a full size
> person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I
> > don't ask for
> nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and
> > weight preclude
> that. I understand it, I accept it and I make no
> > excuses for it.
> That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > it. Weight and
> balance, flying over gross are just two of the
> > important
> aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > something that
> needs not be compromised ?
> > I am certain any
> rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > greatly
> appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > that going
> through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > Compromises in
> safety are not compromises at all but the
> > commitment of
> poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > people. And the
> opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > determined to
> kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > John
> > Safe in the
> morning
> > In a message
> dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time, mario.giacummo@gmail.com
> writes:
> >
> >
> "giacummo"
> >
> <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > I
> do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door,
> >
> just the idea and if it could be possible
> to do it or not;
> > if
> no, why, and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> >
> fact that it is not easy to go into the
> front for a lot of
> >
> people for many reasons, so, lets think in
> something for
> >
> them... an "open design" of the door, this
> one or an other
> >
> one...
> >
> >
> So, continuing with this exercise I try to
> figure how it
> >
> look in place.
> >
> the measures are what they are, measures,
> without any
> >
> engineering on it, may be they could be
> larger or shorter,
> >
> thiker or thiner walls, or a bad solution
> at all; lets
> >
> search for a proof of concept.
> >
> >
> >
> Regards.
> >
> >
> --------
> >
> Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> >
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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."
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: Different thot about door |
Ouch, a brick just hit me in the head.
Funny Mike
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350011#350011
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: Different thot about door |
Just to stir it up a bit, think about deleting the front controls and add a
hatch in the front cockpit floor...maybe even a swing down ladder for
midgets...
Jack
DSM
Do not archive!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AircamperN11MS
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Different thot about door
<Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
Ouch, a brick just hit me in the head.
Funny Mike
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350011#350011
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: Different thot about door |
Thought!
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Different thot about door
Just to stir it up a bit, think about deleting the front controls and add a
hatch in the front cockpit floor...maybe even a swing down ladder for
midgets...
Jack
DSM
Do not archive!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AircamperN11MS
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Different thot about door
<Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
Ouch, a brick just hit me in the head.
Funny Mike
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350011#350011
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Dan=2C I guess I've never noticed it before=2C but don't EVER step on a str
ut with a fork at the lower end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
doesn't matter if it has flown 5000 hours like that=2C the next one could
be your last. I would suggest having that fork magnafluxed immediately and
cut that step off! You have no idea how many people have died in Cubs whe
n the fork let go!!!!
Gene
> Date: Fri=2C 19 Aug 2011 12:28:55 -0500
> From: yocum@fnal.gov
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
>
> Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
> steps on it=2C but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
> pretty good.
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724
546
>
> Dan
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM=2C AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> > Perry=2C
> > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> > John
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time=2C
> > prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
> >
> > With all this talk of doors=2C I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small=2Csimple piece of tube onto the
> > left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> > front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > 210lbs for a ride=2C and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > gotten in the front myself=2C very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs
.
> > If you have split=2C Cub like gear legs=2C there's an easier way than d
oors.
> > Perry Rhoads
> > N12939
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday=2C August 19=2C 2011 10:24 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > door
> >
> > Mario=2C
> > At one point I was all set to install the front pit door=2C had it
> > roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> > transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening=2C
> > not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it=2C
> > for the following reasons:
> > There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > airframe=2C cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > sense=2C and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> > Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > and require no doors or reasonable accommodations=2C ADA compliant
> > The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > that may weaken the airframe=2C I plan to fly it all the time and
> > take passengers on occasion=2C why make that sacrifice of strong
> > airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > here either
> > There are plenty small=2C light weight and flexible folks that can
> > and do fit easily into the front pit=2C why change the airframe to
> > accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component=2C
> > compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > once or twice rider. makes no sense
> > here either
> > I am a full size person=2C a builder and a damn good pilot=2C I
> > don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride=2C my size and
> > weight preclude that. I understand it=2C I accept it and I make no
> > excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > it. Weight and balance=2C flying over gross are just two of the
> > important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > something that needs not be compromised ?
> > I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> > commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > John
> > Safe in the morning
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time=2C mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door=2C
> > just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not=3B
> > if no=2C why=2C and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> > fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> > people for many reasons=2C so=2C lets think in something for
> > them... an "open design" of the door=2C this one or an other
> > one...
> >
> > So=2C continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> > look in place.
> > the measures are what they are=2C measures=2C without any
> > engineering on it=2C may be they could be larger or shorter=2C
> > thiker or thiner walls=2C or a bad solution at all=3B lets
> > search for a proof of concept.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > --------
> > Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/c
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> > p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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=2C http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Makes me wonder how the cessna struts attach. All the time I've spent arou
nd them you'd think I'd know. All Cessnas with floats have a step about 3f
t up the strut for fueling. Hummmm. I think our PA-22 seaplane did too.
Makes ya think.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: generambo@msn.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Dan=2C I guess I've never noticed it before=2C but don't EVER step on a str
ut with a fork at the lower end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
doesn't matter if it has flown 5000 hours like that=2C the next one could
be your last. I would suggest having that fork magnafluxed immediately and
cut that step off! You have no idea how many people have died in Cubs whe
n the fork let go!!!!
Gene
> Date: Fri=2C 19 Aug 2011 12:28:55 -0500
> From: yocum@fnal.gov
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
>
> Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
> steps on it=2C but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
> pretty good.
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724
546
>
> Dan
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM=2C AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> > Perry=2C
> > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> > John
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time=2C
> > prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
> >
> > With all this talk of doors=2C I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small=2Csimple piece of tube onto the
> > left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> > front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > 210lbs for a ride=2C and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > gotten in the front myself=2C very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs
.
> > If you have split=2C Cub like gear legs=2C there's an easier way than d
oors.
> > Perry Rhoads
> > N12939
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday=2C August 19=2C 2011 10:24 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > door
> >
> > Mario=2C
> > At one point I was all set to install the front pit door=2C had it
> > roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> > transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening=2C
> > not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it=2C
> > for the following reasons:
> > There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > airframe=2C cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > sense=2C and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> > Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > and require no doors or reasonable accommodations=2C ADA compliant
> > The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > that may weaken the airframe=2C I plan to fly it all the time and
> > take passengers on occasion=2C why make that sacrifice of strong
> > airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > here either
> > There are plenty small=2C light weight and flexible folks that can
> > and do fit easily into the front pit=2C why change the airframe to
> > accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component=2C
> > compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > once or twice rider. makes no sense
> > here either
> > I am a full size person=2C a builder and a damn good pilot=2C I
> > don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride=2C my size and
> > weight preclude that. I understand it=2C I accept it and I make no
> > excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > it. Weight and balance=2C flying over gross are just two of the
> > important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > something that needs not be compromised ?
> > I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> > commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > John
> > Safe in the morning
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time=2C mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door=2C
> > just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not=3B
> > if no=2C why=2C and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> > fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> > people for many reasons=2C so=2C lets think in something for
> > them... an "open design" of the door=2C this one or an other
> > one...
> >
> > So=2C continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> > look in place.
> > the measures are what they are=2C measures=2C without any
> > engineering on it=2C may be they could be larger or shorter=2C
> > thiker or thiner walls=2C or a bad solution at all=3B lets
> > search for a proof of concept.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > --------
> > Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/c
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> > p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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=2C http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
>
>=======================
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Keri Ann's page https://sites.google.com/site/pietenpolplanpackages/pieten
pol-plan-packages
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: cncampbell@windstream.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Could Keri Ann's design be incorporated in a fuselage that is basically com
plete except for the side plywood and turtle deck? How can I get a set of
her plans? C
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Dever
Sent: Thursday=2C August 18=2C 2011 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
If you want a door=2C why not just use Kerri Ann's plans. Proven design.
Just my .02
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
> From: mario.giacummo@gmail.com
> Date: Thu=2C 18 Aug 2011 09:09:21 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
m>
>
> Bill=2C
>
> I agree with you=2C open and closing with bolts it's an uncomfortable ide
a=2C but I think (I did't see any statistic about) that the major time the
piets fly with just the pilot.. about dimenssions=2C of course=2C it just a
n idea=2C not a design.
> I do not messure anything yet=2C i am going to do it.. so from yours thre
e points I am going to see 2=2C the lenght of the fitting=2C and how to fix
the square tube to the wood without damage to much de longeron.
>
> --------
> Mario Giacummo
> http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349859#349859
>
>
> Archive Search & Download=2C 7-Day Browse=2C Chat=2C FAQ=2C
>===
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Cessna struts have large forged aluminum fittings riveted into the strut an
d large horizontal bolts through heavy fuselage structure. No comparison.
There are only a jillion AD's on Pipers to put "No Step" on the strut=2C m
agnaflux and/or replace the forks=2C replace the struts=2C and on and on.
That tiny fork is not built or intended to take that kind of force on its s
ide. They DO break regularly! (or at least did before all of the AD's)
Gene
From: chiefpepperhead@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Makes me wonder how the cessna struts attach. All the time I've spent arou
nd them you'd think I'd know. All Cessnas with floats have a step about 3f
t up the strut for fueling. Hummmm. I think our PA-22 seaplane did too.
Makes ya think.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: generambo@msn.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Dan=2C I guess I've never noticed it before=2C but don't EVER step on a str
ut with a fork at the lower end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
doesn't matter if it has flown 5000 hours like that=2C the next one could
be your last. I would suggest having that fork magnafluxed immediately and
cut that step off! You have no idea how many people have died in Cubs whe
n the fork let go!!!!
Gene
> Date: Fri=2C 19 Aug 2011 12:28:55 -0500
> From: yocum@fnal.gov
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
>
> Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
> steps on it=2C but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
> pretty good.
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724
546
>
> Dan
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM=2C AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> > Perry=2C
> > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> > John
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time=2C
> > prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
> >
> > With all this talk of doors=2C I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small=2Csimple piece of tube onto the
> > left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> > front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > 210lbs for a ride=2C and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > gotten in the front myself=2C very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs
.
> > If you have split=2C Cub like gear legs=2C there's an easier way than d
oors.
> > Perry Rhoads
> > N12939
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday=2C August 19=2C 2011 10:24 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > door
> >
> > Mario=2C
> > At one point I was all set to install the front pit door=2C had it
> > roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> > transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening=2C
> > not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it=2C
> > for the following reasons:
> > There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > airframe=2C cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > sense=2C and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> > Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > and require no doors or reasonable accommodations=2C ADA compliant
> > The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > that may weaken the airframe=2C I plan to fly it all the time and
> > take passengers on occasion=2C why make that sacrifice of strong
> > airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > here either
> > There are plenty small=2C light weight and flexible folks that can
> > and do fit easily into the front pit=2C why change the airframe to
> > accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component=2C
> > compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > once or twice rider. makes no sense
> > here either
> > I am a full size person=2C a builder and a damn good pilot=2C I
> > don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride=2C my size and
> > weight preclude that. I understand it=2C I accept it and I make no
> > excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > it. Weight and balance=2C flying over gross are just two of the
> > important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > something that needs not be compromised ?
> > I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> > commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > John
> > Safe in the morning
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time=2C mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door=2C
> > just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not=3B
> > if no=2C why=2C and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> > fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> > people for many reasons=2C so=2C lets think in something for
> > them... an "open design" of the door=2C this one or an other
> > one...
> >
> > So=2C continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> > look in place.
> > the measures are what they are=2C measures=2C without any
> > engineering on it=2C may be they could be larger or shorter=2C
> > thiker or thiner walls=2C or a bad solution at all=3B lets
> > search for a proof of concept.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > --------
> > Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/c
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> > p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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=2C http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
>
>=======================
>
>
>
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
If those forks are that fragile, then I am in real trouble. I have stepped
on mine a whole bunch of times, either trying out the front cockpit or step
ping on the front strut so I could re-fuel. But then again I am quite light
:O) Besides, there are four of those forks on the Piet. If one lets go
I still have three!!
Shivering in my boots.....probably won't sleep tonight.
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2011 5:03 pm
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Dan, I guess I've never noticed it before, but don't EVER step on a strut w
ith a fork at the lower end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It doe
sn't matter if it has flown 5000 hours like that, the next one could be you
r last. I would suggest having that fork magnafluxed immediately and cut t
hat step off! You have no idea how many people have died in Cubs when the
fork let go!!!!
Gene
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:28:55 -0500
> From: yocum@fnal.gov
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
>
> Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
> steps on it, but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
> pretty good.
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724
546
>
> Dan
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM, AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> > Perry,
> > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> > John
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
> >
> > With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the
> > left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> > front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > 210lbs for a ride, and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > gotten in the front myself, very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
> > If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than doors
.
> > Perry Rhoads
> > N12939
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>;
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>;
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > door
> >
> > Mario,
> > At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it
> > roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> > transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening,
> > not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it,
> > for the following reasons:
> > There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > airframe, cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > sense, and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> > Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > and require no doors or reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
> > The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > that may weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and
> > take passengers on occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong
> > airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > here either
> > There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can
> > and do fit easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to
> > accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
> > compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > once or twice rider. makes no sense
> > here either
> > I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I
> > don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and
> > weight preclude that. I understand it, I accept it and I make no
> > excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > it. Weight and balance, flying over gross are just two of the
> > important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > something that needs not be compromised ?
> > I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> > commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > John
> > Safe in the morning
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time, mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door,
> > just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not;
> > if no, why, and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> > fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> > people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for
> > them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other
> > one...
> >
> > So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> > look in place.
> > the measures are what they are, measures, without any
> > engineering on it, may be they could be larger or shorter,
> > thiker or thiner walls, or a bad solution at all; lets
> > search for a proof of concept.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > --------
> > Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/c
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> > p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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."
>
>=======================
>
>
>
-= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Hmmm.I agree with Gene, Dan. I had never noticed this either but I don't
like it at all. Those forks (which as Gene pointed out, have failed and
killed a lot of Cub pilots), are designed to take tension loads, not the
bending loads that the step is imposing on them. Cut off the step and have
the fork magnafluxed.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene Rambo
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 6:00 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Dan, I guess I've never noticed it before, but don't EVER step on a strut
with a fork at the lower end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
doesn't matter if it has flown 5000 hours like that, the next one could be
your last. I would suggest having that fork magnafluxed immediately and cut
that step off! You have no idea how many people have died in Cubs when the
fork let go!!!!
Gene
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:28:55 -0500
> From: yocum@fnal.gov
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
>
> Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
> steps on it, but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
> pretty good.
>
>
https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724546
>
> Dan
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM, AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> > Perry,
> > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> > John
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
> >
> > With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the
> > left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> > front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > 210lbs for a ride, and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > gotten in the front myself, very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
> > If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than doors.
> > Perry Rhoads
> > N12939
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > door
> >
> > Mario,
> > At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it
> > roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> > transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening,
> > not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it,
> > for the following reasons:
> > There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > airframe, cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > sense, and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> > Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > and require no doors or reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
> > The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > that may weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and
> > take passengers on occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong
> > airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > here either
> > There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can
> > and do fit easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to
> > accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
> > compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > once or twice rider. makes no sense
> > here either
> > I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I
> > don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and
> > weight preclude that. I understand it, I accept it and I make no
> > excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > it. Weight and balance, flying over gross are just two of the
> > important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > something that needs not be compromised ?
> > I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> > commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > John
> > Safe in the morning
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time, mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door,
> > just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not;
> > if no, why, and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> > fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> > people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for
> > them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other
> > one...
> >
> > So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> > look in place.
> > the measures are what they are, measures, without any
> > engineering on it, may be they could be larger or shorter,
> > thiker or thiner walls, or a bad solution at all; lets
> > search for a proof of concept.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > --------
> > Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> >
p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
The struts don't look strong enough to step on but people refer to doing
so.Glad you pointed that out and I'll always remember not to. I see some of
the Piets have the little toe steps and I'm wondering how well they work? As
far as doors go they will be out of the question for me.Some think the
Pietenpol may even be a bad design choice for my needs. They may
unfortunately be right. But before I start building some of the guys trying
the Riblett 612 should be up and flying. So I have my fingers crossed and
hope it performs well. Cutting down on all the weight and drag,that is safe
to do with the right engine and prop might I think do it. I'd like to hear
more about drag on the different types of landing gear if any of you guys
have the time. Thanks
Do not archive
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
> Cessna struts have large forged aluminum fittings riveted into the strut
> and large horizontal bolts through heavy fuselage structure. No
> comparison. There are only a jillion AD's on Pipers to put "No Step" on the
> strut, magnaflux and/or replace the forks, replace the struts, and on and
> on. That tiny fork is not built or intended to take that kind of force on
> its side. They DO break regularly! (or at least did before all of the AD's)
>
> Gene
>
> ------------------------------
> From: chiefpepperhead@hotmail.com
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:51:38 -0400
>
> Makes me wonder how the cessna struts attach. All the time I've spent
> around them you'd think I'd know. All Cessnas with floats have a step about
> 3ft up the strut for fueling. Hummmm. I think our PA-22 seaplane did too.
> Makes ya think.
>
>
> Doug Dever
> In beautiful Stow Ohio
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: generambo@msn.com
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:59:58 -0400
>
>
> Dan, I guess I've never noticed it before, but don't EVER step on a strut
> with a fork at the lower end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
> doesn't matter if it has flown 5000 hours like that, the next one could be
> your last. I would suggest having that fork magnafluxed immediately and cut
> that step off! You have no idea how many people have died in Cubs when the
> fork let go!!!!
>
> Gene
>
> > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:28:55 -0500
> > From: yocum@fnal.gov
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
> >
> >
> > Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
> > steps on it, but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
> > pretty good.
> >
> >
> https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724546
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM, AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> > > Perry,
> > > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> > > John
> > > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
> > >
> > > With all this talk of doors, I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > > built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small,simple piece of tube onto the
> > > left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> > > front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > > 210lbs for a ride, and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > > gotten in the front myself, very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs.
> > > If you have split, Cub like gear legs, there's an easier way than
> doors.
> > > Perry Rhoads
> > > N12939
> > > do not archive
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
> > > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 10:24 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > > door
> > >
> > > Mario,
> > > At one point I was all set to install the front pit door, had it
> > > roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> > > transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening,
> > > not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > > fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it,
> > > for the following reasons:
> > > There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > > airframe, cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > > sense, and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > > would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > > were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > > them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> > > Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > > that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > > make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > > and require no doors or reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant
> > > The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > > that may weaken the airframe, I plan to fly it all the time and
> > > take passengers on occasion, why make that sacrifice of strong
> > > airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > > here either
> > > There are plenty small, light weight and flexible folks that can
> > > and do fit easily into the front pit, why change the airframe to
> > > accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > > I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component,
> > > compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > > once or twice rider. makes no sense
> > > here either
> > > I am a full size person, a builder and a damn good pilot, I
> > > don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride, my size and
> > > weight preclude that. I understand it, I accept it and I make no
> > > excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > > it. Weight and balance, flying over gross are just two of the
> > > important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > > something that needs not be compromised ?
> > > I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > > greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > > that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > > Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> > > commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > > people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > > determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > > John
> > > Safe in the morning
> > > In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > > Time, mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
> > >
> > > <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door,
> > > just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not;
> > > if no, why, and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> > > fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> > > people for many reasons, so, lets think in something for
> > > them... an "open design" of the door, this one or an other
> > > one...
> > >
> > > So, continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> > > look in place.
> > > the measures are what they are, measures, without any
> > > engineering on it, may be they could be larger or shorter,
> > > thiker or thiner walls, or a bad solution at all; lets
> > > search for a proof of concept.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards.
> > >
> > > --------
> > > Mario Giacummo
> > > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attachments:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">
> http://www.matronics.com/c
> > > *
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> > > p://www.matronics.com/contribution">
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > 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."
> >
> >=======================
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> *
>
> st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ttp://forums.matronics.com
> =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
> *
>
> st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ttp://forums.matronics.com
> =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
don't worry=2C mean men never die!
Gene
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
From: helspersew@aol.com
If those forks are that fragile=2C then I am in real trouble. I have steppe
d on mine a whole bunch of times=2C either trying out the front cockpit or
stepping on the front strut so I could re-fuel. But then again I am quite l
ight :O) Besides=2C there are four of those forks on the Piet. If one le
ts go I still have three!!
Shivering in my boots.....probably won't sleep tonight.
Dan Helsper
Puryear=2C TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com>
Sent: Fri=2C Aug 19=2C 2011 5:03 pm
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Dan=2C I guess I've never noticed it before=2C but don't EVER step on a str
ut with a fork at the lower end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
doesn't matter if it has flown 5000 hours like that=2C the next one could
be your last. I would suggest having that fork magnafluxed immediately and
cut that step off! You have no idea how many people have died in Cubs whe
n the fork let go!!!!
Gene
> Date: Fri=2C 19 Aug 2011 12:28:55 -0500
> From: yocum@fnal.gov
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
>
> Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
> steps on it=2C but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
> pretty good.
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724
546
>
> Dan
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM=2C AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> > Perry=2C
> > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> > John
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time=2C
> > prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
> >
> > With all this talk of doors=2C I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small=2Csimple piece of tube onto the
> > left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> > front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > 210lbs for a ride=2C and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > gotten in the front myself=2C very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs
.
> > If you have split=2C Cub like gear legs=2C there's an easier way than d
oors.
> > Perry Rhoads
> > N12939
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>=3B
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>=3B
> > *Sent:* Friday=2C August 19=2C 2011 10:24 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > door
> >
> > Mario=2C
> > At one point I was all set to install the front pit door=2C had it
> > roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> > transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening=2C
> > not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it=2C
> > for the following reasons:
> > There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > airframe=2C cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > sense=2C and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> > Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > and require no doors or reasonable accommodations=2C ADA compliant
> > The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > that may weaken the airframe=2C I plan to fly it all the time and
> > take passengers on occasion=2C why make that sacrifice of strong
> > airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > here either
> > There are plenty small=2C light weight and flexible folks that can
> > and do fit easily into the front pit=2C why change the airframe to
> > accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component=2C
> > compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > once or twice rider. makes no sense
> > here either
> > I am a full size person=2C a builder and a damn good pilot=2C I
> > don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride=2C my size and
> > weight preclude that. I understand it=2C I accept it and I make no
> > excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > it. Weight and balance=2C flying over gross are just two of the
> > important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > something that needs not be compromised ?
> > I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> > commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > John
> > Safe in the morning
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time=2C mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door=2C
> > just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not=3B
> > if no=2C why=2C and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> > fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> > people for many reasons=2C so=2C lets think in something for
> > them... an "open design" of the door=2C this one or an other
> > one...
> >
> > So=2C continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> > look in place.
> > the measures are what they are=2C measures=2C without any
> > engineering on it=2C may be they could be larger or shorter=2C
> > thiker or thiner walls=2C or a bad solution at all=3B lets
> > search for a proof of concept.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > --------
> > Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/c
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> > p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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=2C http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
>
>=======================
>
>
>
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Recently, while rebuilding my Aeronca Chief I had the forks magnafluxed before
reattaching the struts. One of them was found to be slightly bent with a possible
crack. Probably from standing on the strut. Had to get a new one and destroyed
that one.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350037#350037
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
Why beat your head against the wall? Buy Keri Ann's plans for door; its an engineered
design and it is proven by being in several flying Piets.
Cheers,
Jim B.
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Idea about front cockpit side door |
I vaguely remember the cessna strut fitting now that you mention it I thin
k we had the PA-22 before the ADs. It's been 35yrs. It did have a step th
ough. And it came from the factory as a seaplane with the step. Go figure
. Just goes to show that FAR part 23 ain't all it's cracked up to be. I'l
l build to plans with no step:)
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: generambo@msn.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Cessna struts have large forged aluminum fittings riveted into the strut an
d large horizontal bolts through heavy fuselage structure. No comparison.
There are only a jillion AD's on Pipers to put "No Step" on the strut=2C m
agnaflux and/or replace the forks=2C replace the struts=2C and on and on.
That tiny fork is not built or intended to take that kind of force on its s
ide. They DO break regularly! (or at least did before all of the AD's)
Gene
From: chiefpepperhead@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Makes me wonder how the cessna struts attach. All the time I've spent arou
nd them you'd think I'd know. All Cessnas with floats have a step about 3f
t up the strut for fueling. Hummmm. I think our PA-22 seaplane did too.
Makes ya think.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: generambo@msn.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
Dan=2C I guess I've never noticed it before=2C but don't EVER step on a str
ut with a fork at the lower end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
doesn't matter if it has flown 5000 hours like that=2C the next one could
be your last. I would suggest having that fork magnafluxed immediately and
cut that step off! You have no idea how many people have died in Cubs whe
n the fork let go!!!!
Gene
> Date: Fri=2C 19 Aug 2011 12:28:55 -0500
> From: yocum@fnal.gov
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side door
>
>
> Here's a picture of the foot step on N8031. I cringe whenever anyone
> steps on it=2C but the plane's been flying for 500+ hours so it must be
> pretty good.
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/100843558075002483077/N8031#5596569232677724
546
>
> Dan
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:41 AM=2C AMsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> > Perry=2C
> > Got a picture of that ? Always worth a look for a good idea!
> > John
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 12:32:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time=2C
> > prhoads61@frontiernet.net writes:
> >
> > With all this talk of doors=2C I wanted to mention how my Piet was
> > built by Ed Sampson. He welded a small=2Csimple piece of tube onto the
> > left rear gear leg facing to the front. It makes getting into the
> > front a complete non issue. I've taken a 70 year old that weighed
> > 210lbs for a ride=2C and he had no trouble getting in the front. I've
> > gotten in the front myself=2C very easily and I'm a 6'2" blob at 235lbs
.
> > If you have split=2C Cub like gear legs=2C there's an easier way than d
oors.
> > Perry Rhoads
> > N12939
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* AMsafetyC@aol.com <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday=2C August 19=2C 2011 10:24 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Idea about front cockpit side
> > door
> >
> > Mario=2C
> > At one point I was all set to install the front pit door=2C had it
> > roughed in and supported with a design that made sense and
> > transferred the loads both down and around the proposed opening=2C
> > not doing the math or analysis planned as a next step. Before
> > fully committing to the door I stopped and I decided against it=2C
> > for the following reasons:
> > There are 4 longerons that pretty much support the length of the
> > airframe=2C cutting one and reducing that strength by 25% made no
> > sense=2C and to tell you the truth frightened me to a point that I
> > would have no piece of mind wondering if the other longerons
> > were able to support the load and flexing moments placed on
> > them. Just too scary for me to want to fly with
> > Making that major structural change for an occasional passenger
> > that may be too large to fit or may weigh too much to fit didn't
> > make sense either. plenty of smaller people that want to ride
> > and require no doors or reasonable accommodations=2C ADA compliant
> > The occasional large passenger vs a permanent structural change
> > that may weaken the airframe=2C I plan to fly it all the time and
> > take passengers on occasion=2C why make that sacrifice of strong
> > airframe integrity for the occasional passenger. Makes no sense
> > here either
> > There are plenty small=2C light weight and flexible folks that can
> > and do fit easily into the front pit=2C why change the airframe to
> > accommodate the unfitting few? repeat of the point
> > I just can seem to justify cutting a major structural component=2C
> > compromising the integrity of the airframe to accommodate the
> > once or twice rider. makes no sense
> > here either
> > I am a full size person=2C a builder and a damn good pilot=2C I
> > don't ask for nor do I expect to be offered a ride=2C my size and
> > weight preclude that. I understand it=2C I accept it and I make no
> > excuses for it. That's the way it is and I make no bones about
> > it. Weight and balance=2C flying over gross are just two of the
> > important aspects of consideration in aviation. Why mess with
> > something that needs not be compromised ?
> > I am certain any rider you plan to take in your Piet will
> > greatly appreciate the ride over the fence on take off rather
> > that going through it on an attempted takeoff.
> > Compromises in safety are not compromises at all but the
> > commitment of poor judgments and dumb acts made by foolish
> > people. And the opinion of the writer bearing no value to anyone
> > determined to kill themselves or others though poor decision making.
> > John
> > Safe in the morning
> > In a message dated 8/19/2011 10:40:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time=2C mario.giacummo@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > I do not want to discuss about benefits or not of the door=2C
> > just the idea and if it could be possible to do it or not=3B
> > if no=2C why=2C and if yes.. I am intersted in this because is a
> > fact that it is not easy to go into the front for a lot of
> > people for many reasons=2C so=2C lets think in something for
> > them... an "open design" of the door=2C this one or an other
> > one...
> >
> > So=2C continuing with this exercise I try to figure how it
> > look in place.
> > the measures are what they are=2C measures=2C without any
> > engineering on it=2C may be they could be larger or shorter=2C
> > thiker or thiner walls=2C or a bad solution at all=3B lets
> > search for a proof of concept.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > --------
> > Mario Giacummo
> > http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349955#349955
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/puerta2_192.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/c
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> > p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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=2C http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
>
>=======================
>
>
>
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 46
| 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 |
|
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here's a friend demonstrating the front step in use on N12939
Perry Rhoads
Message 48
| 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: Different thot about door |
Dan is quite correct....
>
> Meh. You guys need to forget about the door. Here's the reason why -
> none of the passengers in this picture needed a door to get into Greg's
> Air Camper:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t405&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=d167a429aefbbcba276624e75f8fd395
>
> Looks like an excellent reason to forego the door - it limits the
> passengers to a small subset of people!
>
> Dan
>
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! --
|