Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Sat 09/24/11


Total Messages Posted: 5



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 07:17 AM - Re: W/B QUESTION (dwilson)
     2. 09:02 AM - rebuilding an A65 (Oscar Zuniga)
     3. 05:44 PM - Fw: good flying video (airlion)
     4. 07:46 PM - Re: undercamber (dwilson)
     5. 08:42 PM - Re: Re: undercamber (Steve Emo)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 07:17:09 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: W/B QUESTION
    From: "dwilson" <marwilson@charter.net>
    Here's how Bernie did it. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353112#353112 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_wandb__135.pdf


    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
    Time: 09:02:19 AM PST US
    From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>
    Subject: rebuilding an A65
    >From an A&P whom I respect=2C and who knows these engines very well: -OZ The connecting rod numbers face the top of the engine in it's flight positi on. What that really means is that the oil port in #1 rod should spray int o #2 cyl and the oil port in the bottom of #2 rod should spray into #1 cyl. The same relationship exists between cyls #3 and #4. Another way to look at it is that the oil ports on the rod caps for #1 and #2 should point tow ard each other. The same for #3 and #4. About half of the Continental engines I tear down have rods in backwards. Usually # 2 and #4. That's a testament to how tough these engines are=2C n ot a testament to not needing the oil ports. Those oil ports in the bottom of the rod spray oil into the bottom of the opposing piston when at BDC to help cool the opposing piston. There is no specific orientation for the pistons. The A-65 pistons are cam ground=2C but they are also fully symmetrical as related to the axis of th e wrist pin=2C so there is no up/down orientation. If the builder is going to the cost and trouble to rebuild the engine with practically all new parts=2C then I hope he does himself a big favor and ba lances the engine properly. The crank should be balanced=2C then the rods should be balanced end-for -end. That means the small ends should all weig h the same as their movement is horizontal. The large end of the rods move rotationally=2C so they should all be match balanced as well. Most engine s have had rods replaced individually at times=2C so there is no balance re lationship at all between the rods. I see them with quite a wide range of weights. The pistons should also be balanced along with the wrist pins. T here is nothing like flying behind a properly balanced engine. Continental didn't do a particularly stellar job of balancing the cranks and the origi nal rods were only balanced to match overall weights. It can be done much better and it pays off in smoothness=2C performance and longevity of the en gine.


    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
    Time: 05:44:36 PM PST US
    From: airlion <airlion@bellsouth.net>
    Subject: Fw: good flying video
    take a brake from low and slow and enjoy. I used to do this in my USMC days. Gardiner ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Susan Mason <susangmason@gmail.com> Sent: Tue, September 20, 2011 8:09:59 PM Subject: good flying video Shotze, Here is something from the PCN newsletter. Notice the wonderful music -- "Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee," a hymn set to Beethoven's Symphony No. 9. Love you- S. Enjoy the ride and then try some of the other links for more on the daily thrills of flying a jet fighter. This is a video depicting the pure beauty of free, unrestricted flying. To the pilots, you will love the familiar scenes. To those who aren't pilots, this may help explain why we loved flying so much. As I watched this, I was reminded that it was never a "job". It was always a pleasure. There were times when it was stressful, but overall it was pure love and joy -- even after the scary parts, because you either "lucked out", or you successfully managed the "issue"-- just more adrenalin in either case. It's hard to imagine another career as exciting, rewarding and satisfying. When you go to this site, immediately go to Full Screen so the picture fills whatever size monitor you have. The music just adds more to the scenes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_VtgDfL3Eg&feature=related


    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
    Time: 07:46:36 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: undercamber
    From: "dwilson" <marwilson@charter.net>
    I was told by a very good friend of Bernie's that He had actually tried an airfoil with no undercamber. He tried the clark Y airfoil and was not pleased with the performance. He thought that he could design an airfoil that would perform better. He experimented with a number of airfoils. He designed the airfoil and concluded that it performed better than the Clark Y that was used on similar " ships ". Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353145#353145


    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
    Time: 08:42:02 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: undercamber
    From: Steve Emo <steve.emo58@gmail.com>
    Guess the "right" airfoil depends on what you want... Sent from my iPhone On Sep 24, 2011, at 10:42 PM, "dwilson" <marwilson@charter.net> wrote: > > I was told by a very good friend of Bernie's that He had actually tried an airfoil with no undercamber. He tried the clark Y airfoil and was not pleased with the performance. He thought that he could design an airfoil that would perform better. He experimented with a number of airfoils. He designed the airfoil and concluded that it performed better than the Clark Y that was used on similar " ships ". > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353145#353145 > > > > > > > > > >




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   pietenpol-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Pietenpol-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --