Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:13 AM - Re: metal vs wood prop (Mark Stanley)
2. 05:40 AM - Re: Re: metal vs wood prop (Ben Charvet)
3. 06:54 AM - Re: Re: metal vs wood prop (Amsafetyc)
4. 07:07 AM - Re: metal vs wood prop (tools)
5. 07:36 AM - Re: metal vs wood prop (Don Emch)
6. 09:24 AM - Re: Re: metal vs wood prop (Ben Charvet)
7. 03:04 PM - Re: metal vs wood prop (aerocarjake)
8. 04:18 PM - EAA Work Bench (Kringle)
9. 04:38 PM - Re: Re: metal vs wood prop (Ryan Mueller)
10. 05:57 PM - Re: metal vs wood prop (skellytown flyer)
11. 09:27 PM - building table with most miles on it (Oscar Zuniga)
12. 09:38 PM - Thrust Angle (Oscar Zuniga)
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: metal vs wood prop |
> =1B$B!H=1B(BHow about airbrushing a wood grain finish on the metal
prop=1B$B!I=1B(B.
Thats not as silly as it sounds, I saw a photo of a replica WW1 Nieuport
11 Bebe with aluminium struts painted up to look like wood, pretty good
idea I thought.
Merry Christmas too!
Mark S
Do not archive
From: Greg Bacon
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: metal vs wood prop
How about airbrushing a wood grain finish on the metal prop? Would this
be the best of both worlds, or a breach of "aircraft building"
etiquette? You would probably be the only guy on the block to have a
faux wood prop......just say'n
Merry Christmas everyone!
Greg Bacon
Do not archive
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: metal vs wood prop |
I have a wood Sensenich 72-40 on my A-65 Piet. It has great performance
with 2 on board. Have you considered the w&b issues when switching to a
metal prop? I know it is on the nose of the plane, but you will be
giving up 10 pounds of gross wt.
Ben Charvet
On 12/20/2011 8:38 PM, tools wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tools"<n0kkj@yahoo.com>
>
> Ah, well that explains it then. I agree, the wood looks LOTS and LOTS better,
but as I mentioned, not going for any records other than a perfect not fly into
trees sort of record!
>
> I think the wood prop worked great for Dick (builder and prior owner) as he usually
flew it alone and up there (Minnesota) most fields have really nice unobstructed
approach and departure paths. Down here in the great hardwood forest,
not so much. There's TONS of neat little fields, but they ALL have a wall
of trees to get past.
>
> Also, I guess the aluminum prop can be re-pitched, rather than have to look for
a new prop altogether.
>
> Gonna final install the metal 72-44 and see how it does flying.
>
> Tools
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361367#361367
>
>
> _-
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: metal vs wood prop |
Even if you called it faux wood or a wooden prop faux my Piet
Just sayin just askin
Do not archive
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 20, 2011, at 10:22 PM, "Gboothe5" <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
> Solution minded, YES, Greg! But that would truly be a breach of etiquette
.
>
> Gary from Cool
> Merry Christmas
> Do not archive
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-li
st-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Bacon
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:10 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: metal vs wood prop
>
> How about airbrushing a wood grain finish on the metal prop? Would this b
e the best of both worlds, or a breach of "aircraft building" etiquette? Yo
u would probably be the only guy on the block to have a faux wood prop......
just say'n
>
> Merry Christmas everyone!
>
> Greg Bacon
>
> Do not archive
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, tools <n0kkj@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, well that explains it then. I agree, the wood looks LOTS and LOTS bet
ter, but as I mentioned, not going for any records other than a perfect not f
ly into trees sort of record!
>
> I think the wood prop worked great for Dick (builder and prior owner) as h
e usually flew it alone and up there (Minnesota) most fields have really nic
e unobstructed approach and departure paths. Down here in the great hardwoo
d forest, not so much. There's TONS of neat little fields, but they ALL hav
e a wall of trees to get past.
>
> Also, I guess the aluminum prop can be re-pitched, rather than have to loo
k for a new prop altogether.
>
> Gonna final install the metal 72-44 and see how it does flying.
>
> Tools
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361367#361367
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> le, List Admin.
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Bacon
>
>
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
> www.buildersbooks.com
> www.homebuilthelp.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: metal vs wood prop |
I'd like to try a 72-40 wood prop, but have this metal prop available to at least
diagnose and experiment.
It is about 10 to 15 lbs heavier, but my plane has a battery installed on the firewall
to HELP with w and b. I'd be happy to remove the battery to gain the
climb performance, so the weight is not an issue.
I was doing some research and found a great PDF file from Sensenich talking about
prop suitability. It mentioned that a standard prop should allow the engine
to develop rated rpm in level flight. My engine has only ever seen almost 2100
rpm in level flight and I think it's rated (still some more reading to do)
for 23 to 2400. I saw 2300 once in a full power decent. A cruise prop should
allow 150 under rated, a climb prop 150 over, all at full power, level flight.
My son and I are having a difficult time with these down in the trees fields with
moderate temps. I can't imagine us in the summer when it's HOT and HUMID!
And he's pretty light. I flew with Kevin Purtee last summer at Brodhead, he
had NO PROBLEM with him and I at 80 degrees. I know it's an entirely different
setup, but I'm thinking I should have more climb than I do now.
Single occupant, it's no problem as is, though needing such high power settings
for so long on climb out seems as though I'm probably paying for more fuel than
I really need as well.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361402#361402
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: metal vs wood prop |
Props really seem to differ quite a bit from one to the next. Pitches can't really
be trusted that much from one to the next either. I have a Sensenich 72
X 40 on my Chief and really like it. I had a 72 x 44 Hegy that was repitched
to 42 by Hegy on my Piet for a while. I did a lot of prop research a few years
back and had Ed Sterba carve a 76 x 36 prop. The Piet didn't lose any cruise
and climb was much, much better. The draggy airgrame does much better with
a lower pitch larger diameter prop. The gain in disk area from 72" to 76" is
about 11% I believe. Shorter takeoffs and greater climb for sure. Then I bought
Frank Pavliga's Falcon prop mainly because of the looks and the reputation
they have as a good performer. It is a 72 x 44. The performance is almost identical
to the Sterba prop...go figure. Airfoil and how the pitch changes over
the length of the prop must be big variables. I still think, though for the
many manufacturers out there, the ideal Piet prop is something like a 76 x 36
or a 76 x 38. Although it is the standard for many airplanes, I really don't
think the Sensenich 72 x 42 is the ideal prop for the Piet.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361404#361404
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: metal vs wood prop |
My A-65 turns 2300 during climb out, and just goes a hair over that
straight and level. If you are only turning 2100 rpm you aren't really
seeing 65 hp, and you have to remember Kevin Purtee is seeing close to
100 hp. In spite of being heavier than a lot of Piets, his Corvair
really pulls it along well. I bought my Sensenich 72x40 at a swap meet
and was worried that it really should have had a 42 pitch, but it seems
to be the perfect prop for my setup.
Having said all that, if you have a prop that is close to recommended
parameters, I don't see any problem with giving it a shot. Question for
the list...Does this constitute a change that should be reported to the
FAA, and require a short phase 1 test period.
Seems like my airworthiness inspector said that it did.
Ben
I was doing some research and found a great PDF file from Sensenich
talking about prop suitability. It mentioned that a standard prop should
allow the engine to develop rated rpm in level flight. My engine has
only ever seen almost 2100 rpm in level flight and I think it's rated
(still some more reading to do) for 23 to 2400. I saw 2300 once in a
full power decent. A cruise prop should allow 150 under rated, a climb
prop 150 over, all at full power, level flight. My son and I are having
a difficult time with these down in the trees fields with moderate
temps. I can't imagine us in the summer when it's HOT and HUMID! And
he's pretty light. I flew with Kevin Purtee last summer at Brodhead, he
had NO PROBLEM with him and I at 80 degrees. I know it's an entirely
different setup, but I'm thinking I should have more climb than I do now.
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: metal vs wood prop |
Faux faux faux, Merry Christmas........ (couldn't resist)
Jake
Do not archive
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361427#361427
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I decided to build the standard EAA workbenches with locking casters. I have two
done and two to go. I ended up using lag bolts through plywood end pieces
to hold the casters in place.
--------
Do Not Archive
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361431#361431
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/table4_705.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/table3_120.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/table2_114.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/table1_887.jpg
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: metal vs wood prop |
35 more horsepower will have that effect....
do not archive
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:04 AM, tools <n0kkj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I flew with Kevin Purtee last summer at Brodhead, he had NO PROBLEM with
> him and I at 80 degrees
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: metal vs wood prop |
This sounds like i has been pretty well covered- but one thing I was thinking-
if you picked up an older used metal prop there is no telling if it may have been
re-pitched several times in it's life and unless it was checked by a prop
shop it might have about any real pitch now. if a certified shop did it I'd guess
they re-stamp it but there are a lot of folks around with some knowledge of
doing the work. Raymond do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361437#361437
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: | building table with most miles on it |
Dick wrote:
>Sorry Oscar
>I carried my table to Sun n Fun and back 1650 mi each way and built
>my fuselage there.
I hereby withdraw my claim to having the building table with the most
miles on it, and bow at the feet of a better-traveled Piet builder!
Dick, you're amazing. I know that you and the other folks who take on
the building project year after year are planting seeds, kicking off
new projects for new Piet builders, and showing how it's done. My hat
is off to you, sir!
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
Flying Squirrel N2069Z "Rocket"
Medford, OR
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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 |
|
Dan asked-
> Regardless of the engine choice has anyone ever altered ( moved ) the thrust
line
> of their PIETENPOL . Either the Angle ( Up, Down, Left, Right) or height
> of thrust line in relationship to the top longeron ? What was the result ?
Scout's engine mount places the engine thrustline close to where the A65-style
mount calls for it to be, but I have since changed the thrust angles on it
by adding washers, shims, and then eventually (when it was dialed in), spacers.
Specifically, I added downthrust and offset, and the result has been that the
airplane is more nearly a hands-off cruiser than I could ever have imagined.
Here are some re-postings of two of my earlier posts on the subject. From 10/6/10:
==================
I'm just doing this to 41CC now, incrementally. First increment was to offset
the stab in the direction Jack has stated (to the left, looking forward), by about
3/8". I then removed the bent-metal trim tab at the trailing edge of the
rudder. Flew pretty well but still yawed to the left. Should have offset the
stab by 1/2" but no more than that.
Next increment was to check engine thrustline and it was zero-zero. I have now
offset the engine thrustline 2 degrees right and 2 degrees down and although
it still yaws to the left, it's getting very close now and the stick forces (elevator)
in cruise are improved as well. These adjustments were done using engine
mount washers, but after I add another 1/2 degree of right thrust, we're
going to machine some aluminum spacers to replace the washers and we're done.
Next will be to play with the bungee tension that I have on the elevator bellcrank
for nose up trim.
I never imagined that 41CC might be a hands-off airplane, but it's looking like
it might be possible, in smooth air, with just the right amount of fuel in the
tank ;o)
================
>From 12/26/10:
================
I concluded vibration testing on my A75 today, with good results.
Recall that before balancing, the Dynavibe was showing 0.51 IPS
imbalance at 2150 RPM, which was maximum static at the condition on
Dec. 18. We ran some other tests using a different carb venturi
and adjusted the engine thrust line, but those had nothing to do
with the vibration work. An interim test run using longer AN6 prop
bolts with four stacked washers under the heads resulted in a reduction
of vibration to 0.27 IPS at 2150 RPM, with just a slight radial
change in location of the heavy side of the prop. We were on the
right track.
Today we added a small 'flyweight' clamped between the two prop bolts
across from the side of the prop that the Dynavibe had identified
as heavy. It was purposely made a bit heavier than we think will
be the final shape of it, allowing for rounding of the edges and
then applying paint (it's 4130 steel). Warmed up the engine and
ran the Dynavibe averaging again, and achieved 0.07 IPS and now
the heavy side has shifted radially on the hub, indicating that
we would be chasing small changes from here on, with very limited
ways of offsetting the heaviness. So, we called it more than
just good (Dynavibe says to shoot for no more than 0.1 IPS).
Cowlings back on, engine warmed up, and a test flight in "Scout" was
just deee-lightful!!! What a joy, not only in the buttery smoothness
of the engine, but leveling out at cruise, the change in engine
thrustline offset was very rewarding. Hands off, feet off, half
tank of fuel, and the yaw is almost gone... a half-ball of left turning,
which a very light touch on the right rudder would stop instantly. I
never thought this would be a hands-off airplane, but it's getting very
close! We'll reinstall the bent-metal trim tab on the rudder and
I'll bet the next flight will show NO yawing tendency with feet off
the rudders. This airplane is getting sweeter with every tweak we give
it. Of course, it was clear and COLD here today (mid-40s) so Scout
climbed wonderfully, but still- the improvements are noticeable and
useful.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
Flying Squirrel N2069Z "Rocket"
Medford, OR
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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! --
|