Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:26 AM - Re: Brodhead 2011 (Chris)
2. 04:04 AM - Re: Model-A starting problem (899PM)
3. 04:58 AM - Re: Model-A starting problem (helspersew@aol.com)
4. 05:20 AM - weight and balance articles (Douwe Blumberg)
5. 05:22 AM - stubborn Ford (Douwe Blumberg)
6. 05:43 AM - Re: Model-A starting problem (tools)
7. 06:50 AM - Re: Model-A starting problem (Amsafetyc)
8. 07:22 AM - Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (blue213)
9. 08:50 AM - Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (jarheadpilot82)
10. 08:51 AM - Re: Model-A starting problem ()
11. 09:27 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale ()
12. 09:28 AM - Re: Model-A starting problem (Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG NGB)
13. 09:33 AM - New Model A/Pietenpol pix (Ben Charvet)
14. 09:35 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (Kip and Beth Gardner)
15. 10:02 AM - Re: New Model A/Pietenpol pix ()
16. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (helspersew@aol.com)
17. 10:36 AM - Re: New Model A/Pietenpol pix (Bill Church)
18. 10:38 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (Kip and Beth Gardner)
19. 11:15 AM - Re: Re: New Model A/Pietenpol pix (Ben Charvet)
20. 11:21 AM - New Model A/Pietenpol pix (Ben Charvet)
21. 01:01 PM - Re: Model-A starting problem (jim_markle@mindspring.com)
22. 03:37 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (C N Campbell)
23. 04:04 PM - test flight hours 40 or 25? (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP])
24. 04:11 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (helspersew@aol.com)
25. 04:15 PM - Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (jarheadpilot82)
26. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale (C N Campbell)
27. 06:14 PM - Re: Model-A starting problem (Doug Dever)
28. 10:40 PM - Re: Re: Steel LG Lug Thickness (Mark Roberts)
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 |
|
Larry
In the last couple of BPA newsletters W.W. published articles dealing with
the weight and balance data. Not sure if he is finished or not.
Chris
Sacramento, Ca
Westcoastpiet.com
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lawrence
Williams
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead 2011
Has anyone seen the results of the mass wt/bal conducted by W.W. at B'head
last summer?
Larry W. (THC)
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: Model-A starting problem |
Double check plug wires..... #1 cylinder is now at the BACK of the engine.
--------
PAPA MIKE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365864#365864
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: Model-A starting problem |
Bill,
Mine was started from a fresh overhaul so that in itself is not a problem.
I had the advantage of a Slick with the impulse, and never tried to start i
t without it. Aren't a lot of the older Ford Piets just using non-impulse m
ags? The only advise is the same as others. Start from scratch and check ev
erything once again. Like Papa Mike said, make sure #1 is really #1, etc.
Do you have a fuel primer? Just curious. It has GOT to be something basic.
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: BYD <billsayre@ymail.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 7, 2012 9:36 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Model-A starting problem
Excuse me folks, a fellow lover of the blue has got a problem=C3=A2=C2
=C2..
I=C3=A2=C2=C2=99ve been trying to start my Model-A Pietenpol, which is s
tiff from fresh
verhaul. Try as I might, I can=C3=A2=C2=C2=99t get even a puff or pop o
ut of it. Fuel,
ompression, timing and spark right? I can guarantee fuel by pouring a smal
l
mount in the spark-plug hole before propping (have also utilized starting
luid). Certainly has compression (verified with a thumb over the spark-plu
g
ole while searching for top dead center). Timing is set at 28-degrees BTC
and
f you lay a spark-plug on the head and give it a flip you=C3=A2=C2=C2=99
ll see spark =C3=A2=C2=C2=93
lso when turning the rotor to line it up while holding the mag in my hand I
got
ne hell of a shock. I fear that it may just be my weakling status keeping
me
rom my reward but I=C3=A2=C2=C2=99ve had others give a shot with no joy.
Suspect that
nough speed can not be generated to obtain sufficient spark.
The magneto I=C3=A2=C2=C2=99m utilizing is a Vertex mag that slips into
the distributor hole
nd it does not have an impulse coupler. There isn=C3=A2=C2=C2=99t enoug
h room between the
irewall and engine to mount an aircraft mag so the plans solution is out.
I
onder if a stock automobile (Model-A) ignition system (battery, coil, conde
nser
nd such) might give a better slow speed spark at least to get it running lo
ng
nough to loosen the tight engine so I could go back to the magneto.
Any ideas, schemes or shots in the dark will be entertained. The only rewa
rd
ill be a yet another YouTube video of a Model-A Pietenpol running.
Bill
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365846#365846
-= - 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 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: | weight and balance articles |
Oh Grand THC (aka Larry W)
Kinda sounds like you don't get the newsletter anymore (evil man). There
was a series of two or three articles by WW where he went into GREAT detail
about his findings; tables of actual weights, landing gear location,
engines, cg calculations, etc. They were really good.
I'm sure you could get some back issues.
Douwe
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 |
|
Clearly not fuel.
Clearly not mag or spark if you can see AND got a good shock.
I'm leaning towards timing also. I'd say slow down, back up and retime that
baby and try again.
Go slow, it can only few one of a very few things.
Let us know what you find and when we can see that video of it running!
Douwe
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: Model-A starting problem |
Wow, you're mentioning all the right things. I rebuilt a little 4 cyl industrial
engine on a bobcat not too long ago. While it started and ran, there was just
"something" wrong. EVERYONE looked at it.
I finally got a call from some guy via a bulletin board who figured it out by reading
a post. After bucketloads of engine tune ups and wire replacements, I
somehow merely put the plug wires on backwards, because the distributor ran the
opposite to what I'm used to.
Not sure it would have started by hand, so it's just another little thing to check.
Lastly, you say you can see a spark at the plug next to the hole. Can you tell
(might want to wait till dark to check, if it's a nice blue/white spark, or a
yellow/orange one? That will help answer your question about "enough" spark.
If that is the case, yes, a battery powered ignition system will definitely give
you better spark independent of rotation speed.
I also like to diagnose these problems in at least semi dark. You sometimes find
sparks going to ground where they're not supposed to be, thusly weakening what
is at the plug. Can see them easily in dark, but not at all in sunlight.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365871#365871
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: Model-A starting problem |
Not to beat it to death however to make a plug fire you need a minimum of 65 psi
compression so you'll have to get an accurate compression test. Not unless you
have a calibrated thumb. Next verify that number 1 is at TDC on the compression
stroke, both valves closed. Then verify plug wire to number 1 and rotation
then verify firing order at mag, wire and plug once you have all that verified
then prime carb. You should get something.
General rule if you got fuel, air and spark and compression she should run not
unless the spark arrives at the wrong time assuming your timing chain and marks
are properly aligned and your mag drive is turning
Just some suggestions time to go back to basics and verify the essentials
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2012, at 10:32 PM, "BYD" <billsayre@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> Excuse me folks, a fellow lover of the blue has got a problem..
>
> Ive been trying to start my Model-A Pietenpol, which is stiff from fresh overhaul.
Try as I might, I cant get even a puff or pop out of it. Fuel, compression,
timing and spark right? I can guarantee fuel by pouring a small amount
in the spark-plug hole before propping (have also utilized starting fluid). Certainly
has compression (verified with a thumb over the spark-plug hole while
searching for top dead center). Timing is set at 28-degrees BTC and if you lay
a spark-plug on the head and give it a flip youll see spark also when turning
the rotor to line it up while holding the mag in my hand I got one hell of
a shock. I fear that it may just be my weakling status keeping me from my reward
but Ive had others give a shot with no joy. Suspect that enough speed can
not be generated to obtain sufficient spark.
>
> The magneto Im utilizing is a Vertex mag that slips into the distributor hole
and it does not have an impulse coupler. There isnt enough room between the
firewall and engine to mount an aircraft mag so the plans solution is out. I
wonder if a stock automobile (Model-A) ignition system (battery, coil, condenser
and such) might give a better slow speed spark at least to get it running long
enough to loosen the tight engine so I could go back to the magneto.
>
> Any ideas, schemes or shots in the dark will be entertained. The only reward
will be a yet another YouTube video of a Model-A Pietenpol running.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365846#365846
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
1700 gross, why so heavy? Besides a lighter engine what can be done to make one
of these a LSA?
--------
Blue
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365877#365877
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
If you read the 1981 article attached to a separate thread, the gross weight is
shown to be 1250 pounds, 70 pounds under the LSA limit. So, that would lead me
to believe that this mod can be made and the airplane flown under LSA rules.
I am new to experimental aviation but I think the gist of the discussion is this-
you, the manufacturer, certify your airplane to whatever max gross weight that
you, the manufacturer, believe to be the safe limits of that airplane. Whoever
built this airplane in question certified his airplane to a max gross weight
of 1700 pounds based upon some formula or his own thinking.
If I am incorrect, please, someone chime in. I am all ears, as much as anybody.
--------
Do Not Archive
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365882#365882
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: Model-A starting problem |
I would try adjusting your timing first. 28 BTDC may be too soon to get it
started. That is why aircraft mags have impulse couplers, if they didn't th
ey would be almost impossible to start and could have significant kickback.
Rodney
---- Amsafetyc <amsafetyc@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Not to beat it to death however to make a plug fire you need a minimum of
65 psi compression so you'll have to get an accurate compression test. Not
unless you have a calibrated thumb. Next verify that number 1 is at TDC on
the compression stroke, both valves closed. Then verify plug wire to numbe
r 1 and rotation then verify firing order at mag, wire and plug once you ha
ve all that verified then prime carb. You should get something.
>
> General rule if you got fuel, air and spark and compression she should ru
n not unless the spark arrives at the wrong time assuming your timing chain
and marks are properly aligned and your mag drive is turning
>
> Just some suggestions time to go back to basics and verify the essentials
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 7, 2012, at 10:32 PM, "BYD" <billsayre@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Excuse me folks, a fellow lover of the blue has got a problem=C3=A2
=82=AC=C2..
> >
> > I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ve been trying to start my Model-A Pietenpol,
which is stiff from fresh overhaul. Try as I might, I can=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2t get even a puff or pop out of it. Fuel, compression, timing and spa
rk right? I can guarantee fuel by pouring a small amount in the spark-plug
hole before propping (have also utilized starting fluid). Certainly has com
pression (verified with a thumb over the spark-plug hole while searching fo
r top dead center). Timing is set at 28-degrees BTC and if you lay a spark-
plug on the head and give it a flip you=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ll see spark
=C3=A2=82=AC=9C also when turning the rotor to line it up while h
olding the mag in my hand I got one hell of a shock. I fear that it may jus
t be my weakling status keeping me from my reward but I=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2ve had others give a shot with no joy. Suspect that enough speed can
not be generated to obtain sufficient spark.
> >
> > The magneto I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m utilizing is a Vertex mag that s
lips into the distributor hole and it does not have an impulse coupler. The
re isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t enough room between the firewall and engine
to mount an aircraft mag so the plans solution is out. I wonder if a stock
automobile (Model-A) ignition system (battery, coil, condenser and such) m
ight give a better slow speed spark at least to get it running long enough
to loosen the tight engine so I could go back to the magneto.
> >
> > Any ideas, schemes or shots in the dark will be entertained. The only r
eward will be a yet another YouTube video of a Model-A Pietenpol running.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365846#365846
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
As I understand it you are essentially correct. The builder can set the gross at
whatever they feel is correct. In the case of this Aerial it was probably based
on the low wing loading and higher power engine versus a stock pietenpol.
To build it as a light sport though you would really have to watch the empty weight
or you would not have enough payload to do anything. Maybe if you could
make it a one place like the sky scout. It isn't just the heavier engine but the
lower wings, metal fittings, wires and whatever else it needed as far as reinforcements.
Rodney
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: Model-A starting problem |
Hate to chime in with something that you probably know.
To find TDC we turned the prop to get the piston beginning compression stroke on
the #1 cylinder. We installed a device that screws into the plug hole and intrudes
to touch the piston when it comes up. when It touched the device. we set
the prop dial (a compass like device) on Zero. then you turn the prop the other
way until it touches again. Note the degrees on the dial. Divide that in half,
take out the plug device and turn the prop to that degree. then zero the
prop dial. That is TDC. Then turn it to the proper degrees before TDC (it was
30 for us) .
Easy enough.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: r.r.hall@cox.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Model-A starting problem
>
> I would try adjusting your timing first. 28 BTDC may be too soon to
> get it started. That is why aircraft mags have impulse couplers, if
> they didn't they would be almost impossible to start and could have
> significant kickback.
> Rodney
> ---- Amsafetyc < wrote:
> >
> > Not to beat it to death however to make a plug fire you need a minimum of 65
psi compression so you'll have to get an accurate compression test. Not unless
you have a calibrated thumb. Next verify that number 1 is at TDC on the compression
stroke, both valves closed. Then verify plug wire to number 1 and rotation
then verify firing order at mag, wire and plug once you have all that verified
then prime carb. You should get something.
> >
> > General rule if you got fuel, air and spark and compression she should run
not unless the spark arrives at the wrong time assuming your timing chain and
marks are properly aligned and your mag drive is turning
> >
> > Just some suggestions time to go back to basics and verify the essentials
> >
> > John
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2012, at 10:32 PM, "BYD" < wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Excuse me folks, a fellow lover of the blue has got a problem..
> > >
> > > Ive been trying to start my Model-A Pietenpol, which is stiff from fresh
overhaul. Try as I might, I cant get even a puff or pop out of it. Fuel, compression,
timing and spark right? I can guarantee fuel by pouring a small amount
in the spark-plug hole before propping (have also utilized starting fluid). Certainly
has compression (verified with a thumb over the spark-plug hole while
searching for top dead center). Timing is set at 28-degrees BTC and if you lay
a spark-plug on the head and give it a flip youll see spark also when turning
the rotor to line it up while holding the mag in my hand I got one hell of
a shock. I fear that it may just be my weakling status keeping me from my reward
but Ive had others give a shot with no joy. Suspect that enough speed can not
be generated to obtain sufficient spark.
> > >
> > > The magneto Im utilizing is a Vertex mag that slips into the distributor
hole and it does not have an impulse coupler. There isnt enough room between the
firewall and engine to mount an aircraft mag so the plans solution is out.
I wonder if a stock automobile (Model-A) ignition system (battery, coil, condenser
and such) might give a better slow speed spark at least to get it running
long enough to loosen the tight engine so I could go back to the magneto.
> > >
> > > Any ideas, schemes or shots in the dark will be entertained. The only reward
will be a yet another YouTube video of a Model-A Pietenpol running.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365846#365846
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> >
> >
> >
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: | New Model A/Pietenpol pix |
At this point I can have an intelligent conversation about Model A stuff eve
n if I do fly behind a Continental. What a perfect Pietenpol accessory
Ben Charvet
Titusville Fl
Sent from my iPhone
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
Terry,
You are correct, it's up to you, the builder to set the gross wt. However, I suspect
that the DAR or FAA guy you've asked to come inspect & sign off on your
plane might have some serious questions to ask if you set the gross wt. on a
standard Piet at, say, 2500 lbs.
I suspect the builder figured that the Aerial, because of the extra wing area,
is capable of handling a greater load than a standard Piet. The gross wt. number
really should at the least be tied to some reasonable wing loading value.
That may or may not be true, I don't know enough about the design, and of course,
other factors, such as choice of engine, and other structural considerations
besides wing loading, would come into play as well.
If the plane has an airworthiness certificate, then you have to assume that both
the builder and certificator believe that the gross wt. number is reasonable.
Also, once it's set, I don't believe it can be changed unless you did a documented
'major rebuild' of the plane and submitted it for re-certification.
Kip Gardner
On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:45 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:
>
> If you read the 1981 article attached to a separate thread, the gross weight
is shown to be 1250 pounds, 70 pounds under the LSA limit. So, that would lead
me to believe that this mod can be made and the airplane flown under LSA rules.
>
> I am new to experimental aviation but I think the gist of the discussion is this-
you, the manufacturer, certify your airplane to whatever max gross weight
that you, the manufacturer, believe to be the safe limits of that airplane. Whoever
built this airplane in question certified his airplane to a max gross weight
of 1700 pounds based upon some formula or his own thinking.
>
> If I am incorrect, please, someone chime in. I am all ears, as much as anybody.
>
> --------
> Do Not Archive
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365882#365882
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: New Model A/Pietenpol pix |
You must have had your Iphone upside down when you sent that :-)
Nice airplane!
Do Not Archive
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
I was not required to declare the GW at the time of DAR inspection. Still h
aven't put in on the placard. Still have more testing to do. Isn't that the
reason for the initial 40 hour test period?
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 11:36 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale
hlink.net>
Terry,
You are correct, it's up to you, the builder to set the gross wt. However,
I
uspect that the DAR or FAA guy you've asked to come inspect & sign off on y
our
lane might have some serious questions to ask if you set the gross wt. on a
tandard Piet at, say, 2500 lbs.
I suspect the builder figured that the Aerial, because of the extra wing ar
ea,
s capable of handling a greater load than a standard Piet. The gross wt.
umber really should at the least be tied to some reasonable wing loading va
lue.
hat may or may not be true, I don't know enough about the design, and of
ourse, other factors, such as choice of engine, and other structural
onsiderations besides wing loading, would come into play as well.
If the plane has an airworthiness certificate, then you have to assume that
both
he builder and certificator believe that the gross wt. number is reasonable
.
lso, once it's set, I don't believe it can be changed unless you did a
ocumented 'major rebuild' of the plane and submitted it for re-certificatio
n.
Kip Gardner
On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:45 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:
tmail.com>
If you read the 1981 article attached to a separate thread, the gross weig
ht
s shown to be 1250 pounds, 70 pounds under the LSA limit. So, that would le
ad
e to believe that this mod can be made and the airplane flown under LSA rul
es.
I am new to experimental aviation but I think the gist of the discussion i
s
his- you, the manufacturer, certify your airplane to whatever max gross wei
ght
hat you, the manufacturer, believe to be the safe limits of that airplane.
hoever built this airplane in question certified his airplane to a max gros
s
eight of 1700 pounds based upon some formula or his own thinking.
If I am incorrect, please, someone chime in. I am all ears, as much as
nybody.
--------
Do Not Archive
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365882#365882
-= - 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 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: New Model A/Pietenpol pix |
Ben,
Aren't the wheels supposed to be on the bottom? (:
BC
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365898#365898
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
I don't know Dan, maybe someone else can clarify.
I've also heard that there is quite a bit of variability in what DAR's
require and/or review, regardless of how the regs actually read. We
have the same situation in agriculture, where what inspectors believe
to be required is often just what they "think" is right, as opposed to
what's actually in the regs. Part of my job as an organic
certification consultant is to make sure that my clients know what's
expected BEFORE the inspector shows up, so that they don't get slammed
with something that's not required.
Kip Gardner
On Feb 8, 2012, at 1:01 PM, HelsperSew@aol.com wrote:
> I was not required to declare the GW at the time of DAR inspection.
> Still haven't put in on the placard. Still have more testing to do.
> Isn't that the reason for the initial 40 hour test period?
>
> Dan Helsper
> Puryear, TN
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
> To: pietenpol-list <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 11:36 am
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale
>
> >
>
> Terry,
>
> You are correct, it's up to you, the builder to set the gross wt.
> However, I
> suspect that the DAR or FAA guy you've asked to come inspect & sign
> off on your
> plane might have some serious questions to ask if you set the gross
> wt. on a
> standard Piet at, say, 2500 lbs.
>
> I suspect the builder figured that the Aerial, because of the extra
> wing area,
> is capable of handling a greater load than a standard Piet. The
> gross wt.
> number really should at the least be tied to some reasonable wing
> loading value.
> That may or may not be true, I don't know enough about the design,
> and of
> course, other factors, such as choice of engine, and other structural
> considerations besides wing loading, would come into play as well.
>
> If the plane has an airworthiness certificate, then you have to
> assume that both
> the builder and certificator believe that the gross wt. number is
> reasonable.
> Also, once it's set, I don't believe it can be changed unless you
> did a
> documented 'major rebuild' of the plane and submitted it for re-
> certification.
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:45 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If you read the 1981 article attached to a separate thread, the
> gross weight
> is shown to be 1250 pounds, 70 pounds under the LSA limit. So, that
> would lead
> me to believe that this mod can be made and the airplane flown under
> LSA rules.
> >
> > I am new to experimental aviation but I think the gist of the
> discussion is
> this- you, the manufacturer, certify your airplane to whatever max
> gross weight
> that you, the manufacturer, believe to be the safe limits of that
> airplane.
> Whoever built this airplane in question certified his airplane to a
> max gross
> weight of 1700 pounds based upon some formula or his own thinking.
> >
> > If I am incorrect, please, someone chime in. I am all ears, as
> much as
> anybody.
> >
> > --------
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> > Semper Fi,
> >
> > Terry Hand
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365882#365882
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> " target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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: New Model A/Pietenpol pix |
Sometimes smartphones aren't so smart after all....
Do not Archive
Ben
On 2/8/2012 1:29 PM, Bill Church wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church"<billspiet@sympatico.ca>
>
> Ben,
>
> Aren't the wheels supposed to be on the bottom? (:
>
> BC
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365898#365898
>
>
--
Ben Charvet, PharmD
Staff Pharmacist
Parrish Medical center
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: | New Model A/Pietenpol pix |
Reattached with the wheels down
Ben
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: Model-A starting problem |
I had some real problems when I first set mine up (with the Wico mag)...180 degrees
off....had spark etc....
------Original Message------
From: BYD
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Model-A starting problem
Sent: Feb 7, 2012 10:32 PM
Excuse me folks, a fellow lover of the blue has got a problem..
Ive been trying to start my Model-A Pietenpol, which is stiff from fresh overhaul.
Try as I might, I cant get even a puff or pop out of it. Fuel, compression,
timing and spark right? I can guarantee fuel by pouring a small amount in
the spark-plug hole before propping (have also utilized starting fluid). Certainly
has compression (verified with a thumb over the spark-plug hole while searching
for top dead center). Timing is set at 28-degrees BTC and if you lay
a spark-plug on the head and give it a flip youll see spark also when turning
the rotor to line it up while holding the mag in my hand I got one hell of a
shock. I fear that it may just be my weakling status keeping me from my reward
but Ive had others give a shot with no joy. Suspect that enough speed can
not be generated to obtain sufficient spark.
The magneto Im utilizing is a Vertex mag that slips into the distributor hole and
it does not have an impulse coupler. There isnt enough room between the firewall
and engine to mount an aircraft mag so the plans solution is out. I wonder
if a stock automobile (Model-A) ignition system (battery, coil, condenser
and such) might give a better slow speed spark at least to get it running long
enough to loosen the tight engine so I could go back to the magneto.
Any ideas, schemes or shots in the dark will be entertained. The only reward will
be a yet another YouTube video of a Model-A Pietenpol running.
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365846#365846
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
What's the deal on the test period? I hear 40 hours from some and 25
hours from some. Anyone know the REAL test period time?
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale
I was not required to declare the GW at the time of DAR inspection.
Still haven't put in on the placard. Still have more testing to do.
Isn't that the reason for the initial 40 hour test period?
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
To: pietenpol-list <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 11:36 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale
<kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
Terry,
You are correct, it's up to you, the builder to set the gross wt.
However, I
suspect that the DAR or FAA guy you've asked to come inspect & sign off
on your
plane might have some serious questions to ask if you set the gross wt.
on a
standard Piet at, say, 2500 lbs.
I suspect the builder figured that the Aerial, because of the extra wing
area,
is capable of handling a greater load than a standard Piet. The gross
wt.
number really should at the least be tied to some reasonable wing
loading value.
That may or may not be true, I don't know enough about the design, and
of
course, other factors, such as choice of engine, and other structural
considerations besides wing loading, would come into play as well.
If the plane has an airworthiness certificate, then you have to assume
that both
the builder and certificator believe that the gross wt. number is
reasonable.
Also, once it's set, I don't believe it can be changed unless you did a
documented 'major rebuild' of the plane and submitted it for
re-certification.
Kip Gardner
On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:45 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:
<jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
> If you read the 1981 article attached to a separate thread, the gross
weight
is shown to be 1250 pounds, 70 pounds under the LSA limit. So, that
would lead
me to believe that this mod can be made and the airplane flown under LSA
rules.
>
> I am new to experimental aviation but I think the gist of the
discussion is
this- you, the manufacturer, certify your airplane to whatever max gross
weight
that you, the manufacturer, believe to be the safe limits of that
airplane.
Whoever built this airplane in question certified his airplane to a max
gross
weight of 1700 pounds based upon some formula or his own thinking.
>
> If I am incorrect, please, someone chime in. I am all ears, as much as
anybody.
>
> --------
> Do Not Archive
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365882#365882
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>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: | test flight hours 40 or 25? |
I found this information on the RV list and have given credit highlighted i
n yellow
to the appropriate authors. I hope this helps.
Mike C.
This is out of AC20-27E, CERTIFICATION AND OPERATION OF AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCR
AFT:
a. Amateur-built aircraft will initially be limited to operation within an
assigned flight test area for a
minimum of 25 hours when a type certificated (FAA-approved) engine/propelle
r combination is installed, or 40
hours when a non-type certificated engine/propeller combination is installe
d.
I would take this to mean a engine/propellor combination that has been FAA
certified for use on other aircraft (other than experimental). When you put
an uncertified prop, IE a Catto, it becomes an uncertified combination, th
us a 40 hour test period.
Other comments?
Bill Waters
If your engine has a data plate from Lycoming on it and your prop is certif
ied for that particular Lycoming model, then you will get 25 hours. Anythin
g else gets you 40 hours. You will have to show the inspector the certifica
tion sheet for the prop to prove to him it is a certified combination.
Now, if you pull that Lycoming off your experimental and try to sell it, it
cannot go into a certified airplane again unless it is completely remanufa
ctured (not rebuilt) by a certified engine shop. It has to do with the fact
that on a certified engine, the parts from the same engine stay with the e
ngine until they get replaced. When it's remanufactured, it's a new engine
again and it comes with a new logbook. On an experimental engine, parts fro
m different engines can be mixed and matched as long as they are within tol
erances for a rebuilt or a remanufacture. That's why Aero Sport Power engin
es come with a new data plate that identify it as a "Aero Sport Power O-360
" instead of a Lycoming.
However, the Feds do make mistakes. I got only 25 hours on my RV-6 because
the inspector failed to notice that the engine was from Bart instead of fro
m Lycoming. My Sensenich metal prop was certified for my O-320 so he only g
ave me 25.
For a simple, VFR airplane, 25 hours of testing is usually enough. But I al
most prefer the regime of a 40 hour test period because you really need it
to do flight testing properly on a more complicated airplane, just my $.02.
__________________
Randy Pflanzer
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
Chuck,
If you have a "certified" engine and a "certified" prop, then the test peri
od is only 25 hours. Unless you fall into those parameters, the test period
is 40 hours.
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: C N Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale
What's the deal on the test period? I hear 40 hours from some and 25 hours
from some. Anyone know the REAL test period time?
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale
I was not required to declare the GW at the time of DAR inspection. Still h
aven't put in on the placard. Still have more testing to do. Isn't that the
reason for the initial 40 hour test period?
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 11:36 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale
hlink.net>
Terry,
You are correct, it's up to you, the builder to set the gross wt. However,
I
uspect that the DAR or FAA guy you've asked to come inspect & sign off on y
our
lane might have some serious questions to ask if you set the gross wt. on a
tandard Piet at, say, 2500 lbs.
I suspect the builder figured that the Aerial, because of the extra wing ar
ea,
s capable of handling a greater load than a standard Piet. The gross wt.
umber really should at the least be tied to some reasonable wing loading va
lue.
hat may or may not be true, I don't know enough about the design, and of
ourse, other factors, such as choice of engine, and other structural
onsiderations besides wing loading, would come into play as well.
If the plane has an airworthiness certificate, then you have to assume that
both
he builder and certificator believe that the gross wt. number is reasonable
.
lso, once it's set, I don't believe it can be changed unless you did a
ocumented 'major rebuild' of the plane and submitted it for re-certificatio
n.
Kip Gardner
On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:45 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:
tmail.com>
If you read the 1981 article attached to a separate thread, the gross weig
ht
s shown to be 1250 pounds, 70 pounds under the LSA limit. So, that would le
ad
e to believe that this mod can be made and the airplane flown under LSA rul
es.
I am new to experimental aviation but I think the gist of the discussion i
s
his- you, the manufacturer, certify your airplane to whatever max gross wei
ght
hat you, the manufacturer, believe to be the safe limits of that airplane.
hoever built this airplane in question certified his airplane to a max gros
s
eight of 1700 pounds based upon some formula or his own thinking.
If I am incorrect, please, someone chime in. I am all ears, as much as
nybody.
--------
Do Not Archive
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365882#365882
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
://forums.matronics.com
lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
ref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
-= - 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 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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
Chuck,
Both numbers are correct. This taken from the following link-
[url]http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/registering/articles/3Amateur-Built%20Aircraft%20Certification%20Inspection%20Guide.html
[/url]
Read below -
To be eligible for the 25 hour test flight period, the certificated engine and
propeller combination when installed, must be "airworthy." This means, the engine
and propeller must meet its type design and be in a condition for safe operation.
All applicable Airworthiness Directives must be complied with at this
time. If these conditions are not met, the aircraft limitations will mandate
the 40 hour Phase I test-flight time requirement.
So, Chuck, a Continental A-65 with a propeller from a certificated airplane would
only need 25 hours, while a Corvair with a carved prop (or any prop, for that
matter) would require 40 hours.
I hope that helps.
--------
Do Not Archive
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365928#365928
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: Pietenpol Aerial for sale |
OK! With an uncertified engine and an uncertified prop I guess I'm set for
a 40-hour test phase. Thanks, everybody.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:10 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol Aerial for sale
> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
> Chuck,
>
> Both numbers are correct. This taken from the following link-
>
> [url]http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/registering/articles/3Amateur-Built%20Aircraft%20Certification%20Inspection%20Guide.html
> [/url]
>
> Read below -
>
> To be eligible for the 25 hour test flight period, the certificated engine
> and propeller combination when installed, must be "airworthy." This means,
> the engine and propeller must meet its type design and be in a condition
> for safe operation. All applicable Airworthiness Directives must be
> complied with at this time. If these conditions are not met, the aircraft
> limitations will mandate the 40 hour Phase I test-flight time requirement.
>
> So, Chuck, a Continental A-65 with a propeller from a certificated
> airplane would only need 25 hours, while a Corvair with a carved prop (or
> any prop, for that matter) would require 40 hours.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> --------
> Do Not Archive
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365928#365928
>
>
>
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: | Model-A starting problem |
Many airplanes in the 20s 30s and 40s did not have impulse mags. My dad had
a Piper Super Cruiser that did not have impulse mags and=2C yes it was har
d to start when hot.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: r.r.hall@cox.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Model-A starting problem
I would try adjusting your timing first. 28 BTDC may be too soon to get it
started. That is why aircraft mags have impulse couplers=2C if they didn't
they would be almost impossible to start and could have significant kickbac
k.
Rodney
---- Amsafetyc <amsafetyc@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Not to beat it to death however to make a plug fire you need a minimum of
65 psi compression so you'll have to get an accurate compression test. Not
unless you have a calibrated thumb. Next verify that number 1 is at TDC on
the compression stroke=2C both valves closed. Then verify plug wire to num
ber 1 and rotation then verify firing order at mag=2C wire and plug once yo
u have all that verified then prime carb. You should get something.
>
> General rule if you got fuel=2C air and spark and compression she should
run not unless the spark arrives at the wrong time assuming your timing cha
in and marks are properly aligned and your mag drive is turning
>
> Just some suggestions time to go back to basics and verify the essentials
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 7=2C 2012=2C at 10:32 PM=2C "BYD" <billsayre@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Excuse me folks=2C a fellow lover of the blue has got a problem
..
> >
> > I=99ve been trying to start my Model-A Pietenpol=2C which is stif
f from fresh overhaul. Try as I might=2C I can=99t get even a puff or
pop out of it. Fuel=2C compression=2C timing and spark right? I can guaran
tee fuel by pouring a small amount in the spark-plug hole before propping (
have also utilized starting fluid). Certainly has compression (verified wit
h a thumb over the spark-plug hole while searching for top dead center). Ti
ming is set at 28-degrees BTC and if you lay a spark-plug on the head and g
ive it a flip you=99ll see spark =93 also when turning the roto
r to line it up while holding the mag in my hand I got one hell of a shock.
I fear that it may just be my weakling status keeping me from my reward bu
t I=99ve had others give a shot with no joy. Suspect that enough spee
d can not be generated to obtain sufficient spark.
> >
> > The magneto I=99m utilizing is a Vertex mag that slips into the d
istributor hole and it does not have an impulse coupler. There isn=99
t enough room between the firewall and engine to mount an aircraft mag so t
he plans solution is out. I wonder if a stock automobile (Model-A) ignition
system (battery=2C coil=2C condenser and such) might give a better slow sp
eed spark at least to get it running long enough to loosen the tight engine
so I could go back to the magneto.
> >
> > Any ideas=2C schemes or shots in the dark will be entertained. The only
reward will be a yet another YouTube video of a Model-A Pietenpol running.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365846#365846
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
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: Steel LG Lug Thickness |
Thanks guys. Will do. I see what you all are talking about, and I appreciate the
advice.
Mark
On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "skipgadd@earthlink.net" <skipgadd@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
> Kevin and Mark, Just for reference, Wag Aero uses .063 steel for the finger
> straps in a similar reinforcement on their Cuby plans. The thicker steel is
> harder to bend but easier to weld.
> Skip
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
>> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Date: 2/7/2012 9:36:59 AM
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Steel LG Lug Thickness
>>
> <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
>>
>> Sorry, Mark, I don't remember. It was thin gauge that was laying in the
> scrap bin. The control horn steel would probably be ok. It has to be thin
> enough to form around the lugs and the top of the gear. Maybe get a couple
> of 12x12 pieces of various sizes to be on the safe side? You'll end up
> using whatever you get for something.
>>
>> --------
>> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
>> NX899KP
>> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365799#365799
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|