Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:58 AM - Wing rIb components quick and easy (bdewenter)
2. 06:37 AM - being found (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
3. 06:57 AM - Re: being found (bdewenter)
4. 07:21 AM - Re: Re: being found (Gary Boothe)
5. 07:26 AM - Re: Wing rIb components quick and easy (John Francis)
6. 07:27 AM - Re: being found (AircamperN11MS)
7. 08:39 AM - Re: Re: being found (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
8. 08:40 AM - swing out motor mount (nightmare)
9. 08:46 AM - Re: MERFI Fly-In (shad bell)
10. 08:55 AM - Re: swing out motor mount (shad bell)
11. 08:59 AM - Re: swing out motor mount (Gary Boothe)
12. 09:48 AM - Covering systems (John Franklin)
13. 09:55 AM - Re: Covering systems (H. Marvin Haught Jr.)
14. 09:56 AM - Re: Re: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) ()
15. 10:01 AM - Re: Covering systems (curtdm(at)gmail.com)
16. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: Covering systems (Mario Giacummo)
17. 10:23 AM - Re: Re: being found (Rick Holland)
18. 10:34 AM - Re: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) (tools)
19. 10:35 AM - Re: Covering systems (AircamperN11MS)
20. 10:37 AM - Re: swing out motor mount (nightmare)
21. 10:45 AM - Re: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) (taildrags)
22. 11:05 AM - Re: Re: Covering systems (Ken Bickers)
23. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: Covering systems (H. Marvin Haught)
24. 12:11 PM - Re: Covering systems (AircamperN11MS)
25. 12:14 PM - Re: Covering systems (jarheadpilot82)
26. 12:18 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (Ken Bickers)
27. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (Andrea Vavassori)
28. 12:44 PM - Sad, sad, sad news :-( (Andrea Vavassori)
29. 12:48 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (Gary Boothe)
30. 12:51 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (Ken Bickers)
31. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (H. Marvin Haught Jr.)
32. 01:10 PM - Re: Sad, sad, sad news :-( (Barry Davis)
33. 02:25 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (H. Marvin Haught)
34. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (gliderx5@comcast.net)
35. 03:23 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (H. Marvin Haught)
36. 05:11 PM - Re: Re: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) (Jack)
37. 05:18 PM - Re: NX626E (BYD)
38. 05:22 PM - Re: Re: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) (Jack)
39. 06:04 PM - Re: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) (tools)
40. 06:10 PM - Re: Re: Covering systems (gliderx5@comcast.net)
41. 06:27 PM - Re: NX626E (AircamperN11MS)
42. 06:55 PM - Re: being found (danhelsper@aol.com)
43. 07:08 PM - Re: Re: NX626E (Gary Boothe)
44. 07:19 PM - Fw: Re: Fw: Propeller Pictures (Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB)
45. 07:23 PM - Re: NX626E (Billy McCaskill)
46. 07:45 PM - Fw: Re: Fw: Propeller Pictures (Billy McCaskill)
47. 08:06 PM - Re: Covering systems (curtdm(at)gmail.com)
48. 08:20 PM - Re: Re: NX626E (Jim Boyer)
49. 08:34 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Propeller Pictures (Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB)
50. 11:52 PM - Fw: Re: Fw: Propeller Pictures (Billy McCaskill)
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: | Wing rIb components quick and easy |
I can attest to what others have said about how easy it is to quickly craft both
the wing rib gussets and rib members. The included photo has a lot in it.
My wing rib jig is loaded with the first set of components. It is now surrounded
by 32 sets of 10 rib members. There are 900+ gussets in the plastic tubs
and bags (5 different sizes / shapes).
The gussets took a 24"x48" sheet of 1/16" aircraft grade ply and about 6 hours
spread over 3 nights. I used a table saw, chop saw and metal sheers. It was very
easy to make them.
I got home early from a trip yesterday and felt it was a good time to cut the rib
components. The 32 sets of 10 rib members took 3 hours.
If anyone out there is fretting these tasks, stop now.
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407205#407205
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00127_medium_969.jpg
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 |
|
With all this talk about ELT's I have to post that during my airworthiness
inspection no mention of an ELT was ever made
and from day one I never installed one nor 15 years later have one. I'm s
ure it would be prudent to carry one but I've just
never done it but then again I don't fly over mountains or rugged terrain.
I figure they'll just see the smoke and drive toward it.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I am not planning on installing an ELT either. Its not required during the 40
hour test period. Less weight. less cost. I will not be flying over mountains
either. Planning on using a GPS SPOT like device however for CC flights. Cell
or land line phone check ins with someone will also help.
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407208#407208
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 |
|
It's hard to predict what is important to an inspector. Like Mike, my FAA
inspector had no interest in seeing the ELT (although I have one mounted),
nor was he concerned that the word 'EXPERIMENTAL' was not written on the
side of the forward cockpit (he only wanted to see a placard on the forward
panel with the word 'EXPERIMENTAL' somewhere on the placard), but....
He was dead set that I safety all the hose clamps! That's not a reg, either.
A year later, at a presentation he did at our EAA chapter, he again
mentioned safetying hose clamps! I didn't mind...it didn't take long.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bdewenter
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: being found
--> <anonymouse@woh.rr.com>
I am not planning on installing an ELT either. Its not required during the
40 hour test period. Less weight. less cost. I will not be flying over
mountains either. Planning on using a GPS SPOT like device however for CC
flights. Cell or land line phone check ins with someone will also help.
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407208#407208
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: Wing rIb components quick and easy |
Nice job Bob! After building the jig and making the first rib, the work of building
the rest of the ribs will become easy and rewarding. As I work on the hand
carving on the wing tips and finishing the ailerons, I dream of those lackadaisical
days of building wing ribs.
Spent two hours last night in the simulator with Russ. He disabled all the gauges
but what I would have in my Piet then put me into some tough situations.
Most enlightening was flying into clouds and maintaining altitude and level wings
with just the altimeter and magnetic compass.
John
--------
John Francis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407210#407210
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 |
|
Bob and Mike,
What does Uncle Tony say about that???? Just kidding, but, The FAA will say you
are not legal Mike. After phase 1 testing you (Bob and Mike) are required to
have one in your plane. The only exception would be if the plane is a single
seater. I agree that we really don't need them with all the other tracking devices
and phones available to us these days. If the FAA changed the rules to
include this centuries technologies the manufacturers would throw a fit. How
would they stay in business without our money??? Anyway, I hate to see you
get in trouble with the FAA someday (during a ramp check) because you don't have
one so I figured I would rant a little. Look at the FAR's and you will see
what I am talking about. Anyway, just have fun and fly.
BTW, Last year while I was going through all the paperwork that is required to
be carried in my plane to be legal, I discovered that I had the wrong "Operating
Limitations" in the plane and flew it that way for 20 years. I was never
ramp checked and never was in trouble for it. But, it was an eye opener.
--------
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=407211#407211
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 |
|
You are so right about the regulations Scott and gosh, no wonder Uncle Tony
didn't include me in his will......no ELT! I'd better get busy and saf
ety wire all my hose clamps too before
I fly out to California to visit Gary and the Westcoast Piet bunch. :)
We have a great FAA inspector here locally and while he and his wife were a
t a little private air strip get-together a few years ago my friend Bill Kl
osz and I razzed the daylights out of
this guy because he didn't have a compass correction card. We were ramp c
hecking the FAA guy. Thank goodness we have some fair-minded and reasonab
le Feds around here
but you make a good point--they are all different and they all could hang a
ny one of us on any given day!
Mike C.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CE9F2C.40FB9510]
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: | swing out motor mount |
was wondering if anyone has experience with the swing out (hinges on one side)
motor mount. I realize probably not done on a wood fuselage piet, but im sure
you guys have owned or do own many different birds.
Im fabricating a steel tube fuselage and just a hair more work and weight to
fabricate a swing out mount for my corvair / steel tube combo. any recommendations?
is it worth doing? Thanks; Paul
--------
Paul Donahue
Started 8-3-12
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407214#407214
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: MERFI Fly-In |
NX92GB may be there, Dad might fly over.- If I am not working on my wings
I will try to bum a ride over with my neighbor.=0A-=0AShad =0A =0A=0A___
_____________________________=0A From: John Francis <Mrkringles@msn.com>=0A
M=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: MERFI Fly-In=0A =0A=0A--> Pietenpol-List mess
age posted by: "John Francis" <Mrkringles@msn.com>=0A=0AAny Pietenpols plan
ning to go to the MERFI fly-in in Urbana, OH this weekend?=0A=0A--------=0A
John Francis=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.
==============
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: swing out motor mount |
I have a supercub swing out mount on my Jungster 1 I am building, not sure
it would be necessary with a corvair.- If the mount is really short for w
t-and balance it might come in handy if you needed to get to the back of
your engine, but on the corvair I am not sure what you would need to get to
.- If you-build the swing out mount, you still need to disconnect engin
e control cables fuel lines etc. to swing out the mount, or leave enough sl
ack to compensate.--=0A-=0AShad-=0A =0A=0A_________________________
_______=0A From: nightmare <pauldonahuepilot@yahoo.com>=0ATo: pietenpol-lis
t@matronics.com =0ASent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:40 AM=0ASubject: Piet
enpol-List: swing out motor mount=0A =0A=0A--> Pietenpol-List message post
ed by: "nightmare" <pauldonahuepilot@yahoo.com>=0A=0Awas wondering if anyon
e has experience with the swing out (hinges on one side) motor mount. I rea
lize probably not done on a wood fuselage piet, but im sure you guys have o
wned or do own many different birds.=0A- Im fabricating a steel tube fus
elage and just a hair more work and weight to fabricate a swing out mount f
or my corvair / steel tube combo. any recommendations? is it worth doing? T
hanks; Paul=0A=0A--------=0APaul Donahue=0AStarted 8-3-12=0Ado not archive
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.co
=============
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: | swing out motor mount |
Paul,
My mount is 2" longer than normal, and allows enough (note: I did not say
'plenty') room for working. Aside from possibly making it a bit easier and
cleaner to remove the oil filter, I cannot see any advantage, but several
concerns would be added (engineering for strength with no vibration,
maintenance and inspection of the hinges, etc...). I have had to replace an
oil pressure spring, and tighten and re-safety the oil pan bolts (I should
say that Curt Merdan did the re-safetying...come to think of it...he hasn't
been back since...), all of which are doable despite the tight quarters...
But everyone's layout is different. I have no remote oil cooler or filter,
as some do. To do maintenance on those may require disconnections for a
swing out mount that you would normally not have to do.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nightmare
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:40 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: swing out motor mount
--> <pauldonahuepilot@yahoo.com>
was wondering if anyone has experience with the swing out (hinges on one
side) motor mount. I realize probably not done on a wood fuselage piet, but
im sure you guys have owned or do own many different birds.
Im fabricating a steel tube fuselage and just a hair more work and weight
to fabricate a swing out mount for my corvair / steel tube combo. any
recommendations? is it worth doing? Thanks; Paul
--------
Paul Donahue
Started 8-3-12
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407214#407214
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: | Covering systems |
Pietsters,
Is it legal (??..perhaps the wrong term) to cover parts of the plane, say the wings
and tail surfaces, with the Polyfiber system and then cover the fuselage
with the Stewart system? Seems like I remember reading somewhere that you can't
mix systems on the same plane.
Thanks,
John Franklin
Prairie Aire 4TA0
Needville, TX
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: Covering systems |
Only if you are doing a certificated airplane. That said, if you are
doing a repair, then Stewart Systems is approved to repair any other
certified system.
M. Haught
Aircraft Fabric & Finishes LLC.
On 8/22/2013 11:48 AM, John Franklin wrote:
>
> Pietsters,
>
> Is it legal (??..perhaps the wrong term) to cover parts of the plane, say the
wings and tail surfaces, with the Polyfiber system and then cover the fuselage
with the Stewart system? Seems like I remember reading somewhere that you can't
mix systems on the same plane.
>
> Thanks,
> John Franklin
> Prairie Aire 4TA0
> Needville, TX
>
>
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: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) |
Guys,
The enforcement of all FAA rules is pretty hit and miss in the small plane arens
I think. When I bought my one off homebuilt from the original builder he told
me the whole story of how he built it out of wood based on a popular metal plane
of the time including a V tail but the mixing control was maladjusted on
his first flight and he crashed. The plane was rebuilt with a bigger engine and
standard tail form and flown for many years afterward. What I didn't realize
was that the original Op Lims stated that "any major changes invalidate the airworthiness
certificate". Being as it was subject to two major changes the AW
cert was totally invalid and had been for the many years it flew. When I discovered
this I decided to get it straightened out. As a result I spent several
months corresponding with the FAA, DAR and DER but finally obtained a new airworthiness
certificate and am in the process of flying off the 40 hours of Phase
1 (if the stupid weather would ever cooperate). My point is, if someone can
fly an airplane for 20 years with an invalid airworthiness cert. what else are
people getting away with on a daily basis? Whatever they are "getting away
with" it surely doesn't seem to impact GA safety too much and kinda makes me question
the whole need for all this bureaucracy. 3rd class medical is a perfect
example. Lots of people are flying without medicals yet the accident rate hasn't
gone through the roof. In my opinion you should only need a medical if you
are flying commercially i.e. someone is paying you. That is just one example,
all these ADs and mandatory ADSB would be another. Is it really going to enhance
safety? How many GA midair collisions were there last year?
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: Covering systems |
Mixing is called "experimenting" on an experimental.
--------
Curt Merdan
Flower Mound, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407226#407226
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: Covering systems |
I think what he pretend to do is not mixin. Mix is cover one wing with one
system and the otherone with other.. may be this could be bad.. but the
fuselage?.. May be I saw bad, but there isn't one with a rotor engine wichi
the fuse look like playwood covered?.. is it plywood, isn't it? ;o)
Mario Giacummo
2013/8/22 curtdm(at)gmail.com <curtdm@gmail.com>
> curtdm@gmail.com>
>
> Mixing is called "experimenting" on an experimental.
>
> --------
> Curt Merdan
> Flower Mound, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407226#407226
>
>
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 |
|
My inspector asked me to add the two inch "EXPERIMENTAL" letters in my
cockpit. But he said he didn't care if I removed them from "that beautiful
woodwork" after the AW is issued.
rh
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> It's hard to predict what is important to an inspector. Like Mike, my FAA
> inspector had no interest in seeing the ELT (although I have one mounted),
> nor was he concerned that the word 'EXPERIMENTAL' was not written on the
> side of the forward cockpit (he only wanted to see a placard on the forward
> panel with the word 'EXPERIMENTAL' somewhere on the placard), but....
>
> He was dead set that I safety all the hose clamps! That's not a reg,
> either.
> A year later, at a presentation he did at our EAA chapter, he again
> mentioned safetying hose clamps! I didn't mind...it didn't take long.
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bdewenter
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:56 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: being found
>
> --> <anonymouse@woh.rr.com>
>
> I am not planning on installing an ELT either. Its not required during the
> 40 hour test period. Less weight. less cost. I will not be flying over
> mountains either. Planning on using a GPS SPOT like device however for CC
> flights. Cell or land line phone check ins with someone will also help.
>
> --------
> Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
> Dayton OH
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407208#407208
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
NX6819Z
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: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) |
This is a huge bucket of worms that is practically impossible to intelligently
discuss!
Believe me, I'm NOT a huge fan of government intervention (with the exception being
I'm ok with them outlawing straight headed fasteners...). However, when
you spend much time in a third world environment, you get a little more alright
with it.
But then you spend some time in Europe and wonder what if we go THAT far?!
I think the real answer lies reasonable interpretation. In your case, what's the
point of flying off 40hrs? You did the right thing in getting things straightened
out, and they punish you (in effect). If more reasonable interpretation
and enforcement were to be the norm, people would indeed be more inclined to
try and follow the rules.
To that end, and how I've always looked at this stuff, I believe I just do the
best I can to be safe first, and follow the "rules" second. When I'm knowingly
violating something and get caught, I simply fess up and take the punishment
like an adult. Overall, I'm way ahead of the game despite getting caught for
a few things rather than have just not done so much because it really isn't feasible
to do it all PERFECTLY legally.
It's kind of funny, I've thought a lot about this ELT thing. I believe what I'll
do (I hope big brother isn't watching...) is move the ELT I do own over to
whatever I'm getting registered, and keep moving it around to where ever I need
it at the time to be as legal as possible, but probably not gonna miss a flight
somewhere, sometime, just because it isn't in there, ya know?
I do always make it a practice for someone to know where I am and when, and will
take appropriate action should something go wrong. I believe that is safer
than relying on aging equipment and technology anyway.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407231#407231
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: Covering systems |
What is meant by mixing the processes, is that you do not want to repair Poly fiber
with the stewart process or visa-versa. The glues for each process are not
compatible. This is how Stewart Wittman was killed in his Tailwind.
--------
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=407232#407232
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: swing out motor mount |
Thanks guys: ill have to do a little more research. Plan on putting one of Dan
Weissman's rear mount alternators on. I guess ill ask him what he thinks.
Shad, really like the turtle deck on that jungster. Is that a slight arc in
its profile, or straight line? Paul
--------
Paul Donahue
Started 8-3-12
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407233#407233
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: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) |
Tools; there are more people who do the "musical chairs" thing than you think.
I know a guy who collects antique and rare motorcycles. He has one set of license
plates that he keeps current and he puts them on whichever of the bikes
he takes out of his barn to go ride. Ridiculous to keep tags on his 18-20 bikes
when he can only ride one at a time. As long as he doesn't break any traffic
rules or do something stupid to get him pulled over, nobody is the wiser.
We should start a trading pool like with the fish scales. One ELT stays current
and legal and we mail it to the next guy who is up for annual inspection. After
he passes, he mails it to the next person and so on. Each user pays a few
bucks so there is money to replace the battery every 2 years ;o) Just hope
you don't get "ramped"...
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407235#407235
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: Covering systems |
It was Steve (not Stewart) Wittman who was killed because he mixed systems
on the same flying surface, which came apart in flight. Both Steve and his
wife were killed. There's nothing absolutely wrong with using different
systems on different components of the airplane. But you sure would need
to be able to keep perfect track for any later repairs, both by you and
anyone else that ever purchased the plane. Using a single system would
prevent errors of mixing systems in later repairs that could prove fatal.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:35 AM, AircamperN11MS
<Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>wrote:
> Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
>
> What is meant by mixing the processes, is that you do not want to repair
> Poly fiber with the stewart process or visa-versa. The glues for each
> process are not compatible. This is how Stewart Wittman was killed in his
> Tailwind.
>
> --------
> 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=407232#407232
>
>
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: Covering systems |
You are absolutely wrong! Stewart Systems is approved for repairs on all other
certified systems, including Poly Fiber! What you say is correct about any
of the other covering systems - none are approved to repair the other. But Stewart's
is an approved repair for all other covering systems.
M. Haught
Aircraft Fabric & Finishes, LLC
On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:35 PM, AircamperN11MS wrote:
>
> What is meant by mixing the processes, is that you do not want to repair Poly
fiber with the stewart process or visa-versa. The glues for each process are
not compatible. This is how Stewart Wittman was killed in his Tailwind.
>
> --------
> 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=407232#407232
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Covering systems |
Your right it was Steve. I guess I had Stewert on my brain.
Perhaps it is OK to repair Poly Fiber with Stewert Systems, but you won't find
me doing it on my plane. Call me old school if you you want. No mixing for me
thank you.
My 3 cents,
--------
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=407246#407246
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: Covering systems |
I just sat in a fabric covering class at Oshkosh that was taught by John Goldenbaum
of Poly Fiber and he stated what Scott said about not mixing components of
one system with components of another system.
Is there somewhere on the Stewart Systems website or publications that says it
is compatible with all other systems? Nothing personal Mr. Haught. It is just
the "trust, but verify" part of how I like to look at these types of discussions
when someone vehemently tells someone else that he is wrong about something
that could kill you when flying.
If you can find that and post a link, I am sure that it would be a help to all
of us. Thanks.
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407247#407247
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: Covering systems |
Okay, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I'm still not going to mix systems
on the same airplane. I've got Stits on my Pacer and Stewart on my Piet.
I'm going to keep it that way, unless one or the other is fully re-covered.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM, H. Marvin Haught <
handainc@madisoncounty.net> wrote:
> handainc@madisoncounty.net>
>
> You are absolutely wrong! Stewart Systems is approved for repairs on all
> other certified systems, including Poly Fiber! What you say is correct
> about any of the other covering systems - none are approved to repair the
> other. But Stewart's is an approved repair for all other covering systems.
>
> M. Haught
> Aircraft Fabric & Finishes, LLC
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:35 PM, AircamperN11MS wrote:
>
> Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
> >
> > What is meant by mixing the processes, is that you do not want to repair
> Poly fiber with the stewart process or visa-versa. The glues for each
> process are not compatible. This is how Stewart Wittman was killed in his
> Tailwind.
> >
> > --------
> > 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=407232#407232
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Covering systems |
Hello Ken,
> It was Steve (not Stewart) Wittman who was killed because he mixed
> systems on the same flying surface, which came apart in flight.
IIRC, there was a report many years ago on Sport Aviation. I cannot
remember every single word, but the long and the short of it is that
the flying surface was covered with Stits Poly-Fiber, and was not a
problem of mixed materials but wrong covering techniques. Steve
applied the fabric using the cotton method i.e. he put the cement
on the wood, let it dry, laid the fabric and brushed the cement over
the fabric, assuming that the cement would have run through the
thickness of the fabric and onto the underlying dried cement,
softening it. It didn't, or at least it did for but a very small
percentage of the glued surface, because the polyester fabric has no
affinity with nitrate cement like cotton has. This was the comment of
Mr. Ray Stits himself, who pointed straight at his covering manual,
where he stated that his fabric should be applied immediately over a
fresh hand of nitrate cement, and another should be put on
immediately on the external surface, in a wet-on-wet fashion, so every
fiber becomes, in fact, completely encapsulated with cement.
SeeYa,
Andrea
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: | Sad, sad, sad news :-( |
Hello guys,
Just in from AvWeb:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/EAA-Founder-Paul-Poberezny-Dies-At-91220479-1.html?ET=avweb:e2614:220628a:&st=email
I have that eerie feeling that our world isn't going to be the same
anymore...
SeeYa!
Andrea
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: Covering systems |
It should not surprise anyone that any manufacturer would advise to use
their own products for repairs, for many reasons, not the least of which are
those that would come from their Legal Dept concerning warranties. Still, as
Mr. Haught correctly stated, Stewart Systems offers their products as a
patching process for any solvent based system, as stated in their
'Procedures Manual,' under "Repairing Fabric":
" REPAIRING FABRIC
Always refer to FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B Chapter 2 before repairing
any fabric damage. This advisory circular spells out in detail how
particular injuries to the aircraft fabric are to be repaired.
Repairing fabric damage with STEWART SYSTEMS method is a relatively simple
and easy process. In the case of a fabric puncture, the area must be
thoroughly cleaned with STEWART SYSTEMS EkoClean Heavy Duty Cleaner (E670)
to remove any waxes, silicones, or contaminates which might be present. If
the topcoat is STEWART SYSTEMS Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly you just need to
scuff sand an area 2 around the damaged area before patching. If you are
unsure of the topcoat or you know it is something other than STEWART SYSTEMS
Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly Top Coat, you must sand down to the EkoFill
coat 2 around the damaged area or to bare fabric if repairing a solvent
based system. Next glue your patch on the sanded area using EkoBond glue and
allow to dry. Heat shrink the fabric ONLY over the open hole under the
patch. Finish Iron the patch edges at 250F. Apply EkoFill to desired
thickness, sand and spray matching top coat. Stewart Systems is FAA approved
for repairing any certified covering system."
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jarheadpilot82
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
--> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
I just sat in a fabric covering class at Oshkosh that was taught by John
Goldenbaum of Poly Fiber and he stated what Scott said about not mixing
components of one system with components of another system.
Is there somewhere on the Stewart Systems website or publications that says
it is compatible with all other systems? Nothing personal Mr. Haught. It is
just the "trust, but verify" part of how I like to look at these types of
discussions when someone vehemently tells someone else that he is wrong
about something that could kill you when flying.
If you can find that and post a link, I am sure that it would be a help to
all of us. Thanks.
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407247#407247
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: Covering systems |
Andrea, thanks for the clarification, though it only reinforces the point
that mixing covering systems (which is more than just the products) can be
dangerous. Each system calls out particular processes by which the
products are to be combined. Keeping all of that straight is the major
reason for using one and only system on a particular airplane. Cheers, Ken
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Andrea Vavassori <andrea@modelberg.it>wrote:
> andrea@modelberg.it>
>
> Hello Ken,
>
> > It was Steve (not Stewart) Wittman who was killed because he mixed
> > systems on the same flying surface, which came apart in flight.
>
> IIRC, there was a report many years ago on Sport Aviation. I cannot
> remember every single word, but the long and the short of it is that
> the flying surface was covered with Stits Poly-Fiber, and was not a
> problem of mixed materials but wrong covering techniques. Steve
> applied the fabric using the cotton method i.e. he put the cement
> on the wood, let it dry, laid the fabric and brushed the cement over
> the fabric, assuming that the cement would have run through the
> thickness of the fabric and onto the underlying dried cement,
> softening it. It didn't, or at least it did for but a very small
> percentage of the glued surface, because the polyester fabric has no
> affinity with nitrate cement like cotton has. This was the comment of
> Mr. Ray Stits himself, who pointed straight at his covering manual,
> where he stated that his fabric should be applied immediately over a
> fresh hand of nitrate cement, and another should be put on
> immediately on the external surface, in a wet-on-wet fashion, so every
> fiber becomes, in fact, completely encapsulated with cement.
>
> SeeYa,
>
> Andrea
>
>
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: Covering systems |
Thanks, Gary.... you are right on target! And the real point in this
topic is that you should be careful in "mixing" systems, such as using
one brand fabric sealer over another systems glue, etc. which may have
been what caused problems in the instance of Steve Whitman. Some
products may not be compatible with others. That is why Stewart's got
certification for repair of other systems. Being water based glue and
Sealer (EkoFill) and waterborne paint, there are no incompatibility
issues. But if you do decide to repair another system with Stewart's, be
advised that it is necessary to clean the area to be repaired very
thoroughly because fish eye can be a huge problem. I scrub the area with
TSP and a scotchbrite pad, rinse and then scrub with the Stewart's
cleaner. I follow that, after it dries with a wipe of isopropyl alcohol.
Waterborne paints are very intolerant of contaminates.
M. Haught
8/22/2013 2:48 PM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
> It should not surprise anyone that any manufacturer would advise to use
> their own products for repairs, for many reasons, not the least of which are
> those that would come from their Legal Dept concerning warranties. Still, as
> Mr. Haught correctly stated, Stewart Systems offers their products as a
> patching process for any solvent based system, as stated in their
> 'Procedures Manual,' under "Repairing Fabric":
>
> " REPAIRING FABRIC
> Always refer to FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B Chapter 2 before repairing
> any fabric damage. This advisory circular spells out in detail how
> particular injuries to the aircraft fabric are to be repaired.
> Repairing fabric damage with STEWART SYSTEMS method is a relatively simple
> and easy process. In the case of a fabric puncture, the area must be
> thoroughly cleaned with STEWART SYSTEMS EkoClean Heavy Duty Cleaner (E670)
> to remove any waxes, silicones, or contaminates which might be present. If
> the topcoat is STEWART SYSTEMS Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly you just need to
> scuff sand an area 2 around the damaged area before patching. If you are
> unsure of the topcoat or you know it is something other than STEWART SYSTEMS
> Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly Top Coat, you must sand down to the EkoFill
> coat 2 around the damaged area or to bare fabric if repairing a solvent
> based system. Next glue your patch on the sanded area using EkoBond glue and
> allow to dry. Heat shrink the fabric ONLY over the open hole under the
> patch. Finish Iron the patch edges at 250F. Apply EkoFill to desired
> thickness, sand and spray matching top coat. Stewart Systems is FAA approved
> for repairing any certified covering system."
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> jarheadpilot82
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:15 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
>
> --> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
> I just sat in a fabric covering class at Oshkosh that was taught by John
> Goldenbaum of Poly Fiber and he stated what Scott said about not mixing
> components of one system with components of another system.
>
> Is there somewhere on the Stewart Systems website or publications that says
> it is compatible with all other systems? Nothing personal Mr. Haught. It is
> just the "trust, but verify" part of how I like to look at these types of
> discussions when someone vehemently tells someone else that he is wrong
> about something that could kill you when flying.
>
> If you can find that and post a link, I am sure that it would be a help to
> all of us. Thanks.
>
> --------
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens, GA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407247#407247
>
>
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: | Sad, sad, sad news :-( |
There is a great disturbance in the force. RIP Paul
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrea
Vavassori
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:44 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sad, sad, sad news :-(
--> <andrea@modelberg.it>
Hello guys,
Just in from AvWeb:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/EAA-Founder-Paul-Poberezny-Dies-At-9122
0479-1.html?ET=avweb:e2614:220628a:&st=email
I have that eerie feeling that our world isn't going to be the same
anymore...
SeeYa!
Andrea
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: Covering systems |
I totally agree about "mixing" systems. I do not mix components and as Andrea
brought out, make SURE I have the manual of any system that I am using on hand
so that I use the proper techniques of application for that system. Gary quoted
the data exactly in a prior post, and copied the manual exactly. "" REPAIRING
FABRIC
Always refer to FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B Chapter 2 before repairing
any fabric damage. This advisory circular spells out in detail how
particular injuries to the aircraft fabric are to be repaired.
Repairing fabric damage with STEWART SYSTEMS method is a relatively simple
and easy process. In the case of a fabric puncture, the area must be
thoroughly cleaned with STEWART SYSTEMS EkoClean Heavy Duty Cleaner (E670)
to remove any waxes, silicones, or contaminates which might be present. If
the topcoat is STEWART SYSTEMS Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly you just need to
scuff sand an area 2 around the damaged area before patching. If you are
unsure of the topcoat or you know it is something other than STEWART SYSTEMS
Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly Top Coat, you must sand down to the EkoFill
coat 2 around the damaged area or to bare fabric if repairing a solvent
based system. Next glue your patch on the sanded area using EkoBond glue and
allow to dry. Heat shrink the fabric ONLY over the open hole under the
patch. Finish Iron the patch edges at 250F. Apply EkoFill to desired
thickness, sand and spray matching top coat. Stewart Systems is FAA approved
for repairing any certified covering system."
That excerpt is on Page 1 of Section 16 in the Stewart Instruction Manual. It can be found at http://www.stewartsystems.aero/support.aspx
By the way, I am a distributor for both Stewarts and SuperFlite, and I don't think
I was vehement at all, just speaking from a knowledge of fact. And I have
contributed here in the interest of safety and accuracy of information. That
benefits all of us.
Additionally, I did not intend to say it is compatible with all other systems as
in mixing components, but it IS compatible in repairing all other systems if
the repair is completed as described above.
M. Haught
Aircraft Fabric & Finishes, LLC
On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:14 PM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:
>
> I just sat in a fabric covering class at Oshkosh that was taught by John Goldenbaum
of Poly Fiber and he stated what Scott said about not mixing components
of one system with components of another system.
>
> Is there somewhere on the Stewart Systems website or publications that says it
is compatible with all other systems? Nothing personal Mr. Haught. It is just
the "trust, but verify" part of how I like to look at these types of discussions
when someone vehemently tells someone else that he is wrong about something
that could kill you when flying.
>
> If you can find that and post a link, I am sure that it would be a help to all
of us. Thanks.
>
> --------
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens, GA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407247#407247
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Covering systems |
For certified aircraft both Polyfiber and Stewarts processes are approved,
but does anybody know where the processes really start and end?
With Polyfiber you prep the frame, glue with polytac, stitch, tape with pol
ybrush, spray 2 coats of polybrush, 3 coats of polyspray, and an undetermin
ed number of color coats (polytone or aerothane). It's interesting that the
manual says they "recommend" polytone or areothane, it does not say "requi
re" which leads me to believe that other paints may be substituted. If the
color coats are not part of the "system", then what about the polyspray or
the polybrush? Neither attach the fabric to the frame so as long as the pol
ytac/polybrush system of gluing and taping are followed (or Stewarts ecobon
d) the fabric should remain attached. Everything else is UV protection, wea
ve filling, and decoration. I realize that I'm trying to reason my way into
a conclusion on a matter dictated by the FAA, but I am curious on what def
ines the "process". Anyone know for sure?
Malcolm
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr." <handainc@madisoncounty.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:02:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
isoncounty.net>
Thanks, Gary.... you are right on target! And the real point in this
topic is that you should be careful in "mixing" systems, such as using
one brand fabric sealer over another systems glue, etc. which may have
been what caused problems in the instance of Steve Whitman. Some
products may not be compatible with others. That is why Stewart's got
certification for repair of other systems. Being water based glue and
Sealer (EkoFill) and waterborne paint, there are no incompatibility
issues. But if you do decide to repair another system with Stewart's, be
advised that it is necessary to clean the area to be repaired very
thoroughly because fish eye can be a huge problem. I scrub the area with
TSP and a scotchbrite pad, rinse and then scrub with the Stewart's
cleaner. I follow that, after it dries with a wipe of isopropyl alcohol.
Waterborne paints are very intolerant of contaminates.
M. Haught
8/22/2013 2:48 PM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
>
> It should not surprise anyone that any manufacturer would advise to use
> their own products for repairs, for many reasons, not the least of which
are
> those that would come from their Legal Dept concerning warranties. Still,
as
> Mr. Haught correctly stated, Stewart Systems offers their products as a
> patching process for any solvent based system, as stated in their
> 'Procedures Manual,' under "Repairing Fabric":
>
> " REPAIRING FABRIC
> Always refer to FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B Chapter 2 before repair
ing
> any fabric damage. This advisory circular spells out in detail how
> particular injuries to the aircraft fabric are to be repaired.
> Repairing fabric damage with STEWART SYSTEMS method is a relatively simpl
e
> and easy process. In the case of a fabric puncture, the area must be
> thoroughly cleaned with STEWART SYSTEMS EkoClean Heavy Duty Cleaner (E670
)
> to remove any waxes, silicones, or contaminates which might be present. I
f
> the topcoat is STEWART SYSTEMS Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly you just need
to
> scuff sand an area 2=9D around the damaged area before patching. If
you are
> unsure of the topcoat or you know it is something other than STEWART SYST
EMS
> Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly Top Coat, you must sand down to the EkoFill
> coat 2=9D around the damaged area or to bare fabric if repairing a
solvent
> based system. Next glue your patch on the sanded area using EkoBond glue
and
> allow to dry. Heat shrink the fabric ONLY over the open hole under the
> patch. Finish Iron the patch edges at 250=C2=B0F. Apply EkoFill to desire
d
> thickness, sand and spray matching top coat. Stewart Systems is FAA appro
ved
> for repairing any certified covering system."
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> jarheadpilot82
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:15 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
>
> --> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
> I just sat in a fabric covering class at Oshkosh that was taught by John
> Goldenbaum of Poly Fiber and he stated what Scott said about not mixing
> components of one system with components of another system.
>
> Is there somewhere on the Stewart Systems website or publications that sa
ys
> it is compatible with all other systems? Nothing personal Mr. Haught. It
is
> just the "trust, but verify" part of how I like to look at these types of
> discussions when someone vehemently tells someone else that he is wrong
> about something that could kill you when flying.
>
> If you can find that and post a link, I am sure that it would be a help t
o
> all of us. Thanks.
>
> --------
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens, GA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407247#407247
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
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: Covering systems |
It all depends upon how the STC is worded, and how different regions of
the FAA interpret both their standards and the particular STC. Recently
a local AI wanted to cover a certified airplane with Stewarts, but the
customer wanted a solvent based paint. =46rom what I understand, the
FAA interpreted the EkoFill as the finish coat as the fabric was
protected and sealed from contaminates, deterioration and UV. I made
the point with him that the Stewart STC is completed only by the
waterborne topcoat. But apparently, it was approved and signed off. I
do not believe that situation was entirely legal, but it is signed off
and flying. Since I have not seen the actual documentation, I can't
verify the story, but throw it out as an example.
I also know of a Pitts Special that was recovered by a large shop. I do
not know what brand of fabric or if any "system" was used, but I think
it was basically PolyFiber, and painted with a Dupont Topcoat with a
flex additive. I don't know how that sort of a thing gets done,
legally. And again, I have not be able to verify the facts, but that
was what the owner told me.
I believe that generally, the STC is interpreted as being a complete
system through paint, and that any substitutions are not legal nor
permitted. And I doubt that any of the companies would warranty a cover
job if there are any deviations from the "system" which also includes
application techniques. I know that Stewart's and SuperFlite will not
honor a warranty claim unless the whole system used. To me, even a Piet
is too much of an investment, even if only in time and effort, to risk
having to recover it in a short period of time by using any questionable
covering practices. Normally, I don't think safety would be involved,
but the example of Steve Whitman shows that even errors in application
techniques could possibly kill you.
The short answer is that the process is the STC, which includes the
application manual for each of the different systems.
M. Haught
On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:39 PM, gliderx5@comcast.net wrote:
> For certified aircraft both Polyfiber and Stewarts processes are
approved, but does anybody know where the processes really start and
end?
>
> With Polyfiber you prep the frame, glue with polytac, stitch, tape
with polybrush, spray 2 coats of polybrush, 3 coats of polyspray, and an
undetermined number of color coats (polytone or aerothane). It's
interesting that the manual says they "recommend" polytone or areothane,
it does not say "require" which leads me to believe that other paints
may be substituted. If the color coats are not part of the "system",
then what about the polyspray or the polybrush? Neither attach the
fabric to the frame so as long as the polytac/polybrush system of gluing
and taping are followed (or Stewarts ecobond) the fabric should remain
attached. Everything else is UV protection, weave filling, and
decoration. I realize that I'm trying to reason my way into a conclusion
on a matter dictated by the FAA, but I am curious on what defines the
"process". Anyone know for sure?
>
> Malcolm
>
> From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr." <handainc@madisoncounty.net>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:02:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
>
<handainc@madisoncounty.net>
>
> Thanks, Gary.... you are right on target! And the real point in this
> topic is that you should be careful in "mixing" systems, such as using
> one brand fabric sealer over another systems glue, etc. which may have
> been what caused problems in the instance of Steve Whitman. Some
> products may not be compatible with others. That is why Stewart's got
> certification for repair of other systems. Being water based glue and
> Sealer (EkoFill) and waterborne paint, there are no incompatibility
> issues. But if you do decide to repair another system with Stewart's,
be
> advised that it is necessary to clean the area to be repaired very
> thoroughly because fish eye can be a huge problem. I scrub the area
with
> TSP and a scotchbrite pad, rinse and then scrub with the Stewart's
> cleaner. I follow that, after it dries with a wipe of isopropyl
alcohol.
> Waterborne paints are very intolerant of contaminates.
>
> M. Haught
>
>
> 8/22/2013 2:48 PM, Gary Boothe wrote:
<gboothe5@comcast.net>
> >
> > It should not surprise anyone that any manufacturer would advise to
use
> > their own products for repairs, for many reasons, not the least of
which are
> > those that would come from their Legal Dept concerning warranties.
Still, as
> > Mr. Haught correctly stated, Stewart Systems offers their products
as a
> > patching process for any solvent based system, as stated in their
> > 'Procedures Manual,' under "Repairing Fabric":
> >
> > " REPAIRING FABRIC
> > Always refer to FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B Chapter 2 before
repairing
> > any fabric damage. This advisory circular spells out in detail how
> > particular injuries to the aircraft fabric are to be repaired.
> > Repairing fabric damage with STEWART SYSTEMS method is a relatively
simple
> > and easy process. In the case of a fabric puncture, the area must be
> > thoroughly cleaned with STEWART SYSTEMS EkoClean Heavy Duty Cleaner
(E670)
> > to remove any waxes, silicones, or contaminates which might be
present. If
> > the topcoat is STEWART SYSTEMS Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly you just
need to
> > scuff sand an area 2=94 around the damaged area before patching. If
you are
> > unsure of the topcoat or you know it is something other than STEWART
SYSTEMS
> > Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly Top Coat, you must sand down to the
EkoFill
> > coat 2=94 around the damaged area or to bare fabric if repairing a
solvent
> > based system. Next glue your patch on the sanded area using EkoBond
glue and
> > allow to dry. Heat shrink the fabric ONLY over the open hole under
the
> > patch. Finish Iron the patch edges at 250=B0F. Apply EkoFill to
desired
> > thickness, sand and spray matching top coat. Stewart Systems is FAA
approved
> > for repairing any certified covering system."
> >
> > Gary Boothe
> > NX308MB
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > jarheadpilot82
> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:15 PM
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
> >
> > --> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
> >
> > I just sat in a fabric covering class at Oshkosh that was taught by
John
> > Goldenbaum of Poly Fiber and he stated what Scott said about not
mixing
> > components of one system with components of another system.
> >
> > Is there somewhere on the Stewart Systems website or publications
that says
> > it is compatible with all other systems? Nothing personal Mr.
Haught. It is
> > just the "trust, but verify" part of how I like to look at these
types of
> > discussions when someone vehemently tells someone else that he is
wrong
> > about something that could kill you when flying.
> >
> > If you can find that and post a link, I am sure that it would be a
help to
> > all of us. Thanks.
> >
> > --------
> > Semper Fi,
> >
> > Terry Hand
> > Athens, GA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407247#407247
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> <; &nb================
==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) |
Tools what are straight headed fasteners?
Sent from my iPad
Jack Textor
On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:33 PM, "tools" <n0kkj@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This is a huge bucket of worms that is practically impossible to intelligently
discuss!
>
> Believe me, I'm NOT a huge fan of government intervention (with the exception
being I'm ok with them outlawing straight headed fasteners...). However, when
you spend much time in a third world environment, you get a little more alright
with it.
>
> But then you spend some time in Europe and wonder what if we go THAT far?!
>
> I think the real answer lies reasonable interpretation. In your case, what's
the point of flying off 40hrs? You did the right thing in getting things straightened
out, and they punish you (in effect). If more reasonable interpretation
and enforcement were to be the norm, people would indeed be more inclined
to try and follow the rules.
>
> To that end, and how I've always looked at this stuff, I believe I just do the
best I can to be safe first, and follow the "rules" second. When I'm knowingly
violating something and get caught, I simply fess up and take the punishment
like an adult. Overall, I'm way ahead of the game despite getting caught for
a few things rather than have just not done so much because it really isn't
feasible to do it all PERFECTLY legally.
>
> It's kind of funny, I've thought a lot about this ELT thing. I believe what
I'll do (I hope big brother isn't watching...) is move the ELT I do own over to
whatever I'm getting registered, and keep moving it around to where ever I need
it at the time to be as legal as possible, but probably not gonna miss a flight
somewhere, sometime, just because it isn't in there, ya know?
>
> I do always make it a practice for someone to know where I am and when, and will
take appropriate action should something go wrong. I believe that is safer
than relying on aging equipment and technology anyway.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407231#407231
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Just to prove Im not a four flusher heres the photographic proof I said would
be coming....
http://youtu.be/0y4PnKwikvM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407283#407283
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: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) |
Jeez I think I just figured it out! As opposed to phillips correct...
Sent from my iPad
Jack Textor
On Aug 22, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Jack <jack@textors.com> wrote:
>
> Tools what are straight headed fasteners?
>
> Sent from my iPad
> Jack Textor
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:33 PM, "tools" <n0kkj@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a huge bucket of worms that is practically impossible to intelligently
discuss!
>>
>> Believe me, I'm NOT a huge fan of government intervention (with the exception
being I'm ok with them outlawing straight headed fasteners...). However, when
you spend much time in a third world environment, you get a little more alright
with it.
>>
>> But then you spend some time in Europe and wonder what if we go THAT far?!
>>
>> I think the real answer lies reasonable interpretation. In your case, what's
the point of flying off 40hrs? You did the right thing in getting things straightened
out, and they punish you (in effect). If more reasonable interpretation
and enforcement were to be the norm, people would indeed be more inclined
to try and follow the rules.
>>
>> To that end, and how I've always looked at this stuff, I believe I just do the
best I can to be safe first, and follow the "rules" second. When I'm knowingly
violating something and get caught, I simply fess up and take the punishment
like an adult. Overall, I'm way ahead of the game despite getting caught
for a few things rather than have just not done so much because it really isn't
feasible to do it all PERFECTLY legally.
>>
>> It's kind of funny, I've thought a lot about this ELT thing. I believe what
I'll do (I hope big brother isn't watching...) is move the ELT I do own over
to whatever I'm getting registered, and keep moving it around to where ever I
need it at the time to be as legal as possible, but probably not gonna miss a
flight somewhere, sometime, just because it isn't in there, ya know?
>>
>> I do always make it a practice for someone to know where I am and when, and
will take appropriate action should something go wrong. I believe that is safer
than relying on aging equipment and technology anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407231#407231
>
>
>
>
>
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: being found (OT about getting away with stuff) |
Yep, that's them. These days, just have no use for them...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407287#407287
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: Covering systems |
I found the answer to my question on the polyfiber site
Since 2001, the FAA has required that fabric covered aircraft (at least the
fabric parts) be painted only with topcoat paints tested and approved on a
n STC. Use of any other topcoat paint will void the STC and airworthiness o
f the aircraft. Up to 2001, the STC's "ended with the silver", and any type
paint was legal to use. This is no longer true. Over the years, increased
use of brittle automotive or industrial paints caused enough cracking and d
elamination to cause the FAA to rethink approving untested topcoat paints o
ver fabric. Failed topcoat paints expose polyester fabric to sunlight and U
V damage. As of the latest revision of the Poly Fiber STC Procedure Manual
(revision 21, September 2006), only the following topcoat paints are approv
ed on the Poly Fiber STC: Poly Tone, Aerothane, or Randolph Ranthane. All t
hree of these paints have long service lives over fabric as well as an FAA
Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA), which allows their application on cert
ified aircraft. For instance, a J-3 Cub must have only Poly Tone, Aerothane
or Ranthane over the fabric parts, but you could use enamel or anything el
se over the struts, cowl, fairings, etc. The keyword is FABRIC. Experimenta
l aircraft are not bound by these rules, however, we do recommend using pro
ducts with known track records on fabric components.
Malcolm
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc@madisoncounty.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:22:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
It all depends upon how the STC is worded, and how different regions of the
FAA interpret both their standards and the particular STC. Recently a loca
l AI wanted to cover a certified airplane with Stewarts, but the customer w
anted a solvent based paint. From what I understand, the FAA interpreted th
e EkoFill as the finish coat as the fabric was protected and sealed from co
ntaminates, deterioration and UV. I made the point with him that the Stewar
t STC is completed only by the waterborne topcoat. But apparently, it was a
pproved and signed off. I do not believe that situation was entirely legal,
but it is signed off and flying. Since I have not seen the actual document
ation, I can't verify the story, but throw it out as an example.
I also know of a Pitts Special that was recovered by a large shop. I do not
know what brand of fabric or if any "system" was used, but I think it was
basically PolyFiber, and painted with a Dupont Topcoat with a flex additive
. I don't know how that sort of a thing gets done, legally. And again, I ha
ve not be able to verify the facts, but that was what the owner told me.
I believe that generally, the STC is interpreted as being a complete system
through paint, and that any substitutions are not legal nor permitted. And
I doubt that any of the companies would warranty a cover job if there are
any deviations from the "system" which also includes application techniques
. I know that Stewart's and SuperFlite will not honor a warranty claim unle
ss the whole system used. To me, even a Piet is too much of an investment,
even if only in time and effort, to risk having to recover it in a short pe
riod of time by using any questionable covering practices. Normally, I don'
t think safety would be involved, but the example of Steve Whitman shows th
at even errors in application techniques could possibly kill you.
The short answer is that the process is the STC, which includes the applica
tion manual for each of the different systems.
M. Haught
On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:39 PM, gliderx5@comcast.net wrote:
For certified aircraft both Polyfiber and Stewarts processes are approved,
but does anybody know where the processes really start and end?
With Polyfiber you prep the frame, glue with polytac, stitch, tape with pol
ybrush, spray 2 coats of polybrush, 3 coats of polyspray, and an undetermin
ed number of color coats (polytone or aerothane). It's interesting that the
manual says they "recommend" polytone or areothane, it does not say "requi
re" which leads me to believe that other paints may be substituted. If the
color coats are not part of the "system", then what about the polyspray or
the polybrush? Neither attach the fabric to the frame so as long as the pol
ytac/polybrush system of gluing and taping are followed (or Stewarts ecobon
d) the fabric should remain attached. Everything else is UV protection, wea
ve filling, and decoration. I realize that I'm trying to reason my way into
a conclusion on a matter dictated by the FAA, but I am curious on what def
ines the "process". Anyone know for sure?
Malcolm
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr." < handainc@madisoncounty.net >
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:02:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
isoncounty.net>
Thanks, Gary.... you are right on target! And the real point in this
topic is that you should be careful in "mixing" systems, such as using
one brand fabric sealer over another systems glue, etc. which may have
been what caused problems in the instance of Steve Whitman. Some
products may not be compatible with others. That is why Stewart's got
certification for repair of other systems. Being water based glue and
Sealer (EkoFill) and waterborne paint, there are no incompatibility
issues. But if you do decide to repair another system with Stewart's, be
advised that it is necessary to clean the area to be repaired very
thoroughly because fish eye can be a huge problem. I scrub the area with
TSP and a scotchbrite pad, rinse and then scrub with the Stewart's
cleaner. I follow that, after it dries with a wipe of isopropyl alcohol.
Waterborne paints are very intolerant of contaminates.
M. Haught
8/22/2013 2:48 PM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
>
> It should not surprise anyone that any manufacturer would advise to use
> their own products for repairs, for many reasons, not the least of which
are
> those that would come from their Legal Dept concerning warranties. Still,
as
> Mr. Haught correctly stated, Stewart Systems offers their products as a
> patching process for any solvent based system, as stated in their
> 'Procedures Manual,' under "Repairing Fabric":
>
> " REPAIRING FABRIC
> Always refer to FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B Chapter 2 before repair
ing
> any fabric damage. This advisory circular spells out in detail how
> particular injuries to the aircraft fabric are to be repaired.
> Repairing fabric damage with STEWART SYSTEMS method is a relatively simpl
e
> and easy process. In the case of a fabric puncture, the area must be
> thoroughly cleaned with STEWART SYSTEMS EkoClean Heavy Duty Cleaner (E670
)
> to remove any waxes, silicones, or contaminates which might be present. I
f
> the topcoat is STEWART SYSTEMS Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly you just need
to
> scuff sand an area 2=9D around the damaged area before patching. If
you are
> unsure of the topcoat or you know it is something other than STEWART SYST
EMS
> Waterborne Catalyzed EkoPoly Top Coat, you must sand down to the EkoFill
> coat 2=9D around the damaged area or to bare fabric if repairing a
solvent
> based system. Next glue your patch on the sanded area using EkoBond glue
and
> allow to dry. Heat shrink the fabric ONLY over the open hole under the
> patch. Finish Iron the patch edges at 250=C2=B0F. Apply EkoFill to desire
d
> thickness, sand and spray matching top coat. Stewart Systems is FAA appro
ved
> for repairing any certified covering system."
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> jarheadpilot82
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:15 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering systems
>
> --> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
> I just sat in a fabric covering class at Oshkosh that was taught by John
> Goldenbaum of Poly Fiber and he stated what Scott said about not mixing
> components of one system with components of another system.
>
> Is there somewhere on the Stewart Systems website or publications that sa
ys
> it is compatible with all other systems? Nothing personal Mr. Haught. It
is
> just the "trust, but verify" part of how I like to look at these types of
> discussions when someone vehemently tells someone else that he is wrong
> about something that could kill you when flying.
>
> If you can find that and post a link, I am sure that it would be a help t
o
> all of us. Thanks.
>
> --------
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens, GA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407247#407247
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<; &nb===================
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/con
tribution
===
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 |
|
Bill, an amazing video. Looks like old hat to you. Fantastic job. Now I have a
big question to ask of you. Can I copy your parking brake system or do you have
a patent on it? I could pay you a royalty.
--------
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=407291#407291
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 |
|
Mike:
I agree. I do not have one, nor do I ever plan on having one......practical
ly speaking, (not in the vocabulary of logically thinking men....:.read: FA
A policy-maker's), it is not necessary to install one of these morfadite co
ntraptions, in this type of airplane, in my opinion.
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
-----Original Message-----
From: Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC] (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage
Partners, LLC] <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
Sent: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 3:15 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: being found
With all this talk about ELT=99s I have to post that during my airwor
thiness inspection no mention of an ELT was ever made
and from day one I never installed one nor 15 years later have one. I
=99m sure it would be prudent to carry one but I=99ve just
never done it but then again I don=99t fly over mountains or rugged t
errain. I figure they=99ll just see the smoke and drive toward it.
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 |
|
Fantastic, Bill!!
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BYD
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: NX626E
Just to prove Im not a four flusher heres the photographic proof I said would
be coming....
http://youtu.be/0y4PnKwikvM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407283#407283
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: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Propeller Pictures |
UNCLASSIFIED
Michael Perez and other Pietenfolk, Below is the answer on why you should leave
scallops in your prop. The expert is Dave Rogers. He is a professor of aerodynamics
at a little boating school in Annapolis, Maryland. He owns and flies
Bonanzas and loves most everything that flies.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
-------- Original Message --------
From: dfr
Subject: Re: Fwd: Propeller Pictures
> G'day Steve,
>
> Leave the scallops. The experimental evidence (?) suggests that the propeller
> is more efficient with the scallops. The likely reason is that the scallops
> transition the boundary layer from laminar to turbulent. The turbulent boundary
> layer then stays attached longer which results in more lift (thrust).
>
> A propeller is nothing more than a wing spinning in a circle. I suspect that
> the Reynolds number is quite low, hence the turbulent boundary layer is better.
>
> There is a direct analogy with some towing tank studies done on a small sailboat
> rudder. The drag on the rudder was actually lower with a slightly rough finish,
than with
> an ultra smooth finish for the same reason.
>
> On the other hand, if you don't like the results you can always strip it, sand
it
> and refinish it. It is harder to do the reverse <G>.
>
> Dave Rogers
>
> On 8/22/2013 6:42 PM, Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB wrote:
> >UNCLASSIFIED Dr. Dave, As you know I am finishing the restoration on a Pietenpol
Air camper.
> >A gentleman on the Pietenpol list posted this with the attached photos. The
question is "Do
> >the scallops help or hurt the prop efficiency? " I told him I would ask you
as a recognized
> >aerodynamics expert.
> >
> >"I received my CloudCars propeller yesterday. It is a 76 X 38 all maple scimitar
that I
> >ordered not finished...which saved me some money and allows me to finish, stain,
paint,
> >varnish as I want. As shipped, it weighs 10#. With it was a note from Jay Anderson
to call
> >him for some finishing tips. During our conversation, he told me that they seem
to get better
> >performance from the props. that are left with the "scallops" intact as opposed
to the
> >propellers that are sanded smooth. He also recommended that the "fields", (fiberglass
covered
> >tips) stay intact. Sounded like most people don't like the rough, patch-work
look of them and
> >try to fill/sand smooth. These fields form a nice, hard edge around the wood
that should also
> >be left intact. My plan was to sand the propeller smooth and make it as slick
as I could.
> >After our 40 min. conversation, I am now going to leave the prop. as shipped.
Jay said some
> >MILD sanding is fine to prep. it for it's first coat of protection, (paint,
! varnish,
> >stain...) but nothing more than that is needed. MILD sanding between coats is
also OK, but
> >keep it to a minimum."
> >
> >In other words "is it better to leave the "scallops" or is that an Old Pilots
Tale?
> >
> >Blue Skies, Steve D. UNCLASSIFIED
>
> --
> David F. Rogers, PhD, ATP
> Professor of Aerospace Engineering (Emeritus)
> Annapolis, MD
>
> Rogers Aerospace Engineering & Consulting
> Annapolis, MD
> Over 50 years of experience
> www.nar-associates.com
> 410 271 1968 (c)
UNCLASSIFIED
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 |
|
Outstanding! Very good looking airplane!
--------
Billy McCaskill
Baker, LA
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407297#407297
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Propeller Pictures |
Steve, there was no answer below your post about leaving the scallops on wood props.
Perhaps you forgot to add the attachment(s)?
--------
Billy McCaskill
Baker, LA
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407301#407301
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Covering systems |
Wow, look what one word lead to.
>From the original question posed, I never even thought about mixing the different
chemicals or repairing using different systems. I don't think John did either.
Just using different processes for different parts of the airplane.
Why one would, I don't know. Can they? I don't see why not.
--------
Curt Merdan
Flower Mound, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407302#407302
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 |
|
Very nice Bill; enjoyed seeing your video and I like your paint job too.
Cheers,
Jim B.
Message 49
| 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: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Propeller Pictures |
UNCLASSIFIED
Billy, Did it come through below?
Michael Perez and other Pietenfolk, Below is the answer on why you should leave
scallops in your prop. The expert is Dave Rogers. He is a professor of aerodynamics
at a little boating school in Annapolis, Maryland. He owns and flies
Bonanzas and loves most everything that flies.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
-------- Original Message --------
From: dfr
Subject: Re: Fwd: Propeller Pictures
> G'day Steve,
>
> Leave the scallops. The experimental evidence (?) suggests that the propeller
> is more efficient with the scallops. The likely reason is that the scallops
> transition the boundary layer from laminar to turbulent. The turbulent boundary
> layer then stays attached longer which results in more lift (thrust).
>
> A propeller is nothing more than a wing spinning in a circle. I suspect that
> the Reynolds number is quite low, hence the turbulent boundary layer is better.
>
> There is a direct analogy with some towing tank studies done on a small sailboat
> rudder. The drag on the rudder was actually lower with a slightly rough finish,
than with
> an ultra smooth finish for the same reason.
>
> On the other hand, if you don't like the results you can always strip it, sand
it
> and refinish it. It is harder to do the reverse <G>.
>
> Dave Rogers
>
> On 8/22/2013 6:42 PM, Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB wrote:
> >UNCLASSIFIED Dr. Dave, As you know I am finishing the restoration on a Pietenpol
Air camper.
> >A gentleman on the Pietenpol list posted this with the attached photos. The
question is "Do
> >the scallops help or hurt the prop efficiency? " I told him I would ask you
as a recognized
> >aerodynamics expert.
> >
> >"I received my CloudCars propeller yesterday. It is a 76 X 38 all maple scimitar
that I
> >ordered not finished...which saved me some money and allows me to finish, stain,
paint,
> >varnish as I want. As shipped, it weighs 10#. With it was a note from Jay Anderson
to call
> >him for some finishing tips. During our conversation, he told me that they seem
to get better
> >performance from the props. that are left with the "scallops" intact as opposed
to the
> >propellers that are sanded smooth. He also recommended that the "fields", (fiberglass
covered
> >tips) stay intact. Sounded like most people don't like the rough, patch-work
look of them and
> >try to fill/sand smooth. These fields form a nice, hard edge around the wood
that should also
> >be left intact. My plan was to sand the propeller smooth and make it as slick
as I could.
> >After our 40 min. conversation, I am now going to leave the prop. as shipped.
Jay said some
> >MILD sanding is fine to prep. it for it's first coat of protection, (paint,
! varnish,
> >stain...) but nothing more than that is needed. MILD sanding between coats is
also OK, but
> >keep it to a minimum."
> >
> >In other words "is it better to leave the "scallops" or is that an Old Pilots
Tale?
> >
> >Blue Skies, Steve D. UNCLASSIFIED
>
> --
> David F. Rogers, PhD, ATP
> Professor of Aerospace Engineering (Emeritus)
> Annapolis, MD
>
> Rogers Aerospace Engineering & Consulting
> Annapolis, MD
> Over 50 years of experience
> www.nar-associates.com
> 410 271 1968 (c)
UNCLASSIFIED
Message 50
| 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: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Propeller Pictures |
Still nothing, Steve.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Baker, LA
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=407311#407311
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! --
|