Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:24 AM - Re: A-65 (Mario Giacummo)
2. 06:46 AM - Re: A-65 (Keith)
3. 09:16 AM - Re: A-65 (Baldeagle)
4. 05:42 PM - Re: Wheel alignment.... (GNflyer)
5. 06:04 PM - Re: Wheel alignment.... (taildrags)
6. 06:25 PM - Re: Wheel alignment.... (AircamperN11MS)
7. 08:55 PM - Re: Re: Wheel alignment.... (Ray Krause)
8. 11:15 PM - Re: Re: A-65 (Clif Dawson)
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 |
|
Keep the A-65.. with little rework you can convert it to A-75 (10 more) if
you are uncomfortable with 65, and then if 75 is not enough, you can
convert it to 85 also (it's a big rework than the first one)
Just to add something to the A-65
regards.
Mario Giacummo
2014-02-02 jim hyde <jnl96@yahoo.com>:
> u answered your own question..the plane was made for a 40hp engine.. the
> a65 is plenty of motor. 25 more hp than the 40.. why would anyone need
> more..
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:16 PM, Brian Kenney <
> brian.kenney@live.ca> wrote:
> hope I am doing this right - my first post
>
> I have 26 years flying an A-65 in my Piet. It is nearly the perfect engine
> for the air camper. I weight over 200 lbs and I have taken three different
> passengers that weigh about 250 lbs. It fly's that weight no problem but my
> empty weight is around 600Lbs. Realize that a 65 and a 75 are virtually
> identical and you can have anything between 65 and 75 hp with a different
> prop. The prop is critical. There is no such thing as a cruise prop for
> this application. If you are not achieving redline in climb you actually
> have a smaller engine then you think. I run my A-65 as an A-70 horsepower
> without any modification by letting it rev higher than 2300 rpm. The engine
> map in the manual will show you how.
>
> There are good reasons to use a C-85 or 0-200 - the main is the engine
> weight - the A-65 is too light for some completed air campers that are
> built tail heavy. It makes a poor airplane if you end up with nose that is
> too long or a wing that is too far aft or both. The option is then there of
> adding accessories like a starter, battery and/or a generator to solve a
> cg problem.
>
> weight is critical with horsepower and the power helps compensate for a
> heaver and over equipped airplane.
>
> where you live is also important. the higher the airport the more you will
> want power. The hotter it is the same applies.
>
> remember is you don't want to prop then don't use a A-65.
>
> the cylinders on a c-85 or 0-200 are more durable and are easier to get.
>
> I love mine - I am good with it. I am working on making a A-65 into a 85
> horsepower with adding c-85 cylinders - this can be done but you have to
> investigate this and draw your own conclusions.
>
> brian kenney
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:39:59 -0500
> > From: born2fly@abcmailbox.net
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: A-65
> >
> born2fly@abcmailbox.net>
> >
> > Hi guys,
> > I have an opportunity to buy a newly overhauled Continental A-65 for a
> > reasonable price. It's been redone by an expert that knows how to
> > rebuild an engine blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his back.
> > Except he's very vocal that I will regret putting such a small engine in
> > and that I should put a O-200 on, at the least. Maybe even a 125 hp....
> > I'm wondering if anybody can give me performance reports for the A-65,
> > 85 and O-200. Takeoff, Feet per minute and cruise etc.....
> > I learned how to fly behind a 65 and sure, you do takeoff a few seconds
> > later then normal. But then again nobody builds a Piet to get anywhere
> Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> &g= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > =======================
> >
> >
> >
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Naviga.matronics.com/ <http://www.matronics.com/Naviga.matronics.com/>" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.matronics-- <http://forums.matronics-->> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>*
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
And from someone who is building a rather heavy Pietenpol, at all costs
add nothing and at all stages in the build consider using only the
lightest parts available as I was told some time ago that every ten
pounds you add to the build weight uses up one horsepower at least.
Keith
On 02/02/2014 14:23, Mario Giacummo wrote:
> Keep the A-65.. with little rework you can convert it to A-75 (10
> more) if you are uncomfortable with 65, and then if 75 is not enough,
> you can convert it to 85 also (it's a big rework than the first one)
>
> Just to add something to the A-65
>
> regards.
>
>
> Mario Giacummo
>
>
> 2014-02-02 jim hyde <jnl96@yahoo.com <mailto:jnl96@yahoo.com>>:
>
> u answered your own question..the plane was made for a 40hp
> engine.. the a65 is plenty of motor. 25 more hp than the 40.. why
> would anyone need more..
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:16 PM, Brian Kenney
> <brian.kenney@live.ca <mailto:brian.kenney@live.ca>> wrote:
> hope I am doing this right - my first post
>
> I have 26 years flying an A-65 in my Piet. It is nearly the
> perfect engine for the air camper. I weight over 200 lbs and I
> have taken three different passengers that weigh about 250 lbs. It
> fly's that weight no problem but my empty weight is around 600Lbs.
> Realize that a 65 and a 75 are virtually identical and you can
> have anything between 65 and 75 hp with a different prop. The prop
> is critical. There is no such thing as a cruise prop for this
> application. If you are not achieving redline in climb you
> actually have a smaller engine then you think. I run my A-65 as an
> A-70 horsepower without any modification by letting it rev higher
> than 2300 rpm. The engine map in the manual will show you how.
>
> There are good reasons to use a C-85 or 0-200 - the main is the
> engine weight - the A-65 is too light for some completed air
> campers that are built tail heavy. It makes a poor airplane if you
> end up with nose that is too long or a wing that is too far aft or
> both. The option is then there of adding accessories like a
> starter, battery and/or a generator to solve a cg problem.
>
> weight is critical with horsepower and the power helps compensate
> for a heaver and over equipped airplane.
>
> where you live is also important. the higher the airport the more
> you will want power. The hotter it is the same applies.
>
> remember is you don't want to prop then don't use a A-65.
>
> the cylinders on a c-85 or 0-200 are more durable and are easier
> to get.
>
> I love mine - I am good with it. I am working on making a A-65
> into a 85 horsepower with adding c-85 cylinders - this can be done
> but you have to investigate this and draw your own conclusions.
>
> brian kenney
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:39:59 -0500
> > From: born2fly@abcmailbox.net <mailto:born2fly@abcmailbox.net>
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: A-65
> >
> <born2fly@abcmailbox.net <mailto:born2fly@abcmailbox.net>>
> >
> > Hi guys,
> > I have an opportunity to buy a newly overhauled Continental A-65
> for a
> > reasonable price. It's been redone by an expert that knows how to
> > rebuild an engine blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his
> back.
> > Except he's very vocal that I will regret putting such a small
> engine in
> > and that I should put a O-200 on, at the least. Maybe even a 125
> hp....
> > I'm wondering if anybody can give me performance reports for the
> A-65,
> > 85 and O-200. Takeoff, Feet per minute and cruise etc.....
> > I learned how to fly behind a 65 and sure, you do takeoff a few
> seconds
> > later then normal. But then again nobody builds a Piet to get
> anywhere = Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> &g= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > =======================
> >
> >
> >
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Naviga.matronics.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.matronics-->*
>
>
> *
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Braniff1966 wrote:
> u answered your own question..the plane was made for a 40hp engine.. the a65
is plenty of motor. 25 more hp than the 40.. why would anyone need more..
Just to nit pick a little, you can't do a straight comparison of horsepower between
different engines, torque is probably a more accurate comparison. Without
a dyno it's hard to tell, but say you're getting 50 hp from a Ford A (high compression
head) at 2,000 rpm, that computes to 131 ft/lbs of torque, while an
A-65 with 65 hp at 2,300 rpm computes to 148 ft/lbs. The A-65 has 63 per cent
more horsepower but only 13 per cent more torque, significant but not a huge
difference. Cubic inches are the key, the Ford has 201 compared to 171 for the
A-65.
A more extreme comparison would be the 90 hp OX-5 in a Jenny, a Continental C-90
would not even get a Jenny off the ground. The Jennys in "Waldo Pepper" had
200 hp Ranger engines, and were said to not perform much better than a stock
OX-5 Jenny.
-
--------
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=417999#417999
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wheel alignment.... |
Well I have not read all the books or had enough discussion about it with experts
to know, but it seems to me that much of either would be bad but toe in seems
like it would be worse simply because when the aircraft starts to veer to the
side the weight would transfer to the outside wheel. and if it is turned in
it would drive it into the turn even faster. where toe out might tend to try
to pull it out of the loop a little. that being said mine has a little toe in
-I did not build it and attempted to straighten it some but that cub gear is mighty
tough for sure.Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418011#418011
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: Wheel alignment.... |
My airplane has no toe-in or toe-out and I've been told that it is best to rig
conventional landing gear that way. If you prop up the tail so the airplane is
level on the mains (preferably with fuel in the tank), you can check this by
clamping some lightweight wooden sticks (or pieces of tubing, or aluminum angles)
onto the sides of the tires so that they project several feet out in front
of the wheels and then measuring the distance between them at the wheels and
then at the ends of the sticks.
By the way, I got the Matco tailwheel installed and adjusted the spring tension
by changing chain links as needed. Tailwheel is ready and it's back in shape.
The wings will go back onto the airplane next weekend. I'm excited! Getting
close to being able to fire it up and do some taxi testing. It will be Scout's
first outing in Oregon. Oil needs to be drained, oil screen cleaned and
checked for metal, then I'll fuel it up, fire it up, warm it up, then shut down
and check compression. All in good time.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=418013#418013
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: Wheel alignment.... |
Ray,
Exactly what Raymond said. He nailed it on the head. Shot for straight though.
Very slight toe out is OK but any toe in is very bad.
--------
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=418014#418014
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: Wheel alignment.... |
To all those responding to my questions about wheel alignment, thanks for all the
help. My gear is toed out, but I think it can be fixed fairly easily. I will
wait until rigging time when everything will be lined up. On my Waiex, I had
to have no toe in or out to make it right, but that is a 1" round titanium gear,
lots of spring.
Thanks, everyone!
Ray Krause,
SkyScout coming along
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 2, 2014, at 6:25 PM, "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org> wrote:
>
>
> Ray,
> Exactly what Raymond said. He nailed it on the head. Shot for straight though.
Very slight toe out is OK but any toe in is very bad.
>
> --------
> 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=418014#418014
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
No more guessing! :-)
Clif
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Einstein
>
> I don't remember where I read it (bingelis books?), but I heard the
> formula to find the best horsepower is to take the cube of your weight
> times your pecker plus eight. This is the minimum hp for your weight. Then
> add 25% for optimum hp. Don't quote me on that though.
>
> --------
> KLNC
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! --
|