---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 03/09/14: 33 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:39 AM - Re: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (Clif Dawson) 2. 12:46 AM - CB350 wheels (Douwe Blumberg) 3. 04:11 AM - Re: CB350 wheels (Brian Kenney) 4. 04:16 AM - Re: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (Brian Kenney) 5. 04:43 AM - Re: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (Brian Kenney) 6. 09:40 AM - Re: Which one? (Bill Church) 7. 10:56 AM - Re: Re: Which one? (Steven Dortch) 8. 10:56 AM - Re: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (Michael Weston) 9. 11:28 AM - Re: Re: Which one? (Gary Boothe) 10. 02:49 PM - Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (William Wynne) 11. 03:14 PM - Re: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (Brian Kenney) 12. 04:23 PM - Re: Re: Which one? (danhelsper@aol.com) 13. 04:39 PM - Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (William Wynne) 14. 04:40 PM - Re: Which one? (Bill Church) 15. 05:24 PM - Re: Re: Which one? (Steven Dortch) 16. 06:06 PM - Re: Which one? (Bill Church) 17. 06:14 PM - Re: Which one? (taildrags) 18. 06:21 PM - Re: Re: Which one? (Steven Dortch) 19. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: Which one? (Steven Dortch) 20. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (Brian Kenney) 21. 06:53 PM - Re: Re: Which one? (Brian Kenney) 22. 06:59 PM - Re: Fuselage Width (john francis) 23. 07:02 PM - Re: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (Steven Dortch) 24. 07:06 PM - DNA analysis please (M. Zeke Zechini) 25. 07:23 PM - Re: Re: Which one? (Steven Dortch) 26. 07:33 PM - Re: DNA analysis please (Boatright, Jeffrey) 27. 07:38 PM - Re: DNA analysis please (Steven Dortch) 28. 07:44 PM - Re: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? (Steven Dortch) 29. 07:49 PM - Re: Re: Vasek's production of Historic Propellers (Steven Dortch) 30. 08:06 PM - Re: Piet parts for sale (Brian Durham) 31. 08:06 PM - Re: Piet parts for sale (Brian Durham) 32. 08:39 PM - Re: Corvair engine core (William Wynne) 33. 09:27 PM - Re: DNA analysis please (Chris) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:39:39 AM PST US From: "Clif Dawson" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? Your right, In researching further another site turned up that didn't the first time. They say the go devil engine itself weighs 148 lb. That NZ Piet, was it operating with or without a reduction unit? Jim Malley's Piet has a 98hp Ford Fiesta in it but with a psru. Clif ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Kenney To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 8:00 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? I know that 2200 cc will fly a Pietenpol because I just had a ride in one in New Zealand. It needed 3000 rpm to get enough power and was an overhead valve engine. It was from a Toyota Hilux. As for weight, published weights are usually misleading. As for your general points, they are valid questions and worthy of consideration. Brian > > According to the Flying and Glider Piet article the Ford > A weighs 244lb. > According to this Wikipedia article the Willys weighs > in at 470 lb! > We just told a certain propmaker that he couldn't use > his VW engine because it's too small and revs too high. > It's 2500cc. The Willys is 2200cc. > The c-65 is 2830cc and the Corvair starts at 2700cc. > The Ford is a wopping 3400cc! and 128 ft-lb torque. > The c65 has 148lb torque. The little Willys? 114 ft-lb. > The Corvair appears to be 155 but at 2800 rpm. > > So, perusing the above, in direct drive, will the Willys > be able to pull it off? > Bad Clif ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:46:33 AM PST US From: "Douwe Blumberg" Subject: Pietenpol-List: CB350 wheels Hey Bill, Out of curiosity, how do those brakes hold and over the last 27 years, how often would you guess you've had to replace the pads, if at all? Douwe ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:11:30 AM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: CB350 wheels I have never replaced the pads and used the old ones that came with the whe els. I only recently adjusted the cable for the first time after over 25 ye ars.. I am using only one of the two shoes in each wheel. I use the leadin g shoe only ( the one that self energizes). I can lock the wheels on grass and have pulled the tail off the ground on payment but only under extreme b reaking. They won't really hold under full throttle but that doesn't mean t hey are not good as they really shorten the roll and are I think they are the perfect balance. They worked out great and I lucked out with the set u p. From: douweblumberg@earthlink.net Subject: Pietenpol-List: CB350 wheels =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A Hey Bill=2C=0A =0A =0A =0A Out of curiosity=2C how do those brakes hold and over the last=0A 27 years=2C how often would you guess you=92ve had to replace the pads=2C i f at=0A all?=0A =0A =0A =0A Douwe=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:16:49 AM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? It is direct drive. The guy that did it has three of them in different type s of airplanes and there are two others on Air Campers down under. I saw on e but didn't get to talk to the owner who was out of town. From: cdawson5854@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A Your right=2C In researching further another =0A site=0A turned up that didn't the first time. They =0A say=0A the go devil engine itself weighs 148 =0A lb.=0A =0A That NZ Piet=2C was it operating with or =0A without=0A a reduction unit? =0A =0A Jim Malley's Piet has a 98hp Ford Fiesta =0A in=0A it but with a psru.=0A =0A Clif=0A =0A =0A =0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: =0A Brian =0A Kenney =0A To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com =0A =0A Sent: Saturday=2C March 08=2C 2014 8:00 =0A AM=0A Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys =0A jeep pietenpol engine maybe?=0A =0A I know that 2200 cc will fly a Pietenpol because I just had a =0A ride in one in New Zealand. It needed 3000 rpm to get enough power and was =0A an overhead valve engine. It was from a Toyota Hilux. As for =0A weight=2C published weights are usually misleading. As for your =0A general points=2C they are valid questions and worthy of consideration. =0A Brian =0A > > According to the Flying and Glider Piet article the =0A Ford > A weighs 244lb. > According to this Wikipedia article the =0A Willys weighs > in at 470 lb! > We just told a certain propmaker =0A that he couldn't use > his VW engine because it's too small and revs too =0A high. > It's 2500cc. The Willys is 2200cc. > The c-65 is 2830cc =0A and the Corvair starts at 2700cc. > The Ford is a wopping 3400cc! and =0A 128 ft-lb torque. > The c65 has 148lb torque. The little Willys? 114 =0A ft-lb. > The Corvair appears to be 155 but at 2800 rpm. > > =0A So=2C perusing the above=2C in direct drive=2C will the Willys > be able to =0A pull it off? > Bad Clif =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 04:43:48 AM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? By the way Clif I believe that a model A engine in a Piet produces more pow er than the rated horsepower stated by Ford. I think it is at least 50 hors epower or perhaps a little more. This is due to better breathing and perha ps the aluminum head. It has to produce more because of the way it performs . Some folks that have used higher rpm likely have even more but it is alwa ys the power versus reliability trade-off to consider. That 200 cu in is ha rd to beat. From: brian.kenney@live.ca Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? =0A =0A =0A It is direct drive. The guy that did it has three of them in different type s of airplanes and there are two others on Air Campers down under. I saw on e but didn't get to talk to the owner who was out of town. From: cdawson5854@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A Your right=2C In researching further another =0A site=0A turned up that didn't the first time. They =0A say=0A the go devil engine itself weighs 148 =0A lb.=0A =0A That NZ Piet=2C was it operating with or =0A without=0A a reduction unit? =0A =0A Jim Malley's Piet has a 98hp Ford Fiesta =0A in=0A it but with a psru.=0A =0A Clif=0A =0A =0A =0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: =0A Brian =0A Kenney =0A To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com =0A =0A Sent: Saturday=2C March 08=2C 2014 8:00 =0A AM=0A Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys =0A jeep pietenpol engine maybe?=0A =0A I know that 2200 cc will fly a Pietenpol because I just had a =0A ride in one in New Zealand. It needed 3000 rpm to get enough power and was =0A an overhead valve engine. It was from a Toyota Hilux. As for =0A weight=2C published weights are usually misleading. As for your =0A general points=2C they are valid questions and worthy of consideration. =0A Brian =0A > > According to the Flying and Glider Piet article the =0A Ford > A weighs 244lb. > According to this Wikipedia article the =0A Willys weighs > in at 470 lb! > We just told a certain propmaker =0A that he couldn't use > his VW engine because it's too small and revs too =0A high. > It's 2500cc. The Willys is 2200cc. > The c-65 is 2830cc =0A and the Corvair starts at 2700cc. > The Ford is a wopping 3400cc! and =0A 128 ft-lb torque. > The c65 has 148lb torque. The little Willys? 114 =0A ft-lb. > The Corvair appears to be 155 but at 2800 rpm. > > =0A So=2C perusing the above=2C in direct drive=2C will the Willys > be able to =0A pull it off? > Bad Clif =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A ============0A http://forums.matronics.com=0A ============0A ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A ============0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:40:29 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: "Bill Church" Glen, As mentioned, there are the original Pietenpol Air Camper plans, that were published in the 1932 Flying and Glider magazine, and which you have a copy of. Then there are the plans available from the Pietenpol family. http://community.pressenter.net/~apietenp/BHPietenpolAndSonsAirCamperAircraftPurchasePlans.html In addition to these, there were a couple of different sets of plans for "modernized" versions of the Air Camper that were sold. One set was the St. Croix Air Camper, and the other was the Grega GN-1 Aircamper. Neither of these are available for sale anymore. While some have built their aircraft strictly from the Flying and Glider plans, I believe it would be a real challenge to do so, since the reprints are so small, and are simply lacking some details. My recommendation would be to obtain a set of the plans from the Pietenpol family, to complement the Flying and Glider plans. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420038#420038 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:56:44 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: Steven Dortch Bill, Just to muddy the water. I have a Pietenpol With plans that were modified by Grega. But it is not a Grega! It is a Pietenpol fuselage with mods that later became the Grega wing. I think. It is just enough hybrid that I cannot firmly tell you where the Grega mods definitely begin or end. Blue Skies, Steve D Pietenpol Air-Camper On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Bill Church wrote: > billspiet@sympatico.ca> > > Glen, > As mentioned, there are the original Pietenpol Air Camper plans, that were > published in the 1932 Flying and Glider magazine, and which you have a copy > of. Then there are the plans available from the Pietenpol family. > > http://community.pressenter.net/~apietenp/BHPietenpolAndSonsAirCamperAircraftPurchasePlans.html > > In addition to these, there were a couple of different sets of plans for > "modernized" versions of the Air Camper that were sold. One set was the > St. Croix Air Camper, and the other was the Grega GN-1 Aircamper. Neither > of these are available for sale anymore. > > While some have built their aircraft strictly from the Flying and Glider > plans, I believe it would be a real challenge to do so, since the reprints > are so small, and are simply lacking some details. My recommendation would > be to obtain a set of the plans from the Pietenpol family, to complement > the Flying and Glider plans. > > Bill C. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420038#420038 > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:56:45 AM PST US From: Michael Weston Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? a 134 cu in jeep engine sans manifolds and sans flywheel weighs #245 pounds with iron head according to the scale in my friends milk barn however, i would be carefull to compare it to the oft quoted weight of #241 lbs with magneto for the model A because i know none of you guys has actually done it. just my two cents ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:28:06 AM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? Then, there's this, from Grant MacLaren, circa 1999: Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one change requires many other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be just that -- a new design. It should not carry the name "Pietenpol." Pietenpols forever! -=Grant MacLaren=- Gary Boothe NX308MB From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steven Dortch Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:56 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? Bill, Just to muddy the water. I have a Pietenpol With plans that were modified by Grega. But it is not a Grega! It is a Pietenpol fuselage with mods that later became the Grega wing. I think. It is just enough hybrid that I cannot firmly tell you where the Grega mods definitely begin or end. Blue Skies, Steve D Pietenpol Air-Camper On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Bill Church wrote: Glen, As mentioned, there are the original Pietenpol Air Camper plans, that were published in the 1932 Flying and Glider magazine, and which you have a copy of. Then there are the plans available from the Pietenpol family. http://community.pressenter.net/~apietenp/BHPietenpolAndSonsAirCamperAircraf tPurchasePlans.html In addition to these, there were a couple of different sets of plans for "modernized" versions of the Air Camper that were sold. One set was the St. Croix Air Camper, and the other was the Grega GN-1 Aircamper. Neither of these are available for sale anymore. While some have built their aircraft strictly from the Flying and Glider plans, I believe it would be a real challenge to do so, since the reprints are so small, and are simply lacking some details. My recommendation would be to obtain a set of the plans from the Pietenpol family, to complement the Flying and Glider plans. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420038#420038 ========== st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ========== http://forums.matronics.com ========== le, List Admin. ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ========== ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 02:49:23 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? From: "William Wynne" Kenny, I watched the Youtube clip several times, and I think you are doing something pretty neat. I have been a life long fan of flatheads, Grace and I have a little collection in the hangar. I read all the notes, and for my 2 cents, I think that you have a power plant that will work within limitations, (just as all engines do). I was headed over to my neighbors with the scale, but Mr. Mdw, covered this, and effectively showed both the weight is comparable to a Ford, and also how unreliable internet data can be. I think most people miss that there are both L-134's and OHV F-134's. Scale in a milk barn always beats the internet for useful data, Clif listed the displacements and rpm ranges of several engines, and to it I would like to add the consideration of compression ratio. We have been testing this for a year, back to back, same airframe, etc, and it is surprising the difference between 8.0 and 10.25 to one. The relationship holds true with most engines. I am sure that an O-200 with 8:1 and OHV can be tuned to make more power at any given rpm than a 200 cid Ford. Displacement alone is an incomplete picture. On 'tight' motors: If everything else is set right, it is ring drag on the surface finish of the bores that makes it hard to prop. In my experience, 10 hours of ground runs at 50-60% power has the same smoothing effect as one takeoff and climb to 3,000' at wot. 280 finish on bores is better than 220, but it is time at wot that helps. An optical tach like a Proptach 2545 and a ground adjustable prop are a good 'comparative' Dyno. Get the prop in the test range, check the static rpm, make the change and compare rpm. I have loaner WD props, (in both rotations), glad to send one to you for testing. If Oz's chart is good, targeting 3000 rpm instead of 2500 will buy you a 28% hp increase. The loss of prop efficiency will be in the single digits, and you will have a large net thrust increase. Test this with the loaner prop, you will become convinced. You will have plenty of people tell you it will/won't work. Their belief is based on stories, and since every Pietenpol is a 'snowflake' unto itself, much of the commentary does not apply. You should be able to use The Ford weight and Balance data we collected. My website tells how to get this directly from Doc Mosher. I do not think the success of Fords is because they make 'more than 50 hp' The W&B tests showed that the Ford guys build lighter planes than many A-65 guys. The Ford guys also use better matched props on average. They go into their build knowing they don't have weight or power to waste. It is the opposite attitude of a guy who thinks 'I have a light motor, I don't have to care'. Last thought: There will never be any psru that will be as light, reliable nor as cheap as a 12 pound, $500 new turbocharger. I am not kidding, they are very easy to plumb on flatheads, they don't stress engines, they function as mufflers, and 134 cid at 36" MAP is 200 cid of airflow. Look up the turbo testing on my webpage, email me direct or call anytime.-ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420053#420053 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 03:14:54 PM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? Compression ratio increases can be impractical in a L head because cross se ction area reduction as the head gets shaved. The engine breathes less (int ake and exhaust) as the area get smaller. Therefore the more practical way to increase power is to compress the intake charge by super or turbo chargi ng as William suggests. Turbocharging has one danger in that hot exhaust ge ts compressed too and therefore the consequences of an exhaust leak increas e as a result. Just thoughts to ponder. > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? > From: WilliamTCA@aol.com > Date: Sun=2C 9 Mar 2014 14:48:54 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > > > Kenny=2C > I watched the Youtube clip several times=2C and I think you are doing so mething pretty neat. I have been a life long fan of flatheads=2C Grace and I have a little collection in the hangar. > > I read all the notes=2C and for my 2 cents=2C I think that you have a pow er plant that will work within limitations=2C (just as all engines do). I w as headed over to my neighbors with the scale=2C but Mr. Mdw=2C covered thi s=2C and effectively showed both the weight is comparable to a Ford=2C and also how unreliable internet data can be. I think most people miss that the re are both L-134's and OHV F-134's. Scale in a milk barn always beats the internet for useful data=2C > > Clif listed the displacements and rpm ranges of several engines=2C and to it I would like to add the consideration of compression ratio. We have bee n testing this for a year=2C back to back=2C same airframe=2C etc=2C and it is surprising the difference between 8.0 and 10.25 to one. The relationshi p holds true with most engines. I am sure that an O-200 with 8:1 and OHV ca n be tuned to make more power at any given rpm than a 200 cid Ford. Displac ement alone is an incomplete picture. > > On 'tight' motors: If everything else is set right=2C it is ring drag on the surface finish of the bores that makes it hard to prop. In my experienc e=2C 10 hours of ground runs at 50-60% power has the same smoothing effect as one takeoff and climb to 3=2C000' at wot. 280 finish on bores is better than 220=2C but it is time at wot that helps. > > An optical tach like a Proptach 2545 and a ground adjustable prop are a g ood 'comparative' Dyno. Get the prop in the test range=2C check the static rpm=2C make the change and compare rpm. I have loaner WD props=2C (in both rotations)=2C glad to send one to you for testing. > > If Oz's chart is good=2C targeting 3000 rpm instead of 2500 will buy you a 28% hp increase. The loss of prop efficiency will be in the single digits =2C and you will have a large net thrust increase. Test this with the loane r prop=2C you will become convinced. > > You will have plenty of people tell you it will/won't work. Their belief is based on stories=2C and since every Pietenpol is a 'snowflake' unto itse lf=2C much of the commentary does not apply. You should be able to use The Ford weight and Balance data we collected. My website tells how to get this directly from Doc Mosher. > > I do not think the success of Fords is because they make 'more than 50 hp ' The W&B tests showed that the Ford guys build lighter planes than many A -65 guys. The Ford guys also use better matched props on average. They go i nto their build knowing they don't have weight or power to waste. It is the opposite attitude of a guy who thinks 'I have a light motor=2C I don't hav e to care'. > > Last thought: There will never be any psru that will be as light=2C relia ble nor as cheap as a 12 pound=2C $500 new turbocharger. I am not kidding =2C they are very easy to plumb on flatheads=2C they don't stress engines =2C they function as mufflers=2C and 134 cid at 36" MAP is 200 cid of airfl ow. Look up the turbo testing on my webpage=2C email me direct or call anyt ime.-ww. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420053#420053 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 04:23:10 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: danhelsper@aol.com Amen. Dan Helsper Puryear, TN cc: Board of Curmudgeons -----Original Message----- From: Gary Boothe Sent: Sun, Mar 9, 2014 1:28 pm Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? Then, there=99s this, from Grant MacLaren, circa 1999: Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one change requires many other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be jus t that -- a new design. It should not carry the name "Pietenpol." Pietenpols forever! -=Grant MacLaren=- Gary Boothe NX308MB From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steven Dortch Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:56 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? Bill, Just to muddy the water. I have a Pietenpol With plans that were modi fied by Grega. But it is not a Grega! It is a Pietenpol fuselage with mods that later became the Grega wing. I think. It is just enough hybrid that I cannot firmly tell you where the Grega mods definitely begin or end. Blue Skies, Steve D Pietenpol Air-Camper On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Bill Church wrote : > Glen, As mentioned, there are the original Pietenpol Air Camper plans, that were published in the 1932 Flying and Glider magazine, and which you have a copy of. Then there are the plans available from the Pietenpol family. http://community.pressenter.net/~apietenp/BHPietenpolAndSonsAirCamperAircra ftPurchasePlans.html In addition to these, there were a couple of different sets of plans for "m odernized" versions of the Air Camper that were sold. One set was the St. Croix Air Camper, and the other was the Grega GN-1 Aircamper. Neither of these are available for sale anymore. While some have built their aircraft strictly from the Flying and Glider pl ans, I believe it would be a real challenge to do so, since the reprints ar e so small, and are simply lacking some details. My recommendation would b e to obtain a set of the plans from the Pietenpol family, to complement th e Flying and Glider plans. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420038#420038 st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List http://forums.matronics.com le, List Admin. ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 04:39:19 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? From: "William Wynne" Brian, You are correct on the limits of compression increase on flatheads. The point I was trying to make is that Kenny's HP per cubic inch at 6.5:1 should be better than the Ford HP per cubic inch at 4.25 to 5.25:l. The limits for increasing on the Jeep may be higher still, as it has a wildly under square bore and stroke ratio. Manifolds on flatheads are on the same side and short, good for compact turbo installation. The exhaust pressure is less than you may suspect, the energy of the exhaust gasses is primarily heat. In an enclosed compartment always a concern, especially with a lot of joints, but I was kind of picturing it out in the slipstream. I am pretty sure someone brought a turbocharged Piet to Brodhead in the last decade, but I can't remember who it was. Part of the reason why I am optimistic about Kenny's project is thinking about A-37 and A-40 Continentals. They are flatheads also, they have less cubic inches. They are maybe 80 pounds lighter, but they did fly a lot of stuff like J-3s on floats with light people.-ww Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420056#420056 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 04:40:01 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: "Bill Church" Steve, Not sure I follow. You have a set of Pietenpol plans that John Grega modified? And your fuselage was modified to become a wing? :) There are a lot of homebuilts out there that were begun from a set of plans, and got modified along the way. For instance, from looking at old photos, back in the 60's it seemed to be a popular modification to add spill plates to the tips of Pietenpol wings. Since the practice did not continue, one can likely deduce that the modification did not improve performance. Likewise, it is also clear that the mod did not improve appearance either. It is pretty common with this design for buiilders to make changes. Some changes are very subtle, and others are not so subtle. it is quite possible that the original builder of your plane started with a set od Pietenpol plans, and incorporated selected details borrowed from the Grega plans. Bill C. > Bill, Just to muddy the water. I have a Pietenpol With plans that were modified by Grega. But it is not a Grega! It is a Pietenpol fuselage with mods that later became the Grega wing. I think. It is just enough hybrid that I cannot firmly tell you where the Grega mods definitely begin or end. > > Blue Skies, > > Steve D Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420057#420057 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 05:24:01 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: Steven Dortch Bill, *The logbook on my Piet says it is a "Pietenpol aircamper......in accordance with the original drawings as amended by John w. Grega to include...." forward section of the fuselage is extended 6 inches for the different motor (Grega drawing). Wing built in 3 sections *( *the air foil looks like a Pietenpol)with a 9.5 gallon gas tank in upper wing. also the Right gear is J3 cub. Left gear was fabricated to match (a Grega idea). * *The Fuselage follows the Pietenpol plans by Orrin Hoopman. The bolts attaching the Cabanes to the Fuselage runs right to left like the Pietenpol plans. The bolts attaching the cabanes to the wing run from front to rear and attach a 3 piece wing with a wing tank, A la Grega. . * *Sorry if I don't get to join the club. But everyone already calls me a Bastard;+}* *Blue Skies,* *Steve D.* On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Bill Church wrote: > billspiet@sympatico.ca> > > Steve, > Not sure I follow. You have a set of Pietenpol plans that John Grega > modified? And your fuselage was modified to become a wing? :) > There are a lot of homebuilts out there that were begun from a set of > plans, and got modified along the way. For instance, from looking at old > photos, back in the 60's it seemed to be a popular modification to add > spill plates to the tips of Pietenpol wings. Since the practice did not > continue, one can likely deduce that the modification did not improve > performance. Likewise, it is also clear that the mod did not improve > appearance either. It is pretty common with this design for buiilders to > make changes. Some changes are very subtle, and others are not so subtle. > it is quite possible that the original builder of your plane started with > a set od Pietenpol plans, and incorporated selected details borrowed from > the Grega plans. > > Bill C. > > > > Bill, Just to muddy the water. I have a Pietenpol With plans that were > modified by Grega. But it is not a Grega! It is a Pietenpol fuselage with > mods that later became the Grega wing. I think. It is just enough hybrid > that I cannot firmly tell you where the Grega mods definitely begin or end. > > > > Blue Skies, > > > > Steve D > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420057#420057 > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 06:06:21 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: "Bill Church" So, Steve, it sounds like you have an example of what I was referring to - A plane built using the Pietenpol plans, with selected modifications (in this case, borrowed from the GN-1). Good that the original builder chose to retain the original fuselage design , as the Grega modifications (added plywood sheathing unnecessarily added weight to the aft fuselage structure. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420059#420059 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 06:14:43 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: "taildrags" Steve; I think you can run two quick DNA tests to check for paternity. 1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed; i.e., if there were no cabane brace struts or cables, can the wing physically be pivoted forward or aft by changing the angle of the cabanes? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol is not the father. 2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the wing strut attach points, both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol is not the father. If you're still holding out a thread of hope, you can try one last check but it's not definitive: are the tailwheel control cables connected to the bottom of the rudder using brackets on the rudder rather than running forward to the rudder bar? Grega connected them in that fashion but others have used the same method in the interest of eliminating a second set of control cables the length of the empennage. -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420060#420060 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 06:21:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: Steven Dortch Biggest drawback to the Grega mod is that the wing cannot be moved fore and aft to help with CG. The Three piece wing makes it handy to work on here in the garage. I like the Wing tank as well. It is what I have. Several of the old pilots at 8T8 say who have flown it say it flies really well. Blue Skies Steve D. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Bill Church wrote: > billspiet@sympatico.ca> > > So, Steve, it sounds like you have an example of what I was referring to - > A plane built using the Pietenpol plans, with selected modifications (in > this case, borrowed from the GN-1). Good that the original builder chose > to retain the original fuselage design , as the Grega modifications (added > plywood sheathing unnecessarily added weight to the aft fuselage structure. > > Bill C. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420059#420059 > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:43 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: Steven Dortch 1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed; i.e., if there were no cabane brace struts or cables, can the wing physically be pivoted forward or aft by changing the angle of the cabanes? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol is not the father. NO, but the bottoms would pivot fore and aft. the tops pivot port and starboard. Hybrid. 2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the wing strut attach points, both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol is not the father. YES, They do. but the Logbook confesses that they are Cub gear. 3. Are the tailwheel control cables connected to the bottom of the rudder using brackets on the rudder rather than running forward to the rudder bar? NO, the cables go to the rudder on top. There was no steering on the tailwheel until John K put it on. It now has a Cessna tailwheel and we still have to finish putting in Pulleys and such to complete the tail steering. Blue Skies, Steve D On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:14 PM, taildrags wrote: > > Steve; > > I think you can run two quick DNA tests to check for paternity. > > 1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed; i.e., if there were no cabane > brace struts or cables, can the wing physically be pivoted forward or aft > by changing the angle of the cabanes? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol > is not the father. > > 2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the > wing strut attach points, both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no', Mr. > Pietenpol is not the father. > > If you're still holding out a thread of hope, you can try one last check > but it's not definitive: are the tailwheel control cables connected to the > bottom of the rudder using brackets on the rudder rather than running > forward to the rudder bar? Grega connected them in that fashion but others > have used the same method in the interest of eliminating a second set of > control cables the length of the empennage. > > -------- > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, OR > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" > A75 power > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420060#420060 > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:25 PM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? I think Frank L. from the Milwaukee area put a turbo or supercharger on hi s Funk? engine. You are probably correct that the exhaust pressure may not be that high but there is still the concern that the exhaust piping and fla nges need to be made carefully as most factory turbos are piped with alloy tubing and rightfully so. I personally would not want to fly in a turbo eng ine aircraft in a tight cowled aircraft with homemade exhaust piping and m aybe not even with factory piping because a crack could/would mean a fire. That is just my fear limitation. Flat heads are not that much of a penalty on a slow turning engines and why auto engines don't need overhead cams in direct drive applications on airp lanes. The point I was making that to go more power the right direction is to pressurize the intake not to modify it internally. Don't take my comments as a challenge to your knowledge but really to vali date what you said and to educate others that might not be so acquainted w ith the all the limitations. I confess that I don't know much about the engine in question. What will th e increased rpm and/or power do to the bottom engine or to the breathing of the engine? I think it has a chance=2C the question more relates to wheth er the end result is a one or two seater. > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? > From: WilliamTCA@aol.com > Date: Sun=2C 9 Mar 2014 16:38:56 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > > > Brian=2C > You are correct on the limits of compression increase on flatheads. The p oint I was trying to make is that Kenny's HP per cubic inch at 6.5:1 should be better than the Ford HP per cubic inch at 4.25 to 5.25:l. The limits f or increasing on the Jeep may be higher still=2C as it has a wildly under s quare bore and stroke ratio. > > Manifolds on flatheads are on the same side and short=2C good for compact turbo installation. The exhaust pressure is less than you may suspect=2C t he energy of the exhaust gasses is primarily heat. In an enclosed compartme nt always a concern=2C especially with a lot of joints=2C but I was kind of picturing it out in the slipstream. I am pretty sure someone brought a tur bocharged Piet to Brodhead in the last decade=2C but I can't remember who i t was. > > Part of the reason why I am optimistic about Kenny's project is thinking about A-37 and A-40 Continentals. They are flatheads also=2C they have less cubic inches. They are maybe 80 pounds lighter=2C but they did fly a lot o f stuff like J-3s on floats with light people.-ww > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420056#420056 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:05 PM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? This is my take on this debate. Anyone that is building an aircraft like th e one we are all interested has much in common. Debating on the originality of a particular design is counter productive as all it does is subdivide a small group into even smaller groups. I hate when people appear to act sup erior because they think they are more authentic or more pure. I know it is human nature but it is stupid. We should embrace all that is Pietenpol-lik e and in doing so we are all better off and that allows us to educate all i n all the ways of doing this and let them decide what is the best way to d o something rather than being shamed into like it is some form of Victorian racism. Come on people don't be so judgemental=2C Bernie Pietenpol certai nly wasn't! I might be reading this wrong and that might not be the intention but if I am taking it that way than so are others! Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: steven.d.dortch@gmail.com 1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed=3B i.e.=2C if there were no =0A cabane brace struts or cables=2C can the wing physically be pivoted =0A forward or aft by changing the angle of the cabanes? If the answer is =0A 'no'=2C Mr. Pietenpol is not the father. NO=2C but the bottoms would pivot fore and aft. the tops pivot port and sta rboard. Hybrid. 2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the=0A wing strut attach points=2C both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no' =2C=0A Mr. Pietenpol is not the father. YES=2C They do. but the Logbook confesses that they are Cub gear. 3. Are the tailwheel control cables connected to the bottom of the rudder =0A using brackets on the rudder rather than running forward to the rudder =0A bar? NO=2C the cables go to the rudder on top. There was no steering on the tail wheel until John K put it on. It now has a Cessna tailwheel and we still ha ve to finish putting in Pulleys and such to complete the tail steering. =0A Blue Skies=2C Steve D =0A On Sun=2C Mar 9=2C 2014 at 8:14 PM=2C taildrags wro te: =0A =0A =0A =0A Steve=3B =0A =0A I think you can run two quick DNA tests to check for paternity. =0A =0A 1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed=3B i.e.=2C if there were no caba ne brace struts or cables=2C can the wing physically be pivoted forward or aft by changing the angle of the cabanes? If the answer is 'no'=2C Mr. Pie tenpol is not the father. =0A =0A =0A 2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the wi ng strut attach points=2C both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no'=2C M r. Pietenpol is not the father. =0A =0A If you're still holding out a thread of hope=2C you can try one last check but it's not definitive: are the tailwheel control cables connected to the bottom of the rudder using brackets on the rudder rather than running forwa rd to the rudder bar? Grega connected them in that fashion but others have used the same method in the interest of eliminating a second set of contro l cables the length of the empennage. =0A =0A =0A -------- =0A Oscar Zuniga =0A Medford=2C OR =0A Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" =0A A75 power =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A Read this topic online here: =0A =0A http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420060#420060 =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List =0A =0A http://forums.matronics.com =0A =0A le=2C List Admin. =0A ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 06:59:32 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Width From: "john francis" Tomorrow it may get to 60 degrees here. I am hoping to begin to glue the fuse sides together. I looked at a lot of pictures on westcoastpiet and it appears people start all over the place. I think the front two connectors are not put into place because of the addition of the engine mount later? Some add the 3/8's plywood floor before adding the additional connectors while others add the connectors first then lay the flooring on top. What should I not do when connecting the fuselage together that would cause problems later? Thanks, John -------- John Francis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420065#420065 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 07:02:43 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? From: Steven Dortch One "hot" setup on a Go-Devil Jeep (circa 1960) was Dual carbs compression raised to 7.5 to 1 with Hickey Head bored to 141 cubic inches. reground camshaft with proper timing and lift, and improved headers (20-25% HP increase) These mods were available at one time (1970s) but I am not sure you could find them now. Blue Skies, Steve On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Brian Kenney wrote: > I think Frank L. from the Milwaukee area put a turbo or supercharger on > his Funk? engine. You are probably correct that the exhaust pressure may > not be that high but there is still the concern that the exhaust piping and > flanges need to be made carefully as most factory turbos are piped with > alloy tubing and rightfully so. I personally would not want to fly in a > turbo engine aircraft in a tight cowled aircraft with homemade exhaust > piping and maybe not even with factory piping because a crack could/would > mean a fire. That is just my fear limitation. > > Flat heads are not that much of a penalty on a slow turning engines and > why auto engines don't need overhead cams in direct drive applications on > airplanes. The point I was making that to go more power the right direction > is to pressurize the intake not to modify it internally. > > Don't take my comments as a challenge to your knowledge but really to > validate what you said and to educate others that might not be so > acquainted with the all the limitations. > > I confess that I don't know much about the engine in question. What will > the increased rpm and/or power do to the bottom engine or to the breathing > of the engine? I think it has a chance, the question more relates to > whether the end result is a one or two seater. > > > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? > > From: WilliamTCA@aol.com > > Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 16:38:56 -0700 > > > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > > WilliamTCA@aol.com> > > > > Brian, > > You are correct on the limits of compression increase on flatheads. The > point I was trying to make is that Kenny's HP per cubic inch at 6.5:1 > should be better than the Ford HP per cubic inch at 4.25 to 5.25:l. The > limits for increasing on the Jeep may be higher still, as it has a wildly > under square bore and stroke ratio. > > > > Manifolds on flatheads are on the same side and short, good for compact > turbo installation. The exhaust pressure is less than you may suspect, the > energy of the exhaust gasses is primarily heat. In an enclosed compartment > always a concern, especially with a lot of joints, but I was kind of > picturing it out in the slipstream. I am pretty sure someone brought a > turbocharged Piet to Brodhead in the last decade, but I can't remember who > it was. > > > > Part of the reason why I am optimistic about Kenny's project is thinking > about A-37 and A-40 Continentals. They are flatheads also, they have less > cubic inches. They are maybe 80 pounds lighter, but they did fly a lot of > stuff like J-3s on floats with light people.-ww > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420056#420056 > > > > > > > > > > > > ============= > > > > > > > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 07:06:25 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please From: "M. Zeke Zechini" I think I have GN-1. The wings are clipped Cub (aluminum ribs). Was built by Bob Odegaard in 1991. Started life with A65, now has C-85-12. Still swingin g same 74x41 McCauley. Will try to get it to Brodhed this year. About to replace Cub legs, as I am covering a new set. Certainly am enjoying flying it! Sent from my iPad
________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 07:23:52 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? From: Steven Dortch Just to clear the Air, I am not taking any of this personally. This Pietenpol Air-Camper (I use a dash since it is a bastard according to Oscar;+}) was built from the mid 1960s and flew in 1975. It flew for about 20 years and by all accounts flew quite well. It is going to be resurrected. My apologies to the Piet Purists, but I am not going to Go back and rebuilt the cabanes, wing and struts to make this legitimate. Oscar has seen this plane and his memory must be shorter than his.....Grandmother. I guess at any Pietenpol gathering I will have to land on the back runway and will have to use the back door to get something to eat. But I am OK with that. I guess I am like that bastard cousin that just won't go away =) Blue Skies, Steve D On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Brian Kenney wrote: > This is my take on this debate. Anyone that is building an aircraft like > the one we are all interested has much in common. Debating on the > originality of a particular design is counter productive as all it does is > subdivide a small group into even smaller groups. I hate when people appear > to act superior because they think they are more authentic or more pure. I > know it is human nature but it is stupid. We should embrace all that is > Pietenpol-like and in doing so we are all better off and that allows us to > educate all in all the ways of doing this and let them decide what is the > best way to do something rather than being shamed into like it is some form > of Victorian racism. Come on people don't be so judgemental, Bernie > Pietenpol certainly wasn't! > > I might be reading this wrong and that might not be the intention but if I > am taking it that way than so are others! > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:32:10 -0500 > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one? > From: steven.d.dortch@gmail.com > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > > 1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed; i.e., if there were no cabane > brace struts or cables, can the wing physically be pivoted forward or aft > by changing the angle of the cabanes? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol > is not the father. > > NO, but the bottoms would pivot fore and aft. the tops pivot port and > starboard. Hybrid. > > 2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the > wing strut attach points, both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no', Mr. > Pietenpol is not the father. > > YES, They do. but the Logbook confesses that they are Cub gear. > > 3. Are the tailwheel control cables connected to the bottom of the rudder > using brackets on the rudder rather than running forward to the rudder > bar? > > NO, the cables go to the rudder on top. There was no steering on the > tailwheel until John K put it on. It now has a Cessna tailwheel and we > still have to finish putting in Pulleys and such to complete the tail > steering. > > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:14 PM, taildrags wrote: > > > Steve; > > I think you can run two quick DNA tests to check for paternity. > > 1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed; i.e., if there were no cabane > brace struts or cables, can the wing physically be pivoted forward or aft > by changing the angle of the cabanes? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol > is not the father. > > 2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the > wing strut attach points, both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no', Mr. > Pietenpol is not the father. > > If you're still holding out a thread of hope, you can try one last check > but it's not definitive: are the tailwheel control cables connected to the > bottom of the rudder using brackets on the rudder rather than running > forward to the rudder bar? Grega connected them in that fashion but others > have used the same method in the interest of eliminating a second set of > control cables the length of the empennage. > > -------- > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, OR > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" > A75 power > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420060#420060 > > > ========== > st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > * > > ========== > st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > * > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 07:33:10 PM PST US From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please Looks like a Piet to me. When you're flying it, what does it look like from the cockpit. If it looks like, feels like, and flies like fun, then I call it fun. That's MY test=85 ;) -- Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine From: "M. Zeke Zechini" > >" > etenpol-list@matronics.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please I think I have GN-1. The wings are clipped Cub (aluminum ribs). Was built b y Bob Odegaard in 1991. Started life with A65, now has C-85-12. Still swing ing same 74x41 McCauley. Will try to get it to Brodhed this year. About to replace Cub legs, as I am covering a new set. Certainly am enjoyin g flying it! [cid:e1842e0b-fc5f-47a7-a304-ef9006fcef05@Enterprise.emory.net] ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 07:38:49 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please From: Steven Dortch Looks neat. My only complaint is it gets fuzzy when I zoom in. What advantage to covering the legs? Less drag or just looks? Steve On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, M. Zeke Zechini wrote: > > I think I have GN-1. The wings are clipped Cub (aluminum ribs). Was built > by Bob Odegaard in 1991. Started life with A65, now has C-85-12. Still > swinging same 74x41 McCauley. Will try to get it to Brodhed this year. > About to replace Cub legs, as I am covering a new set. Certainly am > enjoying flying it! > > > Sent from my iPad > 

>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:46 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? From: Steven Dortch Russian GAZ (a Soviet Competitor to the post WWII jeep) is still being made and uses a 4 calendar diesel with a supercharger. I saw them in Iraq. Everything on them broke but the tough little engine, tranny brakes and steering. Blue Skies, Steve D On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Steven Dortch wrote: > One "hot" setup on a Go-Devil Jeep (circa 1960) was > > Dual carbs > > compression raised to 7.5 to 1 with Hickey Head > > bored to 141 cubic inches. > > reground camshaft with proper timing and lift, > > and improved headers (20-25% HP increase) > > > These mods were available at one time (1970s) but I am not sure you could > find them now. > > > Blue Skies, > > Steve > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Brian Kenney wrote: > >> I think Frank L. from the Milwaukee area put a turbo or supercharger on >> his Funk? engine. You are probably correct that the exhaust pressure may >> not be that high but there is still the concern that the exhaust piping and >> flanges need to be made carefully as most factory turbos are piped with >> alloy tubing and rightfully so. I personally would not want to fly in a >> turbo engine aircraft in a tight cowled aircraft with homemade exhaust >> piping and maybe not even with factory piping because a crack could/would >> mean a fire. That is just my fear limitation. >> >> Flat heads are not that much of a penalty on a slow turning engines and >> why auto engines don't need overhead cams in direct drive applications on >> airplanes. The point I was making that to go more power the right direction >> is to pressurize the intake not to modify it internally. >> >> Don't take my comments as a challenge to your knowledge but really to >> validate what you said and to educate others that might not be so >> acquainted with the all the limitations. >> >> I confess that I don't know much about the engine in question. What will >> the increased rpm and/or power do to the bottom engine or to the breathing >> of the engine? I think it has a chance, the question more relates to >> whether the end result is a one or two seater. >> >> >> >> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Willys jeep pietenpol engine maybe? >> > From: WilliamTCA@aol.com >> > Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 16:38:56 -0700 >> >> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >> > >> WilliamTCA@aol.com> >> > >> > Brian, >> > You are correct on the limits of compression increase on flatheads. The >> point I was trying to make is that Kenny's HP per cubic inch at 6.5:1 >> should be better than the Ford HP per cubic inch at 4.25 to 5.25:l. The >> limits for increasing on the Jeep may be higher still, as it has a wildly >> under square bore and stroke ratio. >> > >> > Manifolds on flatheads are on the same side and short, good for compact >> turbo installation. The exhaust pressure is less than you may suspect, the >> energy of the exhaust gasses is primarily heat. In an enclosed compartment >> always a concern, especially with a lot of joints, but I was kind of >> picturing it out in the slipstream. I am pretty sure someone brought a >> turbocharged Piet to Brodhead in the last decade, but I can't remember who >> it was. >> > >> > Part of the reason why I am optimistic about Kenny's project is >> thinking about A-37 and A-40 Continentals. They are flatheads also, they >> have less cubic inches. They are maybe 80 pounds lighter, but they did fly >> a lot of stuff like J-3s on floats with light people.-ww >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Read this topic online here: >> > >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420056#420056 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ============= >> > >> > >> > >> >> * >> >> >> * >> >> > ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 07:49:51 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's production of Historic Propellers From: Steven Dortch Vasic, just a thot. The Russians made a copy of the Ford Model AA truck. It used a Ford model a Engine. They made 985,000 of them up until 1950. perhaps you could find one of them. Steve D On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Vasek wrote: > > Thank you for the nice words, I very appreciate it. I can post photos of > some of our interesting projects if you wish. We will have a four-blade > propeller from R.E.8 soon in the "old style" and a big beautiful Chauvier e > prop from D.H.1. > > > > Perhaps your Piet should have some styling to remind us of a pre WWII > Avia or Letov. > > > It definitely could have! Do you have any suggestions? > > > > Are there any old Waltor Minor engines floating around? they are > somewhat comparable to at Contental O200 while about 30 pounds heavier. > > > Yes, I think that I could find some, but I have a feedback from a guy who > had GN-1 that the Walter was too weak. He replaced it with Subaru with a > reduction drive. > > > > There is no reason that you could not break into the Prop or > construction business. > > > The question is, would people be interested in these carved propellers? I > mean, airworthy? Such a prop would be at least three times more expensive > than it is now. > > -------- > My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions: > =88=BC > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=419726#419726 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:33 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet parts for sale From: Brian Durham Hi Tim, Seems to be a lot of Piet builders in Texas. I don't have the metal eyebrows that mount to the engine. What I have is the nose bowl and top cowl...or at least that's what I think it is, now that I think of it is made of a heavy fabric material. But it has piano hinge on the sides. I'll get some better pictures and perhaps you can help me identify it. Here's some pictures I currently have. My phone number is 425-971-5968. ~Brian Durham 425-971-5968 On Mar 7, 2014 12:57 AM, "Timothy Willis" wrote: > Brian, > > I am interested in your cowl. Please give me your phone # in a direct > reply and let's discuss. Do you have a nose bowl as well? > > Also, do you have diagonal cabanes (from top motor mount to wing attach > points)? > > Tim in central TX > ================== > > Time: 11:35:13 AM PST US > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Wings for Sale + Other Parts > From: "N219BR" > > Hi All, > > I acquired a Piet that's taking up valuable space right now. I'm looking > at parting > it out. I have an A-65 mount/cowl, 3 piece wings, cub gear, fittings, and > 1.5 Corvair cores, plus lots of assorted odds and ends. > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:33 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet parts for sale From: Brian Durham I forgot to answer your second question. Which is yes I do have the diagonal bracing. ~Brian Durham 425-971-5968 On Mar 7, 2014 12:57 AM, "Timothy Willis" wrote: > Brian, > > I am interested in your cowl. Please give me your phone # in a direct > reply and let's discuss. Do you have a nose bowl as well? > > Also, do you have diagonal cabanes (from top motor mount to wing attach > points)? > > Tim in central TX > ================== > > Time: 11:35:13 AM PST US > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Wings for Sale + Other Parts > From: "N219BR" > > Hi All, > > I acquired a Piet that's taking up valuable space right now. I'm looking > at parting > it out. I have an A-65 mount/cowl, 3 piece wings, cub gear, fittings, and > 1.5 Corvair cores, plus lots of assorted odds and ends. > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:33 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair engine core From: "William Wynne" Bill, Glad you are headed to Corvair college #29. If you have not landed an engine core yet, here is a tool that you may not have seen before. In 10 minutes of looking with it I found this lead 155 miles from your house in Greenville SC: 1966 4 door corvair, auto matic, for parts or restore, cant text pictures 864-915-6395 The site is http://www.searchtempest.com/. (You can find it by goggling "Search Tempest Craigslist") It is a search engine that looks on all the Craigslists for you in any specified radius from your home zip code. I have used it to find all kinds of stuff, I have found it more productive than Ebay or Corsa. Email me privately if you have not found a core before the college.-ww. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420075#420075 ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:00 PM PST US From: "Chris" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please The landing gear/lower wing strut fittings look like GN-1 fittings. The rear landing gear attachment is forward of the rear cabain which is common on a GN-1 but not on the Pietenpol. What is not typical of a GN-1 is the rear wing strut attaching to the rear gear location. I'm guessing that this makes your wing struts are not parallel. Mr. Grega recommended using a Cub wing and landing gear on the GN-1. The attachment for the rudder cables are below the stabilizer which is where the GN-1 mounting point is. Most of the other differences between a GN-1 and a Pietenpol are in the metal fittings and the fully sheeted fuselage. Both of which cannot be seen in the picture. My guess though is this is a GN-1. This whole conversation about TRUE Pietenpols comes up frequently. I think what really irritates the purists is to call all the various look-a-likes a Pietenpol. Be true to the design and call it a GN-1 which is inspired by the Pietenpol. But in the end it really doesn't matter what it is as long as you like it. And it sounds like you do. Chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of M. Zeke Zechini Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:05 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please I think I have GN-1. The wings are clipped Cub (aluminum ribs). Was built by Bob Odegaard in 1991. Started life with A65, now has C-85-12. Still swinging same 74x41 McCauley. Will try to get it to Brodhed this year. About to replace Cub legs, as I am covering a new set. Certainly am enjoying flying it! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.