Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:55 AM - Re: Magneto switch wiring (giacummo)
2. 05:19 AM - Re: Airspeed indicator (Steven Dortch)
3. 05:21 AM - See you at Brodhead (William Wynne)
4. 05:23 AM - Re: Airspeed indicator (womenfly2)
5. 05:56 AM - Re: Airspeed indicator (William Wynne)
6. 06:12 AM - Re: Rats! (bdewenter)
7. 07:07 AM - you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
8. 07:11 AM - Re: Plywood (TriScout)
9. 08:14 AM - Re: Magneto switch wiring (taildrags)
10. 08:22 AM - Re: See you at Brodhead (echobravo4)
11. 08:27 AM - Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol (William Wynne)
12. 08:36 AM - exactly right (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
13. 09:40 AM - Re: See you at Brodhead (Boatright, Jeffrey)
14. 06:43 PM - West Coast Pietenpol Gathering - 20th (Michael Groah)
15. 06:43 PM - Re: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol (Brian Kenney)
16. 08:33 PM - Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol (bdewenter)
17. 10:02 PM - Re: Rats! (bdewenter)
18. 10:26 PM - Re: Re: Magneto switch wiring (jim hyde)
19. 11:14 PM - Auto engines in Pietenpols, a perspective. (William Wynne)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto switch wiring |
Very clear Oscar, thank you very much.
--------
Mario Giacummo
Photos here: http://goo.gl/wh7M4
Little Blog : http://vgmk1.blogspot.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420535#420535
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airspeed indicator |
Jeff, I am an old fashoned shadetree mechanic. My mantra is "tighten it
down till it strips, then back off a quarter turn.
Steve "the threadstripper" D.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Boatright, Jeffrey <
jeffboatright@emory.edu> wrote:
> Agree about free is free and not liking reading shop books as ebooks,
> but at least the free version at faa.gov has high-quality illustrations.
> My much abused copy in the hangar can no longer make that claim...
>
> BTW, I was able to find the table for generic torque values based on
> bolt/thread size, but that's for steel. Would those hold true for the
> materials used for airspeed indicator hardware? I am not sure. Being lazy
> physically and mentally, I just hand-tightened mine (7 years and many hours
> ago), but then, my nickname at the field is "Captain Torque". I break
> things worse than Baby Hughey.
>
> --
>
> Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO
> Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
> Emory University School of Medicine
>
> From: jim hyde <jnl96@yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:08 PM
> To: "pietenpol-list@matronics.com" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airspeed indicator
>
> I get the same eye roll here everyday especially when cxed checks come
> in from aircraft spruce and wicks.. the ac 43 13 1b is on line at faa.govfor
free.. I hate e books but free is free and no eye roll:-)
>
> jim
>
>
> On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:37 PM, Steven Dortch <
> steven.d.dortch@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim, I cannot find my copy. Uncle Tony talks all around it. (I now know
> how to calibrate airspeed by lengthening or moving the pitot.) But I cannot
> find my AC 43-13-1B. My wife just rolled her eyes when I asked her.
>
> I am reasonably sure the torque is between finger tight and two 180 pound
> men on the end of a 3 foot cheater bar.
>
> Blue Skies.
> Steve D
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:11 PM, jim hyde <jnl96@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> consider checking your 43-13-1B for torque values
>
> jim
>
>
> On Monday, March 17, 2014 8:55 PM, Steven Dortch <
> steven.d.dortch@gmail.com> wrote:
> How tight should the fitting that screws into the airspeed indicator be?
>
> --
> Blue Skies,
> Steve D
>
>
> *
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
> *
>
>
> --
> Blue Skies,
> Steve D
>
>
> *
>
> ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
> ics.com <http://ics.com/>
> .matronics.com/contribution <http://matronics.com/contribution>
>
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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).
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Blue Skies,
Steve D
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | See you at Brodhead |
Builders,
We are now just 10 days away from Corvair College #29 in Leesburg FL., Followed
the SnF, (where I will be there just to give some forums, hang out a the Zenith
booth and go see Dick and the gang at the woodshop). From this point forward,
we are in the busiest 120 days of the year leading to Brodhead and Oshkosh.
It is a long stream of 12 hour days in the hangar. Productive work, especially
on planes, is not punishment to me, I like it. But to do it day after day effectively
requires getting into a groove, and to do this I spend a lot less time
on the net, just covering our websites and email.
In the past 6 years I spent a total of 10 days at Brodhead, and less than 10 hours
reading this list, yet I know a bit about most of the people who write in,
even the ones not using a Corvair. I have two people specifically to than for
this connection, Doc and Dee Mosher. In the six years the covered the newsletter,
I devoured each issue, reading every bit of each one many times. The walls
of our home are lined in bookshelves, but the back issues of the BPAN live in
an honored and accessible place on coffee table. Contrast this with the fact
let my EAA membership lapse for 2 years without noticing, because I have not
bothered to even look at an issue of Sport Aviation in years.
Doc and Dee are the glue that gave many of us a strong connection to Pietenpols
and each other. Words are failing me to explain how strongly I feel about that.
In the 1990s, the newsletter didn't make me feel that way. I loved the plane
I was building but the newsletter of that era had nothing technical in it, was
judgmental of non-Ford builders, and portrayed Brodhead as a place to buy a
Brat a look at old cars. My world view was shifted by chance when a Piet Guy
named Randy Bruce stopped by my house in Daytona beach, to drop of a stack of
100 photos of Brodhead 1991. This was a clean cut guy in his 60's who only flew
Continentals, going out of his way to make a 28 year old guy with long hair
and a Corvair project feel included. Take that single act of generous spirit away,
and my world would have been diminished to accepting a negative man's view
of who was welcome to appreciate Bernard's legacy. Every time I have read Doc
and Dee's work, I have thought about how their inclusive, pro-people stance
has welcomed in countless people just as Randy Bruce's visit to my home did.
It is hard to find words to express the depth of my gratitude for this.
--------------------------------------------
It may seem as if I have written a lot here in the last weeks, but I ask your indulgence
and understanding it is all based on enthusiasm for people, building
and ideas. I have spent many hours each night in the last weeks reading the list
archives to learn more about people's planes and perspectives. Time well spent.
Flying season is back in full swing down here, and the start of each spring makes
me feel this way. If you are up North and haven't been to the airport in months,
go there on the next clear day and just stand by the side of the runway
alone for 30 minutes and think of all the places you can go and visit this season,
all connected by nothing more than thin air. Open your hand and swing your
arm, it offers little resistance and no support, yet in your shop you are creating
a magic device that will allow you to move at will through a sky full of
nothing but thin air.
-------------------------------------------------
I hope to see as many of you as possible at Brodhead and Oshkosh. All you guys
planning the "85th" into Oshkosh, please keep me in the loop. You can count on
my full assistance no matter what you guys cook up. You can email me direct at
WilliamTCA@aol,com or just call the shop line 904-529-0006. If you guys have
Corvair or W&B questions, send them, we will cover it. Call anytime, I work a
lot of late nights past midnight. It rings only in the shop, you will not be
bothering us if call at 11pm. -ww.
----------------------------------------------------
To keep up with our news and idea blog:
http://flycorvair.net/
Our main page of information:
http://www.flycorvair.com/
Our Pietenpol specific webpage:
http://flycorvair.net/2013/11/28/corvair-pietenpol-reference-page/
.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420537#420537
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: Airspeed indicator |
AC 43.13-1B:
WF2
--------
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420538#420538
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: Airspeed indicator |
Steve,
Do not use the torque associated with NPT thread values in general books!
Go to the latest spruce catalog and look at pages 106 and 107. These are Nylon
fittings. They work great, this is what people use, and they seal perfectly, and
you will not be tempted to over tighten them.
If you have blue aluminum AN fittings with NPT threads, very carefully apply PTFE
tape to them, and then use about 1/3 the normal torque for a NPT thread. Some
instruments are 1/4, some are 1/8 NPT.
43.13 is an outstanding book, but it doesn't have answers like this. The instruments
section is at the back, and it is largely about design and far 23 reg. compliance.
If you have not heard this before, let me share with you the "emperor
has no clothes" moment. Not everything in "uncle tonly's" books is valid, and
a lot of working mechanics detest the myths he portrayed as across the board
facts. Expand your horizons past what a guy stuck in the 1970's mentality wrote.
for more ideas look at:
http://flycorvair.net/2012/11/29/inexpensive-panel-part-one/
and
http://flycorvair.net/2012/12/04/inexpensive-panel-part-two/
.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420539#420539
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 |
|
Wow, take a road trip to Waterloo IA and you miss a lot on this list.
As WW replied, my mount fits like a glove. The final width was a factor of having
a perfectly square sheet of 24" wide 1/4" plywood for the floor bottom - this
was used to attach the fuse sides and come out perfectly square. Add the
outer sheets of 1/8" ply and the total is 24.25".
I could not be happier. Both Vern and WW are excellent craftsman.
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420540#420540
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc_0167_large_391.jpg
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: | you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol |
I built my entire airplane using advice from the Tony Bingelis Sportplane b
uilder series of books and they are incredible resources
and as you all know I'm an avid supporter of using these books which, thoug
h are older now, are still a very sound way to build a homebuilt
and what I love about Tony's perspective is that he gives you many ways to
go about a certain task---then you chose.
One thing I see on Pietenpols are static lines/tubes by the airspeed indica
tor that are unnecessary. I read in Tony's books that with an open cockpi
t plane
you can simply eliminate the static tubing lines and plug the static ports
on the airspeed and altimeter with poly plugs and then drill a tiny
hole in them which will read ambient/static pressure just fine.
Back when I built my plane in the early 90's I got all kinds of lousy advic
e from people at the airport or people who had supposed knowledge of homebu
ilding
and many things I heard were simply either not airworthy or sound or outdat
ed and full of wives tales and that is why I always deferred to the Bingeli
s advice
and that gave me an FAA inspection with only 1 item to correct and 15 years
of trouble-free flying. I'll stick with my Uncle Tony's advice for home
building anyday!
Mike C.
Ohio
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/instruments/6Installing%2
0a%20Pitot-Static%20System.html
[cid:image001.png@01CF4291.CA242010]
[cid:image002.png@01CF4291.CA242010]
[cid:image003.png@01CF4291.CA242010]
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 |
|
That's what is neat about the GN-1. I use AN hardware on everything...down to the
tiny washers. As far as I can determine, there is nothing made in china on
it.
--------
KLNC
A65-8
N2308C
AN Hardware
Airframe 724TT
W72CK-42 Sensenich
Standard Factory GN-1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420544#420544
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: Magneto switch wiring |
A simple wiring diagram from "Sportplane Construction Techniques" is attached.
It's a Word.doc
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420547#420547
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mag_209.docx
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: See you at Brodhead |
Yep, Doc and Dee's talk on the Zen of the Pietenpol did it!
William, I have to say the people, Doc, Dee, yourself and all the people I've
Met in the Pietenpol community were a big part in my going ahead
With this project.
Not being able to get the time of day from builders groups of other
designs I had looked at, I was really surprised to find how open and
welcoming the Pietenpol group was to a new builder.
I feel very lucky to have stumbled into such a great group of people
building a great plane with such a great history.
Now I know why people say that the first time you go to Brodhead it's
for the planes- after that it's for the people!
--------
Earl Brown
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I
intended to be.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420548#420548
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol |
Mike,
Perhaps the reason why Tony Bingelis gets high marks in your book is because what
you were looking for just happened to be his strength, namely information on
simple plans built plane with a Continental engine. Some people see this as
traditional EAA, all the way back to the modern mechanics Baby ace that started
the EAA in 1953.
However, some of us think of the EAA as a place to innovate and develop expanded
ideas. Not necessarily complex ones, I myself are more interested in ones that
give working people more access to flight, getting the out of the spectator
seats and into the workshop.
Right in front of me is Bingelis's 1988 book firewall forward. A great resource
if you happen to be building a plane like yours. However, I can make a pretty
good claim that the book is otherwise dated, and he barely disguises his anti
innovation bias, often with hints that it is dangerous or foolhardy.
Look in the first few pages and see that Bingelis is anti-liquid cooling, predicting
they will not be a significant number of non-type certified engines ever.
Explain how that accounts for Rotax 912s? His Comments on other non traditional
engines are equally off the mark. I am not a VW guy, But there is almost nothing
in his comments on them that is still valid. Bingelis's book includes the
comment that car engine "Invariably require a radiator", in the photo is BHP
personal Corvair powered Aircamper, no radiator.
Tony was not big on testing things, and his data reflects that he often blindly
repeated things from other sources that he felt were credible. An easy example
is that his engine weight data in the book is incorrect. He wrote that an O-200
weighs 188 pounds, without really noting that this is the base weight, it
actually is about 50 pounds heavier. Anyone with a scale could tell this, but
Tony didn't test stuff like that. If anyone used 188 in a W&B calculation to make
a motor mount, they had a rude surprise awaiting them at the scales.
Tony also is not shy about making comments about props that revealed he never tested
them. Warp Drive has made more than 50,000 props, yet the book says Ground
adjustable props for light planes are not common. His comments on prop efficiency
are old wives tales he is repeating as facts, even though Rutan and Wittman
had long proved higher rpm works, 10 years before Tony wrote the book as
'fact.' Comments like "Keep your prop as long as possible as long as possible"
don't actually teach anyone anything. Tony's math on tip speed works, only if
you are sitting still. If you would like to see the real formula for Tip speed,
it is in many less celebrated books, including my manual. Tony didn't know
what vector addition is, but that didn't stop him from dolling out advice on
props.
His comments on batteries are no longer valid today. Odyssey and interstate dominate
the market now, people don't put Gills in home builts anymore. I just watched
a 2.1 pound Li battery that cost $122 start a 180Hp Lycoming the other day.
That is 19.9 pounds lighter than the Gill that Tony recommends. In the book
he states that NiCad batteries and Gell Cells don't work. He knows nothing of
AGM batteries. He is stuck in the 1970s, and every new thing to him was ominous.
Tony has drawings of fuel systems that endlessly show aluminum had lines in the
cockpit rigidly plumbed, even though it is now accepted that this is a serious
design mistake in many installations and the root cause of many fatal post crash
fires. They have stuff in auto fuel these days that will harm many of the
items he recommends in fuel systems.
Flat out, no one should but Tony's work ahead of the current manufactures recommendations
on a product, but they do all the time. I have seen people ignore the
factory design on a Zenith 650 for canopy attachment and use an inappropriate
design from Tony's books, because it was "Better." Keep in mind that a CH-650's
have had fatal accidents from loss of control after people opened the canopy.
Sound like a good plane to do canopy innovation on?
Tony's details on items like control cables are very good, and 50% of the stuff
in the books is still valid. Problem is if you are a new guy, which half is it?
I could dissect the book page by page, but perhaps it is just more useful
to tell people not to blindly follow 26 year old advice from a dead guy who never
worked on the airframe engine combination you are building.
Mike, no one has written more than me about stupid people offering poor advice on the net and in person. Get a look at: http://flycorvair.net/2013/10/08/a-visit-to-the-insane-asylum/ for specific advice on how to avoid these people. My point is Tony's work was dated when he wrote it, and he went past what he understood and cast negative opinions on things that he was unwilling to test nor even read about the tests of others. That isn't what Experimentals are about. They are about being willing to learn. -ww.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420549#420549
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 |
|
'Right in front of me is Bingelis's 1988 book firewall forward. A great res
ource if you happen to be building a plane like yours.'
You're exactly right William and this list happens to be about building Pi
etenpols so that is why I so highly recommend the Bingelis books.
You're also correct in that there are many new products on the market that
have made some of the old products museum pieces.
Mike C.
Ohio
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: See you at Brodhead |
Hope to see you there, William, arriving (hopefully) via my own Piet
pilotage!
BTW, even though I eventually went "the Continental route," it was
actually your words that prompted me to buy the Piet I now own and fly a
lot, a plane that, with a lot of help, we rebuilt after an incident, and
with a lot of other help, switched from an A65 to a C-85 that I helped
assemble 1.87 times (and counting!).
I don't recall your exact words, but they were to the effect of: See that
guy who just taxied up in that really average-looking plane? He built it
and now flies it. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, and it's not
perfect to outsiders' standards, but hey, it's safe and he just got back
from punching holes in the sky with it. Other than hangout at the airport
or read emails, what did you do this morning? If you're not flying, assess
your life; figure out what you need to do to get on the path to flying -
right now. We're all one day closer to a lost medical.
So, I did.
Thanks William.
--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
On 3/18/14 8:21 AM, "William Wynne" <WilliamTCA@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Builders,
>
>We are now just 10 days away from Corvair College #29 in Leesburg FL.,
>Followed the SnF, (where I will be there just to give some forums, hang
>out a the Zenith booth and go see Dick and the gang at the woodshop).
>From this point forward, we are in the busiest 120 days of the year
>leading to Brodhead and Oshkosh. It is a long stream of 12 hour days in
>the hangar. Productive work, especially on planes, is not punishment to
>me, I like it. But to do it day after day effectively requires getting
>into a groove, and to do this I spend a lot less time on the net, just
>covering our websites and email.
>
>In the past 6 years I spent a total of 10 days at Brodhead, and less than
>10 hours reading this list, yet I know a bit about most of the people who
>write in, even the ones not using a Corvair. I have two people
>specifically to than for this connection, Doc and Dee Mosher. In the six
>years the covered the newsletter, I devoured each issue, reading every
>bit of each one many times. The walls of our home are lined in
>bookshelves, but the back issues of the BPAN live in an honored and
>accessible place on coffee table. Contrast this with the fact let my EAA
>membership lapse for 2 years without noticing, because I have not
>bothered to even look at an issue of Sport Aviation in years.
>
>Doc and Dee are the glue that gave many of us a strong connection to
>Pietenpols and each other. Words are failing me to explain how strongly I
>feel about that. In the 1990s, the newsletter didn't make me feel that
>way. I loved the plane I was building but the newsletter of that era had
>nothing technical in it, was judgmental of non-Ford builders, and
>portrayed Brodhead as a place to buy a Brat a look at old cars. My world
>view was shifted by chance when a Piet Guy named Randy Bruce stopped by
>my house in Daytona beach, to drop of a stack of 100 photos of Brodhead
>1991. This was a clean cut guy in his 60's who only flew Continentals,
>going out of his way to make a 28 year old guy with long hair and a
>Corvair project feel included. Take that single act of generous spirit
>away, and my world would have been diminished to accepting a negative
>man's view of who was welcome to appreciate Bernard's legacy. Every time
>I have read Doc and Dee's work, I have thought about how their in!
> clusive, pro-people stance has welcomed in countless people just as
>Randy Bruce's visit to my home did. It is hard to find words to express
>the depth of my gratitude for this.
>
>--------------------------------------------
>
>It may seem as if I have written a lot here in the last weeks, but I ask
>your indulgence and understanding it is all based on enthusiasm for
>people, building and ideas. I have spent many hours each night in the
>last weeks reading the list archives to learn more about people's planes
>and perspectives. Time well spent.
>
>Flying season is back in full swing down here, and the start of each
>spring makes me feel this way. If you are up North and haven't been to
>the airport in months, go there on the next clear day and just stand by
>the side of the runway alone for 30 minutes and think of all the places
>you can go and visit this season, all connected by nothing more than thin
>air. Open your hand and swing your arm, it offers little resistance and
>no support, yet in your shop you are creating a magic device that will
>allow you to move at will through a sky full of nothing but thin air.
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>I hope to see as many of you as possible at Brodhead and Oshkosh. All you
>guys planning the "85th" into Oshkosh, please keep me in the loop. You
>can count on my full assistance no matter what you guys cook up. You can
>email me direct at WilliamTCA@aol,com or just call the shop line
>904-529-0006. If you guys have Corvair or W&B questions, send them, we
>will cover it. Call anytime, I work a lot of late nights past midnight.
>It rings only in the shop, you will not be bothering us if call at 11pm.
>-ww.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>To keep up with our news and idea blog:
>
>http://flycorvair.net/
>
>Our main page of information:
>
>http://www.flycorvair.com/
>
>Our Pietenpol specific webpage:
>
>http://flycorvair.net/2013/11/28/corvair-pietenpol-reference-page/
>
>.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420537#420537
>
>
________________________________
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 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: | West Coast Pietenpol Gathering - 20th |
Get those Pietenpols out and flying.- The West Coast Pietenpol Gathering
is coming up quickly!=0AThis will be the 20th West Coast Gathering! =0A=0AS
aturday June 7th, 2014=0AFrazier Lake Airpark 1C9- =0A=0AWe have a great
time.... come join the fun. =0A=0APlease=0A see the attachment ( pdf format
) for the flyer or =0Asend me your email address or home address and I'll m
ake sure you get a =0Acopy.- =0A=0A=0AMike Groah=0A414MV=0A
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: you don't need a static port or static line on |
a Pietenpol
In defense of Tony - or more to the point the defense of an conservative ap
proach to building has its merits. Most of the advice requested from builde
rs to this blog are from people learning to build. They are not experienced
and if they were almost by definition they wouldn't be asking the question
s in the first place.
Based on my experience with local Pietenpol builders my conclusion is that
a conventional and conservative has proven to more successfully than pushin
g the envelope. There have been about 20 Pietenpol built in my area of sou
thern Ontario. The successful ones have been powered by aircraft engines. T
he ones that have not used aircraft engines have by in large not been succe
ssful. This DOES NOT MEAN THEY COULDNT HAVE BEEN SUCESSFUL BUT THEY HAVENT
BEEN - it is a fact not an opinion.
I am a fan of innovation and admire those who innovate but not everyone has
the skills to do that. I am considering doing something quite radical in m
y next project but there is no way I would encourage others to do the same
because it can lead others to follow in a path that is more dangerous and
could ultimately lead to a poor outcome.
Building a scratch built aircraft is a job that only the most diligent can
complete. Those who persevere should have the greatest chance of success=2C
they deserve it. Following Tony is good advice even if it is out of date a
nd even wrong. You could do a lot worse by not following it.
I have two good friends that have lost 15 years or more each of good flyin
g because they chose not to use an aircraft engine. Are they regretful=2C p
erhaps not=2C but from my perspective they should be.
So when giving advice think about what the experience of the person asking
the question=2C not what your particular talent or experience is.
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line
on a Pietenpol
> From: WilliamTCA@aol.com
> Date: Tue=2C 18 Mar 2014 08:26:49 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
> Mike=2C
>
> Perhaps the reason why Tony Bingelis gets high marks in your book is beca
use what you were looking for just happened to be his strength=2C namely in
formation on simple plans built plane with a Continental engine. Some peopl
e see this as traditional EAA=2C all the way back to the modern mechanics B
aby ace that started the EAA in 1953.
>
> However=2C some of us think of the EAA as a place to innovate and develop
expanded ideas. Not necessarily complex ones=2C I myself are more interest
ed in ones that give working people more access to flight=2C getting the ou
t of the spectator seats and into the workshop.
>
> Right in front of me is Bingelis's 1988 book firewall forward. A great re
source if you happen to be building a plane like yours. However=2C I can ma
ke a pretty good claim that the book is otherwise dated=2C and he barely di
sguises his anti innovation bias=2C often with hints that it is dangerous o
r foolhardy.
>
> Look in the first few pages and see that Bingelis is anti-liquid cooling
=2C predicting they will not be a significant number of non-type certified
engines ever. Explain how that accounts for Rotax 912s? His Comments on oth
er non traditional engines are equally off the mark. I am not a VW guy=2C B
ut there is almost nothing in his comments on them that is still valid. Bin
gelis's book includes the comment that car engine "Invariably require a rad
iator"=2C in the photo is BHP personal Corvair powered Aircamper=2C no radi
ator.
>
> Tony was not big on testing things=2C and his data reflects that he often
blindly repeated things from other sources that he felt were credible. An
easy example is that his engine weight data in the book is incorrect. He wr
ote that an O-200 weighs 188 pounds=2C without really noting that this is t
he base weight=2C it actually is about 50 pounds heavier. Anyone with a sca
le could tell this=2C but Tony didn't test stuff like that. If anyone used
188 in a W&B calculation to make a motor mount=2C they had a rude surprise
awaiting them at the scales.
>
> Tony also is not shy about making comments about props that revealed he n
ever tested them. Warp Drive has made more than 50=2C000 props=2C yet the b
ook says Ground adjustable props for light planes are not common. His comme
nts on prop efficiency are old wives tales he is repeating as facts=2C even
though Rutan and Wittman had long proved higher rpm works=2C 10 years befo
re Tony wrote the book as 'fact.' Comments like "Keep your prop as long as
possible as long as possible" don't actually teach anyone anything. Tony's
math on tip speed works=2C only if you are sitting still. If you would lik
e to see the real formula for Tip speed=2C it is in many less celebrated bo
oks=2C including my manual. Tony didn't know what vector addition is=2C but
that didn't stop him from dolling out advice on props.
>
> His comments on batteries are no longer valid today. Odyssey and intersta
te dominate the market now=2C people don't put Gills in home builts anymore
. I just watched a 2.1 pound Li battery that cost $122 start a 180Hp Lycomi
ng the other day. That is 19.9 pounds lighter than the Gill that Tony recom
mends. In the book he states that NiCad batteries and Gell Cells don't work
. He knows nothing of AGM batteries. He is stuck in the 1970s=2C and every
new thing to him was ominous.
>
> Tony has drawings of fuel systems that endlessly show aluminum had lines
in the cockpit rigidly plumbed=2C even though it is now accepted that this
is a serious design mistake in many installations and the root cause of man
y fatal post crash fires. They have stuff in auto fuel these days that will
harm many of the items he recommends in fuel systems.
>
> Flat out=2C no one should but Tony's work ahead of the current manufactur
es recommendations on a product=2C but they do all the time. I have seen pe
ople ignore the factory design on a Zenith 650 for canopy attachment and us
e an inappropriate design from Tony's books=2C because it was "Better." Kee
p in mind that a CH-650's have had fatal accidents from loss of control aft
er people opened the canopy. Sound like a good plane to do canopy innovatio
n on?
>
> Tony's details on items like control cables are very good=2C and 50% of t
he stuff in the books is still valid. Problem is if you are a new guy=2C wh
ich half is it? I could dissect the book page by page=2C but perhaps it is
just more useful to tell people not to blindly follow 26 year old advice f
rom a dead guy who never worked on the airframe engine combination you are
building.
>
> Mike=2C no one has written more than me about stupid people offering poor
advice on the net and in person. Get a look at: http://flycorvair.net/2013
/10/08/a-visit-to-the-insane-asylum/
for specific advice on how to avoid these people. My point
is Tony's work was dated when he wrote it=2C and he went past what he under
stood and cast negative opinions on things that he was unwilling to test no
r even read about the tests of others. That isn't what Experimentals are ab
out. They are about being willing to learn. -ww.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420549#420549
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol |
Brian C-FAUK wrote:
>
> Building a scratch built aircraft is a job that only the most diligent can complete.
Thosewho persevere should have the greatest chance of success, they deserve
it. Following Tony is good advice even if it is out of date and even wrong.
You could do a lot worse by not following it.
>
I think the defense of Tony is well intentioned, but I disagree with some of it.
I do apologize if the rest of this seems a little harsh. I admit to having
a fault that what I think spills out un-censored. No one should take anything
I post personally.
Neither perseverance nor diligence produce airworthy aircraft - they just produce
an object - perhaps one that is not airworthy. Following advice known to be
wrong produces unsafe, unworthy aircraft. If Tony's advice is wrong (or outdated)
it should not be followed.
I have all of Tony's books and rely on them heavily as I do some of the advice
on this list. However I do also recognize the age of its expertise and the lack
of current materials - asbestos products for firewalls? really?. It was not
too long ago that everyone "Knew the world was flat".
I do agree that those who have the greatest chance of success follow a proven path,
and sound advice as I did to successfully build and run my Corvair convertion
engine after a successful 368 day build. It did not require a Lycoming or
Continental core to be successful. Success (for me) required the Chevrolet
"Green Shop Manual", some education, 3 Corvair Colleges, and professional help.
I am an informed builder making sound decisions, following a proven "Corvair"
path.
Very respectfully
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420601#420601
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 |
|
danhelsper(at)aol.com wrote:
> I think the Corvair engine mount is wrong.
>
>
> --
Dear Mr. Top Crumb.. Sir
My (Bob Dewenter) engine mount is NOT wrong. It is exactly what I asked William
Wynn to make for me. He even allowed it to be powder coated Black, despite
his advice otherwise.
My decoding of the plans (not to be confused with actual instructions) was that
one should use the entire sheet of 24" wide plywood (floor) to give your ship
its maximum interior width allowable with a 24" wide sheet of (pick you choice
of three thicknesses) plywood for a floor.
I think the only way to resolve the plans contraversy is to go to Brodhead (Last
Original) or to Oshkosh and do an actual measurement of one of Bernards' actual
"plans built" hand crafted airplanes.
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420603#420603
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: Magneto switch wiring |
here is a little info- the mag switch has three wires connecting it to th
e mags.. they are left mag p lead.. right mag- p lead and a shielded grou
nd wire connected to the plane.. that's all=0A=0Ajim hyde=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Tue
sday, March 18, 2014 10:21 AM, taildrags <taildrags@hotmail.com> wrote:=0A
m>=0A=0AA simple wiring diagram from "Sportplane Construction Techniques" i
s attached.- It's a Word.doc=0A=0A--------=0AOscar Zuniga=0AMedford, OR
=0AAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"=0AA75 power=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this
topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=42054
7#420547=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AAttachments: =0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com//file
=
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: | Auto engines in Pietenpols, a perspective. |
Let us all stop and acknowledge that if Bernard Pietenpol listened to people who
said you shouldn't fly car engines, every single person on this list would be
building some other design. Had he not innovated with the Corvair in 1960, and
gone on to revitalize the design, it would have just been a historic foot note.
I don't know how anyone can take a hard anti-auto engine stand, and still
claim to respect the legacy of BHP. If you think that people who advocate auto
power are misguided, I got news for you, you are building an airframe designed
by the king of auto power, I am only his acolyte. It is simply not possible
to claim to understand and honor the legacy of BHP, and silmaltainiously think
that people who put car engine in planes are stupid.
In 1993 I flew with Steve Wittman in his olds V-8 powered Tailwind, N37SW. In 2008
my wife Grace flew The last original at Brodhead. Each of these planes had
more than 800 hours on them, and they were both designed and built by men that
I uphold as the paragons of home building. (Sorry, but I don't think of Tony
Bingelis in that club.) If anyone built an exact replica of either plane, it
would fly the same hundreds of hours because Physics, chemistry and gravity don't
play favorites, and if the plane is exactly the same, it will have the same
track record. Read some of my thoughts below to understand why some homebuilders
don't have this kind of success.
-----------------------------------------------
Brian,I read your thoughts, and agree with many of your perspectives, but come to some different conclusions that you may find worth considering. Think about how this is true: http://flycorvair.net/2013/07/11/randy-bushs-pietenpol-hits-500-hours/ but your friends couldn't make auto engines work. I suggest the problem is in the people, not the metal.
Saying anything about Tony Bingelis touches a nerve with people. But it isn't a simple case of 'his conservative approach works' for people. There are important things in my comments I don't want people to miss. Since 1988, things like running a hard aluminum line from your tank to the firewall is no longer considered safe. Read my story: http://flycorvair.net/2013/12/19/pietenpol-fuel-lines-and-cabanes/ and learn that getting burned over 45% of my body was likely preventable by switching to braided lines. I didn't invent that, Diamond Aircraft (right from your area) did. Ask Kevin Purtee about how I asked him to change this on his plane. Two of the same planes, same spin (I think Kevin's hit harder), different fuel line style 12 years apart. My plane burns, Kevin's does not. If Tony were alive today, he could change his mind, just like I did, but he isn't, and continuing to build planes with the hard lines he drew is not honoring his contribution to experimental aviation, it is simple unnecessary risk.
That is one example, I have others. easy ones like ethanol in fuel was unknown
in 1988, and it is practically unavoidable in non-100LL today. As a reasonable
precaution against availability and price of 100LL, I suggest people select materials
throughout their fuel system that is ethanol tolerant. Not everything
in Tony's book is. Many smart people have made the case that A-65s are better
off on auto fuel than 100LL, but I wouldn't try that with a 1988 era fuel system.
Let me teach you something about some of the people who choose car engines: Some of them have two Achilles heels. they are cheap and they don't like following the guidance of experienced people. It doesn't matter what type of power plant a builder chooses if he has those two issues in his personality. Understand that car engines attract people with that mindset, and it is the mind set, not the engine itself that causes the problem. I openly discourage people with those perspectives from working with the Corvair, and truthfully I am ok if they quit aviation all together. Cheap and unwilling to learn are not qualities of successful aviators. Would you like to see the opposite? Look at these examples: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/11/pietenpol-review-in-pictures-15-more-corvair-powered-piets/ Tom Brown has 1,500 on his Piet. It isn't dumb luck that did it, he has a different mindset that the people you mention.
-----------------------------------------------------
Mike, If Tony was your hero, I am sorry If I was not kind to him. As an engineer,
builder and a pilot, if you want to do something to defend Tony's legacy, don't
argue with me nor have blind allegiance to the book as if it were holy, Do
something great, like rewrite the 1/3 of the book that needs correcting. That
would honor the man. You work for NASA. They have never been stagnant, they
successfully honor Grissom and all the others by constantly advancing. Why shouldn't
we do the same?
Your comment "This list happens to be about building Pietenpols" is a good thought.
Now if a guy built an exact replica of The Last Original, and put it right
next to your plane, could we ask "Who built the real Pietenpol?" I say you both
did, but I don't follow the logic of people that claim an A-65 is the 'correct'
power plant. I think it is an excellent alternative engine for BHP's design,
but in the case of the last original, BHP clearly had his choice of engines,
and he picked Corvair. Bingelis's book argues to do just the reverse.
So I agree the list is about building Pietenpols. Tony Bingelis didn't like auto
engines and Bernard did, and when it comes to building Pietenpols, BHP's perspective
trumps Bingelis's in my book. It doesn't mean we can't use some information
in Bingelis's books, but we also don't have to buy into, and repeat, his
negative attitude on auto engines. Especially because none of Tony's opinions
on car engines was based on personal experience, and 100% of Bernard's opinions
were. Let me point out that when people without personal experience repeat
negative stories about car engines, they are acting just like Bingelis did. Conversely,
when people limit their comments on engines to things they know from
personal experience in the Arena, they are acting just like Bernard Pietenpol.
---------------------------------------------
I used to call BHP 'Bernie" in my writing. I can tell you the exact minute I stopped
this. I was speaking with Vi Kappler at Brodhead, in the MacDonald's in
town. Listening to Vi, he was speaking of a man who was not an aviation legend,
but a dear personal friend, who was gone. When Vi said the name 'Bernie', it
suddenly struck me as private, sacred and something that was not mine to use
in Vi's presence. BHP, was my hero, but he was Vi's friend, and to use the familiar
name in Vi's presence seemed very wrong. I stopped right there, and have
written 'Bernard' ever since, because I never wanted to imply I was friends with
the man, especially not to anyone who really was.
Although I never knew him, I have made great effort to know something about him. I have a little coffee can of soil from the runway at Cherry Grove I picked up in 2002 sitting on top of the refrigerator. Read this short piece to understand why: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/12/cherry-grove-story-part-2/. I have worked in experimental aviation nearly all of my adult life, I have worked on the same engine that Bernard did. I have known some of the great triumphs and also the tragic losses. I was not the man's friend, and I would not know his voice, but I will claim to understand many of his perspectives and values. As an auto engine guy I have far sharper understating of him than any writer who dissuades builders from engines Bernard loved, developed, advocated and shared with us. -ww.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420605#420605
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! --
|