---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 03/18/14: 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:55:17 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Magneto switch wiring From: "giacummo" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:19:23 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airspeed indicator From: Steven Dortch 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 > Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:08 PM > To: "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 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 > tp://forums.matronics.com > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > > -- > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > > * > > ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > ics.com > .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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:21:37 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: See you at Brodhead From: "William Wynne" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:23:47 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Airspeed indicator From: "womenfly2" AC 43.13-1B: WF2 -------- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420538#420538 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:56:49 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Airspeed indicator From: "William Wynne" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:12:45 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rats! From: "bdewenter" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:07:35 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:11:40 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Plywood From: "TriScout" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:54 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Magneto switch wiring From: "taildrags" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:22:03 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: See you at Brodhead From: "echobravo4" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:27:03 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol From: "William Wynne" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:30 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: exactly right '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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:40:16 AM PST US From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:43:19 PM PST US From: Michael Groah Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:43:40 PM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:32 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol From: "bdewenter" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:02:21 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rats! From: "bdewenter" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:16 PM PST US From: jim hyde Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:14:51 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Auto engines in Pietenpols, a perspective. From: "William Wynne" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.