---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 03/25/14: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:42 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Brian Kenney) 2. 04:57 AM - all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]) 3. 05:47 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Gary Boothe) 4. 05:58 AM - Re: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't out (jarheadpilot82) 5. 06:12 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (jarheadpilot82) 6. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Kip and Beth Gardner) 7. 06:45 AM - Re: Corky's Miss Isabelle (Kip and Beth Gardner) 8. 07:11 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Ryan Mueller) 9. 07:43 AM - all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]) 10. 07:54 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Brian Kenney) 11. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez) 12. 08:36 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (jarheadpilot82) 13. 08:56 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Ryan Mueller) 14. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez) 15. 09:01 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (giacummo) 16. 09:10 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tools) 17. 09:11 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (jarheadpilot82) 18. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez) 19. 09:30 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Ryan Mueller) 20. 09:38 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez) 21. 09:52 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (kevinpurtee) 22. 10:00 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tools) 23. 10:10 AM - here's an idea for risk mitigation strategies---and for us full figured girls (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]) 24. 10:46 AM - Re: here's an idea for risk mitigation strategies---and for us f (jarheadpilot82) 25. 11:19 AM - Re: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! (Michael Perez) 26. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez) 27. 11:49 AM - what is reliable? (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]) 28. 12:10 PM - Re: what is reliable? (tools) 29. 12:27 PM - Re: what is reliable? (jarheadpilot82) 30. 12:32 PM - I Googled that for you---engine reliability (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]) 31. 12:39 PM - Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability (jarheadpilot82) 32. 12:46 PM - long to read! (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]) 33. 12:55 PM - Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability (Ken Bickers) 34. 12:56 PM - Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability (tools) 35. 01:28 PM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (taildrags) 36. 02:01 PM - Re: long to read! (jarheadpilot82) 37. 02:13 PM - Re: what is reliable? (Boatright, Jeffrey) 38. 02:44 PM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tools) 39. 03:37 PM - Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris) 40. 05:18 PM - Re: Steel-tube fuselage update - landing gear welded (aerocarjake) 41. 05:21 PM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (aviken) 42. 05:51 PM - Re: Re: long to read! (Boatright, Jeffrey) 43. 05:59 PM - Re: long to read! (jarheadpilot82) 44. 06:41 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (Jack Phillips) 45. 07:08 PM - Re: Re: long to read! (Boatright, Jeffrey) 46. 07:11 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris) 47. 07:14 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris) 48. 07:31 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (glenschweizer@yahoo.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:42:03 AM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n Sorry I think you are making the wrong conclusion. Your weight has nothing to do with it. You simply don't fly if there is an aft CG and having the fu el in the wing just makes the problem worse. Running out of fuel (or nearly running out of fuel) in a nose tank versus t he same in a wing tank (or nearly running out of fuel) cannot make the si tuation worse. If the fuel is gone it is gone. The difference that in a nos e tank is that any fuel moves the CG forward at everything but empty. Since no one can fly on empty it is always better in the nose than in the wing a nd the amount of weight added to the nose=2C the length of the engine mount or the amount the wing is moved back is less and on average the cg is more forward. There is also the 15lbs or more of the tank weight itself that is helping the aft cg problem all they time. The 10 lbs (or whatever you con sider that to be) of reserve fuel that no one ever uses is also helping. If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important that th e fuel is forward. > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section f uel tanks vs. n > From: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com > Date: Mon=2C 24 Mar 2014 22:57:53 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > tmail.com> > > Oscar=2C > > Thanks for the input. Your clear explanation was the reason for my questi on. It sounds like running your nose tank low puts the non-standard weighin g guy like me in an aft CG condition that may put the aircraft beyond the r ecommended aft CG limit. I also get it that you have flown in that regime w ith little to no consequence. > > But my question still boils down to risk management. Are we trading one r isk (fuel in the center section=2C a potential risk in the event of a crash which one hopes never happens) for another risk (nose tank which has the c apacity to affect every flight=2C but definitely affects longer flights wit h greater fuel burn). That is not an area that in which I would want to fly on a regular basis. > > The nice thing about your long=2C clear explanation is that a beginning b uilder can write in and post this same question a year from now and someone can answer back=2C "Look it up. It is in the archives" [Wink] > > -------- > Semper Fi=2C > > Terry Hand > Athens=2C GA > > USMC=2C USMCR=2C ATP > BVD DVD PDQ BBQ > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420974#420974 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:57:07 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! Great discussion here guys and what I was trying to do here was sarcastical ly (intentional) lluminate William Wynne's criticism of the outdating products/ possibly unsafe suggestions that he notes the Tony Bingelis books contain and that the old ways of doing things with homebuilts aren't always the best anymore. I was just applying William's logic to the Pietenpol center section wing ta nk to see what kind of a response I would get PLUS to advocate what I belie ve is a great place for fuel in a Pietenpol but both wing and nose tanks are, of course, totally acceptable---just like the older ideas in specific insta nces in the Bingelis books. The main point is that I want to bring to this list a sense of encouragemen t, not discouragement. I want to remain positive and enthusiastic, not stand around and urinate on specific pet-peeve campfires that I'd like to dampen. Long laborious posts with multiple web links are simply exhausting and unle ss you're nearly unemployed or retired, few of us have the time to read that stuff nor is it necessary to build a safe Pietenpol. Practical, sound, proven advice is what I like to see on the Pietenpol list and for the most part we have that which has always attracted me to the li st, the airplane, and the people who build them. Simple, light, and cheap. It doesn't have to get all convoluted and complex and wordy to be safe an d fun. Here's to common sense and having fun building! MikeC. Ohio ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:47:49 AM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n Terry, I'm glad you asked that question, as it's been on my mind all day, since Mike's post. I don't mean this as a rebuttal for what Mike said, only an observation. I'm not sure if there is a conclusive answer. Certainly, no one could argue much with Mike's logic...but I have a 16 gallon wing tank. Quite honestly, I love the process of refueling...even if while perched on a ladder and the strut. Who wouldn't? Re-fueling means that you're going flying again! Maybe not that day, but, again, someday. I enjoy that as much as I enjoy removing the 84 screws that hold my cowling in place....as much as I enjoy removing all the panels for annual inspection. It's what I signed up for. As mentioned, my wing tank is 16 gallons. Cabanes are tilted back 4". That's the real key...the beauty of setting CG with the wing. There is no worry about fuel burn. Most aft CG, Most Forward CG, Gross CG, all fall within limits. I used Jack's chart. It's great! You can easily plug in hypothetical numbers all day and watch the results. Gary Boothe NX308MB -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jarheadpilot82 Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:52 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n --> Mike, Thanks for bringing this up. I don't consider it as bringing up outdated ideas as much as a discussion of risk management. And discussing risk management is never a bad thing. I have no dog in this hunt as I have yet to decide on fuel tank position. I lean toward the Center Section tank, but am open to either location. So here are my questions for people smarter than I to answer- 1. Maybe Jack or Ryan can chime in here since it is a CG question. How much movement of the CG would occur with a 200 pound pilot (I know I am not FAA-sized) in the "average" Pietenpol (yes, I know there is no such creature, but you know what I am asking), if there was a 17 gallon fuel tank in the normal nose tank location. What would the change be from full (~17 gallons) to reserve (say, 3-4 gallons remaining) to completely empty? I realize the center section tank has much less effect on CG. My point in asking the question is this. In terms of risk management, how many guys have had incidents involving takeoff or landing out of CG range, as opposed to guys that have landed and the center section gave way? are we creating one risk management issue (flying out of CG range) by trying to prevent another one (the chance of fuel leak/spill in the event of a crash)? 2. This is a tough one to ask, but I will ask it. Kevin Purtee is the only guy I know personally that has had an accident in his Pietenpol. We all have heard his story, and I appreciate his sharing. I would ask him to share one more time. Kevin, do you think that your accident would have had any better or worse outcome had you had a nose tank instead of a wing tank? What tank are you building this time? Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate it. 3. We have had quite a discussion lately on the wisdom of braided fuel lines over hard lines from the center section, so let me add one more thought for discussion of risk management. What about adding breakaway fuel fittings between the center section tank and the braided fuel line that would shutoff in the event the lines tore away in an accident? Race cars have them. We had them on our helicopters when I was in the Marine Corps. Anyone want to chime in on the use of such fittings? Don't tell me they are too expensive as , most likely, only one or two would be needed. 4. Does anyone know which tank Mr. Pietenpol flew with most often? Just curious. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420951#420951 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:58:36 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't out From: "jarheadpilot82" Mike, First of all, sarcasm is in the eye of the beholder. It usually works best when speaking with people who know your normal demeanor and attitude. I did not get the sarcasm, and I am sure that I am not alone. Long and laborious posts with multiple web links is a problem? Then none of us should point people toward westcoastpiet.com or any builders website. The truth is that I have all the time in the world to research construction practices and design issues if it means I build a better airplane. I will take the time. I work 2 jobs, Mike, and I read a lot. It just means I don't watch Dancing With The Stars or Duck Dynasty. I think that you sell builders short by assuming that reading and studying as they build is just "too much". I am not trying to over complicate things, but I am trying to research as much as I can. This is a first time build for me, and I don't want it to be my last. If writing a long post about safe construction practices or risk management turns people away from building a Pietenpol, then they did not need to be building one anyway. Fun can be had and still pass along good information. Give builders some credit, and let them decide to read or not to read. Gonna close, Mike, I am headed to the shop to work on my empennage. That is after studying and reading for quite a while yesterday so as to, hopefully avoid mistakes in building. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420981#420981 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:12:23 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "jarheadpilot82" Brian, I am not getting your logic- "Your weight has nothing to do with it. You simply don't fly if there is an aft CG and having the fuel in the wing just makes the problem worse." Fuel in the wing makes it worse? How is that? Fuel in the wing sits closer to the CG than fuel in the nose, and the burn off affects CG less, not more the closer it is to the aircraft's CG. "Running out of fuel (or nearly running out of fuel) in a nose tank versus the same in a wing tank (or nearly running out of fuel) cannot make the situation worse. If the fuel is gone it is gone. The difference that in a nose tank is that any fuel moves the CG forward at everything but empty. Since no one can fly on empty it is always better in the nose than in the wing and the amount of weight added to the nose, the length of the engine mount or the amount the wing is moved back is less and on average the cg is more forward. There is also the 15lbs or more of the tank weight itself that is helpingthe aft cg problem all they time. The 10 lbs (or whatever you consider that to be) of reserve fuel that no one ever uses is also helping. " Brian, I am not worried about the fuel that is left in the nose tank. I am worried about the fuel that burned off that was, at one time, forward of the CG that was balancing against my fat butt sitting behind the CG. Once that fuel has burned off, there is less weight to counteract my fat butt, so the CG moves aft. Check your aerodynamics and design books. I just don't want to move it so far aft, that the airplane is aft of the safe aft CG. That can be mitigated in the construction phase by adjustment of the wing location, and all I am saying is that that issue should be dealt with in the build. Nobody should fly an airplane outside of the CG range. Will the airplane fly? Yes. Are your options lessened when you do? Absolutely. "If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important that the fuel is forward." It is most important that the CG is balanced, and the aircraft is flown in the proper CG range. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420985#420985 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:09 AM PST US From: Kip and Beth Gardner Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n Terry, you commented exactly on what was going through my mind as I read Brian's post. No one is advocating using a wing tank and THEN setting up the plane to be out of CG limits, that would be, frankly, stupid. Using a wing tank, just to be clear one more time, eliminates a factor that is always the case with a nose tank - that the CG will shift aft as fuel is consumed. The arguments against a wing tank to some degree fall in the category of what Chuck Gantzer, a former member of this list who flies his Piet literally all over the country, used to call "building for crash-worthiness, not flight-worthiness". There are potential problems with both tank locations. I might mention that many years ago the Pavliga's wing tank on Sky Gypsy split a seam while the elder Frank was flying. He got soaked with gas and by all accounts spent a number of terrifying minutes getting the plane back on the ground. As you, Mike, and William have all said earlier, it's a matter of building well with risk management in mind. (It is possible to build well and still produce a crappy product! - our home is a good example, built like a tank by an expert craftsman, but much less than comfortably livable because of design flaws). Kip Gardner On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:11 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote: > > > > Brian, > > I am not getting your logic- > > "Your weight has nothing to do with it. You simply don't fly if > there is an aft CG and having the fuel in the wing just makes the > problem worse." > > Fuel in the wing makes it worse? How is that? Fuel in the wing sits > closer to the CG than fuel in the nose, and the burn off affects CG > less, not more the closer it is to the aircraft's CG. > > "Running out of fuel (or nearly running out of fuel) in a nose tank > versus the same in a wing tank (or nearly running out of fuel) > cannot make the situation worse. If the fuel is gone it is gone. The > difference that in a nose tank is that any fuel moves the CG forward > at everything but empty. Since no one can fly on empty it is always > better in the nose than in the wing and the amount of weight added > to the nose, the length of the engine mount or the amount the wing > is moved back is less and on average the cg is more forward. There > is also the 15lbs or more of the tank weight itself that is > helpingthe aft cg problem all they time. The 10 lbs (or whatever you > consider that to be) of reserve fuel that no one ever uses is also > helping. " > > Brian, I am not worried about the fuel that is left in the nose > tank. I am worried about the fuel that burned off that was, at one > time, forward of the CG that was balancing against my fat butt > sitting behind the CG. Once that fuel has burned off, there is less > weight to counteract my fat butt, so the CG moves aft. Check your > aerodynamics and design books. I just don't want to move it so far > aft, that the airplane is aft of the safe aft CG. That can be > mitigated in the construction phase by adjustment of the wing > location, and all I am saying is that that issue should be dealt > with in the build. Nobody should fly an airplane outside of the CG > range. Will the airplane fly? Yes. Are your options lessened when > you do? Absolutely. > > "If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important > that the fuel is forward." > > It is most important that the CG is balanced, and the aircraft is > flown in the proper CG range. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry Hand > Athens, GA > > USMC, USMCR, ATP > BVD DVD PDQ BBQ > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420985#420985 > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:45:11 AM PST US From: Kip and Beth Gardner Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corky's Miss Isabelle Oscar, thanks for letting us know, I will send Corky my condolences - I miss his regular presence on the list. Kip Gardner On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:40 PM, taildrags wrote: > > > > Some of you may not know Claude "Corky" Corbett, but he's the > gentleman from Shreveport, LA who completed and flew my airplane, > NX41CC, before selling it to me. His email address for as long as > I've known him or seen his posts has been Isablcorky@aol.com , with > the first part of that being his wife Isabelle's name. These last > few years, she has been in a nursing home and Corky has been living > by himself in a little place in the country. I just had news from > him that Isabelle died on Sunday morning, March 23. > > Just thought I would pass this along to anyone who knows Corky and > might care to send condolences his way. By the way, Corky was a > builder who didn't waste a lot of time on theoretical matters or > clever innovations. He built 41CC light, simple, and very > deliberately. He completed the paperwork, W&B, and testing- and > then hit a brick wall when the FAA dragged its heels for years > before passing the Sport Pilot rule that would have permitted him to > continue flying without a medical. He decided that the rule would > never pass, sold the airplane to me, and then the rule passed > shortly after that. I always felt like I took his airplane away, > but have tried to make the most of being its steward since then. > > -------- > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, OR > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" > A75 power > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420968#420968 > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:11:02 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: Ryan Mueller I believe Terry has nailed the crux of the issue right there: it is more important to be in CG limits. It has been demonstrated that the most effective way to correct an aft CG is to adjust the location of the wing relative to the fuselage. By doing so you are not moving just one component relative to the datum, you are moving the entire fuselage and everything contained within relative to the datum (it may be easier to think of the wing as the fixed point, and the fuselage is shifting fore and aft beneath it). Being able to reposition the wing in relation to the fuselage is a feature of the Pietenpol that many aircraft do not have, and allows you to setup the aircraft to be in a safe configuration for a given builder. If simply adjusting the wing's location is undesirable from an aesthetic point of view....well, ok, there will have to be more compromises elsewhere. As far as safety of the fuselage tank versus the wing tank, I think that's a question best answered by, as Terry has mentioned, risk management. Empirical testing by certain members of the community has shown that the fuselage tank can be compromised quite handily.....I believe one will see a better return by taking measures to reasonably manage the risk, such as braided fuel lines from wing to fuselage as William advocates, than being overly concerned about one location versus the other. Ryan On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:11 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote: > jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> > > > "If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important that > the fuel is forward." > > It is most important that the CG is balanced, and the aircraft is flown in > the proper CG range. > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:43:49 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! Good discussion here guys and what I was trying to do here was sarcasticall y (intentional) lluminate William Wynne's criticism of the outdating products/ possibly unsafe suggestions that he notes the Tony Bingelis books contain and that the old ways of doing things with homebuilts aren't always the best anymore. I was just applying William's logic to the Pietenpol center section wing ta nk to see what kind of a response I would get PLUS to advocate what I belie ve is a great place for fuel in a Pietenpol but both wing and nose tanks are, of course, totally acceptable---just like the older ideas in specific insta nces in the Bingelis books. The main point is that I want to bring to this list a sense of encouragemen t, not discouragement. I want to remain positive and enthusiastic, not stand around and urinate on specific pet-peeve campfires that I'd like to dampen. Long laborious posts with multiple web links are simply exhausting and unle ss you're nearly unemployed or retired, few of us have the time to read that stuff nor is it necessary to build a safe Pietenpol. Practical, sound, proven advice is what I like to see on the Pietenpol list and for the most part we have that which has always attracted me to the li st, the airplane, and the people who build them. Simple, light, and cheap. It doesn't have to get all convoluted and complex and wordy to be safe an d fun. Here's to common sense and having fun building! MikeC. Ohio ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:54:59 AM PST US From: Brian Kenney Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n sorry I wasn't clear so if you didn't follow my logic maybe I can try agai n. Of course the weight of a pilot matters and you must compensate for it. I was responding to the concept that if a heavier pilot is in an airplane and the fuel burns off in a front tank that the CG moves behind the aft lim it. That is not necessarily so. While that could occur the idea is to move the adjust the aircraft CG so as the fuel burns off it does not move to behind an aft CG limit and therefor e the weight of the pilot doesn't matter if you do that. That was my point. When you complete an airplane you make sure by calculation that the aircraf t stays in the CG range with a certain pilot weight. If you design it for y ou and you are 200 lbs then you adjust the aircraft to fly safely by three of the methods I mentioned. I weigh over 200 and this in not a problem in m y aircraft. So to my original point. You have a moveable object in the aircraft=2C tha t for argument sake=2C weighs 25 lbs (in this case - tank plus reserve fue l) and you move it forward the CG moves forward. Add another 75 lbs of fuel and it has even a bigger effect. Yes a tank directly on the CG it has less effect on trim=2C but if you have an AFT CG problem then moving it forward helps this problem. Likewise if you had a forward GC problem you would wa nt to shift weight back. Pietenpol`s with A65 continentals typically have this problem that require s a long engine mount and moving the wing back or both. Both changes reduce s the directional stability of the airplane. Add a heavy center section win g tank and the problem gets bigger. I have seen three Piets with this problem. These are extreme examples. Two of them moved the pilot to the front seat and made a two seater into a one seater. The third had a about 25 lbs bolted to the engine. Then there was the guy that was flying at 22.2 ins behind the leading edge - he sold it b ecause he knew he was going to kill himself! The new buyer fixed the proble m by moving the wing. > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section f uel tanks vs. n > From: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com > Date: Tue=2C 25 Mar 2014 06:11:46 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > tmail.com> > > Brian=2C > > I am not getting your logic- > > "Your weight has nothing to do with it. You simply don't fly if there is an aft CG and having the fuel in the wing just makes the problem worse." > > Fuel in the wing makes it worse? How is that? Fuel in the wing sits close r to the CG than fuel in the nose=2C and the burn off affects CG less=2C no t more the closer it is to the aircraft's CG. > > "Running out of fuel (or nearly running out of fuel) in a nose tank versu s the same in a wing tank (or nearly running out of fuel) cannot make the s ituation worse. If the fuel is gone it is gone. The difference that in a no se tank is that any fuel moves the CG forward at everything but empty. Sinc e no one can fly on empty it is always better in the nose than in the wing and the amount of weight added to the nose=2C the length of the engine moun t or the amount the wing is moved back is less and on average the cg is mor e forward. There is also the 15lbs or more of the tank weight itself that i s helpingthe aft cg problem all they time. The 10 lbs (or whatever you cons ider that to be) of reserve fuel that no one ever uses is also helping. " > > Brian=2C I am not worried about the fuel that is left in the nose tank. I am worried about the fuel that burned off that was=2C at one time=2C forwa rd of the CG that was balancing against my fat butt sitting behind the CG. Once that fuel has burned off=2C there is less weight to counteract my fat butt=2C so the CG moves aft. Check your aerodynamics and design books. I ju st don't want to move it so far aft=2C that the airplane is aft of the safe aft CG. That can be mitigated in the construction phase by adjustment of t he wing location=2C and all I am saying is that that issue should be dealt with in the build. Nobody should fly an airplane outside of the CG range. W ill the airplane fly? Yes. Are your options lessened when you do? Absolutel y. > > "If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important that the fuel is forward." > > It is most important that the CG is balanced=2C and the aircraft is flown in the proper CG range. > > -------- > Semper Fi=2C > > Terry Hand > Athens=2C GA > > USMC=2C USMCR=2C ATP > BVD DVD PDQ BBQ > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420985#420985 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:14:30 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n If I may...=0A=0AHere is how I am looking at both views on wing-V-nose fuel tanks... solely looking at weight, not the pros and cons. of having fuel o ver your head, ease of fueling, fuel line length, etc.=0A---- If we use an imaginary Pietenpol with a wing mounted fuel tank with it's various CG scenarios, etc. then move said tank to the nose, keeping everything the same, (which is easy with an imaginary plane)...what do we notice?- One point of view, I believe, looks at the static differences...now you have th e weight of the tank moved forward along with the weight of the unusable fu el...all pluses on a usually tail heavy plane. These are somewhat static ch anges, as much as a longer engine mount or the moving of the landing gear. When viewed from a dynamic point, fuel weight change in a wing mounted tank has little effect on C.G.- In the nose tank, with the longer arm, the dy namic fuel weight change has a greater effect than the wing tank, again, in our keeping-everything-else-the-same Pietenpol. So is it best to have a co rrect static, on paper, C.G.; or a- correct, dynamic, in flight C.G? From here you can forget about leaving the two imaginary planes the same and start to look at the other variables...climbing ladder s, having fuel over your head, tank damage with nose damage, fuel head, fue l pressure...and the various other points brought up so far. Now the "corre ct" answer starts to get complicated and it is here, the builder needs to m ake some potentially tough decisions.=0A=0ASomething else, I thought about, which may or my not matter:=0A--- A wing mounted tank does have an a rm of sorts, along the longitudinal axis. In a roll, the wing tank has an a rm greater than the nose tank. It is a weight, being swung around the longi tudinal axis. Does this matter, does it effect stability? What, if anything , changes as fuel burns? =0A=0A=0AI don't have any answers, but I do have a nose tank and for now, I'll give it a try.=0A=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot ...switch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaretakerAero=0ASTILL Building...=0A ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:22 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "jarheadpilot82" Mike, Thanks for your response. You are doing what all builders should do- read, study, analyze then decide. That is much better than building based on empirical data. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421000#421000 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:56:44 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: Ryan Mueller Mike, What you want to determine are extremes of the CG range of your aircraft, and ensure they fall within the recommended limits of the design (with aft CG admittedly being more of a concern with the Pietenpol). You would establish the most adverse aft condition by calculating the CG for zero usable fuel and pilot only......that will be the condition you could find yourself in, in flight, that would present the most aft CG. You can add fuel and pax to determine your most forward CG condition. The passenger should not have much effect, as they are under the wing....and as has been pointed out, the fuel in a fuselage tank will have more effect than the wing tank. As long as you setup your Pietenpol so that it's most forward and aft conditions fall within the recommended limits, then the shifting CG as fuel burns off should not be a safety concern. Ryan On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Michael Perez wrote: So is it best to have a correct static, on paper, C.G.; or a correct, dynamic, in flight C.G? ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:56 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n If I had to do it again, I would seriously consider a wing tank only. I do like the "pros." of the wing tank and for me, I may still need a ladder even with a nose tank...I need access to that storage area on the wing the fuel tank left behind... If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. Mike Perez KaretakerAero STILL Building... ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:01:17 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "giacummo" If the front tank capacity is ... 16 gal (60 l) and the pilot weight is 200 lb (100 kg) the only thing you have to do to keep the CG in place is make a movable pilot seat. when the tank is empty you have to move forward just 26 cms.. 10", not to much, and the CG will be allways in it place. Just playing/joking a little do not archive Mario Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421003#421003 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:10:51 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "tools" Both the MD 11 and Airbus A330 put fuel in the VERT STAB to help CG issues! In the A330, we just get occasional messages as to what it's doing... nice how it keeps us in the loop... Geesh Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421004#421004 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:11:49 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "jarheadpilot82" Mike, Ryan explained it much better than I, so I will simply say, "Yeah. What he said". -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421005#421005 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:23:03 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n Understood Ryan, thanks.- This is good intel. for me to have because I be lieve I will forgo renting a hangar and do my "final" assembly at home this summer. Of course it will need to come apart again, but at least I can do my W&B, figure out wing location, fabricate diagonal braces, cowling around braces, wing cross cables...etc... =0A=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...swit ch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaretaker Aero=0ASTILL Building...=0A ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:30:26 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: Ryan Mueller Best of luck....share some pics and show it off once you've got it together do not archive On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Michael Perez wrote: > Understood Ryan, thanks. This is good intel. for me to have because I > believe I will forgo renting a hangar and do my "final" assembly at home > this summer. Of course it will need to come apart again, but at least I can > do my W&B, figure out wing location, fabricate diagonal braces, cowling > around braces, wing cross cables...etc... > > If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. > Mike Perez > Karetaker Aero > STILL Building... > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:38:03 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n Real time messages in the cock pit? Like: "Hello pilots, fuel in the vert. stab. has been depleted and the CG is whacked. You may want to turn on the seatbelt signs."- =0A=0ALike Mario...just playin'.=0A=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...switch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaretaker Aero=0ASTILL Building... =0A ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:21 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "kevinpurtee" Terry - To answer your specific question to me: I'm using a wing tank again. 16 gallons this time. A fuselage tank sits in the lap of the passenger. In my accident, a fuselage tank would have resulted in more fuel nearer to me after impact than was the case with the wing tank. Had there been a fire I would've likely died in either scenario. The fuel spill situation was not good after the crash, but it was better than if I'd had a fuselage tank. -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee Rebuilding NX899KP Austin/San Marcos, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421010#421010 ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 10:00:51 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "tools" Closer to that than you may like to realize! Seriously. We can't transfer it willingly, but it can. Just weird. I mean, talk about excess complexity, wow. Of course we're never taught how the thing decides whether it needs to move fuel around for CG reasons. Computed using how much trim is actually being used vs what should be being used based on flight testing or something I imagine. Isn't like we can mess up the system, because like my Piet, it doesn't even HAVE a trim button! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421011#421011 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:13 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: here's an idea for risk mitigation strategies---and for us full figured girls Bernie would have spit nickels hearing this kind of lingo that seems to be so popular these days but here's an idea to increase safety and decrease risk---use an engine that ha s a good reliability record, no matter what homebuilt you're using. Just throwing that one out there; ) Mike C. PS-and being a bit on the full-figured size like I am, (205 pounds) the we ight of the nose fuel really helps my CG situation in all phases of flight except when I'm down to 2 gallons in the tank and I never go that low. My experience with CG vs. fuel burn is exactly what Brian Kenney posted. It sure is great to have all that luggage space in the wing center section too! Again, the bottom line is to use whatever fuel tank position you think is b est for you----and just because it is a very old design doesn't mean is isn't perfectly good to use today but like William Wynne pr ofesses.....there are newer, other ways to do things now days no matter how old those plans are or the Tony Bingelis books are b ut both are chock full of good stuff that still works today! My new Facebook profile photo..... -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kevinpurtee Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:52 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fue l tanks vs. n --> > Terry - To answer your specific question to me: I'm using a wing tank again . 16 gallons this time. A fuselage tank sits in the lap of the passenger. In my accident, a fuselage tank would have resulted in more fuel nearer t o me after impact than was the case with the wing tank. Had there been a f ire I would've likely died in either scenario. The fuel spill situation wa s not good after the crash, but it was better than if I'd had a fuselage ta nk. -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee Rebuilding NX899KP Austin/San Marcos, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421010#421010 ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:26 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: here's an idea for risk mitigation strategies---and for us f From: "jarheadpilot82" Mike, I know Mr. Pietenpol (I never knew him, so I respectfully call him Mr. Pietenpol) didn't use the word risk management as nobody did most likely in the 1930s. However I am sure he did use the word safe. I think he would be happy that people were talking about methods to build a "safer" airplane. So I don't think he would spit nickels over the idea of building safe airplanes, and talking about building safe airplanes. By the way, what did you mean by reliable engine? Is that a veiled way of saying certificated engine? Define reliable. Don't throw the word out there without being more specific. I know that most likely means a lengthy discussion, but I think the forum can handle it if it is a knowledgeable discussion. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421014#421014 ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:48 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! ..."The main point is that I want to bring to this list a sense of encourag ement, not discouragement. =0AI want to remain positive and =0Aenthusiastic , not stand around and urinate on specific pet-peeve =0Acampfires that I =99d like to dampen."=0A=0AI agree Mike.=C2- Not that disagreements wo n't happen, but they can be handled in a way to=C2- be encouraging rather then discouraging. =0A=0ASorry for the delay guys, I flew through some pos ts initially, (busy day) and am just going back=C2- through getting caugh t up.=C2-=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...switch seats.=0A=0AMike Perez=0A KaretakerAero=0ASTILL Building...=0A ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:48 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n "Best of luck....share some pics and show it off once you've got it together." I'll definitely give that some thought! My plan from the start was too keep things under tight wraps until complete and unveil the ship in all its glory, (or lack of) once it has flown. But it is difficult not to post more pictures now rather than later. If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. Mike Perez KaretakerAero STILL Building... ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:18 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: what is reliable? http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf Terry-see pa ge 6 which compares factory built engine failures to homebuilt engine failu res then you decide which is more reliable. You're a smart guy with 2 jobs and lots of time to read all this stuff so I won't take time to explain it. and also.... Terry Hand writes: Mike, I know Mr. Pietenpol (I never knew him, so I respectfully call him Mr. Piet enpol) didn't use the word risk management as nobody did most likely in the 1930s. However I am sure he did use the word safe. I think he would be hap py that people were talking about methods to build a "safer" airplane. So I don't think he would spit nickels over the idea of building safe airplanes , and talking about building safe airplanes. Well Terry you might read a lot but you completely misread what I wrote and misquoted me. What I said Bernie would spit nickels about is 'this kind of lingo' not building safe airplanes. See below. You'd make a great journalist! Bernie would have spit nickels hearing this kind of ling. ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 12:10:34 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what is reliable? From: "tools" That study offers nothing useful for helping someone to decide whether to use a "traditional" engine over a "non traditional" engine other than "may" and "probably" coupled with the fact "non traditional" engines rarely get any useful post accident attention like "traditional" engines do, though one of the higher classifications associated therewith usually restart and run well after the crash... "DOES pose increased risk". Wow. I'll take that to the bank... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421018#421018 ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 12:27:01 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what is reliable? From: "jarheadpilot82" Mike, I sense the smart a-- coming out in you. I read what you wrote. Could it be possible that your point was not made clear, rather than your premise that I don't know how to read? Or maybe you were just throwing a little sarcasm out there. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421020#421020 ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 12:32:54 PM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: I Googled that for you---engine reliability Perhaps someone out there has a better source for determining what defines a 'reliable engine' but I thought I'd defer to the NTSB Accident reports and FAA registration d atabase data which has been summarized here in this article. You're all really intelligent, accompli shed folks out there so you read, you decide..... nose tank or wing tank, conventional aircraft engine or auto engine, 3-pi ece wing or single piece wing, blue and white or red and white? Mike C. Ohio http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/miscellaneous/8485-1.html Auto Engines Versus Traditional Certified Engines One of the oldest controversies in the homebuilt world is the use of conver ted auto engines. Unfortunately, we cannot come up with an overall accident rate based on engine type. Sure, the FAA registration database lists hundr eds of homebuilts as powered by Volkswagens, Subarus, Fords, etc., but thou sands more are listed as mounting AMA/EXPR engines. We don't know how many of these have Lycomings or Continentals at their core, or those that sprang from GM or Subaru, so we can't reliably calculate an overall rate. However, most NTSB accident reports list the type of engine. We can easily determine how often a loss of power was the cause of the accident, and comp are the rates for traditionally powered aircraft with those mounting auto-e ngine conversions. Obviously, a higher percentage means a higher relative n umber of engine failures. While we're at it, let's show the two-stroke engine results as well. Traditional Aircraft Engines: 12.2% Two-Stroke Engines: 28.9% Auto Engine Conversions: 30.5% The differences are even more striking when only fixed-wing homebuilts are included: Traditional Aircraft Engines: 12.3% Two-Stroke Engines: 32.8% Auto Engine Conversions: 37.5% So, if a fixed-wing homebuilt has an accident, the probability is three tim es higher that the engine was the cause of the accident if an auto-engine c onversion was installed! (Please note, this does not mean it has an accident rate that is three time s higher. Fewer than 20% of homebuilt accidents involve problems with the e ngine, and not all of those are directly the engine's fault.) For years, auto-engine naysayers claimed that the internals of the engines were more prone to failure than traditional engines. A comparison of engine -failure causes in Figure 5 (on Page 28) indicates otherwise. Auto engines seem to suffer from internal problems at a lower rate than traditional airc raft powerplants. However, auto engines are worse in three major areas: ignition systems, coo ling systems and reduction drives. The need for a reduction drive on most a uto-engine conversions provides a failure source that the traditional engin es don't generally face (the 0.7% shown in Figure 5 is a single accident in volving the drivetrain on a helicopter). Neither do traditional engines hav e external cooling systems-though some of those internal failures may well be due to poorly baffled engines. The water pumps, belts, hoses and radiato rs on many auto conversions provide another failure source the traditional certified engines avoid by design. The biggest difference is in ignition system failures: Auto engines suffer them four times as often as conventional aircraft. Sure aircraft magnetos a re primitive, and individually they are probably less reliable than a moder n electronic ignition. But the vast majority of homebuilts with Lycomings a nd Continentals carry two magnetos that are completely independent of any o ther aircraft system. Several of the ignition failures in auto conversions were due to electrical power problems with electronic ignitions. Electrical systems do fail, so a completely independent backup power source is vital. ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:54 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability From: "jarheadpilot82" It's awfully long to read, Mike... -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421022#421022 ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 12:46:38 PM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: long to read! It's awfully long to read, Mike... Ahahha! Terry-you actually made me laugh! Good one. Gosh....I think I may like you (just a little) after all! See.....you do have a sense of humor in there. Did you like my fat guy photo? That was meant to make people laugh and e njoy our list. You just made me laugh-thank you. Now get out to the shop and start working on your airplane:) ! Mike C. Ohio ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 12:55:59 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I Googled that for you---engine reliability From: Ken Bickers Mike, Thanks for posting this. To me, the discussion of typical failure modes for auto conversions -- when considering the Corvair option -- was reassuring. With the Corvair, there's no reduction unit and the cooling setup is typical of lots of aircraft designs. Of the three biggies discussed in the article, that leaves only the ignition as a major concern. The current state of the art on ignitions for Corvairs would seem to eliminate many of the gotchas of ignition systems on auto conversions. I've posted previously my rationale for choosing to mount a Corvair on my Piet (available via an archive search). I can also see the rationale for small Continentals and would seriously consider one of those if I lived and flew closer to sea level. Parenthetically, it seems time for folks to go back to playing nice with one another on this list. There's plenty of room for disagreement. No need to be disagreeable when doing so. Cheers, Ken On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC] wrote: > Perhaps someone out there has a better source for determining what > defines a 'reliable engine' > but I thought I'd defer to the NTSB Accident reports and FAA registration > database data which has been > summarized here in this article. You're all really intelligent, > accomplished folks out there so you read, you decide..... > nose tank or wing tank, conventional aircraft engine or auto engine, > 3-piece wing or single piece wing, blue and white > or red and white? > > Mike C. > Ohio > > *http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/miscellaneous/8485-1.html* > > > *Auto Engines Versus Traditional Certified Engines * > > One of the oldest controversies in the homebuilt world is the use of > converted auto engines. Unfortunately, we cannot come up with an overall > accident rate based on engine type. Sure, the *FAA registration database*lists hundreds of homebuilts as powered by Volkswagens, Subarus, Fords, > etc., but thousands more are listed as mounting AMA/EXPR engines. We don't > know how many of these have Lycomings or Continentals at their core, or > those that sprang from GM or Subaru, so we can't reliably calculate an > overall rate. > > However, *most NTSB accident reports* list the type of engine. We can > easily determine how often a loss of power was the cause of the accident, > and compare the rates for traditionally powered aircraft with those > mounting auto-engine conversions. Obviously, a higher percentage means a > higher relative number of engine failures. > > While we're at it, let's show the two-stroke engine results as well. > > Traditional Aircraft Engines: 12.2% > Two-Stroke Engines: 28.9% > Auto Engine Conversions: 30.5% > > *The differences are even more striking when only fixed-wing homebuilts > are included:* > > * Traditional Aircraft Engines: 12.3% * > * Two-Stroke Engines: 32.8% * > * Auto Engine Conversions: 37.5%* > > So, if a fixed-wing homebuilt has an accident, the probability is three > times higher that the engine was the cause of the accident if an > auto-engine conversion was installed! > > (Please note, this does not mean it has an accident rate that is three > times higher. Fewer than 20% of homebuilt accidents involve problems with > the engine, and not all of those are directly the engine's fault.) > > For years, auto-engine naysayers claimed that the internals of the engines > were more prone to failure than traditional engines. A comparison of > engine-failure causes in Figure 5 (on Page 28) indicates otherwise. Auto > engines seem to suffer from internal problems at a lower rate than > traditional aircraft powerplants. > > However, auto engines are worse in three major areas: ignition systems, > cooling systems and reduction drives. The need for a reduction drive on > most auto-engine conversions provides a failure source that the traditional > engines don't generally face (the 0.7% shown in Figure 5 is a single > accident involving the drivetrain on a helicopter). Neither do traditional > engines have external cooling systems--though some of those internal > failures may well be due to poorly baffled engines. The water pumps, belts, > hoses and radiators on many auto conversions provide another failure source > the traditional certified engines avoid by design. > > The biggest difference is in ignition system failures: Auto engines suffer > them four times as often as conventional aircraft. Sure aircraft magnetos > are primitive, and individually they are probably less reliable than a > modern electronic ignition. But the vast majority of homebuilts with > Lycomings and Continentals carry two magnetos that are completely > independent of any other aircraft system. > > Several of the ignition failures in auto conversions were due to > electrical power problems with electronic ignitions. Electrical systems do > fail, so a completely independent backup power source is vital. > > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 12:56:15 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability From: "tools" I'll summarize it for you. Auto engine conversions have less internal failures, but more ignition system, cooling and gear reduction failures. At that level of specificity, it's qualitative not quanitative. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421025#421025 ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 01:28:29 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "taildrags" I must apologize for posting erroneous information. The same mass acting on the same moment arm will produce the same moment on any airplane, but it will NOT result in the same shift in the CG on every airplane. Consider the extremes: my 16 gallon fuel tank on a moment arm a couple of feet long will produce a certain moment and will result in a shift of my CG by a certain amount (couple of inches). If I place that same fuel tank the same distance away from the CG of a Boeing 777, the CG will not shift perceptibly. If I place that same fuel tank the same distance away from the CG of a child's balsa glider... well, you get the idea. You have to calc it for YOUR airplane to determine how much the CG will shift as you burn fuel off. I would also encourage anyone who does a W&B on their aircraft to use the wing leading edge as the datum. The reason that I've heard most often for using the face of the prop hub is so that all of the moments are positive and the math is simplified since there are no negative numbers to deal with. Using the firewall may make things easier to measure since the firewall is big, flat, and convenient. However, you still need to drop a line from the leading edge to reference it in the calculations, so why not use the LE? [Abstract thought: using only positive numbers means you throw away almost HALF the entire universe of numbers just because they are negative. It sounds like discrimination to me, and a waste of good numbers.] -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421028#421028 ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 02:01:39 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: long to read! From: "jarheadpilot82" Been working on the horizontal stab today. Got it glued up on the jig. Glad my casein glue, I mean T88:wink:, works in these temperatures in Georgia. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421029#421029 ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:30 PM PST US From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: what is reliable? Weeeelllll, I'm not sure about the interpretation of those data, not becaus e they are wrong and not because you or Ron Wanttaja are wrong. It's just n ot clear to me that the data available from FAA speak directly to engine fa ilures per se versus what I think of as "systems failures" that directly im pinge on engine reliability/performance. Of the engine failures at 2GA9 for which I have direct knowledge, two were Continental O-300s with stuck valves, one that resulted in short final thro ugh the pine trees (literally) and the other with an off-field landing (nob ody hurt in either one). Another was a Continental C-85 with stuck valve th at resulted in a mid-field 'lawn dart' landing with substantial airframe da mage and minor injury to pilot. A fourth was a Lycoming IO-360 that holed a piston and resulted in a long glide that ended with a near-perfect outcome (just made the field). So, all four of those were certified engines, all f our had true engine failures. Of the experimentals, one went down off-field due to improper induction/fuel system design. Another was a Jabiru 3300 th at blew a hole in the oil pump cover. The final was a 2-stroke that crashed on field due to the carb falling off the engine (!), killing the pilot rig ht in front of his family. So, only one of the three experimental engines i tself failed. I realize that many anecdotes don't make data, but these exam ples illustrate the point that what gets termed "engine failure" may not be failure of the engine itself, but rather a failure to provide to the engin e that which keeps it running: fuel, spark, or air. -- Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine From: , "LLC]" > >" > etenpol-list@matronics.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: what is reliable? http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf Terry=97see page 6 which compares factory built engine failures to homebuilt engine fai lures then you decide which is more reliable. You=92re a smart guy with 2 jobs and lots of time to read a ll this stuff so I won=92t take time to explain it. and also=85. Terry Hand writes: Mike, I know Mr. Pietenpol (I never knew him, so I respectfully call him Mr. Piet enpol) didn't use the word risk management as nobody did most likely in the 1930s. However I am sure he did use the word safe. I think he would be hap py that people were talking about methods to build a "safer" airplane. So I don't think he would spit nickels over the idea of building safe airplanes , and talking about building safe airplanes. Well Terry you might read a lot but you completely misread what I wrote and misquoted me. What I said Bernie would spit nickels about is =91this kind of lingo=92 not building safe airplanes. See below . You=92d make a great journalist! Bernie would have spit nickels hearing this kind of ling. ________________________________ 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 38 ____________________________________ Time: 02:44:51 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "tools" Abstractly speaking, Maybe more than half? Don't imaginary numbers come the square roots of negatives? Just sayin' Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421031#421031 ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 03:37:53 PM PST US From: larharris2 Harris Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights Good discussion thread on Weight and Balance. I have just received my packa ge from Doc Mosher with WWs articles. Well documented info on CG and axle l ocation. Keeping the CG location in mind as I build will have a high priori ty. I have much more to study and learn. The CG spreadsheets recently poste d are also valuable tools. New question for some of you who have finished and flown your plane regardi ng the total weight of the plane. Like everyone=2C I want to be careful of adding unnecessary weight as I bui ld. So far I am following the plans carefully. But like everyone=2C I am su re=2C I have some personal customizations in the back of my mind. WWs articles document specific data from individual planes. I pulled a hand ful of them to examine more closely regarding Empty Weight (EW) - long/shor t fuselage=2C A65/Corvair engines. The lightest weight airplane I studied w as 590lb=2C the heaviest 842lb. Subtracting a 'standard' engine weight from the EW yielded some interesting information. In most cases=2C regardless o f the engine type or fuse. length=2C the weight of 'everything else' came o ut to about 410-415lb. In only 2 cases I examined was there a great differe nce - one was 581lb and the other 617lb. Not just over=2C but WAY over the others. Here's the question: What in the world do some builders add to their plane s that takes a 400 lb plane to over 600 lb?? OK. Some extra instrumentation=2C tailwheel vs the original tailskid=2C bra kes system=2C extra fuel tank=2C etc. But 200lb worth? What do I need to lo ok out for? Thanks for the replies. Lorenzo ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 05:18:37 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Steel-tube fuselage update - landing gear welded From: "aerocarjake" Hello good Piet-ple, Terry, I plan to uses springs. Regarding the "cross-member" that has had some failures, see the RED tube in the attached image. I plan to add a second tube next to the red tube. This second tube will be 0.75" diameter with 0.065" wall thickness. I am going to have it welded about an inch away form the existing tube. This is less than the ideal solution which would be to use a MUCH stronger tube in that location in the first place. What at least three owners have found is that the RED tube is an un-supported two-foot tube which collapses in compression during a hard landing. See the additional attached drawing which shows that in a hard landing the inertia of the wings drives a force down the struts to the landing gear fitting - while at the same time a force is driven up through the landing gear struts to that same fitting. These forces compress the cross-member and with it "per plans" (only a 0.035" 5/8" tube) it cannot take the load and the un-supported two foot member buckles. This also buckled the sides in a couple inches and ripped up the floorboards. If I was to do this from scratch I would use a MUCH thicker wall 0.075" diameter tube instead of "sistering" another tube alongside the first one, but my cluster joints are already welded and it should be easier at this time to simply add another tube rather than cut up my completed cluster joint. Although, there have been no failures (that I am aware of) in the AFT landing gear (green) cross member location (it is supported mid-span by the "vee" brace), I plan to add another tube there as well. Hope this helps..... Jake -------- Jake Schultz - curator, Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421036#421036 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/cross_member_crush_920.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/steel_tube_fuselage_cross_member_128.jpg ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 05:21:30 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n From: "aviken" I am a new guy so to speak so my opinion probably won't mean much. But here I go. I'm building my piet with the center section tank like the plans call for. If I wanted more endurance I would add a little header tank, but I don't think I want it. As far as safety goes , I feel just as safe with a wing tank over my head, as a nose tank sitting over the passengers legs. Many years ago when piper entered the crop-duster business with the Pawnee, they built them with a nose tank sitting right behind the engine made of fiberglass no less. I've met a few of the guys that flew them and not a few have horrible burn scars on their faces. The first thing that happened at a crash, which is not infrequent in a cropduster, was that the fuel tank was crushed between the chemical hopper and the engine and a fire. Piper learned after awhile and started building them with wing tanks. Now I admit they were a low wing aircraft so the location was lower and along side the cockpit but not as many caught fire. Maybe the center section location is not the safest place for fuel but unless you plan on building tip tanks I think it is just as safe as the nose. That is my two cents worth. And I love all you guys, Well maybe love is not the right word. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421038#421038 ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 05:51:48 PM PST US From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: long to read! Trouble-maker... -- Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine On 3/25/14 5:01 PM, "jarheadpilot82" wrote: > > >Been working on the horizontal stab today. Got it glued up on the jig. >Glad my casein glue, I mean T88:wink:, works in these temperatures in >Georgia. > >-------- >Semper Fi, > >Terry Hand >Athens, GA > >USMC, USMCR, ATP >BVD DVD PDQ BBQ > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421029#421029 > > ________________________________ 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 43 ____________________________________ Time: 05:59:00 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: long to read! From: "jarheadpilot82" If you mean me, Jeff, I have been called much worse. [Laughing] -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA USMC, USMCR, ATP BVD DVD PDQ BBQ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421040#421040 ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 06:41:20 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights Lorenzo, My Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs., which was about 80 lbs more than I was expecting. I believe most of that extra weight was in the paint that I chose, PolyFiber's Aerothane polyurethane. It is very heavy, and difficult to paint. I ended up putting several coats on the fuselage before I got a decent finish with a minimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is to sand it off, and I know I didn't sand all the extra coats off. The wire wheels are also heavy, weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiece. And the straight axle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the avionics add a bit but not as much as you'd think, and I was expecting the weight they added (my original estimate, including the electrical stuff was 660 lbs, which would be a decent weight). End result? Mine doesn't climb too well with a heavy load. I limit myself to carrying passengers weighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit of this is, I can limit my passengers to pretty young women for the most part. Simplicate and add lightness! Jack Phillips NX899JP Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of larharris2 Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:37 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights Good discussion thread on Weight and Balance. I have just received my package from Doc Mosher with WWs articles. Well documented info on CG and axle location. Keeping the CG location in mind as I build will have a high priority. I have much more to study and learn. The CG spreadsheets recently posted are also valuable tools. New question for some of you who have finished and flown your plane regarding the total weight of the plane. Like everyone, I want to be careful of adding unnecessary weight as I build. So far I am following the plans carefully. But like everyone, I am sure, I have some personal customizations in the back of my mind. WWs articles document specific data from individual planes. I pulled a handful of them to examine more closely regarding Empty Weight (EW) - long/short fuselage, A65/Corvair engines. The lightest weight airplane I studied was 590lb, the heaviest 842lb. Subtracting a 'standard' engine weight from the EW yielded some interesting information. In most cases, regardless of the engine type or fuse. length, the weight of 'everything else' came out to about 410-415lb. In only 2 cases I examined was there a great difference - one was 581lb and the other 617lb. Not just over, but WAY over the others. Here's the question: What in the world do some builders add to their planes that takes a 400 lb plane to over 600 lb?? OK. Some extra instrumentation, tailwheel vs the original tailskid, brakes system, extra fuel tank, etc. But 200lb worth? What do I need to look out for? Thanks for the replies. Lorenzo ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 07:08:07 PM PST US From: "Boatright, Jeffrey" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: long to read! ;) -- Jeff Boatright On 3/25/14 8:58 PM, "jarheadpilot82" wrote: >If you mean me, Jeff, I have been called much worse. [Laughing] ________________________________ 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 46 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:07 PM PST US From: larharris2 Harris Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights I like pretty young women . . . From: jack@bedfordlandings.com Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A Lorenzo=2C=0A =0A =0A =0A My Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs.=2C which=0A was about 80 lbs more than I was expecting. I believe most of that extra =0A weight was in the paint that I chose=2C PolyFiber=92s Aerothane=0A polyurethane. It is very heavy=2C and difficult to paint. I ended up=0A putting several coats on the fuselage before I got a decent finish with a =0A minimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is to sand it off=2C an d=0A I know I didn=92t sand all the extra coats off. The wire wheels are=0A also heavy=2C weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiece. And the stra ight=0A axle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the avionics add a bit=0A but not as much as you=92d think=2C and I was expecting the weight they add ed=0A (my original estimate=2C including the electrical stuff was 660 lbs=2C whic h would=0A be a decent weight).=0A =0A =0A =0A End result? Mine doesn=92t climb=0A too well with a heavy load. I limit myself to carrying passengers=0A weighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit of this is=2C I can limit my=0A passengers to pretty young women for the most part.=0A =0A =0A =0A Simplicate and add lightness!=0A =0A =0A =0A Jack Phillips=0A =0A NX899JP=0A =0A Smith Mountain Lake=2C Virginia=0A =0A ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 07:14:39 PM PST US From: larharris2 Harris Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights Thanks for the input. I'm strongly considering Oratex fabric - so I don't n eed no stinkin' paint. Lorenzo From: jack@bedfordlandings.com Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A Lorenzo=2C=0A =0A =0A =0A My Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs.=2C which=0A was about 80 lbs more than I was expecting. I believe most of that extra =0A weight was in the paint that I chose=2C PolyFiber=92s Aerothane=0A polyurethane. It is very heavy=2C and difficult to paint. I ended up=0A putting several coats on the fuselage before I got a decent finish with a =0A minimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is to sand it off=2C an d=0A I know I didn=92t sand all the extra coats off. The wire wheels are=0A also heavy=2C weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiece. And the stra ight=0A axle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the avionics add a bit=0A but not as much as you=92d think=2C and I was expecting the weight they add ed=0A (my original estimate=2C including the electrical stuff was 660 lbs=2C whic h would=0A be a decent weight).=0A =0A =0A =0A End result? Mine doesn=92t climb=0A too well with a heavy load. I limit myself to carrying passengers=0A weighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit of this is=2C I can limit my=0A passengers to pretty young women for the most part.=0A =0A =0A =0A Simplicate and add lightness!=0A =0A =0A =0A Jack Phillips=0A =0A NX899JP=0A =0A Smith Mountain Lake=2C Virginia=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 07:31:48 PM PST US From: glenschweizer@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights Hi Lorenzo I looked at the Oretex website. When checking prices, I became discour aged when all they said was "compared to other finishing systems, the cost o f spray guns, compressor setting up a booth...blah blah blah Oretex is compa rable to other finishing systems". Please cut to the chase. Here. What doe s it cost to cover a pietenpol? Anytime a supplier hides behind a bunch of B S , I run the other direct ion. The concept is interesting, however Thanks Glen Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 25, 2014, at 7:14 PM, larharris2 Harris wrote: > > Thanks for the input. I'm strongly considering Oratex fabric - so I don't n eed no stinkin' paint. > > Lorenzo > > > From: jack@bedfordlandings.com > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:40:51 -0400 > > Lorenzo, > > > > My Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs., which was about 80 lbs more than I was e xpecting. I believe most of that extra weight was in the paint that I chose , PolyFiber=99s Aerothane polyurethane. It is very heavy, and difficu lt to paint. I ended up putting several coats on the fuselage before I got a decent finish with a minimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is to sand it off, and I know I didn=99t sand all the extra coats off. T he wire wheels are also heavy, weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiec e. And the straight axle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the a vionics add a bit but not as much as you=99d think, and I was expectin g the weight they added (my original estimate, including the electrical stuf f was 660 lbs, which would be a decent weight). > > > > End result? Mine doesn=99t climb too well with a heavy load. I lim it myself to carrying passengers weighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit of this is, I can limit my passengers to pretty young women for the most pa rt. > > > > Simplicate and add lightness! > > > > Jack Phillips > > NX899JP > > Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia > > > > > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.