Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:27 AM - Re: Airplane Weights (jarheadpilot82)
2. 12:40 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Clif Dawson)
3. 02:12 AM - Re: Airplane Weights (Brian Kenney)
4. 03:53 AM - Re: Airplane Weights (Michael Perez)
5. 03:54 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez)
6. 04:00 AM - Adding Tank to Wing (Michael Perez)
7. 04:58 AM - Re: Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris)
8. 05:08 AM - Re: Re: Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris)
9. 05:22 AM - Re: Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris)
10. 05:30 AM - Nice article! (tkreiner)
11. 06:48 AM - fuel tanks (Douwe Blumberg)
12. 08:47 AM - Re: fuel tanks (taildrags)
13. 11:16 AM - Re: Adding Tank to Wing (AircamperN11MS)
14. 03:06 PM - Red Baron video (taildrags)
15. 03:17 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (G Hansen)
16. 03:50 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (Gardiner Mason)
17. 05:26 PM - Here Is An Interesting Read (jarheadpilot82)
18. 05:36 PM - Re: Here Is An Interesting Read (G Hansen)
19. 05:44 PM - Re: Here Is An Interesting Read (jarheadpilot82)
20. 05:46 PM - Re: fuel tanks (tools)
21. 05:48 PM - mike C. (Lawrence Williams)
22. 07:31 PM - It's FINALLY a hangar... (tools)
23. 08:48 PM - Re: It's FINALLY a hangar... (AircamperN11MS)
24. 11:51 PM - Re: [Shaw Suspected Junk Email] Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Clif Dawson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airplane Weights |
Lorenzo,
I did a little "dumpster diving" on the internet and found a guy's estimate from
Better Aircraft Fabric for the Oratex 6000 dated September 2013. It shows the
price for the 1800mmX1m material to be $134.87. I think that the Oratex 600
is slightly cheaper, but I am not 100% sure on that.
Doing the Math, 1800mmX1m equals 1.8 square meters which equal 2.15 square yards,
or $62.73 per square yard. The invoice shows the cost of glue tape, etc. but
this is what I come up with for the price of the cloth itself.
I have seen this stuff first hand at OSH and I have to say, it is as strong as
you-know-what! They beat on it with a huge hammer, then took heat and pulled out
the divits in the fabric right there in seconds. Really impressive stuff.
I am strongly considering the use of Oratex for the same reasons you mentioned
- weight savings, strength, ease of use, and savings on the cost of painting equipment.
I will tell you this, though. If you want a glossy finish, then you
should move on to another covering. I would not call it dull, but it definitely
is not glossy. Works for me, but you may want a different look.
--------
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=421046#421046
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Doesn't the wing fly the aircraft? It seems to me
that you can fly a wing without a fuselage, but
I'm pretty sure a fuselage ain't gonna fly without
a wing.
In a high wing ac, where is the longitudenal axis
in relation to the wing? Remember, the wing flies
the plane. Doesn't everything below it act like a
pendulum?
Clif
Always remember to go to other people's funerals.
Otherwise, they might not come to yours.
Yogi Berra
Something else, I thought about, which may or my not matter:
A wing mounted tank does have an arm of sorts, along the
longitudinal axis. In a roll, the wing tank has an arm greater than the
nose tank. It is a weight, being swung around the longitudinal axis.
Does this matter, does it effect stability? What, if anything, changes
as fuel burns?
Mike Perez
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airplane Weights |
Here is my take on how you can add extra weight.
In the wood there are a couple of considerations. Spars of 1" thickness=2C
if not routered=2C adds if memory serves about 16 lbs of additional weight
. Spruce of the optimum density is about 27 lbs/cubic foot. There are spruc
e boards that are heavier than that. If you use Douglas fir I believe it is
about 10% heavier. Plywood varies in weight and birch can weigh more than
mahogany. Adding thickness to plywood is adding weight proportional to the
extra thickness. Adding additional plywood or filler blocks adds weight .
While you can add weight in the wood selection its use pales in comparison
to the steel components. In contrast to spruce at 27 lb/cubic foot=2C ste
el weighs 500 lbs/cubic ft. . Therefore close attention to the area and thi
ckness of every metal part is very important. Using bolts and screws that a
re bigger than needed adds weight. There are shear nuts that weigh less tha
n full depth nuts and many nuts are used in shear. There are military nuts
that are very much smaller than conventional nuts. In some locations you ca
n use counter sunk heads or pan head fasteners instead of hex head bolts. B
ecause it weighs so much these little things adds up.
There are one or two areas that are really critical. Streamline struts of t
he type used on the original Pietenpol are not available. There replacement
are not longer available either. By that I mean 0.035 wall struts of small
er equivalent diameter. Today much of it is 0.065 and larger equivalent dia
meter and that is all you can buy new. If you use this material you can be
adding 10lbs or more per strut. Do this comparison. Compare the weight of
the smallest steel streamline lift strut available from Aircraft Spruce to
the weight of a 1.25`` diameter 0.035`` wall 4130 round tube. You can strea
mline a round tube with foam and 1 mm plywood and save on an aircraft perha
ps 25 to 40 lbs. I am not sure about that but do the math.
A straight axle can weigh a lot if it is 0.125`` wall but is close to half
the weight if you use 0.065`` but you need ash in the center of the tubing
at each end. The wood weighs much less than the extra steel. My first axle
was 0.049`wall but bent it slightly on my fourth rather hard landing. I use
d it for about another 3 to 5 years and it didn't bend any more but then we
nt to 0.065 and it has taken many a hard landing. You must keep it short an
d tight to bungees to reduce the bending moment.
Adding thickness to steel parts doesn't seem that much more but 0.049 weigh
s 50% more than 0.035. When substituting 4130 for mild steel you can reduce
thickness of steel in some places. I did this but I won't tell you where.
Don't do it if you are not knowledgeable on material strengths. I reduced s
ome wood dimensions in some areas but again I am not telling where you need
to figure that out.
You can substitute wood for metal=2C you can use very thin plywood over the
top of the fuselage. The wooden gear is lighter than the steel gear. While
the wheels and tires are heavier than small aircraft wheels and tires the
gear is shorter and made of wood. I think the complete assembly weighs less
. My motorcycles wheels and brakes weigh 19lbs each and I think aircraft wh
eels weigh about 5lbs less each. If you use big aircraft tires then the dif
ference is much less. Don`t trust my memory on all of this because it has
been so long=2C just do the math before making your decisions.
Adding starter motors=2C alternators=2C batteries=2C cables etc and you are
talking perhaps 75 to 100 lbs. The motor you select can be hugely differen
t. If you use a lighter one you save. In the continental A65 there is a cas
t aluminum accessory case but there is an magnesium one that weighs less.
Covering and paint need to be minimum. Dacron that is 1.6 oz works fine.
Weight is got to be part of the mind set. I was obsessed with it. My ELT an
tenna is mounted on a wooden structure inside the fuselage and is attached
with a #4 stainless steel screw.
I like Burt Rutan's attitude. If you take a part and throw it up and in fal
ls back down to the ground then it weighs too much. DO NOT ADD EXTRA STUFF.
Wooden propeller=2C not metal. No ballast for CG correction. Very light tai
l wheel with coil spring=2Cnot leaf spring. You can't use very light tailwh
eel components if you move the main wheels forward . The same thing happen
s if you move the wing back and don't adjust the gear position.
Instruments in the passenger seat are not necessary.
The Grega design adds about 100 lbs of unnecessary material=2C mostly steel
and plywood.
My Air Camper weighs 588 lbs with an ELT =2C a fairly heavy fire extinguish
er and a first aid kit but without a portable radio and no transponder. So
as I fly it normally it weighs about 600 lbs empty plus fuel plus passenge
rs. My max pilot and passenger combined weight so far is 465lbs.
The record empty weight of an Air Camper is over 900 lbs.
Every additional 25 lbs of weight requires about one additional horsepower
and the associated additional fuel capacity to feed it.
It can be a few choices that make a big differences but it is usually hundr
eds of decisions that add up.
Hope this helps=2C good luck with your project.
From: larharris2@msn.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
=0A
=0A
=0A
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
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
=0A
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airplane Weights |
I like how you think Brian.
If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
Mike Perez
Karetaker Aero
STILL Building...
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
I can't help you Clif, I have no idea.- But you bring up good points that
I obviously didn't think about.--=0A-=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot..
.switch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaretaker Aero=0ASTILL Building...=0A
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Adding Tank to Wing |
Crew, with all the fuel tank and CG posts, I have a general re-work questio
n.=0A=0ACurious if anyone has, in fact, added a wing tank to an already com
pleted, (built, covered, painted, cables, etc.) 3-piece wing? Maybe "added"
is not the correct word. I mean replaced the nose tank with a wing tank. I
would guess it would be best, (easier?) to just build a new wing from scra
tch.- Since my plane is close to completion, I have no intentions on chan
ging my nose tank location. But, if someday I want to make the change...has
anyone done so? Maybe it is just a matter of building a new C.S.?=0A=0AJus
t curious. =0A=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...switch seats.=0AMike Perez=0A
KaretakerAero=0ASTILL Building...=0A
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airplane Weights |
I haven't yet run a side by side comparison of prices. There is no doubt th
at Oratex is more expensive. But the savings in time=2C tools=2C and weight
are of great interest to me. I am expecting at least a 50lb savings in wei
ght. This is worth a lot to me.
Lorenzo
From: glenschweizer@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
Hi Lorenzo I looked at the Oretex website. When checking prices=2C I b
ecame discouraged when all they said was "compared to other finishing syste
ms=2C the cost of spray guns=2C compressor setting up a booth...blah blah b
lah Oretex is comparable to other finishing systems". Please cut to the c
hase. Here. What does it cost to cover a pietenpol? Anytime a supplie
r hides behind a bunch of B S =2C I run the other direction. The concept i
s interesting=2C however
Thanks
Glen
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25=2C 2014=2C at 7:14 PM=2C larharris2 Harris <larharris2@msn.com> w
rote:
=0A
=0A
=0A
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
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
D=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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=0A
npol-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A
D=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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=0A
//forums.matronics.com=0A
D=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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=0A
ot=3B">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A
D=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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
=0A
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airplane Weights |
I'm starting to sound like a commercial for Oratex.
If you contact the reps in Anchorage=2C they will send a free sample kit (t
hey may ask for postage- they asked me=2C but never charged me). It include
s about 1/2 yard plus a small bottle of the glue so you can practice with i
t. I asked for more - I wanted to see and feel all the colors and feel the
two weights of fabric. They were very gracious and included some smaller cu
toffs in the package. They say that the 6000 fabric is more resistant to in
cidental damage=2C but I think the 600 weight will do just fine for me. Aga
in=2C the ease of application and weight savings are worth a lot to me.
Lorenzo
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Airplane Weights
> From: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com
> Date: Wed=2C 26 Mar 2014 00:27:18 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
tmail.com>
>
> Lorenzo=2C
>
> I did a little "dumpster diving" on the internet and found a guy's estima
te from Better Aircraft Fabric for the Oratex 6000 dated September 2013. It
shows the price for the 1800mmX1m material to be $134.87. I think that the
Oratex 600 is slightly cheaper=2C but I am not 100% sure on that.
>
> Doing the Math=2C 1800mmX1m equals 1.8 square meters which equal 2.15 squ
are yards=2C or $62.73 per square yard. The invoice shows the cost of glue
tape=2C etc. but this is what I come up with for the price of the cloth its
elf.
>
> I have seen this stuff first hand at OSH and I have to say=2C it is as st
rong as you-know-what! They beat on it with a huge hammer=2C then took heat
and pulled out the divits in the fabric right there in seconds. Really imp
ressive stuff.
>
> I am strongly considering the use of Oratex for the same reasons you ment
ioned - weight savings=2C strength=2C ease of use=2C and savings on the cos
t of painting equipment. I will tell you this=2C though. If you want a glos
sy finish=2C then you should move on to another covering. I would not call
it dull=2C but it definitely is not glossy. Works for me=2C but you may wan
t a different look.
>
> --------
> Semper Fi=2C
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens=2C GA
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airplane Weights |
Brian=2C Thanks for the well thought out reply. Just what I was looking fo
r. I=2C too=2C am becoming a 'weight Nazi'. I figure that if I concern myse
lf with shaving ounces now=2C I will be able to comfortably add a doodad=2C
or two=2C at the end.
Lorenzo
=0A
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kudos to William Wynne, and the nice article in Aprils Sport Aviation!
Now we can all become Motorheads!
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421059#421059
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Both fuel tank locations have worked fine. Here's why I went with a wing
tank and like it.
1. The fuel is farther from the hot engine and electrics in most
"unplanned attitudes" such as upside down or on it's nose, or in case of an
engine fire.
2. I have heard of too low fuel head pressure/fuel starvation issues
with fuselage tanks, but not with wing tanks. If you're building a big fuse
tank, it can be tricky to design it so you get the head pressure you need.
It can certainly be done, just watch it in all attitudes.
3. Fuel overhead or fuel in my lap can both be bad situations, but it's
all dependent on the incident and there's probably no way to foresee.
4. zero CG shift from full to empty.
5. I like the storage area up front.
In view of WW's accident and the very real potential for forward wing
displacement during a sudden stop, I strongly recommend flexible fuel lines
to the tank. When 799B went over, the wing DID move forward about three
inches and my hard lines held fine, but when I rebuilt her, I was sure to
use flexible lines.
There are certainly pros for fuselage tanks too, but these are the reasons I
went with a wing tank.
Douwe
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I can add to several of Douwe's points (his #1 and #2)-
1. My airplane has been upside-down. Carb ice, power loss, precautionary off-field
landing on rough terrain... a weld broke on the landing gear leg and it went
over on its nose and onto its back. There was no fire, although there was
some fuel loss through the vent on the fuel tank cap. What I'd like to emphasize
with this is the point that William makes about providing some flexure in
the fuel lines and for making the cabane brace connection rigid rather than adjustable
once you've set the wing angle. Examine the photo of my cabane braces
after the roll-over and you'll see why:
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/incident/PB130010.JPG
2. The final couple of gallons (about 2.5) in my 16 gallon tank are unusable in
the 3-point or climb attitude. I demonstrated that fact on a x-c where I landed
with about that amount of fuel in the tank and as soon as I eased the tail
down, the engine quit. It's simple physics and geometry... liquid doesn't like
to flow uphill ;o) Examine a side shot of my engine, like this one:
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/engine/P5060008.JPG
Picture where the carb float bowl is relative to the bottom of the fuel tank (an
inch or two above the horizontal seam in the firewall). So Mikee is right...
I don't fly it down into that last 1/4 tank or so.
Two more things and I'm done. First, that seam in my firewall was intended to
make the bottom portion removable to provide access to the underside of the fuel
tank, the front rudder pedals, and anything else up in the forward cockpit.
Unfortunately, I forgot about the engine mount bolting on and being in the way,
so it's not removable. Sometimes good ideas aren't ;o) Second, I have never
fueled my airplane without using a ladder. I like to be able to see down
into the fuel tank because it's too easy to flood the tank and cowling if I let
it get up to the top. It sometimes happens even when I can see down into the
tank. So don't think that using a nose tank will eliminate the usefulness of
a ladder for fueling, unless you're a lot taller than I am (5'-9" in high heels).
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421069#421069
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Adding Tank to Wing |
Mike,
I don't see any reason you couldn't add a tank at a later date. It sounds like
you already have a three piece wing. I say get your plane flying and evaluate
the need for the second tank. It would be easy to build another center section
while flying/enjoying you plane. Then swap center sections on the weekend
sometime. It should be easy to do it that way.
My three cents,
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421080#421080
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
OK, time to let up on the tense discussions and get back to something lighter.
This is a very good (and as far as I know, pretty factual) animated video recounting
the demise of Manfred von Richthofen, aka "The Red Baron":
http://www.youtube.com/embed/ywug11nLFfg?feature=player_detailpage
It's less than 6 minutes long. I was surprised at how well the graphics portray
the control responses and aircraft behavior in the various maneuvers, and the
sound effects are quite good as well. In fact, there are a couple of spots
where I can close my eyes and the sound is very much like my engine sounds if
I push in the carb heat ;o)
The final scenes, whether completely factual or not, are pretty dramatic for an
animation.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421089#421089
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airplane Weights |
Brian Kenny probably has the lightest Pietenpol (CF-AUK) around and his
dissertation on weight saving/adding is =9Cbang on=9D. I
cannot say that I adhered to all of the points he made when I was
building my Pietenpol (CF-AUN) during the period 1959-70, but this
isn=99t to say I was unaware of them at that time=94having
been involved in aircraft maintenance and design since 1948. There were
compromises made due to availability of materials and a shortage of cash
during that time period. If I were to build another Pietenpol today, I
would do some things differently. But there are many things I would not
change, either.
I used Sitka spruce for just about everything but the wing spars and
maintained the dimensions in the plans. At the time it was difficult and
expensive to get Sitka spruce in the size needed for the spars and I
discovered some beautiful Douglas Fir boards at a very reasonable price
and built them up to the I-beam dimensions in the plans, and used
=9Cswallow tail=9D blocks at attachment points in accordance
with good engineering practice. Since fir is a tad heavier than spruce,
these spars are a bit heavier than spruce ones would have been. Another
compromise related to cost and availability. I made the fuselage two
inches wider (26=9D) to allow more clothing to be worn in these
northern parts; a compromise that paid off big time in spite of it
adding some weight. The wing is in three pieces; a single piece wing
would have been lighter. Yet another compromise due mainly to available
working space.
Since I was going to be operating from some pretty rough grass areas, I
elected to beef up the landing gear/lift strut fuselage fittings and
added perhaps a couple of pounds by doing so. A trade-off in weight
saving for serviceability. All other fittings were pretty much according
to plans excepting the Aeronca engine mount-to-fuselage fittings which
were specially designed to use this engine mount. Virtually no weight
gain here.
Originally I used a 6 inch Scott tailwheel with the yoke and coil spring
arrangement and it was OK. Later, I made a lightweight fork assembly
with a 4 inch commercial caster wheel which was used for years,
requiring wheel replacement at a modest cost every 100 hours or so. This
saved some weight in a critical location and it worked just fine. I used
very light Shinn 6.00-6 main wheels and axles from a wrecked Taylorcraft
and this helped save some weight over other wheels I could have used.
Brian states the weight of the aircraft covering being important when
trying to save weight, and he is right! My Pietenpol originally was
covered with Grade A aircraft cotton and had a hand-rubbed doped finish.
It looked nice, but was heavier than necessary. The empty weight
(including oil) was 645 pounds with a Continental A65 engine, and this
was an accurate figure because new certified-accurate scales were used.
Fourteen years later, the a/c was stripped and recovered with Lincoln
polyester fabric, doped to a =9Cserviceable=9D (not fine)
finish. The empty weight with a C85-8 engine and wooden propeller was
now 630 pounds on the same scales. So the covering really does make a
noticeable difference (but the lighter tailwheel accounted for some of
this).
As Brian pointed out, the weight of the wing struts is significant.
Again, I had to compromise because of cost and availability. I used
Aeronca rear strut material for the center section struts (cabanes),
Aeronca front lift strut material for the front struts and Taylorcraft
rear lift strut material for the rear struts. Much heavier than
required, but it was what I had at the time.
I flew CF-AUN for 862 hours and literally made thousands of landings
over nearly 43 years. The only thing that ever broke was a somewhat-worn
tailwheel coil spring salvaged from my dad=99s old grain binder.
She could have been a tad lighter, but she was durable. I retired her
last September when I donated her to a local museum.
Cheers to all,
Graham Hansen (Alberta, Canada)
From: Brian Kenney
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:11 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
Here is my take on how you can add extra weight.
In the wood there are a couple of considerations. Spars of 1" thickness,
if not routered, adds if memory serves about 16 lbs of additional
weight. Spruce of the optimum density is about 27 lbs/cubic foot. There
are spruce boards that are heavier than that. If you use Douglas fir I
believe it is about 10% heavier. Plywood varies in weight and birch can
weigh more than mahogany. Adding thickness to plywood is adding weight
proportional to the extra thickness. Adding additional plywood or filler
blocks adds weight .
While you can add weight in the wood selection its use pales in
comparison to the steel components. In contrast to spruce at 27
lb/cubic foot, steel weighs 500 lbs/cubic ft. . Therefore close
attention to the area and thickness of every metal part is very
important. Using bolts and screws that are bigger than needed adds
weight. There are shear nuts that weigh less than full depth nuts and
many nuts are used in shear. There are military nuts that are very much
smaller than conventional nuts. In some locations you can use counter
sunk heads or pan head fasteners instead of hex head bolts. Because it
weighs so much these little things adds up.
There are one or two areas that are really critical. Streamline struts
of the type used on the original Pietenpol are not available. There
replacement are not longer available either. By that I mean 0.035 wall
struts of smaller equivalent diameter. Today much of it is 0.065 and
larger equivalent diameter and that is all you can buy new. If you use
this material you can be adding 10lbs or more per strut. Do this
comparison. Compare the weight of the smallest steel streamline lift
strut available from Aircraft Spruce to the weight of a 1.25`` diameter
0.035`` wall 4130 round tube. You can streamline a round tube with foam
and 1 mm plywood and save on an aircraft perhaps 25 to 40 lbs. I am not
sure about that but do the math.
A straight axle can weigh a lot if it is 0.125`` wall but is close to
half the weight if you use 0.065`` but you need ash in the center of the
tubing at each end. The wood weighs much less than the extra steel. My
first axle was 0.049`wall but bent it slightly on my fourth rather hard
landing. I used it for about another 3 to 5 years and it didn't bend any
more but then went to 0.065 and it has taken many a hard landing. You
must keep it short and tight to bungees to reduce the bending moment.
Adding thickness to steel parts doesn't seem that much more but 0.049
weighs 50% more than 0.035. When substituting 4130 for mild steel you
can reduce thickness of steel in some places. I did this but I won't
tell you where. Don't do it if you are not knowledgeable on material
strengths. I reduced some wood dimensions in some areas but again I am
not telling where you need to figure that out.
You can substitute wood for metal, you can use very thin plywood over
the top of the fuselage. The wooden gear is lighter than the steel gear.
While the wheels and tires are heavier than small aircraft wheels and
tires the gear is shorter and made of wood. I think the complete
assembly weighs less. My motorcycles wheels and brakes weigh 19lbs each
and I think aircraft wheels weigh about 5lbs less each. If you use big
aircraft tires then the difference is much less. Don`t trust my memory
on all of this because it has been so long, just do the math before
making your decisions.
Adding starter motors, alternators, batteries, cables etc and you are
talking perhaps 75 to 100 lbs. The motor you select can be hugely
different. If you use a lighter one you save. In the continental A65
there is a cast aluminum accessory case but there is an magnesium one
that weighs less.
Covering and paint need to be minimum. Dacron that is 1.6 oz works
fine.
Weight is got to be part of the mind set. I was obsessed with it. My ELT
antenna is mounted on a wooden structure inside the fuselage and is
attached with a #4 stainless steel screw.
I like Burt Rutan's attitude. If you take a part and throw it up and in
falls back down to the ground then it weighs too much. DO NOT ADD EXTRA
STUFF.
Wooden propeller, not metal. No ballast for CG correction. Very light
tail wheel with coil spring,not leaf spring. You can't use very light
tailwheel components if you move the main wheels forward . The same
thing happens if you move the wing back and don't adjust the gear
position.
Instruments in the passenger seat are not necessary.
The Grega design adds about 100 lbs of unnecessary material, mostly
steel and plywood.
My Air Camper weighs 588 lbs with an ELT , a fairly heavy fire
extinguisher and a first aid kit but without a portable radio and no
transponder. So as I fly it normally it weighs about 600 lbs empty plus
fuel plus passengers. My max pilot and passenger combined weight so far
is 465lbs.
The record empty weight of an Air Camper is over 900 lbs.
Every additional 25 lbs of weight requires about one additional
horsepower and the associated additional fuel capacity to feed it.
It can be a few choices that make a big differences but it is usually
hundreds of decisions that add up.
Hope this helps, good luck with your project.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
From: larharris2@msn.com
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
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
03/25/14
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airplane Weights |
Great story Graham. I wish I could duplicate your pietenpol history but I do
not nave the time in my lifetime. Cheers, Gardiner
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 26, 2014, at 6:17 PM, "G Hansen" <ghans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
> Brian Kenny probably has the lightest Pietenpol (CF-AUK) around and his di
ssertation on weight saving/adding is =9Cbang on=9D. I cannot sa
y that I adhered to all of the points he made when I was building my Pietenp
ol (CF-AUN) during the period 1959-70, but this isn=99t to say I was u
naware of them at that time=94having been involved in aircraft mainten
ance and design since 1948. There were compromises made due to availability o
f materials and a shortage of cash during that time period. If I were to bui
ld another Pietenpol today, I would do some things differently. But there ar
e many things I would not change, either.
>
> I used Sitka spruce for just about everything but the wing spars and maint
ained the dimensions in the plans. At the time it was difficult and expensiv
e to get Sitka spruce in the size needed for the spars and I discovered some
beautiful Douglas Fir boards at a very reasonable price and built them up t
o the I-beam dimensions in the plans, and used =9Cswallow tail=9D
blocks at attachment points in accordance with good engineering practice. S
ince fir is a tad heavier than spruce, these spars are a bit heavier than sp
ruce ones would have been. Another compromise related to cost and availabili
ty. I made the fuselage two inches wider (26=9D) to allow more clothi
ng to be worn in these northern parts; a compromise that paid off big time i
n spite of it adding some weight. The wing is in three pieces; a single piec
e wing would have been lighter. Yet another compromise due mainly to availab
le working space.
>
> Since I was going to be operating from some pretty rough grass areas, I el
ected to beef up the landing gear/lift strut fuselage fittings and added per
haps a couple of pounds by doing so. A trade-off in weight saving for servic
eability. All other fittings were pretty much according to plans excepting t
he Aeronca engine mount-to-fuselage fittings which were specially designed t
o use this engine mount. Virtually no weight gain here.
>
> Originally I used a 6 inch Scott tailwheel with the yoke and coil spring a
rrangement and it was OK. Later, I made a lightweight fork assembly with a 4
inch commercial caster wheel which was used for years, requiring wheel repl
acement at a modest cost every 100 hours or so. This saved some weight in a c
ritical location and it worked just fine. I used very light Shinn 6.00-6 mai
n wheels and axles from a wrecked Taylorcraft and this helped save some weig
ht over other wheels I could have used.
>
> Brian states the weight of the aircraft covering being important when tryi
ng to save weight, and he is right! My Pietenpol originally was covered with
Grade A aircraft cotton and had a hand-rubbed doped finish. It looked nice,
but was heavier than necessary. The empty weight (including oil) was 645 po
unds with a Continental A65 engine, and this was an accurate figure because n
ew certified-accurate scales were used. Fourteen years later, the a/c was st
ripped and recovered with Lincoln polyester fabric, doped to a =9Cserv
iceable=9D (not fine) finish. The empty weight with a C85-8 engine and
wooden propeller was now 630 pounds on the same scales. So the covering rea
lly does make a noticeable difference (but the lighter tailwheel accounted f
or some of this).
>
> As Brian pointed out, the weight of the wing struts is significant. Again,
I had to compromise because of cost and availability. I used Aeronca rear s
trut material for the center section struts (cabanes), Aeronca front lift s
trut material for the front struts and Taylorcraft rear lift strut material f
or the rear struts. Much heavier than required, but it was what I had at the
time.
>
> I flew CF-AUN for 862 hours and literally made thousands of landings over n
early 43 years. The only thing that ever broke was a somewhat-worn tailwheel
coil spring salvaged from my dad=99s old grain binder. She could have
been a tad lighter, but she was durable. I retired her last September when I
donated her to a local museum.
>
> Cheers to all,
>
> Graham Hansen (Alberta, Canada)
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Brian Kenney
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:11 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
>
> Here is my take on how you can add extra weight.
>
> In the wood there are a couple of considerations. Spars of 1" thickness, i
f not routered, adds if memory serves about 16 lbs of additional weight. Spr
uce of the optimum density is about 27 lbs/cubic foot. There are spruce boar
ds that are heavier than that. If you use Douglas fir I believe it is about 1
0% heavier. Plywood varies in weight and birch can weigh more than mahogany.
Adding thickness to plywood is adding weight proportional to the extra thi
ckness. Adding additional plywood or filler blocks adds weight .
>
> While you can add weight in the wood selection its use pales in compariso
n to the steel components. In contrast to spruce at 27 lb/cubic foot, steel
weighs 500 lbs/cubic ft. . Therefore close attention to the area and thickn
ess of every metal part is very important. Using bolts and screws that are b
igger than needed adds weight. There are shear nuts that weigh less than ful
l depth nuts and many nuts are used in shear. There are military nuts that a
re very much smaller than conventional nuts. In some locations you can use c
ounter sunk heads or pan head fasteners instead of hex head bolts. Because i
t weighs so much these little things adds up.
>
> There are one or two areas that are really critical. Streamline struts of t
he type used on the original Pietenpol are not available. There replacement a
re not longer available either. By that I mean 0.035 wall struts of smaller e
quivalent diameter. Today much of it is 0.065 and larger equivalent diameter
and that is all you can buy new. If you use this material you can be addin
g 10lbs or more per strut. Do this comparison. Compare the weight of the sma
llest steel streamline lift strut available from Aircraft Spruce to the weig
ht of a 1.25`` diameter 0.035`` wall 4130 round tube. You can streamline a r
ound tube with foam and 1 mm plywood and save on an aircraft perhaps 25 to 4
0 lbs. I am not sure about that but do the math.
>
> A straight axle can weigh a lot if it is 0.125`` wall but is close to half
the weight if you use 0.065`` but you need ash in the center of the tubing a
t each end. The wood weighs much less than the extra steel. My first axle wa
s 0.049`wall but bent it slightly on my fourth rather hard landing. I used i
t for about another 3 to 5 years and it didn't bend any more but then went t
o 0.065 and it has taken many a hard landing. You must keep it short and tig
ht to bungees to reduce the bending moment.
>
> Adding thickness to steel parts doesn't seem that much more but 0.049 weig
hs 50% more than 0.035. When substituting 4130 for mild steel you can reduc
e thickness of steel in some places. I did this but I won't tell you where. D
on't do it if you are not knowledgeable on material strengths. I reduced som
e wood dimensions in some areas but again I am not telling where you need to
figure that out.
>
> You can substitute wood for metal, you can use very thin plywood over the t
op of the fuselage. The wooden gear is lighter than the steel gear. While th
e wheels and tires are heavier than small aircraft wheels and tires the gear
is shorter and made of wood. I think the complete assembly weighs less. My m
otorcycles wheels and brakes weigh 19lbs each and I think aircraft wheels we
igh about 5lbs less each. If you use big aircraft tires then the difference i
s much less. Don`t trust my memory on all of this because it has been so lo
ng, just do the math before making your decisions.
>
> Adding starter motors, alternators, batteries, cables etc and you are talk
ing perhaps 75 to 100 lbs. The motor you select can be hugely different. If y
ou use a lighter one you save. In the continental A65 there is a cast alumin
um accessory case but there is an magnesium one that weighs less.
>
> Covering and paint need to be minimum. Dacron that is 1.6 oz works fine.
>
> Weight is got to be part of the mind set. I was obsessed with it. My ELT a
ntenna is mounted on a wooden structure inside the fuselage and is attached w
ith a #4 stainless steel screw.
>
> I like Burt Rutan's attitude. If you take a part and throw it up and in fa
lls back down to the ground then it weighs too much. DO NOT ADD EXTRA STUFF.
>
> Wooden propeller, not metal. No ballast for CG correction. Very light tail
wheel with coil spring,not leaf spring. You can't use very light tailwheel c
omponents if you move the main wheels forward . The same thing happens if y
ou move the wing back and don't adjust the gear position.
>
> Instruments in the passenger seat are not necessary.
>
> The Grega design adds about 100 lbs of unnecessary material, mostly steel a
nd plywood.
>
> My Air Camper weighs 588 lbs with an ELT , a fairly heavy fire extinguishe
r and a first aid kit but without a portable radio and no transponder. So a
s I fly it normally it weighs about 600 lbs empty plus fuel plus passengers.
My max pilot and passenger combined weight so far is 465lbs.
>
> The record empty weight of an Air Camper is over 900 lbs.
>
> Every additional 25 lbs of weight requires about one additional horsepower
and the associated additional fuel capacity to feed it.
>
>
> It can be a few choices that make a big differences but it is usually hund
reds of decisions that add up.
>
> Hope this helps, good luck with your project.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: larharris2@msn.com
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:37:29 -0400
>
> Good discussion thread on Weight and Balance. I have just received my pack
age 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 priorit
y. I have much more to study and learn. The CG spreadsheets recently posted a
re also valuable tools.
>
> New question for some of you who have finished and flown your plane regard
ing the total weight of the plane.
>
> Like everyone, I want to be careful of adding unnecessary weight as I buil
d. 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 han
dful of them to examine more closely regarding Empty Weight (EW) - long/shor
t fuselage, A65/Corvair engines. The lightest weight airplane I studied was 5
90lb, the heaviest 842lb. Subtracting a 'standard' engine weight from the EW
yielded some interesting information. In most cases, regardless of the engi
ne type or fuse. length, the weight of 'everything else' came out to about 4
10-415lb. In only 2 cases I examined was there a great difference - one was 5
81lb 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 plan
es 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 f
or?
>
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Here Is An Interesting Read |
How many of you have heard of the book, Aircraft Maintenance, by Daniel J. Brimm
and H. Edward Boggess? Maybe all of you have. But if you havent, it is a great
read to see how aircraft maintenance was done in the 1930s and 40s. Lest I
be accused of suggesting you copy maintenance procedures from a time long past,
I find an interesting historical read.
The best part is that you dont even have to buy it, although I did. Here is a link
to an online copy. If you ever wondered how they did those darn 5 tuck navy
splices on the control cables, simply go to page 333. I mean, Clyde Pangborn
wrote the forward. You do know who Clyde Pangborn was, dont you?
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89090516238;view=1up;seq=1
--------
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=421095#421095
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Here Is An Interesting Read |
Terry,
I have a copy of this book. It was still in use in the late 1940s when I was
at technical school. Not as a text book, but as a reference. It is
historical, for sure. A relic, like me.
Graham Hansen
-----Original Message-----
From: jarheadpilot82
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:26 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Here Is An Interesting Read
<jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
How many of you have heard of the book, Aircraft Maintenance, by Daniel J.
Brimm and H. Edward Boggess? Maybe all of you have. But if you havent, it
is a great read to see how aircraft maintenance was done in the 1930s and
40s. Lest I be accused of suggesting you copy maintenance procedures from
a time long past, I find an interesting historical read.
The best part is that you dont even have to buy it, although I did. Here
is a link to an online copy. If you ever wondered how they did those darn 5
tuck navy splices on the control cables, simply go to page 333. I mean,
Clyde Pangborn wrote the forward. You do know who Clyde Pangborn was,
dont you?
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89090516238;view=1up;seq=1
--------
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=421095#421095
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Here Is An Interesting Read |
Graham,
Also, like you. An informative, knowledgeable relic. [Wink]
--------
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=421099#421099
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
It's been mentioned a bit in the past, but surprisingly hasn't come up in these
recent discussions at all.
About point #2. Dick put a 4 gal (or so) header tank in the nose of 2RN. His
reasoning was (and I'm a big fan, think it's a great idea) that it prevents pretty
much any chance of the engine quitting because of sloshing in the relatively
wide and flat wing tank. At 4 gal, it's an hour reserve of fuel if necessary.
I got to thinking about it, I've got a shutoff right outside the cockpit where
the fuel exits the wing tank. If I were to lose my engine and was in the midst
of deadsticking it in, wouldn't take but a fraction of a second to reach up
and close that, which would be even more insurance against free flowing fuel in
the event of a fuel line rupture due to wing displacement.
Like everything, it's a compromise. It does complicate the fuel piping somewhat.
However, as 2RN needed some nose weight due to the relatively light A65, that
was absorbed.
Just more food for thought.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421100#421100
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Mikeeee-
Welcome to the Council of Curmudgeons. I knew you'd make it someday.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | It's FINALLY a hangar... |
N2RN got her tailwheel, horiz and vert stabs, elevators and rudder, WING, and an
aileron reinstalled today. FINALLY...
For the first time, a big structure is holding an airplane, so it's technically
a hangar I guess.
Tomorrow is lots of adjusting wires, controls, cotter keying and safety wiring
turnbuckles. Hopefully get the motor running.
Early next week should be in annual and ready for flight. The runway finally seems
hard enough to fly upon.
Been a long haul on this one.
[img]https://us-mg4.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2_0_0_1_1096192_ACINiWIAABLeUzOKpwAAAJxxXlE&pid=2&fid=Inbox&inline=1[/img]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421104#421104
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: It's FINALLY a hangar... |
So cool to see that. Very exciting times. Fingers crossed for the engine run.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421107#421107
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of outdated |
stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n
Although I need all the help I can get I wasn't
asking for help. :-)
I was, however, hoping to nudge the collective
grey matter in thoughtful directions.
Clif
It ain't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know
that just ain't so." Josh Billings
I can't help you Clif, I have no idea. But you bring up good points
that I obviously didn't think about.
Mike Perez
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|