RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel

An archive of the Matronics Pietenpol Listserve.
Locked
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: jack(at)bedfordlandings.com
I have a 17 US gal forward tank and the change in the fuel load from full to reserve changes the trim from slightly nose up required at full fuel to a slightly nose down requirement at minimum fuel. I don't have a trim and the forces are not significant in either direction. Where it starts and ends depends of course where you start. I try not to have a lot more fuel on board when I don't need it. Trim is also speed dependant. You can counter some of this trim change with a power adjustment. I have flown for 2 and 3/4 hours a couple of times. The lack of a trim was not a factor.While the trim changes less in the center section it is always in the wrong place if you have a light engine and there is more weight or moment needed on the front to counter it. So like everything there is a compromise involved.

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Oscar, thanks for letting us know, I will send Corky my condolences - I miss his regular presence on the list.Kip GardnerOn 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(at)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>> ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:10:36 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fueltanks vs. n

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
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 HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421000#421000 ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:56:26 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fueltanks vs. n

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Michael Perez

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Michael Perez

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: what is reliable?

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "tools"
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf Terry-see page 6 which compares factory built engine failures to homebuilt engine failures then you decide which ismore 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. 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.Well Terry you might read a lot but you completely misread what I wrote and misquoted me. What I said Bernie would spit nickelsabout 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. ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what is reliable?

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: what is reliable?

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
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 usefulpost accident attention like "traditional" engines do, though one of the higherclassifications associated therewith usually restart and run well after thecrash... "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 ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what is reliable?

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]"
Mike,I sense the smart a-- coming out in you. I read what you wrote. Could it be possiblethat your point was not made clear, rather than your premise that I don'tknow how to read?Or maybe you were just throwing a little sarcasm out there.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421020#421020 ________________________________________________________________________________

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
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 beensummarized 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 whiteor red and white?Mike C.Ohiohttp://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/miscellaneous/8485-1.htmlAuto Engines Versus Traditional Certified EnginesOne 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. ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]"
It's awfully long to read, Mike...--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421022#421022 ________________________________________________________________________________

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: I Googled that for you---engine reliability

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Ken Bickers
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 havea sense of humor in there.Did you like my fat guy photo? That was meant to make people laugh and enjoy our list. You just made me laugh-thank you.Now get out to the shop and start working on your airplane:) !Mike C.Ohio ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:55:43 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I Googled that for you---engine reliability

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Brian Kenney
Doesn't the wing fly the aircraft? It seems to methat you can fly a wing without a fuselage, butI'm pretty sure a fuselage ain't gonna fly withouta wing.In a high wing ac, where is the longitudenal axisin relation to the wing? Remember, the wing fliesthe plane. Doesn't everything below it act like apendulum?ClifAlways 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 ________________________________________________________________________________

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: larharris2(at)msn.com
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 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=2C 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=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 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=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 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=2C not metal. No ballast for CG correction. Very light tail wheel with coil spring=2Cnot 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=2C mostly steel and plywood.My Air Camper weighs 588 lbs with an ELT =2C 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=2C good luck with your project.

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Michael Perez

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Michael Perez

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: glenschweizer(at)yahoo.com
I haven't yet run a side by side comparison of prices. There is no doubt that 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 weight. This is worth a lot to me.Lorenzo

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

> Pietenpol-List: Re: Airplane Weights

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By:> jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com
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 (they may ask for postage- they asked me=2C but never charged me). It includes about 1/2 yard plus a small bottle of the glue so you can practice with it. 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 cutoffs in the package. They say that the 6000 fabric is more resistant to incidental damage=2C but I think the 600 weight will do just fine for me. Again=2C the ease of application and weight savings are worth a lot to me.Lorenzo> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Airplane Weights

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ATerry=2C=0Ayou can see the effects of what you are asking using the spreadsheet I posted=0Ayesterday. If you just swap the values for the fuel tank and the baggage=0Acompartment for my airplane (the data that I sent in the spreadsheet) you can=0Asee pretty closely what the effects would be=2C if it were my airplane.=0A=0A =0A=0AI=0Ajust did that - swapping the 90 lbs of fuel from the centersection tank to the=0Abaggage compartment=2C and taking the fuel tank weight to 0.00. With 90 lbs=0A(15 gallons) of fuel in the nose=2C the CG with my 195 lb butt in the rear seat=0Awould move from 19.94" to 17.71" aft of the leading edge. Very=0ANice! However=2C when you are down to 2.5 gallons of fuel (15 lbs) the CG=0Agoes back to 19.42" - nearly a 2" shift. I suspect you will=0Aneed a trim system of some sort otherwise you are going to be constantly=0Apushing on the stick to keep the nose down (f the plane was trimmed to fly=0Astraight and level with a full tank). If you are flying near empty and=0Afor whatever reason you take your hand off the stick=2C the nose will want to=0Apitch up which could get very interesting if you were already flying close to a=0Astall.=0A=0A =0A=0AWith=0Athe centersection tank=2C the situation is reversed=2C but the change is slight. =0AAgain=2C with the data from my airplane=2C with my 195 lbs of Macho=2C Pietenpol=0AAviator sitting comfortably in the rear seat=2C with 90 lbs of fuel on board and=0Ano baggage in the nose=2C my CG is hovering around the dreaded 20" barrier=0Aat 19.94" aft of the Leading edge (one reason I generally carry about 5=0Albs of stuff in the baggage compartment). If I burn all but 2.5 gallons from=0Amy tank=2C the CG moves to 19.83"=2C or just over a tenth of an inch=2C and in=0Athe direction that if I take my hand off the stick=2C the nose will go down=2C not=0Aup.=0A=0A =0A=0AI=0Alike my centersection fuel tank. I never have to worry that an extreme=0Anoseup attitude might starve the fuel supply=2C and I have a large enough baggage=0Acompartment to hold a tent and sleeping bag (a true "Air=0ACamper"). The only worry is the possibility of a shifting=0Acentersection in a crash causing fuel leakage. When I recover my airplane=0A(hopefully not for several more years) I will put in braided flexible fuel=0Alines. I have had one forced landing which caused substantial damage to=0Athe airframe=2C including dragging a wingtip in the ensuing groundloop when the=0Aaxle broke=2C without causing any shift of the centersection or damage to the=0Afuel lines. I was lucky. =0A=0A =0A=0AIn=0AKevin Purtee's crash=2C those on the scene reported a large fuel leak due to the=0Aruptured fuel tank. There was no fire. Kevin was lucky. There=0Awas nothing left of the fuselage forward of the rear cockpit=2C so I don't think=0Ayou could say a nose tank would have fared better.=0A=0A =0A=0AThis=0Ais one of those decisions in building a Pietenpol that every builder needs to=0Amake for himself=2C based on facts and information=2C and how he wants to build and=0Afly his airplane. There is no right or wrong answer. Just try to=0Amake an informed choice.=0A=0A =0A=0AJack=0APhillips=0A=0ANX899JP=0A=0ASmith Mountain Lake=2C=0A Virginia=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A-----Original=0AMessage-----=0A

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Michael Perez
=0A=0A=0AGood 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=2C I want to be careful of adding unnecessary weight as I build. So far I am following the plans carefully. But like everyone=2C I am sure=2C 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=2C A65/Corvair engines. The lightest weight airplane I studied was 590lb=2C the heaviest 842lb. Subtracting a 'standard' engine weight from the EW yielded some interesting information. In most cases=2C regardless of the engine type or fuse. length=2C 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=2C 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=2C tailwheel vs the original tailskid=2C brakes system=2C extra fuel tank=2C etc. But 200lb worth? What do I need to look out for?Thanks for the replies.Lorenzo =0A=0A=0A=0A============0A============0A============0A============0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 03:50:39 -0700 (PDT)

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: jack(at)bedfordlandings.com
Hi Lorenzo I looked at the Oretex website. When checking prices=2C I became discouraged when all they said was "compared to other finishing systems=2C the cost of spray guns=2C compressor setting up a booth...blah blah blah Oretex is comparable to other finishing systems". Please cut to the chase. Here. What does it cost to cover a pietenpol? Anytime a supplier hides behind a bunch of B S =2C I run the other direction. The concept is interesting=2C however Thanks GlenSent from my iPhoneOn Mar 25=2C 2014=2C at 7:14 PM=2C larharris2 Harris wrote:=0A=0A=0AThanks for the input. I'm strongly considering Oratex fabric - so I don't need no stinkin' paint.Lorenzo

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: larharris2 Harris
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ALorenzo=2C=0A=0A =0A=0AMy Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs.=2C which=0Awas about 80 lbs more than I was expecting. I believe most of that extra=0Aweight was in the paint that I chose=2C PolyFiber=92s Aerothane=0Apolyurethane. It is very heavy=2C and difficult to paint. I ended up=0Aputting several coats on the fuselage before I got a decent finish with a=0Aminimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is to sand it off=2C and=0AI know I didn=92t sand all the extra coats off. The wire wheels are=0Aalso heavy=2C weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiece. And the straight=0Aaxle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the avionics add a bit=0Abut not as much as you=92d think=2C and I was expecting the weight they added=0A(my original estimate=2C including the electrical stuff was 660 lbs=2C which would=0Abe a decent weight).=0A=0A =0A=0AEnd result? Mine doesn=92t climb=0Atoo well with a heavy load. I limit myself to carrying passengers=0Aweighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit of this is=2C I can limit my=0Apassengers to pretty young women for the most part.=0A=0A =0A=0ASimplicate and add lightness!=0A=0A =0A=0AJack Phillips=0A=0ANX899JP=0A=0ASmith Mountain Lake=2C Virginia=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AD=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=0Anpol-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0AD=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=0A//forums.matronics.com=0AD=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=0Aot=3B">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0AD=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=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A============0A============0A============0A============0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________

matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: larharris2 Harris
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> tmail.com>> > Lorenzo=2C> > 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=2C but I am not 100% sure on that.> > Doing the Math=2C 1800mmX1m equals 1.8 square meters which equal 2.15 square 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 itself.> > I have seen this stuff first hand at OSH and I have to say=2C it is as strong 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 impressive stuff.> > I am strongly considering the use of Oratex for the same reasons you mentioned - weight savings=2C strength=2C ease of use=2C and savings on the cost of painting equipment. I will tell you this=2C though. If you want a glossy 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 want a different look.> > --------> Semper Fi=2C> > Terry Hand> Athens=2C GA> ________________________________________________________________________________

Locked