Original Posted By: "Andy Garrett"
Neat! Keep up the good work. Only about five years to go!Ray KrauseSent from my iPad> On Feb 21, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Riegerb wrote:> > > A sped-up time-lapse video of my dad building a rib for the Pietenpol. Now doit 32x fast! =)> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI59zR2 ... e=youtu.be> > > Brian> > --------> riegerpietenpol.tumblr.com> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 555#438555> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: New member and a few questions already
Pietenpol-List: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: "CatDesigns"
Hi there,I'm Andy Garrett from Haysville, KS (suburb of Wichita). I recently sold my TEAMAirbike which I owned for a year, but did not build. At 6'2" and 255lbs, thelittle Rotax 447 was just not enough to get acceptable performance.I am now in possession of a new set of Pietenpol Air Camper plans with all theoptions, manual, the works. I also have Chet Peek's book The Pietenpol Story,and have poured over the Pietenpol website with a good email exchange with AndrerwPietenpol--great guy.I also ordered William Wynn's Corvair conversion manual, but have not yet receivedit.I (like Andrew Pietenpol it seems) have completed a plans built mahogany boat designedby Glen L. Witt of Glen-L Marine. Thus, I have considerable experiencewith wood working tools, epoxies, paints and coatings, etc. So, I have confidencethat my craftsmanship will be up to par.My questions are based on things I've read on a variety of websites and forumsabout the Piet.First: I will build the Air Camper as a single seat ship with a generous baggagecompartment where the front seat would normally be.Second: I would like to entertain the possibility of a wider fuselage--just a fewinches. To simplify this mod, I would like to widen the center section of thethree-piece wing by an equal amount (I saw a widened center section on the'West Coast Pietenpol' website). This might also allow for a slightly larger wingtank which appeals to me. I want long-legged cross country capability in thiscraft.Third: CG questions plague my mind with such a setup. Do I leave the rear seatwhere it is and make cabane angle adjustments? Should I make longer cabane strutsto allow for this and to keep the pilot access flap out of my face?Forth: At my weight, do I target the 120HP Corvair for best climb performance oris this excessive for the mount/firewall?Finally: I want to keep usable load as high as possible, so I am leaning towarda built-up 'I' beam type spar as there is a considerable amount of informationon this type available for homebuilts in general. Does anyone herein have experiencewith this method? I know I do not care for the idea of routing spars.I have yet to decide on gear type, but I'm leaning toward whatever is lightestwith tall thin wheels.Sorry for my lack of brevity. I'm just eager to get some of these issues resolvedin my mind so I can see the long path ahead and get started.Thanks for any and all assistance.--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Hi there,I'm Andy Garrett from Haysville, KS (suburb of Wichita). I recently sold my TEAMAirbike which I owned for a year, but did not build. At 6'2" and 255lbs, thelittle Rotax 447 was just not enough to get acceptable performance.I am now in possession of a new set of Pietenpol Air Camper plans with all theoptions, manual, the works. I also have Chet Peek's book The Pietenpol Story,and have poured over the Pietenpol website with a good email exchange with AndrerwPietenpol--great guy.I also ordered William Wynn's Corvair conversion manual, but have not yet receivedit.I (like Andrew Pietenpol it seems) have completed a plans built mahogany boat designedby Glen L. Witt of Glen-L Marine. Thus, I have considerable experiencewith wood working tools, epoxies, paints and coatings, etc. So, I have confidencethat my craftsmanship will be up to par.My questions are based on things I've read on a variety of websites and forumsabout the Piet.First: I will build the Air Camper as a single seat ship with a generous baggagecompartment where the front seat would normally be.Second: I would like to entertain the possibility of a wider fuselage--just a fewinches. To simplify this mod, I would like to widen the center section of thethree-piece wing by an equal amount (I saw a widened center section on the'West Coast Pietenpol' website). This might also allow for a slightly larger wingtank which appeals to me. I want long-legged cross country capability in thiscraft.Third: CG questions plague my mind with such a setup. Do I leave the rear seatwhere it is and make cabane angle adjustments? Should I make longer cabane strutsto allow for this and to keep the pilot access flap out of my face?Forth: At my weight, do I target the 120HP Corvair for best climb performance oris this excessive for the mount/firewall?Finally: I want to keep usable load as high as possible, so I am leaning towarda built-up 'I' beam type spar as there is a considerable amount of informationon this type available for homebuilts in general. Does anyone herein have experiencewith this method? I know I do not care for the idea of routing spars.I have yet to decide on gear type, but I'm leaning toward whatever is lightestwith tall thin wheels.Sorry for my lack of brevity. I'm just eager to get some of these issues resolvedin my mind so I can see the long path ahead and get started.Thanks for any and all assistance.--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: "Jack Philips"
Hi Andy,welcome!My name is Glen. I've recently started an Aerial, the biplane version of the pietenpoldeveloped by Chad Wille. I too plan to use a WW Corvair conversion.I had originally planned on the 120HP but have since decided to go with the 110HPinstead. The 120 requires machine work on heads and case to use larger diametercylinders. I don't want to pay shipping to Florida and back to have thatdone. I have widened the fuse on mine as well. It is 30" wide. My sister wants toride and is a bit wider than a 13" wide seat would comfortably accomodate. There are a few other cosmetic mods, but you'll find that no two pietenpol"snowflakes" are alike.Mr. Pietenpol designed a very rugged Airplane. When using the Corvair engine you'll be building a stretched fuse forCG reasons(see West Coast Piet site). So many of these airplanes have been builtover the past 85 years that many successful changes have been made. Realizethat every change will effect something else. Have more experienced peoplecheck your ideas and work. ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS...this forum has lots of veryknowledgable members. No such thing as a dumb question . Look in the archivesas well. Your question has probably been asked and answered before. Sorry to ramble. Again,welcome,and enjoy your build. You'll be surprised athow fast components become identifiable as airplane parts. I've been workingon mine for three week ends. By quitin time tomorrow, fuse will be boxed. All the best, GlenSent from my iPhone> On Feb 21, 2015, at 2:01 PM, "Andy Garrett" wrote:> > > Hi there,> > I'm Andy Garrett from Haysville, KS (suburb of Wichita). I recently sold my TEAMAirbike which I owned for a year, but did not build. At 6'2" and 255lbs, thelittle Rotax 447 was just not enough to get acceptable performance.> > I am now in possession of a new set of Pietenpol Air Camper plans with all theoptions, manual, the works. I also have Chet Peek's book The Pietenpol Story,and have poured over the Pietenpol website with a good email exchange with AndrerwPietenpol--great guy.> > I also ordered William Wynn's Corvair conversion manual, but have not yet receivedit.> > I (like Andrew Pietenpol it seems) have completed a plans built mahogany boatdesigned by Glen L. Witt of Glen-L Marine. Thus, I have considerable experiencewith wood working tools, epoxies, paints and coatings, etc. So, I have confidencethat my craftsmanship will be up to par.> > My questions are based on things I've read on a variety of websites and forumsabout the Piet.> > First: I will build the Air Camper as a single seat ship with a generous baggagecompartment where the front seat would normally be.> > Second: I would like to entertain the possibility of a wider fuselage--just afew inches. To simplify this mod, I would like to widen the center section ofthe three-piece wing by an equal amount (I saw a widened center section on the'West Coast Pietenpol' website). This might also allow for a slightly largerwing tank which appeals to me. I want long-legged cross country capability inthis craft.> > Third: CG questions plague my mind with such a setup. Do I leave the rear seatwhere it is and make cabane angle adjustments? Should I make longer cabane strutsto allow for this and to keep the pilot access flap out of my face?> > Forth: At my weight, do I target the 120HP Corvair for best climb performanceor is this excessive for the mount/firewall?> > Finally: I want to keep usable load as high as possible, so I am leaning towarda built-up 'I' beam type spar as there is a considerable amount of informationon this type available for homebuilts in general. Does anyone herein haveexperience with this method? I know I do not care for the idea of routing spars.> > I have yet to decide on gear type, but I'm leaning toward whatever is lightestwith tall thin wheels.> > Sorry for my lack of brevity. I'm just eager to get some of these issues resolvedin my mind so I can see the long path ahead and get started.> > Thanks for any and all assistance.> > --------> Andy Garrett> 'General Purpose Creative Dude'> Haysville, Kansas> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 558#438558> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Andy,welcome!My name is Glen. I've recently started an Aerial, the biplane version of the pietenpoldeveloped by Chad Wille. I too plan to use a WW Corvair conversion.I had originally planned on the 120HP but have since decided to go with the 110HPinstead. The 120 requires machine work on heads and case to use larger diametercylinders. I don't want to pay shipping to Florida and back to have thatdone. I have widened the fuse on mine as well. It is 30" wide. My sister wants toride and is a bit wider than a 13" wide seat would comfortably accomodate. There are a few other cosmetic mods, but you'll find that no two pietenpol"snowflakes" are alike.Mr. Pietenpol designed a very rugged Airplane. When using the Corvair engine you'll be building a stretched fuse forCG reasons(see West Coast Piet site). So many of these airplanes have been builtover the past 85 years that many successful changes have been made. Realizethat every change will effect something else. Have more experienced peoplecheck your ideas and work. ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS...this forum has lots of veryknowledgable members. No such thing as a dumb question . Look in the archivesas well. Your question has probably been asked and answered before. Sorry to ramble. Again,welcome,and enjoy your build. You'll be surprised athow fast components become identifiable as airplane parts. I've been workingon mine for three week ends. By quitin time tomorrow, fuse will be boxed. All the best, GlenSent from my iPhone> On Feb 21, 2015, at 2:01 PM, "Andy Garrett" wrote:> > > Hi there,> > I'm Andy Garrett from Haysville, KS (suburb of Wichita). I recently sold my TEAMAirbike which I owned for a year, but did not build. At 6'2" and 255lbs, thelittle Rotax 447 was just not enough to get acceptable performance.> > I am now in possession of a new set of Pietenpol Air Camper plans with all theoptions, manual, the works. I also have Chet Peek's book The Pietenpol Story,and have poured over the Pietenpol website with a good email exchange with AndrerwPietenpol--great guy.> > I also ordered William Wynn's Corvair conversion manual, but have not yet receivedit.> > I (like Andrew Pietenpol it seems) have completed a plans built mahogany boatdesigned by Glen L. Witt of Glen-L Marine. Thus, I have considerable experiencewith wood working tools, epoxies, paints and coatings, etc. So, I have confidencethat my craftsmanship will be up to par.> > My questions are based on things I've read on a variety of websites and forumsabout the Piet.> > First: I will build the Air Camper as a single seat ship with a generous baggagecompartment where the front seat would normally be.> > Second: I would like to entertain the possibility of a wider fuselage--just afew inches. To simplify this mod, I would like to widen the center section ofthe three-piece wing by an equal amount (I saw a widened center section on the'West Coast Pietenpol' website). This might also allow for a slightly largerwing tank which appeals to me. I want long-legged cross country capability inthis craft.> > Third: CG questions plague my mind with such a setup. Do I leave the rear seatwhere it is and make cabane angle adjustments? Should I make longer cabane strutsto allow for this and to keep the pilot access flap out of my face?> > Forth: At my weight, do I target the 120HP Corvair for best climb performanceor is this excessive for the mount/firewall?> > Finally: I want to keep usable load as high as possible, so I am leaning towarda built-up 'I' beam type spar as there is a considerable amount of informationon this type available for homebuilts in general. Does anyone herein haveexperience with this method? I know I do not care for the idea of routing spars.> > I have yet to decide on gear type, but I'm leaning toward whatever is lightestwith tall thin wheels.> > Sorry for my lack of brevity. I'm just eager to get some of these issues resolvedin my mind so I can see the long path ahead and get started.> > Thanks for any and all assistance.> > --------> Andy Garrett> 'General Purpose Creative Dude'> Haysville, Kansas> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 558#438558> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Hi Andy,Welcome to the wonderful world of Pietenpols, and Pietenpeople!First a couple of boilerplate items for new builders:1. Are you a member of EAA? If not, I would recommend joining,particularly if there is a good local chapter near you. EAA has had itsproblems lately, but it still is the only organization actively promotingyour right to build and fly your own airplane, and as such it deserves yoursupport. If your local chapter has a Tech Counselor, that can be anenormous help for you in building your own airplane.2. Buy and READ the four books by Tony Bingelis (available through EAA):The Sportplane Builder, Sportplane Construction Techniques, FirewallForward, and Tony Bingelis on Engines. There is a wealth of information inthose books and many of your questions about how to do some of the tasksrequired to build a Pietenpol will be answered.3. Since you will almost certainly be maintaining your own airplane Istrongly recommend a book called "Sky Ranch Engineering Manual", by JohnSchwaner. It was recommended to me by William Wynne and I bought a copy onAmazon and love it! It is a Bible on how to inspect and repair everythingin your engine.4. Join the Brodhead Pietenpol Association (BPA). Its newsletter generallycontains good building tips and other articles on all things Pietenpol.Now to answer some of your questions:Second: I would like to entertain the possibility of a wider fuselage--justa few inches. To simplify this mod, I would like to widen the center sectionof the three-piece wing by an equal amount (I saw a widened center sectionon the 'West Coast Pietenpol' website). This might also allow for a slightlylarger wing tank which appeals to me. I want long-legged cross countrycapability in this craft.I would caution against this for a couple of reasons. First, I did this onmine before trying sitting in "standard width" fuselages. I'm 6'2" and 195lbs and I find I fit just fine in a standard sized fuselage. Mine is 1"wider and yes, it does have more room, but not enough to be reallynoticeable. The reason I recommend against it is that a change like thatripples through the entire design. I'm a design engineer and I was able toanticipate and think through all the changes required by my decision towiden the fuselage, but it was still troublesome. It was also EXPENSIVEbecause the standard design very efficiently utilizes a standard sheet ofplywood. Making the fuselage wider suddenly requires using more than half asheet of plywood for the floorboard and you end up buying and wasting a lotmore material. I would recommend that before you commit to such a change,you should go to Brodhead this summer and sit in as many varieties ofPietenpols as you can find (after asking permission, of course) and see ifyou can fit in them.I also made my centersection 6" wider to allow more fuel to be carried. Ihave an A65 Continental engine in mine that burns 4-1/2 gallons per hour.My tank holds 16 gallons of fuel, giving me almost 3 hours of endurance,with a 45 minute reserve. I can tell you after 10 years of flying mine onsome pretty long cross countries that I have never flown it for 3 hours atone stretch. I start getting restless and need to get out and stretch mylegs after about 90 minutes, and after 2 hours I've GOT to get out and rest.Having extra fuel when you need it is a good thing, I agree. In 2013 I flewit to Brodhead along with Gene Rambo in his 1927 Travel Air and Matt Paxtonin his Pietenpol. We landed at Greene County, Pennsylvania for fuel, butfound that a truck had hit a utility pole, knocking out their power. Theyhad plenty of gas but no way to pump it. We had to fly on to the nextairport west of us in Moundsville, WV before we could refuel. That day Iwas glad to have plenty of fuel on board, but if you plan your legs withenough reserve to get to the next airport, you won't need a biggercentersection.Third: CG questions plague my mind with such a setup. Do I leave the rearseat where it is and make cabane angle adjustments? Should I make longercabane struts to allow for this and to keep the pilot access flap out of myface?Here again I would recommend against changing the plans. Keep the seatwhere it is and plan to shift the wing aft for CG control. This is whatmost builders do and it works well. Most also do make the cabane strutslonger to ease entry and egress.Forth: At my weight, do I target the 120HP Corvair for best climbperformance or is this excessive for the mount/firewall?Read William Wynne's manual when you get it and make your decision based onhis recommendations. If you are going to use a Corvair, use the parts andmethods he recommends. Or use a certified aircraft engine like an A65, aC-85 or O-200 Continental. As I said, I have an A65 Continental in mine andI wish I had an extra 20 horsepower, but my Pietenpol is heavy at 745 lbs,and I fly in the mountains. For flying in Kansas or anywhere else in theMidwest, I think 65 hp would be plenty.While on that subject I recommend keeping it as light as possible. The bestflying Pietenpol I ever flew was John Hofmann's N502R. It is very light andbuilt very close to the plans. Mike Cuy's also flies better than minebecause it is 113 lbs lighter than mine. I made a number of choices thatincreased the weight of mine (such as widening the fuselage, which requiredmore wood, more fabric and more paint) that I wish I had not done.Finally: I want to keep usable load as high as possible, so I am leaningtoward a built-up 'I' beam type spar as there is a considerable amount ofinformation on this type available for homebuilts in general. Does anyoneherein have experience with this method? I know I do not care for the ideaof routing spars.I have yet to decide on gear type, but I'm leaning toward whatever islightest with tall thin wheels.There are a number of Pietenpols flying with built up I Beam spars,including Mike Cuy's. I routed my spars and don't know why you wouldn'twant to use that method, but to each his own. As for gear type, I can saythat the lightest gear is the so-called "Cub Type" gear (that preceded thePiper Cub by at least 4 years). The heaviest is the straight axle gear withwire wheels, such as I have on mine. My wheels (complete with tires, tubesand brakes) weigh 25 lbs apiece. Using 6.00 x 6 wheels should cut that inhalf.You have good questions and it's obvious you are doing a lot of thinkingabout your project. Keep it up and continue to gather as much knowledge anddata as you can. You'll find this to be one of the most rewardingexperiences of your whole life.Good Luck!Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:33:51 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New member and a few questions already
Hi Andy,Welcome to the wonderful world of Pietenpols, and Pietenpeople!First a couple of boilerplate items for new builders:1. Are you a member of EAA? If not, I would recommend joining,particularly if there is a good local chapter near you. EAA has had itsproblems lately, but it still is the only organization actively promotingyour right to build and fly your own airplane, and as such it deserves yoursupport. If your local chapter has a Tech Counselor, that can be anenormous help for you in building your own airplane.2. Buy and READ the four books by Tony Bingelis (available through EAA):The Sportplane Builder, Sportplane Construction Techniques, FirewallForward, and Tony Bingelis on Engines. There is a wealth of information inthose books and many of your questions about how to do some of the tasksrequired to build a Pietenpol will be answered.3. Since you will almost certainly be maintaining your own airplane Istrongly recommend a book called "Sky Ranch Engineering Manual", by JohnSchwaner. It was recommended to me by William Wynne and I bought a copy onAmazon and love it! It is a Bible on how to inspect and repair everythingin your engine.4. Join the Brodhead Pietenpol Association (BPA). Its newsletter generallycontains good building tips and other articles on all things Pietenpol.Now to answer some of your questions:Second: I would like to entertain the possibility of a wider fuselage--justa few inches. To simplify this mod, I would like to widen the center sectionof the three-piece wing by an equal amount (I saw a widened center sectionon the 'West Coast Pietenpol' website). This might also allow for a slightlylarger wing tank which appeals to me. I want long-legged cross countrycapability in this craft.I would caution against this for a couple of reasons. First, I did this onmine before trying sitting in "standard width" fuselages. I'm 6'2" and 195lbs and I find I fit just fine in a standard sized fuselage. Mine is 1"wider and yes, it does have more room, but not enough to be reallynoticeable. The reason I recommend against it is that a change like thatripples through the entire design. I'm a design engineer and I was able toanticipate and think through all the changes required by my decision towiden the fuselage, but it was still troublesome. It was also EXPENSIVEbecause the standard design very efficiently utilizes a standard sheet ofplywood. Making the fuselage wider suddenly requires using more than half asheet of plywood for the floorboard and you end up buying and wasting a lotmore material. I would recommend that before you commit to such a change,you should go to Brodhead this summer and sit in as many varieties ofPietenpols as you can find (after asking permission, of course) and see ifyou can fit in them.I also made my centersection 6" wider to allow more fuel to be carried. Ihave an A65 Continental engine in mine that burns 4-1/2 gallons per hour.My tank holds 16 gallons of fuel, giving me almost 3 hours of endurance,with a 45 minute reserve. I can tell you after 10 years of flying mine onsome pretty long cross countries that I have never flown it for 3 hours atone stretch. I start getting restless and need to get out and stretch mylegs after about 90 minutes, and after 2 hours I've GOT to get out and rest.Having extra fuel when you need it is a good thing, I agree. In 2013 I flewit to Brodhead along with Gene Rambo in his 1927 Travel Air and Matt Paxtonin his Pietenpol. We landed at Greene County, Pennsylvania for fuel, butfound that a truck had hit a utility pole, knocking out their power. Theyhad plenty of gas but no way to pump it. We had to fly on to the nextairport west of us in Moundsville, WV before we could refuel. That day Iwas glad to have plenty of fuel on board, but if you plan your legs withenough reserve to get to the next airport, you won't need a biggercentersection.Third: CG questions plague my mind with such a setup. Do I leave the rearseat where it is and make cabane angle adjustments? Should I make longercabane struts to allow for this and to keep the pilot access flap out of myface?Here again I would recommend against changing the plans. Keep the seatwhere it is and plan to shift the wing aft for CG control. This is whatmost builders do and it works well. Most also do make the cabane strutslonger to ease entry and egress.Forth: At my weight, do I target the 120HP Corvair for best climbperformance or is this excessive for the mount/firewall?Read William Wynne's manual when you get it and make your decision based onhis recommendations. If you are going to use a Corvair, use the parts andmethods he recommends. Or use a certified aircraft engine like an A65, aC-85 or O-200 Continental. As I said, I have an A65 Continental in mine andI wish I had an extra 20 horsepower, but my Pietenpol is heavy at 745 lbs,and I fly in the mountains. For flying in Kansas or anywhere else in theMidwest, I think 65 hp would be plenty.While on that subject I recommend keeping it as light as possible. The bestflying Pietenpol I ever flew was John Hofmann's N502R. It is very light andbuilt very close to the plans. Mike Cuy's also flies better than minebecause it is 113 lbs lighter than mine. I made a number of choices thatincreased the weight of mine (such as widening the fuselage, which requiredmore wood, more fabric and more paint) that I wish I had not done.Finally: I want to keep usable load as high as possible, so I am leaningtoward a built-up 'I' beam type spar as there is a considerable amount ofinformation on this type available for homebuilts in general. Does anyoneherein have experience with this method? I know I do not care for the ideaof routing spars.I have yet to decide on gear type, but I'm leaning toward whatever islightest with tall thin wheels.There are a number of Pietenpols flying with built up I Beam spars,including Mike Cuy's. I routed my spars and don't know why you wouldn'twant to use that method, but to each his own. As for gear type, I can saythat the lightest gear is the so-called "Cub Type" gear (that preceded thePiper Cub by at least 4 years). The heaviest is the straight axle gear withwire wheels, such as I have on mine. My wheels (complete with tires, tubesand brakes) weigh 25 lbs apiece. Using 6.00 x 6 wheels should cut that inhalf.You have good questions and it's obvious you are doing a lot of thinkingabout your project. Keep it up and continue to gather as much knowledge anddata as you can. You'll find this to be one of the most rewardingexperiences of your whole life.Good Luck!Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:33:51 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New member and a few questions already
Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: "Andy Garrett"
Looks great! Keep up the nice work. It will be a beautiful plane I'm sure. Imissed out on coming up to Ray's place but maybe I'll get the chance to meet youat the West Coast Pietenpol gathering. Mike GroahSent from my iPad> On Feb 21, 2015, at 10:19 AM, "Riegerb" wrote:> > > A sped-up time-lapse video of my dad building a rib for the Pietenpol. Now doit 32x fast! =)> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI59zR2 ... e=youtu.be> > > Brian> > --------> riegerpietenpol.tumblr.com> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 555#438555> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Looks great! Keep up the nice work. It will be a beautiful plane I'm sure. Imissed out on coming up to Ray's place but maybe I'll get the chance to meet youat the West Coast Pietenpol gathering. Mike GroahSent from my iPad> On Feb 21, 2015, at 10:19 AM, "Riegerb" wrote:> > > A sped-up time-lapse video of my dad building a rib for the Pietenpol. Now doit 32x fast! =)> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI59zR2 ... e=youtu.be> > > Brian> > --------> riegerpietenpol.tumblr.com> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 555#438555> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: "Jeff Boatright"
Thank you so much for the well considered responses! I'm very happy I signed uphere!For the record, I am an EAA member both nationally and a new member of the localchapter, #88. I also sent in my application and check to the BPA. I have a friendand former hangar mate who assisted me with my Airbike purchase and learningwho is active in Chapter 88 and just exceeded 1000hrs in the Airbike he finishedin 1997. I am led to believe that he has more hours in that airframe thanany pilot alive, but I could be wrong. In any case, he is a wealth of buildingknowledge to tap when needed.I will acquire the recommended books immediately. I just finished the Piet manualfor the first read through. I anticipate many more.I guess I need to find a Piet within driving distance and try it on for size beforefurther considering mods in the cockpit size.Thanks again for the great food for thought. More questions pop up every day, butI will try to keep them coming at a reasonable rate. [Wink]--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Thank you so much for the well considered responses! I'm very happy I signed uphere!For the record, I am an EAA member both nationally and a new member of the localchapter, #88. I also sent in my application and check to the BPA. I have a friendand former hangar mate who assisted me with my Airbike purchase and learningwho is active in Chapter 88 and just exceeded 1000hrs in the Airbike he finishedin 1997. I am led to believe that he has more hours in that airframe thanany pilot alive, but I could be wrong. In any case, he is a wealth of buildingknowledge to tap when needed.I will acquire the recommended books immediately. I just finished the Piet manualfor the first read through. I anticipate many more.I guess I need to find a Piet within driving distance and try it on for size beforefurther considering mods in the cockpit size.Thanks again for the great food for thought. More questions pop up every day, butI will try to keep them coming at a reasonable rate. [Wink]--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: "CatDesigns"
Hi Andy,I echo what Jack said. Sit in an Aircamper- sit in several!, make sure you reallyneed make the changes you're pondering. My Piet has been flown by some prettybig guys (I think the biggest topped 6'3" and 230 lbs). No problem with widthor with pedal placement. Taller cabanes help. Move the wing to get the CG right. Use a flop or a cutout.I had bungees, now have springs in compression; like 'em better. I have a 12gallon wing tank and an 11 gallon "header" tank. Hardly ever use the wing tank.I had an A-65, now have a C-85. I think it's the ideal engine for the Piet,but YMMV. If you go Corvair, follow the advice of The Corvair Authority, Wm. Wynne,but buy your parts from him as soon as you can or they'll never arrive intime for the next College (and you will really have fun at the College - I did!).HTH,JeffRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Hi Andy,I echo what Jack said. Sit in an Aircamper- sit in several!, make sure you reallyneed make the changes you're pondering. My Piet has been flown by some prettybig guys (I think the biggest topped 6'3" and 230 lbs). No problem with widthor with pedal placement. Taller cabanes help. Move the wing to get the CG right. Use a flop or a cutout.I had bungees, now have springs in compression; like 'em better. I have a 12gallon wing tank and an 11 gallon "header" tank. Hardly ever use the wing tank.I had an A-65, now have a C-85. I think it's the ideal engine for the Piet,but YMMV. If you go Corvair, follow the advice of The Corvair Authority, Wm. Wynne,but buy your parts from him as soon as you can or they'll never arrive intime for the next College (and you will really have fun at the College - I did!).HTH,JeffRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
AndyThe advice to find a Pietenpol to sit in is correct however make note ofwhat the fuselage length is, long vs short, and any modifications made tothe seating area. When I purchased my hinges from Vi Kapler, I asked himabout modifications he would recommend for tall people. If you don't knowMr. Kapler used to know and work for Mr. Pietenpol and sadly passed awayrecently. This is what he wrote to me "I am 6'-4" and weigh 200 pounds. Ifyou use the long fuselage plans and cut out the knee holes a little biggerand raise the wing 2" from what the plans show you will have enough room.Also you can lean the back rest on the seat back 2 inches on the top"." Youwill also need to move the wing back 3 1/2 inches or more depending on yourweight and what engine you use."I have made all these changes to my plane with the addition of lowering theseat as much as I could and still have room for the cables under the seat. Iam 6'-1" and I fit fine with these changes.Bill Rewey and others have made a 3' center section. Bill used to sell apackage of Pietenpol suggestions, of which the center section is one. Iwouldn't widen the fuselage. You could gain a few inches by starting thetaper behind the back seat instead of at the back of the front seat. I seemto recall someone doing this.Built up spars have been used. Mike Cuy is one,http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Mike%20 ... tspar.jpgI have also seen some with plywood webs but I don't know if they are flying.You can also use 3/4" non-routed spars.The split axel gear on the Improved Air Camper plans will be the lightest. ChrisSacramento, CAWestcoastPiet.com-----Original Message-----
AndyThe advice to find a Pietenpol to sit in is correct however make note ofwhat the fuselage length is, long vs short, and any modifications made tothe seating area. When I purchased my hinges from Vi Kapler, I asked himabout modifications he would recommend for tall people. If you don't knowMr. Kapler used to know and work for Mr. Pietenpol and sadly passed awayrecently. This is what he wrote to me "I am 6'-4" and weigh 200 pounds. Ifyou use the long fuselage plans and cut out the knee holes a little biggerand raise the wing 2" from what the plans show you will have enough room.Also you can lean the back rest on the seat back 2 inches on the top"." Youwill also need to move the wing back 3 1/2 inches or more depending on yourweight and what engine you use."I have made all these changes to my plane with the addition of lowering theseat as much as I could and still have room for the cables under the seat. Iam 6'-1" and I fit fine with these changes.Bill Rewey and others have made a 3' center section. Bill used to sell apackage of Pietenpol suggestions, of which the center section is one. Iwouldn't widen the fuselage. You could gain a few inches by starting thetaper behind the back seat instead of at the back of the front seat. I seemto recall someone doing this.Built up spars have been used. Mike Cuy is one,http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Mike%20 ... tspar.jpgI have also seen some with plywood webs but I don't know if they are flying.You can also use 3/4" non-routed spars.The split axel gear on the Improved Air Camper plans will be the lightest. ChrisSacramento, CAWestcoastPiet.com-----Original Message-----
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Andy, I have no idea what a tailwheel control stick is. I never got thebuilders manual when I bought my Pietenpol plans, but I got mine from DonPietenpol (BHP's son) rather than from Andrew.Most airplanes with steel tube structures just tie the tailwheel indirectly(using coil springs) to the rudder via a small control horn at the bottom ofthe rudder. However with a lightweight wooden rudder such as the Pietenpolhas, that's not a good idea as it can put some pretty severe torsion loadson the rudder. So many Pietenpol builders tie an extra set of cables to therudder bar to steer the tailwheel. These cables are either attacheddirectly to the rudder bar or are attached to the rudder cable somewhere aftof the cockpit using nicopress fittings.In general, you don't want as much deflection of the tailwheel as you do therudder since it is operating directly against pavement and a littledeflection goes a long way in steering. Tying the tailwheel steering cableto the rudder cable can make tailwheel steering very sensitive. I solvedthis problem by running the tailwheel steering cables all the way to therudder bar and attaching them about halfway out on the rudder bar, ratherthan at the outboard ends where the rudder cables attach. I arrived at thatratio by measuring the tailwheel steering horn of a J-3 Cub and comparing itto the rudder cable attach horn. It seems to work very well, and thetailwheel steering on my Pietenpol is powerful enough to control it well onthe ground without being overly sensitive.Above is a photo showing my tailwheel steering installation (forward istoward the top of the picture). You can see the tailwheel steering cablescoming off the rudder bar about halfway out on either side. The tailwheelsteering cables then are directed under the floorboard by the pulleysvisible in the photo to get them out of the way.This is just one way to accomplish this task. One of the great joys ofbuilding a Pietenpol is figuring out how to solve problems like this, andthen figuring out a way to implement your solution.Good Luck!Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Andy, I have no idea what a tailwheel control stick is. I never got thebuilders manual when I bought my Pietenpol plans, but I got mine from DonPietenpol (BHP's son) rather than from Andrew.Most airplanes with steel tube structures just tie the tailwheel indirectly(using coil springs) to the rudder via a small control horn at the bottom ofthe rudder. However with a lightweight wooden rudder such as the Pietenpolhas, that's not a good idea as it can put some pretty severe torsion loadson the rudder. So many Pietenpol builders tie an extra set of cables to therudder bar to steer the tailwheel. These cables are either attacheddirectly to the rudder bar or are attached to the rudder cable somewhere aftof the cockpit using nicopress fittings.In general, you don't want as much deflection of the tailwheel as you do therudder since it is operating directly against pavement and a littledeflection goes a long way in steering. Tying the tailwheel steering cableto the rudder cable can make tailwheel steering very sensitive. I solvedthis problem by running the tailwheel steering cables all the way to therudder bar and attaching them about halfway out on the rudder bar, ratherthan at the outboard ends where the rudder cables attach. I arrived at thatratio by measuring the tailwheel steering horn of a J-3 Cub and comparing itto the rudder cable attach horn. It seems to work very well, and thetailwheel steering on my Pietenpol is powerful enough to control it well onthe ground without being overly sensitive.Above is a photo showing my tailwheel steering installation (forward istoward the top of the picture). You can see the tailwheel steering cablescoming off the rudder bar about halfway out on either side. The tailwheelsteering cables then are directed under the floorboard by the pulleysvisible in the photo to get them out of the way.This is just one way to accomplish this task. One of the great joys ofbuilding a Pietenpol is figuring out how to solve problems like this, andthen figuring out a way to implement your solution.Good Luck!Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: "Andy Garrett"
SteveNot all stainless steels are created equal. Just like not all carbon steels areequal. The choice to use a particular metal comes down to multiple factors, strength,workability, cost, availability. I would love to be using titanium formy plane but that just isn't cost effective (makes 4130 look cheap). 4130 hasbecome popular because it posses a good combination of workability, cost, resistantto rust, and strength.Here is a good discussion.http://machinedesign.com/materials/comp ... Sacramento, CAWestCoastPiet.comRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
SteveNot all stainless steels are created equal. Just like not all carbon steels areequal. The choice to use a particular metal comes down to multiple factors, strength,workability, cost, availability. I would love to be using titanium formy plane but that just isn't cost effective (makes 4130 look cheap). 4130 hasbecome popular because it posses a good combination of workability, cost, resistantto rust, and strength.Here is a good discussion.http://machinedesign.com/materials/comp ... Sacramento, CAWestCoastPiet.comRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: "Jack Philips"
That's a solid solution--thank you.What are the bars under your rudder bar? Are those gas pistons attached to yourudder system?--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
That's a solid solution--thank you.What are the bars under your rudder bar? Are those gas pistons attached to yourudder system?--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Heel brakes and their master cylindersJack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Heel brakes and their master cylindersJack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member and a few questions already
Re: Pietenpol-List: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: macz(at)peak.org
..."He's a four-blader Mary Beth!"--------Bob 'Early Builder' DewenterDayton OHRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 21:09:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Four-bladed prop
..."He's a four-blader Mary Beth!"--------Bob 'Early Builder' DewenterDayton OHRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 21:09:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Four-bladed prop
Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: "dwilson"
Solidity is simply the ratio of the total blade area of the propeller to the diskswept out when the prop turns. The blade area is roughly the length (calledthe radius) times the width (called the chord).More solidity = less efficiency.Generally speaking, the more blades, the less efficient the propeller...for cruise.Of course, a whole lot depends on the blade cross section, width, length, rotationalspeed, etc.So think of it like this: The blades of a propeller interact with each other, ina manner which decreases efficiency. If you think of the blades as wings, eachblade will be operating in the downwash and disturbed wake from the precedingblades. More blades mean more interaction means less efficient.Four blades are fine but thin out the blade chord width like a Cub prop.WF2--------Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Solidity is simply the ratio of the total blade area of the propeller to the diskswept out when the prop turns. The blade area is roughly the length (calledthe radius) times the width (called the chord).More solidity = less efficiency.Generally speaking, the more blades, the less efficient the propeller...for cruise.Of course, a whole lot depends on the blade cross section, width, length, rotationalspeed, etc.So think of it like this: The blades of a propeller interact with each other, ina manner which decreases efficiency. If you think of the blades as wings, eachblade will be operating in the downwash and disturbed wake from the precedingblades. More blades mean more interaction means less efficient.Four blades are fine but thin out the blade chord width like a Cub prop.WF2--------Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: "AircamperN11MS"
I like it ! No, I really like it! Dan, you must be one of those experimentalhome builders. I can't wait until you start working on the contra rotating propdesign. There is nothing like creating your own prop with a fine piece ofwood ! Got to go, furnace is running in the shop. DanRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
I like it ! No, I really like it! Dan, you must be one of those experimentalhome builders. I can't wait until you start working on the contra rotating propdesign. There is nothing like creating your own prop with a fine piece ofwood ! Got to go, furnace is running in the shop. DanRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Dan,What a beautiful looking prop. Have you weighed it. I would guess it weighs about18 pounds. I like it. It should be fun and keep you on your toes when proppingit.Cheers,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:54:11 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Dan,What a beautiful looking prop. Have you weighed it. I would guess it weighs about18 pounds. I like it. It should be fun and keep you on your toes when proppingit.Cheers,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:54:11 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Re: Pietenpol-List: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: "Charles N. Campbell"
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________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:56:18 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Andy-- storage space and fuel
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________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:56:18 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Re: Pietenpol-List: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: Charles Burkholder
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: VNE at cruise- bungees versus springs landing
Original Posted By: George Abernathy
Re: Pietenpol-List: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: Scott Knowlton
I followed Mike's good advice and am glad I did. Front combings are 10.5 inches above the longerons with the tank holding 18.5 gals. Very simple and easy to engineer/install. Scott KnowltonBurlington Ontario. Sent from my iPad> On Feb 24, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-LME0)[Vantage Partners, LLC] wrote:> > Andy,> > Welcome to the list. My two cents on your ideas of a wing tank and header tank---no need for either. Simply fabricate a large nose tank> for right behind your firewall and you will reap the following advantages:> > 1) your wing center section can be used entirely for baggage. http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Mik ... ke_cuy.htm> 2) you=99ll never need a ladder to get up to fuel your center section tank.> 3) you=99ll never spill fuel from filling your wing tank into your cockpit> 4) you=99ll have about 2 hours, with generous reserves with a large nose tank. > 5) My nose tank is 17 gallons and I have flown 2 hour 30 minute legs which his ridiculous but it can be done.> 6) you=99ll eliminate extra fuel lines, shutoff valves, fittings, and weight.> 7) you will be able to fill your tank standing on the ground, without a ladder if necessary or from fuel cans of your choice.> > > As others have mentioned, you can still install a spartan front cockpit and have a very large baggage capacity if you are going cross country without> a passenger. I installed a removable control stick in the front (slip fits into the stick socket if my passenger would like to fly) and had a local upholstery> shop sew up a black canvas U-shaped sack that snaps all the way around the perimeter of my front cockpit to hold my camping gear and other essential> things like pillow and teddy bear and snacks and such. Lots of room up there=94you=99d be amazed what you can carry between your open center section and> front cockpit sling. I also had the upholstery shop sew up two genuine fake leather Rich Corinthian (did I mention fake?) leather cockpit covers that keep all> my stuff from flying out of the front cockpit and to cover up the cockpits while parked overnight at fly-in=99s. I hope this helps!> > Mike C.> Ohio> > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Andy-- storage space and fuel
I followed Mike's good advice and am glad I did. Front combings are 10.5 inches above the longerons with the tank holding 18.5 gals. Very simple and easy to engineer/install. Scott KnowltonBurlington Ontario. Sent from my iPad> On Feb 24, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-LME0)[Vantage Partners, LLC] wrote:> > Andy,> > Welcome to the list. My two cents on your ideas of a wing tank and header tank---no need for either. Simply fabricate a large nose tank> for right behind your firewall and you will reap the following advantages:> > 1) your wing center section can be used entirely for baggage. http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Mik ... ke_cuy.htm> 2) you=99ll never need a ladder to get up to fuel your center section tank.> 3) you=99ll never spill fuel from filling your wing tank into your cockpit> 4) you=99ll have about 2 hours, with generous reserves with a large nose tank. > 5) My nose tank is 17 gallons and I have flown 2 hour 30 minute legs which his ridiculous but it can be done.> 6) you=99ll eliminate extra fuel lines, shutoff valves, fittings, and weight.> 7) you will be able to fill your tank standing on the ground, without a ladder if necessary or from fuel cans of your choice.> > > As others have mentioned, you can still install a spartan front cockpit and have a very large baggage capacity if you are going cross country without> a passenger. I installed a removable control stick in the front (slip fits into the stick socket if my passenger would like to fly) and had a local upholstery> shop sew up a black canvas U-shaped sack that snaps all the way around the perimeter of my front cockpit to hold my camping gear and other essential> things like pillow and teddy bear and snacks and such. Lots of room up there=94you=99d be amazed what you can carry between your open center section and> front cockpit sling. I also had the upholstery shop sew up two genuine fake leather Rich Corinthian (did I mention fake?) leather cockpit covers that keep all> my stuff from flying out of the front cockpit and to cover up the cockpits while parked overnight at fly-in=99s. I hope this helps!> > Mike C.> Ohio> > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: "Andy Garrett"
I followed Mike's good advice and am glad I did. Front combings are 10.5 inches above the longerons with the tank holding 18.5 gals. Very simple and easy to engineer/install. Scott KnowltonBurlington Ontario. Sent from my iPad> On Feb 24, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-LME0)[Vantage Partners, LLC] wrote:> > Andy,> > Welcome to the list. My two cents on your ideas of a wing tank and header tank---no need for either. Simply fabricate a large nose tank> for right behind your firewall and you will reap the following advantages:> > 1) your wing center section can be used entirely for baggage. http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Mik ... ke_cuy.htm> 2) you=99ll never need a ladder to get up to fuel your center section tank.> 3) you=99ll never spill fuel from filling your wing tank into your cockpit> 4) you=99ll have about 2 hours, with generous reserves with a large nose tank. > 5) My nose tank is 17 gallons and I have flown 2 hour 30 minute legs which his ridiculous but it can be done.> 6) you=99ll eliminate extra fuel lines, shutoff valves, fittings, and weight.> 7) you will be able to fill your tank standing on the ground, without a ladder if necessary or from fuel cans of your choice.> > > As others have mentioned, you can still install a spartan front cockpit and have a very large baggage capacity if you are going cross country without> a passenger. I installed a removable control stick in the front (slip fits into the stick socket if my passenger would like to fly) and had a local upholstery> shop sew up a black canvas U-shaped sack that snaps all the way around the perimeter of my front cockpit to hold my camping gear and other essential> things like pillow and teddy bear and snacks and such. Lots of room up there=94you=99d be amazed what you can carry between your open center section and> front cockpit sling. I also had the upholstery shop sew up two genuine fake leather Rich Corinthian (did I mention fake?) leather cockpit covers that keep all> my stuff from flying out of the front cockpit and to cover up the cockpits while parked overnight at fly-in=99s. I hope this helps!> > Mike C.> Ohio> > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
I followed Mike's good advice and am glad I did. Front combings are 10.5 inches above the longerons with the tank holding 18.5 gals. Very simple and easy to engineer/install. Scott KnowltonBurlington Ontario. Sent from my iPad> On Feb 24, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-LME0)[Vantage Partners, LLC] wrote:> > Andy,> > Welcome to the list. My two cents on your ideas of a wing tank and header tank---no need for either. Simply fabricate a large nose tank> for right behind your firewall and you will reap the following advantages:> > 1) your wing center section can be used entirely for baggage. http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Mik ... ke_cuy.htm> 2) you=99ll never need a ladder to get up to fuel your center section tank.> 3) you=99ll never spill fuel from filling your wing tank into your cockpit> 4) you=99ll have about 2 hours, with generous reserves with a large nose tank. > 5) My nose tank is 17 gallons and I have flown 2 hour 30 minute legs which his ridiculous but it can be done.> 6) you=99ll eliminate extra fuel lines, shutoff valves, fittings, and weight.> 7) you will be able to fill your tank standing on the ground, without a ladder if necessary or from fuel cans of your choice.> > > As others have mentioned, you can still install a spartan front cockpit and have a very large baggage capacity if you are going cross country without> a passenger. I installed a removable control stick in the front (slip fits into the stick socket if my passenger would like to fly) and had a local upholstery> shop sew up a black canvas U-shaped sack that snaps all the way around the perimeter of my front cockpit to hold my camping gear and other essential> things like pillow and teddy bear and snacks and such. Lots of room up there=94you=99d be amazed what you can carry between your open center section and> front cockpit sling. I also had the upholstery shop sew up two genuine fake leather Rich Corinthian (did I mention fake?) leather cockpit covers that keep all> my stuff from flying out of the front cockpit and to cover up the cockpits while parked overnight at fly-in=99s. I hope this helps!> > Mike C.> Ohio> > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: "Jack Philips"
Well, that's just pretty obvious, isn't it?I'm left wondering why anyone would do it the other way.This doesn't require a pump does it? Still gravity feed--yes?--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Well, that's just pretty obvious, isn't it?I'm left wondering why anyone would do it the other way.This doesn't require a pump does it? Still gravity feed--yes?--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Let me give the response from the Loyal Opposition:A nose tank is a good solution, but does have its drawbacks:1. Pressure head. With a gravity fuel system (no fuel pumps) therecommended head above the carburetor at minimum fuel is 17". One of theworst things that can happen is to be at very low fuel and be on short finalwhen some idiot in a Cessna pulls out onto the runway to takeoff (havingjust announced his intentions on the radio, assuming everyone has a radioand uses it). You shove the throttle forward, haul back on the stick andthe engine sputters and quits because there is not enough pressure head toflow sufficient fuel to the carburetor. That's why one of the criticaltests you need to make before your first flight is a fuel flow test with thetailwheel set in a hole several inches below ground level, simulating themaximum angle of climb you might ever need.2. Loss of easy to access baggage space. With my fuel tank in thecentersection, I have a very nice baggage compartment big enough to hold atent, a sleeping bag, an airmattress and a small duffle bag, in addition tothe chocks and tie downs I always carry. And I can access that baggagecompartment without a ladder. I don't see how you can carry much of a tentin the centersection, since it's only about 5" tall at the most. I've seenthe tent Mike Cuy uses. My dog wouldn't fit in it. And it's a very smalldog.3. With the tank in the centersection CG changes with fuel burn are minimaland are not noticeable.4. With the tank in the nose it is difficult to provide a sump drain thatcan be easily reached to check for water in the gas. With a centersectiontank the sump drains (you need one at the lowest point of the tank, and ifthe tank is flat, you'll need one on each side at the rear of the tank) areeasy to check when pre-flighting the airplane. Of course, you'll also needa drain at the gascolator, which should be at the lowest point of the fuelsystem. Building a nose tank that won't trap water in a low point isdifficult, and relying on the gascolator to show you all trapped water isdangerous5. We can start a discussion about whether it is good to have a lap full offuel in the event of a crash, but I'm not sure which is worse - a lap fullof fuel or a face full of fuel. I think the dynamics of each and everycrash are different and it is not possible to find a place for a fuel tankthat is totally crashworthy.6. When refueling with a nose tank you can get careless, knowing that yourbutt will stay dry even if you run the tank over. You'll only do that oncewith a centersection tank. Then you'll learn to refuel much more carefully(ask me how I know).Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Let me give the response from the Loyal Opposition:A nose tank is a good solution, but does have its drawbacks:1. Pressure head. With a gravity fuel system (no fuel pumps) therecommended head above the carburetor at minimum fuel is 17". One of theworst things that can happen is to be at very low fuel and be on short finalwhen some idiot in a Cessna pulls out onto the runway to takeoff (havingjust announced his intentions on the radio, assuming everyone has a radioand uses it). You shove the throttle forward, haul back on the stick andthe engine sputters and quits because there is not enough pressure head toflow sufficient fuel to the carburetor. That's why one of the criticaltests you need to make before your first flight is a fuel flow test with thetailwheel set in a hole several inches below ground level, simulating themaximum angle of climb you might ever need.2. Loss of easy to access baggage space. With my fuel tank in thecentersection, I have a very nice baggage compartment big enough to hold atent, a sleeping bag, an airmattress and a small duffle bag, in addition tothe chocks and tie downs I always carry. And I can access that baggagecompartment without a ladder. I don't see how you can carry much of a tentin the centersection, since it's only about 5" tall at the most. I've seenthe tent Mike Cuy uses. My dog wouldn't fit in it. And it's a very smalldog.3. With the tank in the centersection CG changes with fuel burn are minimaland are not noticeable.4. With the tank in the nose it is difficult to provide a sump drain thatcan be easily reached to check for water in the gas. With a centersectiontank the sump drains (you need one at the lowest point of the tank, and ifthe tank is flat, you'll need one on each side at the rear of the tank) areeasy to check when pre-flighting the airplane. Of course, you'll also needa drain at the gascolator, which should be at the lowest point of the fuelsystem. Building a nose tank that won't trap water in a low point isdifficult, and relying on the gascolator to show you all trapped water isdangerous5. We can start a discussion about whether it is good to have a lap full offuel in the event of a crash, but I'm not sure which is worse - a lap fullof fuel or a face full of fuel. I think the dynamics of each and everycrash are different and it is not possible to find a place for a fuel tankthat is totally crashworthy.6. When refueling with a nose tank you can get careless, knowing that yourbutt will stay dry even if you run the tank over. You'll only do that oncewith a centersection tank. Then you'll learn to refuel much more carefully(ask me how I know).Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
> Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: danhelsper(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: "dwilson"
Andy,Yes, my A-65 is all gravity fed with no need for a fuel pump.I highly suggest to follow the gravity fuel flow test that Tony Bingelis outlines in his homebuilder book series because that wayyou know exactly how much useable and unusable fuel you have in your tank.For a full-power, nose high (takeoff climb attitude) for my engine I can safely operate (according to the calculations I gleaned from Tony's books and test suggestions)down to 1.3 gallons remaining of my 17 gallon capacity. I never cut my fuel this low but at least I know when the fuel flow rate becomes insufficient to keep the carbfed.I basically built my plane with a phone, a credit card, and the Tony Bingelis books. The Bingelis books are worth their weight in gold for any homebuider---a bit dated butairworthiness never gets out of date really.And Chuck Campbell, I'm sorry but I don't have dimensions for my fuel tank but basically I followed the shape of my front cockpit instrument panel radius (though I raisedmy instrument panels 1" higher than plans.) and then made the bottom of it slope forward at about the same angle and a little above as the front seat passenger's legswould be positioned.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Andy,Yes, my A-65 is all gravity fed with no need for a fuel pump.I highly suggest to follow the gravity fuel flow test that Tony Bingelis outlines in his homebuilder book series because that wayyou know exactly how much useable and unusable fuel you have in your tank.For a full-power, nose high (takeoff climb attitude) for my engine I can safely operate (according to the calculations I gleaned from Tony's books and test suggestions)down to 1.3 gallons remaining of my 17 gallon capacity. I never cut my fuel this low but at least I know when the fuel flow rate becomes insufficient to keep the carbfed.I basically built my plane with a phone, a credit card, and the Tony Bingelis books. The Bingelis books are worth their weight in gold for any homebuider---a bit dated butairworthiness never gets out of date really.And Chuck Campbell, I'm sorry but I don't have dimensions for my fuel tank but basically I followed the shape of my front cockpit instrument panel radius (though I raisedmy instrument panels 1" higher than plans.) and then made the bottom of it slope forward at about the same angle and a little above as the front seat passenger's legswould be positioned.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: airlion2(at)gmail.com
Makes sense to me ! They did the same thing with the spitfire. Two blades, thenthree, then four, then five, then the contra rotating. You have that God givenPietenpol grin even when your not flying ! Now get started on the five blademodel to harness all that Ford horsepower !DanRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Makes sense to me ! They did the same thing with the spitfire. Two blades, thenthree, then four, then five, then the contra rotating. You have that God givenPietenpol grin even when your not flying ! Now get started on the five blademodel to harness all that Ford horsepower !DanRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By:>> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
One good solution is to strap a tent or whatever you wantunder the wing, I did and itdoesn,t change the flight characteristics.Sent from my iPad> On Feb 24, 2015, at 10:11 PM, Steven Dortch wrote:> > Gotta Love Experimental. Three good solutions. 1. Dual tanks, 2. Big nose tank, 3. Big wing tank. All three rationally considered and planned.> > Blue Skies,> Steve D > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jack Philips wrote:s.com>>> >> Let me give the response from the Loyal Opposition:>> >> A nose tank is a good solution, but does have its drawbacks:>> >> 1. Pressure head. With a gravity fuel system (no fuel pumps) the>> recommended head above the carburetor at minimum fuel is 17". One of the>> worst things that can happen is to be at very low fuel and be on short final>> when some idiot in a Cessna pulls out onto the runway to takeoff (having>> just announced his intentions on the radio, assuming everyone has a radio>> and uses it). You shove the throttle forward, haul back on the stick and>> the engine sputters and quits because there is not enough pressure head to>> flow sufficient fuel to the carburetor. That's why one of the critical>> tests you need to make before your first flight is a fuel flow test with the>> tailwheel set in a hole several inches below ground level, simulating the>> maximum angle of climb you might ever need.>> >> 2. Loss of easy to access baggage space. With my fuel tank in the>> centersection, I have a very nice baggage compartment big enough to hold a>> tent, a sleeping bag, an airmattress and a small duffle bag, in addition to>> the chocks and tie downs I always carry. And I can access that baggage>> compartment without a ladder. I don't see how you can carry much of a tent>> in the centersection, since it's only about 5" tall at the most. I've seen>> the tent Mike Cuy uses. My dog wouldn't fit in it. And it's a very small>> dog.>> >> 3. With the tank in the centersection CG changes with fuel burn are minimal>> and are not noticeable.>> >> 4. With the tank in the nose it is difficult to provide a sump drain that>> can be easily reached to check for water in the gas. With a centersection>> tank the sump drains (you need one at the lowest point of the tank, and if>> the tank is flat, you'll need one on each side at the rear of the tank) are>> easy to check when pre-flighting the airplane. Of course, you'll also need>> a drain at the gascolator, which should be at the lowest point of the fuel>> system. Building a nose tank that won't trap water in a low point is>> difficult, and relying on the gascolator to show you all trapped water is>> dangerous>> >> 5. We can start a discussion about whether it is good to have a lap full of>> fuel in the event of a crash, but I'm not sure which is worse - a lap full>> of fuel or a face full of fuel. I think the dynamics of each and every>> crash are different and it is not possible to find a place for a fuel tank>> that is totally crashworthy.>> >> 6. When refueling with a nose tank you can get careless, knowing that your>> butt will stay dry even if you run the tank over. You'll only do that once>> with a centersection tank. Then you'll learn to refuel much more carefully>> (ask me how I know).>> >> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia>> >> -----Original Message-----
One good solution is to strap a tent or whatever you wantunder the wing, I did and itdoesn,t change the flight characteristics.Sent from my iPad> On Feb 24, 2015, at 10:11 PM, Steven Dortch wrote:> > Gotta Love Experimental. Three good solutions. 1. Dual tanks, 2. Big nose tank, 3. Big wing tank. All three rationally considered and planned.> > Blue Skies,> Steve D > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jack Philips wrote:s.com>>> >> Let me give the response from the Loyal Opposition:>> >> A nose tank is a good solution, but does have its drawbacks:>> >> 1. Pressure head. With a gravity fuel system (no fuel pumps) the>> recommended head above the carburetor at minimum fuel is 17". One of the>> worst things that can happen is to be at very low fuel and be on short final>> when some idiot in a Cessna pulls out onto the runway to takeoff (having>> just announced his intentions on the radio, assuming everyone has a radio>> and uses it). You shove the throttle forward, haul back on the stick and>> the engine sputters and quits because there is not enough pressure head to>> flow sufficient fuel to the carburetor. That's why one of the critical>> tests you need to make before your first flight is a fuel flow test with the>> tailwheel set in a hole several inches below ground level, simulating the>> maximum angle of climb you might ever need.>> >> 2. Loss of easy to access baggage space. With my fuel tank in the>> centersection, I have a very nice baggage compartment big enough to hold a>> tent, a sleeping bag, an airmattress and a small duffle bag, in addition to>> the chocks and tie downs I always carry. And I can access that baggage>> compartment without a ladder. I don't see how you can carry much of a tent>> in the centersection, since it's only about 5" tall at the most. I've seen>> the tent Mike Cuy uses. My dog wouldn't fit in it. And it's a very small>> dog.>> >> 3. With the tank in the centersection CG changes with fuel burn are minimal>> and are not noticeable.>> >> 4. With the tank in the nose it is difficult to provide a sump drain that>> can be easily reached to check for water in the gas. With a centersection>> tank the sump drains (you need one at the lowest point of the tank, and if>> the tank is flat, you'll need one on each side at the rear of the tank) are>> easy to check when pre-flighting the airplane. Of course, you'll also need>> a drain at the gascolator, which should be at the lowest point of the fuel>> system. Building a nose tank that won't trap water in a low point is>> difficult, and relying on the gascolator to show you all trapped water is>> dangerous>> >> 5. We can start a discussion about whether it is good to have a lap full of>> fuel in the event of a crash, but I'm not sure which is worse - a lap full>> of fuel or a face full of fuel. I think the dynamics of each and every>> crash are different and it is not possible to find a place for a fuel tank>> that is totally crashworthy.>> >> 6. When refueling with a nose tank you can get careless, knowing that your>> butt will stay dry even if you run the tank over. You'll only do that once>> with a centersection tank. Then you'll learn to refuel much more carefully>> (ask me how I know).>> >> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia>> >> -----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: nose tank---gravity fed
Original Posted By: Ray Krause
This is amazing. Now that I see the sketches of how Mikee did it, I realize thatthe fuel tank, float, outlet, valve, and everything aft of the firewall onNX41CC is nearly identical to what is shown in the sketches, down to the tensioningstrap across the top and everything in-between. My tank holds 16 gallonsbut I have never actually run the Bingelis test to determine unusable fuel...I ran the Zuniga test, where you fly it to fuel exhaustion. I do not recommendthis test method unless you are interested in methods for assisted suicide(legal in Oregon but not in Texas, where I inadvertently ran the test).--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
This is amazing. Now that I see the sketches of how Mikee did it, I realize thatthe fuel tank, float, outlet, valve, and everything aft of the firewall onNX41CC is nearly identical to what is shown in the sketches, down to the tensioningstrap across the top and everything in-between. My tank holds 16 gallonsbut I have never actually run the Bingelis test to determine unusable fuel...I ran the Zuniga test, where you fly it to fuel exhaustion. I do not recommendthis test method unless you are interested in methods for assisted suicide(legal in Oregon but not in Texas, where I inadvertently ran the test).--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By:>>> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Just as a point of interest: had a friend who commuted to Chico State College in a Cub. He strapped a bicycle to the struts so he could ride from the airport (Ranchero) to the campus, 1.5 miles! He said the plane flew the same with, or without the bike...slowly!Ray KrauseCovering SkyScoutSent from my iPad> On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:28 PM, airlion2(at)gmail.com wrote:> > One good solution is to strap a tent or whatever you wantunder the wing, I did and itdoesn,t change the flight characteristics.> > Sent from my iPad> >> On Feb 24, 2015, at 10:11 PM, Steven Dortch wrote:>> >> Gotta Love Experimental. Three good solutions. 1. Dual tanks, 2. Big nose tank, 3. Big wing tank. All three rationally considered and planned.>> >> Blue Skies,>> Steve D >> >>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jack Philips wrote:gs.com>>>> >>> Let me give the response from the Loyal Opposition:>>> >>> A nose tank is a good solution, but does have its drawbacks:>>> >>> 1. Pressure head. With a gravity fuel system (no fuel pumps) the>>> recommended head above the carburetor at minimum fuel is 17". One of the>>> worst things that can happen is to be at very low fuel and be on short final>>> when some idiot in a Cessna pulls out onto the runway to takeoff (having>>> just announced his intentions on the radio, assuming everyone has a radio>>> and uses it). You shove the throttle forward, haul back on the stick and>>> the engine sputters and quits because there is not enough pressure head to>>> flow sufficient fuel to the carburetor. That's why one of the critical>>> tests you need to make before your first flight is a fuel flow test with the>>> tailwheel set in a hole several inches below ground level, simulating the>>> maximum angle of climb you might ever need.>>> >>> 2. Loss of easy to access baggage space. With my fuel tank in the>>> centersection, I have a very nice baggage compartment big enough to hold a>>> tent, a sleeping bag, an airmattress and a small duffle bag, in addition to>>> the chocks and tie downs I always carry. And I can access that baggage>>> compartment without a ladder. I don't see how you can carry much of a tent>>> in the centersection, since it's only about 5" tall at the most. I've seen>>> the tent Mike Cuy uses. My dog wouldn't fit in it. And it's a very small>>> dog.>>> >>> 3. With the tank in the centersection CG changes with fuel burn are minimal>>> and are not noticeable.>>> >>> 4. With the tank in the nose it is difficult to provide a sump drain that>>> can be easily reached to check for water in the gas. With a centersection>>> tank the sump drains (you need one at the lowest point of the tank, and if>>> the tank is flat, you'll need one on each side at the rear of the tank) are>>> easy to check when pre-flighting the airplane. Of course, you'll also need>>> a drain at the gascolator, which should be at the lowest point of the fuel>>> system. Building a nose tank that won't trap water in a low point is>>> difficult, and relying on the gascolator to show you all trapped water is>>> dangerous>>> >>> 5. We can start a discussion about whether it is good to have a lap full of>>> fuel in the event of a crash, but I'm not sure which is worse - a lap full>>> of fuel or a face full of fuel. I think the dynamics of each and every>>> crash are different and it is not possible to find a place for a fuel tank>>> that is totally crashworthy.>>> >>> 6. When refueling with a nose tank you can get careless, knowing that your>>> butt will stay dry even if you run the tank over. You'll only do that once>>> with a centersection tank. Then you'll learn to refuel much more carefully>>> (ask me how I know).>>> >>> Jack Phillips>>> NX899JP>>> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
Just as a point of interest: had a friend who commuted to Chico State College in a Cub. He strapped a bicycle to the struts so he could ride from the airport (Ranchero) to the campus, 1.5 miles! He said the plane flew the same with, or without the bike...slowly!Ray KrauseCovering SkyScoutSent from my iPad> On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:28 PM, airlion2(at)gmail.com wrote:> > One good solution is to strap a tent or whatever you wantunder the wing, I did and itdoesn,t change the flight characteristics.> > Sent from my iPad> >> On Feb 24, 2015, at 10:11 PM, Steven Dortch wrote:>> >> Gotta Love Experimental. Three good solutions. 1. Dual tanks, 2. Big nose tank, 3. Big wing tank. All three rationally considered and planned.>> >> Blue Skies,>> Steve D >> >>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jack Philips wrote:gs.com>>>> >>> Let me give the response from the Loyal Opposition:>>> >>> A nose tank is a good solution, but does have its drawbacks:>>> >>> 1. Pressure head. With a gravity fuel system (no fuel pumps) the>>> recommended head above the carburetor at minimum fuel is 17". One of the>>> worst things that can happen is to be at very low fuel and be on short final>>> when some idiot in a Cessna pulls out onto the runway to takeoff (having>>> just announced his intentions on the radio, assuming everyone has a radio>>> and uses it). You shove the throttle forward, haul back on the stick and>>> the engine sputters and quits because there is not enough pressure head to>>> flow sufficient fuel to the carburetor. That's why one of the critical>>> tests you need to make before your first flight is a fuel flow test with the>>> tailwheel set in a hole several inches below ground level, simulating the>>> maximum angle of climb you might ever need.>>> >>> 2. Loss of easy to access baggage space. With my fuel tank in the>>> centersection, I have a very nice baggage compartment big enough to hold a>>> tent, a sleeping bag, an airmattress and a small duffle bag, in addition to>>> the chocks and tie downs I always carry. And I can access that baggage>>> compartment without a ladder. I don't see how you can carry much of a tent>>> in the centersection, since it's only about 5" tall at the most. I've seen>>> the tent Mike Cuy uses. My dog wouldn't fit in it. And it's a very small>>> dog.>>> >>> 3. With the tank in the centersection CG changes with fuel burn are minimal>>> and are not noticeable.>>> >>> 4. With the tank in the nose it is difficult to provide a sump drain that>>> can be easily reached to check for water in the gas. With a centersection>>> tank the sump drains (you need one at the lowest point of the tank, and if>>> the tank is flat, you'll need one on each side at the rear of the tank) are>>> easy to check when pre-flighting the airplane. Of course, you'll also need>>> a drain at the gascolator, which should be at the lowest point of the fuel>>> system. Building a nose tank that won't trap water in a low point is>>> difficult, and relying on the gascolator to show you all trapped water is>>> dangerous>>> >>> 5. We can start a discussion about whether it is good to have a lap full of>>> fuel in the event of a crash, but I'm not sure which is worse - a lap full>>> of fuel or a face full of fuel. I think the dynamics of each and every>>> crash are different and it is not possible to find a place for a fuel tank>>> that is totally crashworthy.>>> >>> 6. When refueling with a nose tank you can get careless, knowing that your>>> butt will stay dry even if you run the tank over. You'll only do that once>>> with a centersection tank. Then you'll learn to refuel much more carefully>>> (ask me how I know).>>> >>> Jack Phillips>>> NX899JP>>> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: "taildrags"
More excellent points. I suspect this will be a trend--multiple solutions to challenges.To be clear..., a 'header tank' is just a smaller tank in the nose which is fedby the wing tank. Yes?--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
More excellent points. I suspect this will be a trend--multiple solutions to challenges.To be clear..., a 'header tank' is just a smaller tank in the nose which is fedby the wing tank. Yes?--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, KansasRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: "taildrags"
Andy;My answer to your question about a header tank is just my answer-"yes", but toelaborate, I consider a header tank to be one that doesn't have its own fillercap and so it is filled from the main tank by the pilot's manipulation of valves.If I could possibly stretch an aviation regulation that says there mustbe a quantity indicator for each fuel tank, I would further stretch things bysaying that header tanks don't usually have quantity indicators. You have afuel gauge for the main tank, but once it feeds into the header tank you don'ttypically have a readout of what's in that tank. Anyone else care to comment?--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Andy;My answer to your question about a header tank is just my answer-"yes", but toelaborate, I consider a header tank to be one that doesn't have its own fillercap and so it is filled from the main tank by the pilot's manipulation of valves.If I could possibly stretch an aviation regulation that says there mustbe a quantity indicator for each fuel tank, I would further stretch things bysaying that header tanks don't usually have quantity indicators. You have afuel gauge for the main tank, but once it feeds into the header tank you don'ttypically have a readout of what's in that tank. Anyone else care to comment?--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: CLIF DAWSON
WF2, I'm with you on the principle of one blade's interfering with the aerodynamicefficiency of those that follow it in the arc. As I understand it, the trendtowards 4-, 5-, and 6-blade props on the fast twins and turboprops has moreto do with noise than with efficiency, although there is no arguing with theairlines' desire to move the most load while burning the least amount of fuel.That said, I hope you'll concede the point that on this list at least, appearance(and aesthetics) carry almost as much weight as efficiency? We never wereabout efficiency here, or else we would have come up with a fast glass parallelto the traditional Air Camper much as "Lionheart" is to the Beech Staggerwing.The 4-bladed wood prop that a builder carves by hand says so much morethan a Prince P-tip says about the airplane... and I'm saying this as an AirCamper owner/pilot who owns a perfectly good (and probably more efficient) P-Tipbut has not yet had the heart to install it on my airplane instead of the laminatedwood Tennessee Props stick that is on it.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:30:05 -0700 (MST)
WF2, I'm with you on the principle of one blade's interfering with the aerodynamicefficiency of those that follow it in the arc. As I understand it, the trendtowards 4-, 5-, and 6-blade props on the fast twins and turboprops has moreto do with noise than with efficiency, although there is no arguing with theairlines' desire to move the most load while burning the least amount of fuel.That said, I hope you'll concede the point that on this list at least, appearance(and aesthetics) carry almost as much weight as efficiency? We never wereabout efficiency here, or else we would have come up with a fast glass parallelto the traditional Air Camper much as "Lionheart" is to the Beech Staggerwing.The 4-bladed wood prop that a builder carves by hand says so much morethan a Prince P-tip says about the airplane... and I'm saying this as an AirCamper owner/pilot who owns a perfectly good (and probably more efficient) P-Tipbut has not yet had the heart to install it on my airplane instead of the laminatedwood Tennessee Props stick that is on it.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:30:05 -0700 (MST)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: "womenfly2"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuelReally large bump in the fuel line. :-)ClifTo be clear..., a 'header tank' is just a smaller tank in the nose which isfed by the wing tank. Yes?--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, Kansas________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuelReally large bump in the fuel line. :-)ClifTo be clear..., a 'header tank' is just a smaller tank in the nose which isfed by the wing tank. Yes?--------Andy Garrett'General Purpose Creative Dude'Haysville, Kansas________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: Peter Johnson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Its all about the math. Prop design is about Engine HP, torque, RPM, speed, etc.The reason multiple blades are use is not for noise but for turning the HP intothrust. Noise reduction has to do with blade design profiles.Anyway have fun .... your 4-blade prop will need to be thin and small in diameterto get the thrust you need, but you will find that out as you experiment.Based on my Model-A engines HP and other known facts, my propeller calculationsfor the 2nd prop I carved was this one. Its the one we flew with.Here is some in site: Simplified propeller design for low-powered airplaneshttps://archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19930080999/19930080999#page/n3/mode/2upCheers ... I will be quite now.WF2--------Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/m_01 ... ______Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:37:14 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Its all about the math. Prop design is about Engine HP, torque, RPM, speed, etc.The reason multiple blades are use is not for noise but for turning the HP intothrust. Noise reduction has to do with blade design profiles.Anyway have fun .... your 4-blade prop will need to be thin and small in diameterto get the thrust you need, but you will find that out as you experiment.Based on my Model-A engines HP and other known facts, my propeller calculationsfor the 2nd prop I carved was this one. Its the one we flew with.Here is some in site: Simplified propeller design for low-powered airplaneshttps://archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19930080999/19930080999#page/n3/mode/2upCheers ... I will be quite now.WF2--------Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/m_01 ... ______Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:37:14 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four-bladed prop
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
=9CTrue confessions. We put the lever on the valve so long ago that I can't remember if the handle points to the tank or the little pointer on the knob points to the correct tank.=9DSorry to pick on this statement, Steve, but I couldn=99t help thinking about the inexperienced, or rusty pilot (like me), flying his new Pietenpol for the first time, and having to worry about fuel management. What happens the first time that engine coughs on takeoff?It=99s just my opinion, but, whether a builder designs and builds a beautiful 15 gallon nose tank, like Mark=99s, or a 16 gallon center section tank like mine, the Pietenpol does not need any more fueland definitely not multiple tanks. In other words, one large tank is better than two smaller onesagain, just my opinion.Gary BootheNX308MB
=9CTrue confessions. We put the lever on the valve so long ago that I can't remember if the handle points to the tank or the little pointer on the knob points to the correct tank.=9DSorry to pick on this statement, Steve, but I couldn=99t help thinking about the inexperienced, or rusty pilot (like me), flying his new Pietenpol for the first time, and having to worry about fuel management. What happens the first time that engine coughs on takeoff?It=99s just my opinion, but, whether a builder designs and builds a beautiful 15 gallon nose tank, like Mark=99s, or a 16 gallon center section tank like mine, the Pietenpol does not need any more fueland definitely not multiple tanks. In other words, one large tank is better than two smaller onesagain, just my opinion.Gary BootheNX308MB
Re: Pietenpol-List: nose tank---gravity fed
Original Posted By: "Charles N. Campbell"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: nose tank---gravity fed
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: nose tank---gravity fed
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: "Charles N. Campbell"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Andy-- storage space and fuel