Pietenpol-List: New member

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

Pietenpol-List: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Jim Skinner
Hi,my name is Perry Morrison. I'm a management consultant/psych based inDarwinAustralia. I fly ultralights here and own a Sorrell Hyperlite biplane. I'dlike advice on the advisability of modifying the Piet in these ways:1. Welded chromoly or similar structure.2. Stengthening to basic aerobatic capabilities ie +6 and -4 Gs.3. Putting a more powerful motor in (eg Subaru EA-81).I'm looking to build a cheap, 2 seat, simple a/c with very basic aerobaticcapabilities ie slow rolls, loops, barrel rolls.Also, what are the characteristics of the present airfoil. A note on theBPApage suggests unpleasant stall characteristics.I realise that purists would suggest I am trying to turn the Piet tosomethingit wasn't intended for. Dr. Perry Morrison________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn)
Hi John and others! > Having had a ride in one lately, I can tell you the Piet's adequate but> somewhat leisurely roll rate would rule it out for aerobatics before you> even get into structural considerations. Forget about it.Worth knowing!> > The best airplane in my opinion for cheap aerobatics is a Sonerai II. Steel> tube, metal wings, stressed for about 9G. Rolls about 180deg/second. > Put a Jabiru in it.I've flown Jabirus here in Australia and my personal opinion is that theJab is anightmare of an engine. Ours had a failure in 22 hrs. It never ran well.Threefailures in < 100 hrs before the guy sold it. The u/light mag here islitteredwith Jab failures. Mostly upper parts of the engine- valves and guides,cylinderstuds. That was the 1600 engine. I note the first report here of the 2200.Sameas always. Beautiful airframe. But the engine certification here was a bitsus in myopinion.________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Dean Dayton
Hello Perry,My Pietenpol, before it was mine, was flown by someone who said it did greatloops and rolls. It is per plans except for heavy wall struts, with onepiece wing and no jury struts. These sorts of manuvers can be done smoothlysuch that they stress the airframe very little. A number of people here inthe states do mild aerobatics in unmodified Cubs and the like. Note thatthese are just my observations. I am not a mechanical engineer. Irecommend that you check things out fully before you try anything! On the engine: mine has a 90 Hp Franklin aircraft engine (4 cylinderopposed). Performance is VERY good. :) I know of one person who was putting in a 125 Hp Lycoming GPU. And he addedflaps. Guess he really wanted a helicopter! ;) I lost track of him beforeI heard how it flew.Jim Skinner>Hi,>>my name is Perry Morrison. I'm a management consultant/psych based in>Darwin>Australia. I fly ultralights here and own a Sorrell Hyperlite biplane. I'd>like advice on the advisability of modifying the Piet in these ways:>>>1. Welded chromoly or similar structure.>2. Stengthening to basic aerobatic capabilities ie +6 and -4 Gs.>3. Putting a more powerful motor in (eg Subaru EA-81).>>I'm looking to build a cheap, 2 seat, simple a/c with very basic aerobatic>capabilities ie slow rolls, loops, barrel rolls.>>Also, what are the characteristics of the present airfoil. A note on the>BPA>page suggests unpleasant stall characteristics.>>I realise that purists would suggest I am trying to turn the Piet to>something>it wasn't intended for. >>Dr. Perry Morrison>>________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn)
>1. Welded chromoly or similar structure.If you have the money, there is nothing wrong with doing this.>2. Stengthening to basic aerobatic capabilities ie +6 and -4 Gs.I would really discourage you from doing this. Unless you are capable of doing a complete structural analysis and redesigning the plane from the ground up. This plane was not designed for this kind of stress and a half-hearted attempt to modify it will probably be deadly.>3. Putting a more powerful motor in (eg Subaru EA-81).I think the this is probably the same as number 2 above.>I am not a purist. But I think that there are better choices out there for a low cost aerobatic platform. That was never the intent of the Piet.Good LuckDean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Owen Davies
Having had a ride in one lately, I can tell you the Piet's adequate butsomewhat leisurely roll rate would rule it out for aerobatics before youeven get into structural considerations. Forget about it.The best airplane in my opinion for cheap aerobatics is a Sonerai II. Steeltube, metal wings, stressed for about 9G. Rolls about 180deg/second. Put a Jabiru in it.________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Steve Eldredge
Among other things, someone asked for:> 1. Welded chromoly or similar structure.Note that Bernie himself designed a steel-tube version of thePiet fuselage. It was analyzed by a structural engineer anddeclared to be more than strong enough, even in mild steel.No reason not to build it from 4130, though. You can find theplan in the Flying & Glider Manual. I think it was the 1932 issue.Owen Davies________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Mike List
> > Hi John and others!> > > > Having had a ride in one lately, I can tell you the Piet's adequate but> > somewhat leisurely roll rate would rule it out for aerobatics before you> > even get into structural considerations. Forget about it.> > Worth knowing!> > > > > The best airplane in my opinion for cheap aerobatics is a Sonerai II. > Steel> > tube, metal wings, stressed for about 9G. Rolls about 180deg/second. > > Put a Jabiru in it.> > I've flown Jabirus here in Australia and my personal opinion is that the> Jab is a> nightmare of an engine. Ours had a failure in 22 hrs. It never ran well.> Three> failures in littered> with Jab failures. Mostly upper parts of the engine- valves and guides,> cylinder> studs. That was the 1600 engine. I note the first report here of the 2200.> Same> as always. Beautiful airframe. But the engine certification here was a bit> sus in my> opinion.> Now that's good intelligence! Been waiting to hear anecdotal evidenceon the Jabiru for quite a while. Cross out that option... Now a Sonerai with a Model A... about 40lbs of ballast in the tail would do it...jk________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Change of e-mail address

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: William Conway
Steve,Hope you are still making good progress towards completing your Piet. Iknow you can taste it!I am dropping AOL today as my internet provider as I can only seem toget on between 11pm and 5am. Will contact you in a few days with a newe-mail address so I can keep up with the chat group.Thanks.Mike List (formerly powracer(at)aol.com)________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn)
Hi people,> Perry, I am quite interested in your comments on the Jab engine . I am> about to build a Kolb Mark Three for Jim Paige overin Rockport Texas and> he does not like the rotex engines and has insisted that I hang a Jabaru> on it . He nor I know anything about the engine except from the data we> have read and talking to the dealer that sells them . It sounds like a> great engine and is 4cy. What you are saying is that is more advertising> than performance. Please elaborate on your experience with the as well> as others that you know that have had a problem with them Thanks Ernie.The Jab is a lovely engine to hear. It is very small, looks simple and theJab airframe is terrific. The engine has had a long history of failure attheupper end, Nothing seems to go wrong at the bottom end. It alwaysseems to be valve related, valve guides, springs, etc. Our club's historywas not unusual. If you really want to get the low down on the Jabiruengine I can get the email address of the owner of our former plane. One Jabiru owner passed by and related a saga of 5 engine failures. Again,this engine wasn't anywhere near overhaul time. I could easily find 2 dozenor more Jab failures detailed in our mag over the last 2 years. Probablymore, and all would have upper engine symptoms.I would like to think it was all poor maintenance, but our guys babied theplane. All of this was based on the Jab 1600 motor.This is a an extract of a report form the September 1997 AUF mag:Jabiru 2200:" Engine began to run extremely rough and exhibited substantialloss of power, with very excessive vibration. Cause: "Inspection revealedno. 4 cylinder 5/16 inch rocker assembly hold down screw cap ripped outthe full thread from the rocker assembly mount plate, breaking the assembly shaft housing in half, destroying the adjuster cups in theprocess."Total engine time 132 hrs. 7 hrs since service. I note that this a/c has 406 airframe hrs and 132 engine hrs, perhapsindicatingthat the 2200 engine is a replacement for a 1600 or another 2200.MAybe it's too soon to tell about the 2200, but my personal opinion is thatI would not fly on a Jab 1600 of any kind. The failure rate is simply toohigh.Pity, because the airframe is a real winner, I loved flying the plane, andit would be great to have an Oz success story. There are probably a dozen theories about the problems with the Jabiru1600 engine and some conspiracy ones too (like how it got certified).My advice would be to wait until the 2200 has established a history ofgood performance. If it is not substantially different from the 1600, thentheevidence should be clear pretty soon.Perry Morrison________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: perry
perry wrote:> > Hi John and others!> > > > Having had a ride in one lately, I can tell you the Piet's adequate but> > somewhat leisurely roll rate would rule it out for aerobatics before you> > even get into structural considerations. Forget about it.> > Worth knowing!> > >> > The best airplane in my opinion for cheap aerobatics is a Sonerai II.> Steel> > tube, metal wings, stressed for about 9G. Rolls about 180deg/second.> > Put a Jabiru in it.> > I've flown Jabirus here in Australia and my personal opinion is that the> Jab is a> nightmare of an engine. Ours had a failure in 22 hrs. It never ran well.> Three> failures in littered> with Jab failures. Mostly upper parts of the engine- valves and guides,> cylinder> studs. That was the 1600 engine. I note the first report here of the 2200.> Same> as always. Beautiful airframe. But the engine certification here was a bit> sus in my> opinion.Perry, I am quite interested in your comments on the Jab engine . I amabout to build a Kolb Mark Three for Jim Paige overin Rockport Texas andhe does not like the rotex engines and has insisted that I hang a Jabaruon it . He nor I know anything about the engine except from the data wehave read and talking to the dealer that sells them . It sounds like agreat engine and is 4cy. What you are saying is that is more advertisingthan performance. Please elaborate on your experience with the as wellas others that you know that have had a problem with them Thanks Ernie.________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Jim Markle
Just signed up to the forum as I'm looking into building a Piet myself. I livenear Sidney Ohio (Russia) and would like to see one and perhaps take a ride beforeI proceed. Can anyone recommend a local owner to me?--------JohnRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:23:52 -0400 (EDT)
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
John,Brodhead? Now you're talking! No better way to start...the Elixir ofPietenpolers...Gary BootheCool, CAPietenpolWW Corvair ConversionTail done, Fuselage on gear19 ribs done-----Original Message-----
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Gary Boothe"
I started my quest by joining the BPA today and putting out a request for a corvairengine with the local Corvair car club.--------JohnRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
If you haven't already, be sure to check out: www.westcoastpiet.com; andwww.flycorvair.com. Gary -----Original Message-----
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Marvin Haught
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Ben Charvet
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: Fwd: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
This has been discussed several times in the past. If you search the archives youwill easily find references.In any case, the short answer is, yes, the rib design doesn't really allow enoughroom to fit the full 4 3/4" rear spar. The best approach is to either bevelthe top edge of the rear spar to fit the rib, or to reduce the overall heightof the rear spar to fit with a square cut on the top - your choice. As an example,if the height of the rear spar was reduced from 4 3/4" down to 4 5/8",the resulting spar would still retain 92 percent of the bending strength of theoriginal spar. The spar with the beveled top edge will retain slightly morestrength than the square cut spar, but will be more difficult to cut. The rearspars carry less of the loading than the front spars anyway, so the slight reductionwill not be a problem.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fwd: New member
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
good to know.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: slow flying

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: airlion
Alright! On those days when I've got no particular place to go, 50-55mph is areal nice speed to get there. Thanks!Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:39 PM, "Jerry Dotson" wrote:> > Dan i don't see any way to damage the engine with a fixed pitch prop you can'tlug it. It might oil foul plugs if the rings and valve guides are not in goodshape. At that low a power setting there is a lot of vacuum on the cylinderside to suck oil past the clearances. My trusty Luscombe with an A-65 would foulplugs when I played around like that so I would go to full power for a minuteor so and that cured the plug fouling.> > --------> Jerry Dotson> 59 Daniel Johnson Rd> Baker, FL 32531> > Started building NX510JD July, 2009> now covering> 21" wheels> Lycoming O-235> Jay Anderson CloudCars prop> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 103#354103> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Peter Johnson
Hi. My name is David and I have been a lurker of this site for almost two years, during which time I have purchased plans, collected materials and completed the wing ribs. I live in Launceston, Tasmania, Australia. I have browsed the forum archives extensively (it=92s not the easiest database to search).I greatly appreciate the sage advice shared by those who frequent the site.I am working with Douglas fir (we call it Oregon pine) and have found four Model A Ford engines from which I should be able to make one really good one. In Australia spruce boards and Corvair engines are as scarce as rocking-horse manure.I have some questions: Firstly, the wing rib plans show extra sticks in the two end ribs. There are no gussets shown for some of the joins. I=92ve put them in but am interested to know what others have done.Secondly, I am interested in how others have actually attached the leading edge ply covering. Am I correct in thinking this is just glued and chamfered to take out sharp edges?Thirdly, the trailing edge gives two alternatives, top and bottom plates or tongue and groove. Either one better than the other?Lastly, I seem to recollect that some posters have recommended not gluing the ribs to the spars (in case of having to replace them at some stage) and I note that the plans only mentioning nailing. Glue and nail or nail only? I plan to varnish the ribs soon and don=92t want to get varnish where it may stop glue from =91taking=92.Cheers from =91way Down Under=92.David BoarderPietenpol-list(at)matrionics.com________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:43:31 +1100Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New member
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "CatDesigns"
Hi David. My advice may be about as helpful and rocking horse manure but heregoes. first of all welcome to the crazy world of Pietenpol , you will probablylove it. I am kind of a strange builder, I try not to stress over thelittle un-important details, especially if it is going to slow me down for nogood reason (damn the torpedoes full speed ahead ) as one of our American navalcommanders once said. I simply glued the leading edge down to the nose piecethen took a 7 inch sanding disk and sanded it to a feather edge. I guess ifyou are a good hand and have a good routing table you could inlet it into theleading edge but it wasn't worth it to me. As for the trailing edge, I choseto use little 3 inch tear drop gussets top and bottom glued and clamped. I believe the tongue and groove method is the best looking but I doubt if it isany stronger and it is more time consuming. As for the ribs to spar, I just nailed them like the plans show, you won'tgo far wrong to follow the plans. I have been building 2 years 3 months and Ihope to fly this spring. I don't wont to be building 10 years and be too oldand crippled up to fly when it is done . I may not have a show stopper but Iam building a flyer I hope. :)Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Welcome DavidQ1: Yes, put gussets on all joints. The joints will be very weak withoutthem and would likely break with just the vibration.Q2: Gluing and chamfering is the easiest. I cut a recess into the leadingedge using a table saw. Someplace I have a drawing of how I cut the leadingedge. Q3: I used the tongue and groove method. Very easy. Looks good too. Q4: I glued the ribs to the wing spar because I was concerned with thenails backing out over time. See I had heard that Aeronca's have had troublewith nails backing out and people have had to put access panels in thewings to fix them. That being said, I now say nail them on after someone Iknow damaged a spar in his Air Camper and was able to slide out the bad oneand slide in a new one all because he only nail the ribs on.My wing building pictureshttp://westcoastpiet.com/images/Chris_Tracy/Index.htmlYou're not the only Tasmanian Pietenpol.ChrisSacramento, CAWestcoastPiet.com
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Charles N. Campbell"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: New member
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "taildrags"
I recently watched Jimmy Stewart's Spirit of St. Louis movie (great movie witha very good build sequence by the way) and never noticed the wheel covers beforethen. They appear to be laced together with some type of wrap going aroundthe tire. I know there has been discussion in the past about smooth tires forPiets, and I wonder if this was a common wheel/tire practice back in the day?I guess the tire "wrap", whatever it is, would be more aggravation and probablymoney than just forking over $$$ from smooth tires from Coker tire. I doubtthey would take too many paved landings either. I personally don't care if mytires are smooth or not....just an observation :)--------Jon JonesIronton, MORead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/sosl ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
If you lace the ribs like the covering method calls for, I wouldn't think the ribsare going anywhere, nailed or glued.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: New member

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "aviken"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New memberHi. My name is David and I have been a lurker of this site for almost two years, during which time I have purchased plans, collected materials and completed the wing ribs. I live in Launceston, Tasmania, Australia. I have browsed the forum archives extensively (it=99s not the easiest database to search).I greatly appreciate the sage advice shared by those who frequent the site.I am working with Douglas fir (we call it Oregon pine) and have found four Model A Ford engines from which I should be able to make one really good one. In Australia spruce boards and Corvair engines are as scarce as rocking-horse manure. I have some questions: Firstly, the wing rib plans show extra sticks in the two end ribs. There are no gussets shown for some of the joins. I=99ve put them in but am interested to know what others have done.Secondly, I am interested in how others have actually attached the leading edge ply covering. Am I correct in thinking this is just glued and chamfered to take out sharp edges?Thirdly, the trailing edge gives two alternatives, top and bottom plates or tongue and groove. Either one better than the other?Lastly, I seem to recollect that some posters have recommended not gluing the ribs to the spars (in case of having to replace them at some stage) and I note that the plans only mentioning nailing. Glue and nail or nail only? I plan to varnish the ribs soon and don=99t want to get varnish where it may stop glue from =98taking=99.Cheers from =98way Down Under=99.David BoarderPietenpol-list(at)matrionics.com________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New member
Locked