Original Posted By: "Gary Boothe"
It's time to get serious and I could use some advice. How many different setsof plans are there for piets? I have the set published originally in the flyingand glider manual. Are these different from the ones available from the pietenpolfamily? What about those available from St. Croix? How about the biplaneversion? Any input would be very appreciated GlenSent from my iPhone________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Which one?
RE: Pietenpol-List: Which one?
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
There is only one Pietenpol...get the plans from the Pietenpol family. Theywill have updates available not in the Flying and Glider Manual. Anythingelse is not a Pietenpol.Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----
There is only one Pietenpol...get the plans from the Pietenpol family. Theywill have updates available not in the Flying and Glider Manual. Anythingelse is not a Pietenpol.Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Which one?
Original Posted By: danhelsper(at)aol.com
According to the Flying and Glider Piet article the FordA weighs 244lb.According to this Wikipedia article the Willys weighsin at 470 lb!We just told a certain propmaker that he couldn't usehis VW engine because it's too small and revs too high.It's 2500cc. The Willys is 2200cc.The c-65 is 2830cc and the Corvair starts at 2700cc.The Ford is a wopping 3400cc! and 128 ft-lb torque.The c65 has 148lb torque. The little Willys? 114 ft-lb.The Corvair appears to be 155 but at 2800 rpm.So, perusing the above, in direct drive, will the Willysbe able to pull it off?I think nostalgia is colouring perceptions here.Nothing wrong with nostalgia but as Mark Twain said;"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."But;"Life is trying things to see if they work." (Ray Bradbury)OK, I'll stop now.Bad ClifA crank is a very elegant device. It's small,it's strong, it's lightweight, energy efficientand it makes revolutions. E F Schumacher>> By the way, I found a dyno simulation for the L134 engine that produced > the power and torque curves in the graph that I've attached. It may be > possible to make this work, just looking at the curves. At "normal" prop > speeds of 2200-2300 RPM, the power looks to be about 36-37HP (solid red > curve). Run it up to 2400-2500 and it climbs into the 40-42HP range, > which is comparable to the Ford "A" engine. Run it at 3000 RPM with a > ground-adjustable 68" Warp Drive like the Corvair uses and it might put > out 50HP.>> The dry weight of the engine is given in the Willys specs as 365 lbs. but > people on the Jeep CJ chat sites say it weighs about the same as a > small-block Chevy. The Ford A engine weighs about the same, I think... > specs that I found show weight of engine and transmission to be 475, so > the engine alone should be about the same weight as the Willys.>> --------> Oscar Zuniga> Medford, OR> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"> A75 power>>> Read this topic online here:>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 861#419861>>> Attachments:>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dyno ... ll_894.jpg>>> -----> No virus found in this message.> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com> ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Which one?
According to the Flying and Glider Piet article the FordA weighs 244lb.According to this Wikipedia article the Willys weighsin at 470 lb!We just told a certain propmaker that he couldn't usehis VW engine because it's too small and revs too high.It's 2500cc. The Willys is 2200cc.The c-65 is 2830cc and the Corvair starts at 2700cc.The Ford is a wopping 3400cc! and 128 ft-lb torque.The c65 has 148lb torque. The little Willys? 114 ft-lb.The Corvair appears to be 155 but at 2800 rpm.So, perusing the above, in direct drive, will the Willysbe able to pull it off?I think nostalgia is colouring perceptions here.Nothing wrong with nostalgia but as Mark Twain said;"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."But;"Life is trying things to see if they work." (Ray Bradbury)OK, I'll stop now.Bad ClifA crank is a very elegant device. It's small,it's strong, it's lightweight, energy efficientand it makes revolutions. E F Schumacher>> By the way, I found a dyno simulation for the L134 engine that produced > the power and torque curves in the graph that I've attached. It may be > possible to make this work, just looking at the curves. At "normal" prop > speeds of 2200-2300 RPM, the power looks to be about 36-37HP (solid red > curve). Run it up to 2400-2500 and it climbs into the 40-42HP range, > which is comparable to the Ford "A" engine. Run it at 3000 RPM with a > ground-adjustable 68" Warp Drive like the Corvair uses and it might put > out 50HP.>> The dry weight of the engine is given in the Willys specs as 365 lbs. but > people on the Jeep CJ chat sites say it weighs about the same as a > small-block Chevy. The Ford A engine weighs about the same, I think... > specs that I found show weight of engine and transmission to be 475, so > the engine alone should be about the same weight as the Willys.>> --------> Oscar Zuniga> Medford, OR> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"> A75 power>>> Read this topic online here:>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 861#419861>>> Attachments:>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dyno ... ll_894.jpg>>> -----> No virus found in this message.> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com> ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Which one?
Original Posted By: glenschweizer
Glen,Mr. Boothe is correct. This is a great way to start. Listen to all advise but be careful to evaluate where it is coming from. While I was building I gave the advise from the fellows who had built and flown their airplanes the heaviest weighting. Like anything else, there is no substitute for experience.Bi-plane version? No such thing. This is not a Pietenpol. I can just hear the report from the Board of Curmudgeons now .....Dan HelsperPuryear, TN-----Original Message-----
Glen,Mr. Boothe is correct. This is a great way to start. Listen to all advise but be careful to evaluate where it is coming from. While I was building I gave the advise from the fellows who had built and flown their airplanes the heaviest weighting. Like anything else, there is no substitute for experience.Bi-plane version? No such thing. This is not a Pietenpol. I can just hear the report from the Board of Curmudgeons now .....Dan HelsperPuryear, TN-----Original Message-----
RE: Pietenpol-List: Which one?
Original Posted By:> gboothe5(at)comcast.net
This is a misleading answer and not correct.For example there are four "Pietenpol" fuselagesThere are two from the 1931 flying and glider magazine - a wood one and a steel one.There is a 1933 improved version with steel gear and there is a 1966 fuselage for the corvair engine.there are at least three engine mounts.The suggestion that something is not a Pietenpol would have upset Bernie Pietenpol and he was nothing like that protective.. He was an experimenter and tried all kinds of things. The Air Camper has used more engines than likely any other aircraft type.So those protective of the Pietenpol name are really counter productive to the idea of this blog and "experimental" aircraft in my opinion.Brian
This is a misleading answer and not correct.For example there are four "Pietenpol" fuselagesThere are two from the 1931 flying and glider magazine - a wood one and a steel one.There is a 1933 improved version with steel gear and there is a 1966 fuselage for the corvair engine.there are at least three engine mounts.The suggestion that something is not a Pietenpol would have upset Bernie Pietenpol and he was nothing like that protective.. He was an experimenter and tried all kinds of things. The Air Camper has used more engines than likely any other aircraft type.So those protective of the Pietenpol name are really counter productive to the idea of this blog and "experimental" aircraft in my opinion.Brian
RE: Pietenpol-List: Which one?
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Glen,The attached picture, taken today just before a flight with Lee Graybill andhis Baby Ace, is of a Pietenpol.not a GN-1 Aircamper.or a re-designed St. Croix Pietenpol Aircamper.It is a long fuselage, corvair powered Piet.all variations available onlythrough the Pietenpol family. Since you asked specifically about Pietenpols,my answer was not intended to be a commentary on the variations of this fineairplane, nor an analysis of what Mr. Pietenpol represented in the world ofexperimental aviation.FYI - Today's flight was with two 200 lb crew members! Good luck with yourdecision.Gary BootheNX308MB
Glen,The attached picture, taken today just before a flight with Lee Graybill andhis Baby Ace, is of a Pietenpol.not a GN-1 Aircamper.or a re-designed St. Croix Pietenpol Aircamper.It is a long fuselage, corvair powered Piet.all variations available onlythrough the Pietenpol family. Since you asked specifically about Pietenpols,my answer was not intended to be a commentary on the variations of this fineairplane, nor an analysis of what Mr. Pietenpol represented in the world ofexperimental aviation.FYI - Today's flight was with two 200 lb crew members! Good luck with yourdecision.Gary BootheNX308MB
Re: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
etenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis pleaseI think I have GN-1. The wings are clipped Cub (aluminum ribs). Was built by Bob Odegaard in 1991. Started life with A65, now has C-85-12. Still swinging same 74x41 McCauley. Will try to get it to Brodhed this year.About to replace Cub legs, as I am covering a new set. Certainly am enjoying flying it![cid:e1842e0b-fc5f-47a7-a304-ef9006fcef05(at)Enterprise.emory.net]________________________________This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use ofthe intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privilegedinformation. If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distributionor copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictlyprohibited.If you have received this message in error, please contactthe sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of theoriginal message (including attachments).________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:38:05 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please
etenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis pleaseI think I have GN-1. The wings are clipped Cub (aluminum ribs). Was built by Bob Odegaard in 1991. Started life with A65, now has C-85-12. Still swinging same 74x41 McCauley. Will try to get it to Brodhed this year.About to replace Cub legs, as I am covering a new set. Certainly am enjoying flying it![cid:e1842e0b-fc5f-47a7-a304-ef9006fcef05(at)Enterprise.emory.net]________________________________This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use ofthe intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privilegedinformation. If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distributionor copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictlyprohibited.If you have received this message in error, please contactthe sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of theoriginal message (including attachments).________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:38:05 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Glen,As mentioned, there are the original Pietenpol Air Camper plans, that were publishedin the 1932 Flying and Glider magazine, and which you have a copy of. Thenthere are the plans available from the Pietenpol family.http://community.pressenter.net/~apiete ... ans.htmlIn addition to these, there were a couple of different sets of plans for "modernized"versions of the Air Camper that were sold. One set was the St. Croix AirCamper, and the other was the Grega GN-1 Aircamper. Neither of these areavailable for sale anymore.While some have built their aircraft strictly from the Flying and Glider plans,I believe it would be a real challenge to do so, since the reprints are so small,and are simply lacking some details. My recommendation would be to obtaina set of the plans from the Pietenpol family, to complement the Flying andGlider plans.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:56:24 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Glen,As mentioned, there are the original Pietenpol Air Camper plans, that were publishedin the 1932 Flying and Glider magazine, and which you have a copy of. Thenthere are the plans available from the Pietenpol family.http://community.pressenter.net/~apiete ... ans.htmlIn addition to these, there were a couple of different sets of plans for "modernized"versions of the Air Camper that were sold. One set was the St. Croix AirCamper, and the other was the Grega GN-1 Aircamper. Neither of these areavailable for sale anymore.While some have built their aircraft strictly from the Flying and Glider plans,I believe it would be a real challenge to do so, since the reprints are so small,and are simply lacking some details. My recommendation would be to obtaina set of the plans from the Pietenpol family, to complement the Flying andGlider plans.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:56:24 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Then, there's this, from Grant MacLaren, circa 1999: Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one changerequires many other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be justthat --a new design. It should not carry the name "Pietenpol." Pietenpols forever! -=Grant MacLaren=- Gary BootheNX308MB
Then, there's this, from Grant MacLaren, circa 1999: Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one changerequires many other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be justthat --a new design. It should not carry the name "Pietenpol." Pietenpols forever! -=Grant MacLaren=- Gary BootheNX308MB
Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
Brian,You are correct on the limits of compression increase on flatheads. The point Iwas trying to make is that Kenny's HP per cubic inch at 6.5:1 should be betterthan the Ford HP per cubic inch at 4.25 to 5.25:l. The limits for increasingon the Jeep may be higher still, as it has a wildly under square bore and strokeratio.Manifolds on flatheads are on the same side and short, good for compact turbo installation.The exhaust pressure is less than you may suspect, the energy ofthe exhaust gasses is primarily heat. In an enclosed compartment always a concern,especially with a lot of joints, but I was kind of picturing it out in theslipstream. I am pretty sure someone brought a turbocharged Piet to Brodheadin the last decade, but I can't remember who it was.Part of the reason why I am optimistic about Kenny's project is thinking aboutA-37 and A-40 Continentals. They are flatheads also, they have less cubic inches.They are maybe 80 pounds lighter, but they did fly a lot of stuff like J-3son floats with light people.-wwRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Brian,You are correct on the limits of compression increase on flatheads. The point Iwas trying to make is that Kenny's HP per cubic inch at 6.5:1 should be betterthan the Ford HP per cubic inch at 4.25 to 5.25:l. The limits for increasingon the Jeep may be higher still, as it has a wildly under square bore and strokeratio.Manifolds on flatheads are on the same side and short, good for compact turbo installation.The exhaust pressure is less than you may suspect, the energy ofthe exhaust gasses is primarily heat. In an enclosed compartment always a concern,especially with a lot of joints, but I was kind of picturing it out in theslipstream. I am pretty sure someone brought a turbocharged Piet to Brodheadin the last decade, but I can't remember who it was.Part of the reason why I am optimistic about Kenny's project is thinking aboutA-37 and A-40 Continentals. They are flatheads also, they have less cubic inches.They are maybe 80 pounds lighter, but they did fly a lot of stuff like J-3son floats with light people.-wwRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Steve,Not sure I follow. You have a set of Pietenpol plans that John Grega modified?And your fuselage was modified to become a wing? :)There are a lot of homebuilts out there that were begun from a set of plans, andgot modified along the way. For instance, from looking at old photos, backin the 60's it seemed to be a popular modification to add spill plates to thetips of Pietenpol wings. Since the practice did not continue, one can likelydeduce that the modification did not improve performance. Likewise, it is alsoclear that the mod did not improve appearance either. It is pretty common withthis design for buiilders to make changes. Some changes are very subtle, andothers are not so subtle. it is quite possible that the original builder ofyour plane started with a set od Pietenpol plans, and incorporated selected detailsborrowed from the Grega plans.Bill C.> Bill, Just to muddy the water. I have a Pietenpol With plans that were modifiedby Grega. But it is not a Grega! It is a Pietenpol fuselage with mods thatlater became the Grega wing. I think. It is just enough hybrid that I cannot firmlytell you where the Grega mods definitely begin or end.> > Blue Skies,> > Steve D Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:23:26 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Steve,Not sure I follow. You have a set of Pietenpol plans that John Grega modified?And your fuselage was modified to become a wing? :)There are a lot of homebuilts out there that were begun from a set of plans, andgot modified along the way. For instance, from looking at old photos, backin the 60's it seemed to be a popular modification to add spill plates to thetips of Pietenpol wings. Since the practice did not continue, one can likelydeduce that the modification did not improve performance. Likewise, it is alsoclear that the mod did not improve appearance either. It is pretty common withthis design for buiilders to make changes. Some changes are very subtle, andothers are not so subtle. it is quite possible that the original builder ofyour plane started with a set od Pietenpol plans, and incorporated selected detailsborrowed from the Grega plans.Bill C.> Bill, Just to muddy the water. I have a Pietenpol With plans that were modifiedby Grega. But it is not a Grega! It is a Pietenpol fuselage with mods thatlater became the Grega wing. I think. It is just enough hybrid that I cannot firmlytell you where the Grega mods definitely begin or end.> > Blue Skies,> > Steve D Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:23:26 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: "taildrags"
So, Steve, it sounds like you have an example of what I was referring to - A planebuilt using the Pietenpol plans, with selected modifications (in this case,borrowed from the GN-1). Good that the original builder chose to retain theoriginal fuselage design , as the Grega modifications (added plywood sheathingunnecessarily added weight to the aft fuselage structure.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
So, Steve, it sounds like you have an example of what I was referring to - A planebuilt using the Pietenpol plans, with selected modifications (in this case,borrowed from the GN-1). Good that the original builder chose to retain theoriginal fuselage design , as the Grega modifications (added plywood sheathingunnecessarily added weight to the aft fuselage structure.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Steve;I think you can run two quick DNA tests to check for paternity.1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed; i.e., if there were no cabane bracestruts or cables, can the wing physically be pivoted forward or aft by changingthe angle of the cabanes? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol is not thefather.2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the wing strutattach points, both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpolis not the father.If you're still holding out a thread of hope, you can try one last check but it'snot definitive: are the tailwheel control cables connected to the bottom ofthe rudder using brackets on the rudder rather than running forward to the rudderbar? Grega connected them in that fashion but others have used the samemethod in the interest of eliminating a second set of control cables the lengthof the empennage.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:21:19 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Steve;I think you can run two quick DNA tests to check for paternity.1. Can the angle of the cabanes be changed; i.e., if there were no cabane bracestruts or cables, can the wing physically be pivoted forward or aft by changingthe angle of the cabanes? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpol is not thefather.2. Do the landing gear leg attach points meet the lower longerons at the wing strutattach points, both forward and aft? If the answer is 'no', Mr. Pietenpolis not the father.If you're still holding out a thread of hope, you can try one last check but it'snot definitive: are the tailwheel control cables connected to the bottom ofthe rudder using brackets on the rudder rather than running forward to the rudderbar? Grega connected them in that fashion but others have used the samemethod in the interest of eliminating a second set of control cables the lengthof the empennage.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:21:19 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com
This is my take on this debate. Anyone that is building an aircraft like the one we are all interested has much in common. Debating on the originality of a particular design is counter productive as all it does is subdivide a small group into even smaller groups. I hate when people appear to act superior because they think they are more authentic or more pure. I know it is human nature but it is stupid. We should embrace all that is Pietenpol-like and in doing so we are all better off and that allows us to educate all in all the ways of doing this and let them decide what is the best way to do something rather than being shamed into like it is some form of Victorian racism. Come on people don't be so judgemental=2C Bernie Pietenpol certainly wasn't!I might be reading this wrong and that might not be the intention but if I am taking it that way than so are others!Date: Sun=2C 9 Mar 2014 20:32:10 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
This is my take on this debate. Anyone that is building an aircraft like the one we are all interested has much in common. Debating on the originality of a particular design is counter productive as all it does is subdivide a small group into even smaller groups. I hate when people appear to act superior because they think they are more authentic or more pure. I know it is human nature but it is stupid. We should embrace all that is Pietenpol-like and in doing so we are all better off and that allows us to educate all in all the ways of doing this and let them decide what is the best way to do something rather than being shamed into like it is some form of Victorian racism. Come on people don't be so judgemental=2C Bernie Pietenpol certainly wasn't!I might be reading this wrong and that might not be the intention but if I am taking it that way than so are others!Date: Sun=2C 9 Mar 2014 20:32:10 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
I think I have GN-1. The wings are clipped Cub (aluminum ribs). Was built by Bob Odegaard in 1991. Started life with A65, now has C-85-12. Still swinging same 74x41 McCauley. Will try to get it to Brodhed this year.About to replace Cub legs, as I am covering a new set. Certainly am enjoying flying it!Sent from my iPad________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:22:22 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
I think I have GN-1. The wings are clipped Cub (aluminum ribs). Was built by Bob Odegaard in 1991. Started life with A65, now has C-85-12. Still swinging same 74x41 McCauley. Will try to get it to Brodhed this year.About to replace Cub legs, as I am covering a new set. Certainly am enjoying flying it!Sent from my iPad________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:22:22 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Re: Pietenpol-List: DNA analysis please
Original Posted By: "M. Zeke Zechini" <marcus.zechini(at)gmail.com<mailto:marcus.zechini(at)gma
Looks like a Piet to me. When you're flying it, what does it look like from the cockpit. If it looks like, feels like, and flies like fun, then I call it fun. That's MY test=85
--Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVOAssociate Professor of OphthalmologyEmory University School of Medicine
Looks like a Piet to me. When you're flying it, what does it look like from the cockpit. If it looks like, feels like, and flies like fun, then I call it fun. That's MY test=85
--Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVOAssociate Professor of OphthalmologyEmory University School of MedicineRe: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: Marcus Zechini
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
> RE: Pietenpol-List: Which one?
Original Posted By:> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> >> > There is only one Pietenpol...get the plans from the Pietenpol family. They> will have updates available not in the Flying and Glider Manual. Anything> else is not a Pietenpol.> > Gary Boothe> NX308MB> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > There is only one Pietenpol...get the plans from the Pietenpol family. They> will have updates available not in the Flying and Glider Manual. Anything> else is not a Pietenpol.> > Gary Boothe> NX308MB> > > -----Original Message-----
> RE: Pietenpol-List: Which one?
Original Posted By:> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > There is only one Pietenpol...get the plans from the Pietenpol family.They> will have updates available not in the Flying and Glider Manual. Anything> else is not a Pietenpol.> > Gary Boothe> NX308MB> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > There is only one Pietenpol...get the plans from the Pietenpol family.They> will have updates available not in the Flying and Glider Manual. Anything> else is not a Pietenpol.> > Gary Boothe> NX308MB> > > -----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By: danhelsper(at)aol.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> >> > Kenny=2C> I watched the Youtube clip several times=2C and I think you are doing something pretty neat. I have been a life long fan of flatheads=2C Grace and I have a little collection in the hangar.> > I read all the notes=2C and for my 2 cents=2C I think that you have a power plant that will work within limitations=2C (just as all engines do). I was headed over to my neighbors with the scale=2C but Mr. Mdw=2C covered this=2C and effectively showed both the weight is comparable to a Ford=2C and also how unreliable internet data can be. I think most people miss that there are both L-134's and OHV F-134's. Scale in a milk barn always beats the internet for useful data=2C> > Clif listed the displacements and rpm ranges of several engines=2C and to it I would like to add the consideration of compression ratio. We have been testing this for a year=2C back to back=2C same airframe=2C etc=2C and it is surprising the difference between 8.0 and 10.25 to one. The relationship holds true with most engines. I am sure that an O-200 with 8:1 and OHV can be tuned to make more power at any given rpm than a 200 cid Ford. Displacement alone is an incomplete picture.> > On 'tight' motors: If everything else is set right=2C it is ring drag on the surface finish of the bores that makes it hard to prop. In my experience=2C 10 hours of ground runs at 50-60% power has the same smoothing effect as one takeoff and climb to 3=2C000' at wot. 280 finish on bores is better than 220=2C but it is time at wot that helps.> > An optical tach like a Proptach 2545 and a ground adjustable prop are a good 'comparative' Dyno. Get the prop in the test range=2C check the static rpm=2C make the change and compare rpm. I have loaner WD props=2C (in both rotations)=2C glad to send one to you for testing.> > If Oz's chart is good=2C targeting 3000 rpm instead of 2500 will buy you a 28% hp increase. The loss of prop efficiency will be in the single digits=2C and you will have a large net thrust increase. Test this with the loaner prop=2C you will become convinced.> > You will have plenty of people tell you it will/won't work. Their belief is based on stories=2C and since every Pietenpol is a 'snowflake' unto itself=2C much of the commentary does not apply. You should be able to use The Ford weight and Balance data we collected. My website tells how to get this directly from Doc Mosher.> > I do not think the success of Fords is because they make 'more than 50 hp' The W&B tests showed that the Ford guys build lighter planes than many A-65 guys. The Ford guys also use better matched props on average. They go into their build knowing they don't have weight or power to waste. It is the opposite attitude of a guy who thinks 'I have a light motor=2C I don't have to care'.> > Last thought: There will never be any psru that will be as light=2C reliable nor as cheap as a 12 pound=2C $500 new turbocharger. I am not kidding=2C they are very easy to plumb on flatheads=2C they don't stress engines=2C they function as mufflers=2C and 134 cid at 36" MAP is 200 cid of airflow. Look up the turbo testing on my webpage=2C email me direct or call anytime.-ww.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 053#420053> > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> >> > Kenny=2C> I watched the Youtube clip several times=2C and I think you are doing something pretty neat. I have been a life long fan of flatheads=2C Grace and I have a little collection in the hangar.> > I read all the notes=2C and for my 2 cents=2C I think that you have a power plant that will work within limitations=2C (just as all engines do). I was headed over to my neighbors with the scale=2C but Mr. Mdw=2C covered this=2C and effectively showed both the weight is comparable to a Ford=2C and also how unreliable internet data can be. I think most people miss that there are both L-134's and OHV F-134's. Scale in a milk barn always beats the internet for useful data=2C> > Clif listed the displacements and rpm ranges of several engines=2C and to it I would like to add the consideration of compression ratio. We have been testing this for a year=2C back to back=2C same airframe=2C etc=2C and it is surprising the difference between 8.0 and 10.25 to one. The relationship holds true with most engines. I am sure that an O-200 with 8:1 and OHV can be tuned to make more power at any given rpm than a 200 cid Ford. Displacement alone is an incomplete picture.> > On 'tight' motors: If everything else is set right=2C it is ring drag on the surface finish of the bores that makes it hard to prop. In my experience=2C 10 hours of ground runs at 50-60% power has the same smoothing effect as one takeoff and climb to 3=2C000' at wot. 280 finish on bores is better than 220=2C but it is time at wot that helps.> > An optical tach like a Proptach 2545 and a ground adjustable prop are a good 'comparative' Dyno. Get the prop in the test range=2C check the static rpm=2C make the change and compare rpm. I have loaner WD props=2C (in both rotations)=2C glad to send one to you for testing.> > If Oz's chart is good=2C targeting 3000 rpm instead of 2500 will buy you a 28% hp increase. The loss of prop efficiency will be in the single digits=2C and you will have a large net thrust increase. Test this with the loaner prop=2C you will become convinced.> > You will have plenty of people tell you it will/won't work. Their belief is based on stories=2C and since every Pietenpol is a 'snowflake' unto itself=2C much of the commentary does not apply. You should be able to use The Ford weight and Balance data we collected. My website tells how to get this directly from Doc Mosher.> > I do not think the success of Fords is because they make 'more than 50 hp' The W&B tests showed that the Ford guys build lighter planes than many A-65 guys. The Ford guys also use better matched props on average. They go into their build knowing they don't have weight or power to waste. It is the opposite attitude of a guy who thinks 'I have a light motor=2C I don't have to care'.> > Last thought: There will never be any psru that will be as light=2C reliable nor as cheap as a 12 pound=2C $500 new turbocharger. I am not kidding=2C they are very easy to plumb on flatheads=2C they don't stress engines=2C they function as mufflers=2C and 134 cid at 36" MAP is 200 cid of airflow. Look up the turbo testing on my webpage=2C email me direct or call anytime.-ww.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 053#420053> > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
Original Posted By:> steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Which one?