Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
Bernie would have spit nickels hearing this kind of lingo that seems to be so popular these days buthere's an idea to increase safety and decrease risk---use an engine that has a good reliability record,no matter what homebuilt you're using. Just throwing that one out there;)Mike C.PS-and being a bit on the full-figured size like I am, (205 pounds) the weight of the nose fuel really helps my CG situationin all phases of flight except when I'm down to 2 gallons in the tank and I never go that low. My experience with CG vs.fuel burn is exactly what Brian Kenney posted.It sure is great to have all that luggage space in the wing center section too!Again, the bottom line is to use whatever fuel tank position you think is best for you----and just because it is a very old designdoesn't mean is isn't perfectly good to use today but like William Wynne professes.....there are newer, other ways to do thingsnow days no matter how old those plans are or the Tony Bingelis books are but both are chock full of good stuff that still works today!My new Facebook profile photo.....-----Original Message-----
An archive of the Matronics Pietenpol Listserve.
1 post • Page 1 of 1