Original Posted By: "Domenico Bellissimo"
OK, after getting together with a fellow Piet list person today, it appearsthat everything I thought I knew about Piet drawings is wrong. Just howmany different sets are there? I have a black and white set, drawn byHoopman, that I believe are the "original" drawings from the 1920's. Thisset has the spreader bar landing gear and the extra drawings for the Velieengine mount and the small solid tailwheel. I also have a set of trueblueprints, also drawn by Hoopman, which are dated 1933-34. This set hasthe split axle (E-2 Cub type) landing gear. Other "improvements" in theseplans include a redesigned tail construction, the aileron cables that gostraight up from a bellcrank rather than out the side of the fuselage, andother changes. Most importantly, the blueprint fuselage is 2" longer thanthe one in the older set. Neither set shows the three-piece wing (not thatI want one). Are there other sets?? Where does the "long" fuselage comefrom?? I am trying to settle some fuselage discrepancies and need somehelp. Listed below are the fuselage stations from along the upper longeronfrom left to right. Someone please let me know if you have anythingdifferent (other than the 2" shorter version).14 1/2, 28 3/4, 29, 27 1/4, 27, 20, 16 1/2.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: "walter evans"
The longer fuselage is Mr. Pietenpols' 1967 version for use with the CorvairEngine.Dom.________________________________________________________________________________
The longer fuselage is Mr. Pietenpols' 1967 version for use with the CorvairEngine.Dom.________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By:> Domenico Bellissimo
Good to see you back on the list Domenic. As I intend to use the corvair,I am rather interested to hear if you got the bugs out of yours and theperformance you expected. Hope you won't mind filling us in!Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg----------
Good to see you back on the list Domenic. As I intend to use the corvair,I am rather interested to hear if you got the bugs out of yours and theperformance you expected. Hope you won't mind filling us in!Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg----------
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?Gene RamboI too have asked the same question on how many different drawings are in existenceThose I know of are 1- those in the 1932 FGM, 2- Don Pietenpol's 1933/4 plans,-3 Supplemental plans from Don Pietenpol on the 1966 extended fuselage inteded for use with the Corvair engine (and I assume C-65's/85's etc} Grant notebook said there have been three fuselage lengths for the Aircamper and two for the Scout. My notes show the following fuselage lengths: '32 FGM 13'-5", 1933 Pietenpol plans 13'-9", 1966 Supplement 14'-4 3/8" I believe these are known respectively as the 'short' , 'extended' and 'long'. I have never seen the plans that Mr. Hoopman supplies other than the original ones he drew in the early thirties, any pre-FGM drawings, true blueprints or those sold by Chad Willie (which I think are GN-1 plans) I am not at all certain that all of this is correct and like you would welcome a total list from any lister who can describe every set in existence Don Hicks ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?Gene RamboI too have asked the same question on how many different drawings are in existenceThose I know of are 1- those in the 1932 FGM, 2- Don Pietenpol's 1933/4 plans,-3 Supplemental plans from Don Pietenpol on the 1966 extended fuselage inteded for use with the Corvair engine (and I assume C-65's/85's etc} Grant notebook said there have been three fuselage lengths for the Aircamper and two for the Scout. My notes show the following fuselage lengths: '32 FGM 13'-5", 1933 Pietenpol plans 13'-9", 1966 Supplement 14'-4 3/8" I believe these are known respectively as the 'short' , 'extended' and 'long'. I have never seen the plans that Mr. Hoopman supplies other than the original ones he drew in the early thirties, any pre-FGM drawings, true blueprints or those sold by Chad Willie (which I think are GN-1 plans) I am not at all certain that all of this is correct and like you would welcome a total list from any lister who can describe every set in existence Don Hicks ________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?Would SOMEONE>please just list off the dimensions from along the top longeron from>any/all drawings they have!! This may clear up how many different>fuselages there are, and will lead to more follow-up questions I have>regarding obvious errors in the drawings.1-19-1933 drawings by O.C. HoopmanDimensions along the top longeron as follows14 1/2", 28 3/4", 29", 27 1/4", 27", 20", 16 1/2".John Mc________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?Would SOMEONE>please just list off the dimensions from along the top longeron from>any/all drawings they have!! This may clear up how many different>fuselages there are, and will lead to more follow-up questions I have>regarding obvious errors in the drawings.1-19-1933 drawings by O.C. HoopmanDimensions along the top longeron as follows14 1/2", 28 3/4", 29", 27 1/4", 27", 20", 16 1/2".John Mc________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
OK, but are the '32 FGM drawings the ones with the spreader bar landinggear? Also, the fuselage lengths you give do not jive with the lengths Igave. The fuselage in the drawings dated 1933-34 is only 2" longer thanthe one in the "older" set of drawings I have, not 4". Would SOMEONEplease just list off the dimensions from along the top longeron fromany/all drawings they have!! This may clear up how many differentfuselages there are, and will lead to more follow-up questions I haveregarding obvious errors in the drawings. I do now understand that thereis the 1960's drawing with a somewhat longer fuselage for the corvairengine (although for the life of me I cannot understand why you would wanta LONGER fuselage for a LIGHTER engine, this seems bass-ackwards), makingthere three fuselages that I know of.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:02:19 -0700 (MST)
OK, but are the '32 FGM drawings the ones with the spreader bar landinggear? Also, the fuselage lengths you give do not jive with the lengths Igave. The fuselage in the drawings dated 1933-34 is only 2" longer thanthe one in the "older" set of drawings I have, not 4". Would SOMEONEplease just list off the dimensions from along the top longeron fromany/all drawings they have!! This may clear up how many differentfuselages there are, and will lead to more follow-up questions I haveregarding obvious errors in the drawings. I do now understand that thereis the 1960's drawing with a somewhat longer fuselage for the corvairengine (although for the life of me I cannot understand why you would wanta LONGER fuselage for a LIGHTER engine, this seems bass-ackwards), makingthere three fuselages that I know of.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:02:19 -0700 (MST)
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: TXTdragger(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?In a message dated 12/13/1999 12:06:11 PM Central Standard Time, kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca writes:>ballast removed from tail, if lighter engine used ... rightJohn D________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?In a message dated 12/13/1999 12:06:11 PM Central Standard Time, kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca writes:>ballast removed from tail, if lighter engine used ... rightJohn D________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
That's fine, Ken, assuming the increase is in the front. It is myunderstanding that the increase in in the rear section of the fuselage. However, none of this answers my initial question.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:09:02 -0700 (MST)
That's fine, Ken, assuming the increase is in the front. It is myunderstanding that the increase in in the rear section of the fuselage. However, none of this answers my initial question.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:09:02 -0700 (MST)
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: Gene Rambo
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By:> John McNarry
Thanks Mc., at least someone answered. These are the same dimensions Ilisted earlier from the 33-34 Hoopman drawings I have which are in trueblueprint format (I've had for many years). The older set I have (F7GManual?????) is 2" shorter in the forward area.----------
Thanks Mc., at least someone answered. These are the same dimensions Ilisted earlier from the 33-34 Hoopman drawings I have which are in trueblueprint format (I've had for many years). The older set I have (F7GManual?????) is 2" shorter in the forward area.----------
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: "Gary Meadows"
John, My supplemental plans show the later "long" fuselage as follows: 16 1/2", 28 3/4", 31", 27 1/4", 27", 22 1/2",19 3/8"The date I see only says "*corrected 9/22/94 -DP"The measurments you quoted agree with my plans dated 1/19/33.So you actually have 2" extra ahead of the front seat, and 2" more to the rear seat, and 5 3/8" in the last two combined. Odd why you'd add more to the tail for a lighter engine up front? I haven't looked closely at the F&G manual fuselage, just assumed it was the same as the short fuselage on the plans. May have to do with the cabane strut attach points. Anyway, ain't it fun! You can't do all this futzing with a 172 or a Warrior!Gary Meadows________________________________________________________________________________
John, My supplemental plans show the later "long" fuselage as follows: 16 1/2", 28 3/4", 31", 27 1/4", 27", 22 1/2",19 3/8"The date I see only says "*corrected 9/22/94 -DP"The measurments you quoted agree with my plans dated 1/19/33.So you actually have 2" extra ahead of the front seat, and 2" more to the rear seat, and 5 3/8" in the last two combined. Odd why you'd add more to the tail for a lighter engine up front? I haven't looked closely at the F&G manual fuselage, just assumed it was the same as the short fuselage on the plans. May have to do with the cabane strut attach points. Anyway, ain't it fun! You can't do all this futzing with a 172 or a Warrior!Gary Meadows________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: "mboynton(at)excite.com
Oh I think I meant to direct my last message to Gene, I get sorta mixed up sometimes! Well, Shaken, not stirred!Gary________________________________________________________________________________
Oh I think I meant to direct my last message to Gene, I get sorta mixed up sometimes! Well, Shaken, not stirred!Gary________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Hi Wayne,Good to be back on the list. Since I have a permanent job now, I can affordit.I had posted my story to this list but am not sure if it got bounced, as Iwas having trouble with the set up and something about HTML settings. Seemsto be sorted out now, but I still don't understand it. Let me know if youdid or didn't see the story I'll re-post it.Now for the engine... Yes I finally sorted out all the problems associatedwith burning pistons. The first time (on the ground) There were a couple ofproblems: a) timing b) possible 'hot' plug. I rebuilt the engine, but at thesame time I purchased and used forged pistons. Rather than just change theone piston I decided for the cost and since I had the engine open, that Iwould replace all of them. The cylinders were deglazed + 1/2 thou. extra forclearance ( still what I considered stock clearance). Put it all togetherand within .5 Hour late in the evening after everyone had gone home from theairshow at my home airport (Brampton, Ont.), I experienced a failure, not acomplete failure, but close enough. I was hearing some blow-by from one ofthe cyl., smoke had begun to appear on both sides of the cowl, my RPMdropped from 2750 to 2200. This was the first time I achieved 2750 and I wasfeeling great that first 1/2 hour. The oil temperature was reading 180 deg.Fand that took about 20 min. to register. I think it takes that long for thatmuch mass to heat up. However, after the point of trouble, the temp. startedto climb. I was 2 miles from the airport, so I immediately headed back,smoke and all. It looked like I had just been shot down like those old WW1movies or I had a smoke system. By the time I got down the oil temp. was 290deg. Luckily there was no one in the pattern. So now I had to take it apartonce again. By studying the failed piston, (by the way I had moved that hotplug to this cyl. so the failure seems to have followed it , but notnecessarily), and taking to the engine shop owner and his son, we determinedthat there was not enough piston clearance for forged pistons. We thenproceeded to open all cylinders to .004 thous. Put it all back together andtry again. Well guess what?Success!!! I flew for three hours total on three separate flights and Iinstalled a Laboratory Digital Thermister under the hottest cyl. to monitorthe Head temperatures. Head temp. gives you a true picture of what ishapping to the engine. Much better than oil temp. It lets you know sooner ifyou are heading into trouble. I recommend installing a cyl. Head temp.gauge. I felt really good, I had accomplished what most people said couldn'tbe done, and that is to run the engine without the original GM fan. Next Iwanted to get a complete engine temperature profile. To achieve this Iborrowed a $4,000.00 instrument from the test lab at work. On a beautifulSunday I installed the instrument after programming it to record 5 cyl.every 6 seconds for a one hour flight. Then I would be totally happy. Therest is history. I'll re-post that story if it hasn't been on this listbefore. Let me know.As for performance, it was great, my tail finally came up. I was cruising 70Knots at full power in straight/ level attitude. I tested the RPM at 2780with a Mechanics infrared Prop measuring instrument on the ground and theprop had not unloaded like it would in motion.Regards,Dom.________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Wayne,Good to be back on the list. Since I have a permanent job now, I can affordit.I had posted my story to this list but am not sure if it got bounced, as Iwas having trouble with the set up and something about HTML settings. Seemsto be sorted out now, but I still don't understand it. Let me know if youdid or didn't see the story I'll re-post it.Now for the engine... Yes I finally sorted out all the problems associatedwith burning pistons. The first time (on the ground) There were a couple ofproblems: a) timing b) possible 'hot' plug. I rebuilt the engine, but at thesame time I purchased and used forged pistons. Rather than just change theone piston I decided for the cost and since I had the engine open, that Iwould replace all of them. The cylinders were deglazed + 1/2 thou. extra forclearance ( still what I considered stock clearance). Put it all togetherand within .5 Hour late in the evening after everyone had gone home from theairshow at my home airport (Brampton, Ont.), I experienced a failure, not acomplete failure, but close enough. I was hearing some blow-by from one ofthe cyl., smoke had begun to appear on both sides of the cowl, my RPMdropped from 2750 to 2200. This was the first time I achieved 2750 and I wasfeeling great that first 1/2 hour. The oil temperature was reading 180 deg.Fand that took about 20 min. to register. I think it takes that long for thatmuch mass to heat up. However, after the point of trouble, the temp. startedto climb. I was 2 miles from the airport, so I immediately headed back,smoke and all. It looked like I had just been shot down like those old WW1movies or I had a smoke system. By the time I got down the oil temp. was 290deg. Luckily there was no one in the pattern. So now I had to take it apartonce again. By studying the failed piston, (by the way I had moved that hotplug to this cyl. so the failure seems to have followed it , but notnecessarily), and taking to the engine shop owner and his son, we determinedthat there was not enough piston clearance for forged pistons. We thenproceeded to open all cylinders to .004 thous. Put it all back together andtry again. Well guess what?Success!!! I flew for three hours total on three separate flights and Iinstalled a Laboratory Digital Thermister under the hottest cyl. to monitorthe Head temperatures. Head temp. gives you a true picture of what ishapping to the engine. Much better than oil temp. It lets you know sooner ifyou are heading into trouble. I recommend installing a cyl. Head temp.gauge. I felt really good, I had accomplished what most people said couldn'tbe done, and that is to run the engine without the original GM fan. Next Iwanted to get a complete engine temperature profile. To achieve this Iborrowed a $4,000.00 instrument from the test lab at work. On a beautifulSunday I installed the instrument after programming it to record 5 cyl.every 6 seconds for a one hour flight. Then I would be totally happy. Therest is history. I'll re-post that story if it hasn't been on this listbefore. Let me know.As for performance, it was great, my tail finally came up. I was cruising 70Knots at full power in straight/ level attitude. I tested the RPM at 2780with a Mechanics infrared Prop measuring instrument on the ground and theprop had not unloaded like it would in motion.Regards,Dom.________________________________________________________________________________
> Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: DonanClara(at)aol.com
> > > The longer fuselage is Mr. Pietenpols' 1967 version for use with theCorvair> Engine.> Dom.________________________________________________________________________________
> > > The longer fuselage is Mr. Pietenpols' 1967 version for use with theCorvair> Engine.> Dom.________________________________________________________________________________
> Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By:> Gene Rambo
> McNarry)> > > -----Original Message-----
> McNarry)> > > -----Original Message-----
> Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?
Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?> > > Would SOMEONE> >please just list off the dimensions from along the top longeron from> >any/all drawings they have!! This may clear up how many different> >fuselages there are, and will lead to more follow-up questions I have> >regarding obvious errors in the drawings.> > 1-19-1933 drawings by O.C. Hoopman> Dimensions along the top longeron as follows> > 14 1/2", 28 3/4", 29", 27 1/4", 27", 20", 16 1/2".> > John Mc> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: just how many drawings are there?> > > Would SOMEONE> >please just list off the dimensions from along the top longeron from> >any/all drawings they have!! This may clear up how many different> >fuselages there are, and will lead to more follow-up questions I have> >regarding obvious errors in the drawings.> > 1-19-1933 drawings by O.C. Hoopman> Dimensions along the top longeron as follows> > 14 1/2", 28 3/4", 29", 27 1/4", 27", 20", 16 1/2".> > John Mc> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________