Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
Builders,There are only four things in Piet building I would like to make builders awareof, and let them choose to use if they wish:1) I want to show people that it is easy to build and fly a Piet in the published15 -20" CG range, even if the engine is as light as an A-40 or as heavy asan O-235, with pilot weights from 120-320 pounds. We did the testing, I will assistbuilders with the math, it doesn't cost any more nor take any more timeto build a plane in CG.2) I want builders to know that there are published locations for where to locatethe axle with and without brakes, and data on this directly from BHP. You don'tneed to guess. This info is with the W&B articles. When building, it doesn'tcost anything to put the axle in a better spot, nor take any more time.3) I give examples of better ways of building the cabanes, making them more likeBHP did in the 1960s rather than the 1930s. The original plane had one set ofcrossed wires and no diagonals. No one does that, I am only suggesting leapfrogging the 1930s light diagonals to the stronger 1960s ones. Again, when buildingit doesn't take any more time nor cost more than $5 more in up sized tubing.4) I would like builders to be aware that a hard aluminum fuel line, run from thetank to the firewall is likely to get severed, even in a very small accident.A better option is using a braided steel jacketed flex line. The material forthis costs $20 more than the 5052 hard tubing. It is actually easier to make,and does not require flaring tools. ------------------------------------------------------That is it, it is the sum total of my advice to Piet builders. Note that I am nottelling anyone to take even another 5 hours to build a plane, and the moneyI am speaking of is $25, maybe 1/400th of the cost of building a low cost Piet.---------------------------------------------------Please note: I don't tell people what engine to use, what airfoil, what kind ofwheels, what cover their plane in, what color to paint it, how to paint it norhow nor where to fly it. I don't have an opinion on 'what is a real Piet' orany of that. It is very odd to me that a guy who tells people "who the planeis for" or what engine to use, or that some kinds of covering are 'wrong' is notperceived as telling people what to do, but the four points I bring up above,are sometimes perceived as "Telling people what kind of plane they have tobuild". I strongly hold that it is your plane, and you have a right to build it anywayyou want. I don't even care if you follow the four ideas above. All I want isbuilders to be aware they exist, and the only people who I have heartburn overare the people who claim that the data doesn't exist, it is too much work todo correctly or it costs to much or somehow ruins the spirit of fun flying tofly in the CG range. Again, those people are trying to tell others what to dowith their planes, I just want builders to understand and choose for themselves.---------------------------------------------------------While some people hold that it is a "waste of time and money" to build a Pietenpolwith any type of modification, or adaption or even things like brakes or electricstart, It is my option that it is your time, and your money to waste.I don't like being told what to do with my time and money, I don't care what peoplechoose to do with theirs.Operative word in the last paragraph is Choose. That implies that the builder gotto read about the options, ask questions, hear about it and then picked forhimself.The one thing I do think of as a colossal waste of money and time is building aplane that is just OK, and 'works' and then flying it to Brodhead and findingout that a guy who took the same time building his plane and spent $25 more,can fly with a pilot that weighs 75 pounds more, land slower, and fully use hisbrakes, and doesn't worry about a small mishap dislodging his wing or rupturinga fuel line. My point is that each builder can either choose to be the guywith the better plane or the guy looking at it. It is a fee world, take yourpick.-ww.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: A Couple of Welding Questions
Pietenpol-List: A Couple of Welding Questions
Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Original Posted By: "tkreiner"
Don,Would you include your fuselage length, wing LE position and axle location? Thisinformation would be much appreciated.Rick Schreiber Valparaiso, INSent from my iPadOn Mar 22, 2014, at 10:38 AM, "Don Emch" wrote:> > William,> > I think that's a great idea. I think it would be very helpful for builders toget an idea of what a certain set up may look like when it comes to Weight andBalance time. This afternoon I will try to scan my W&B sheet I made up formy Pilot's Manual and post it. It's nothing fancy and hand drawn, so no laughing!:-)> > Don Emch> NX899DE> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 830#420830> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Don,Would you include your fuselage length, wing LE position and axle location? Thisinformation would be much appreciated.Rick Schreiber Valparaiso, INSent from my iPadOn Mar 22, 2014, at 10:38 AM, "Don Emch" wrote:> > William,> > I think that's a great idea. I think it would be very helpful for builders toget an idea of what a certain set up may look like when it comes to Weight andBalance time. This afternoon I will try to scan my W&B sheet I made up formy Pilot's Manual and post it. It's nothing fancy and hand drawn, so no laughing!:-)> > Don Emch> NX899DE> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 830#420830> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Original Posted By: goffelectric(at)comcast.net
Terry,I just went over most of your questions with my EAA chapter here in the Houstonarea; where were you? Never mind... Since we don't know the vintage of your Smith torch, perhaps you should take itto your local welding supply house, and have them take a look. If the torchmixes gases within the handle - and not inside the tip itself - crush it in avise and start anew with a torch that only mixes in the tip. Why, you ask? Mybest childhood friend lost a portion of his hand when a Smith torch from the60's blew up while holding it - and it took him 2 years to regain 75% use ofthe hand...Assuming it's a tip - mixer, add check valves between the hoses and the torch handle- they are about $20 ea. and will prevent gases from mixing within the hosesand/or regulators. Due to the ability of oil to migrate into anything and everything, and the possibilityof Oxygen and oil creating an explosion, everything on the torch shouldbe washed down with fresh clean Acetone. Lowe's has it for cheap.If I were you, perhaps I'd even investigate having a pro clean the entire systemfor me.You haven't stated the size of your tanks, and there are numerous sizes available.If they are the really large ones (can't remember the size) there could bea demurrage charge against them without receipts stating ownership. Check intothat when you go to a welding supply house. Generally, I tell my students and EAA guys that it's a lot cheaper to take thetanks and refill them prior to expiration of certification than to get stuck spendingan extra $35 per tank to re-cert. So, know the date of your tanks andact accordingly. Even if you throw away $20 in a full tank of gas, you're betteroff than spending more to re-cert, and re-fill.Just my $.02 and 40 years of experience...--------Tom KreinerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
Terry,I just went over most of your questions with my EAA chapter here in the Houstonarea; where were you? Never mind... Since we don't know the vintage of your Smith torch, perhaps you should take itto your local welding supply house, and have them take a look. If the torchmixes gases within the handle - and not inside the tip itself - crush it in avise and start anew with a torch that only mixes in the tip. Why, you ask? Mybest childhood friend lost a portion of his hand when a Smith torch from the60's blew up while holding it - and it took him 2 years to regain 75% use ofthe hand...Assuming it's a tip - mixer, add check valves between the hoses and the torch handle- they are about $20 ea. and will prevent gases from mixing within the hosesand/or regulators. Due to the ability of oil to migrate into anything and everything, and the possibilityof Oxygen and oil creating an explosion, everything on the torch shouldbe washed down with fresh clean Acetone. Lowe's has it for cheap.If I were you, perhaps I'd even investigate having a pro clean the entire systemfor me.You haven't stated the size of your tanks, and there are numerous sizes available.If they are the really large ones (can't remember the size) there could bea demurrage charge against them without receipts stating ownership. Check intothat when you go to a welding supply house. Generally, I tell my students and EAA guys that it's a lot cheaper to take thetanks and refill them prior to expiration of certification than to get stuck spendingan extra $35 per tank to re-cert. So, know the date of your tanks andact accordingly. Even if you throw away $20 in a full tank of gas, you're betteroff than spending more to re-cert, and re-fill.Just my $.02 and 40 years of experience...--------Tom KreinerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
You can use the bottles till empty safely. It's a matter of economics whetherit's a good idea or not, not safety.Some places will charge you a prorate on the hydro cert date anyway, so no realreason to not use till empty even if it will put you past the cert date. Weldingsuppliers and user owned bottles is REALLY a random game. The hoses are sort of nebulous. I've got OLD hoses that are still great, thougha little bit checked. I've got NEW ones that SUCK. Cracked BADLY and I threwthem away months after I got them. If you do decide they need replacement,get the best american made ones you can find. The chinese ones just don't lastat all. GREAT advice on the treatment of the torch and regulators. By the way, the regulatorsare probably good and USUALLY ARE rebuildable and preferrable to, again,imported ones. Most good welding suppliers will take them and forward to theirlocal rebuilder. I think Victors and Smiths have a lifetime warranty, whichmeans stuff that is now obsolete will get you half off retail at a place thathonors the warranty. Half off retail is usually a tad cheaper than you canfind online and helps your local supplier.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
You can use the bottles till empty safely. It's a matter of economics whetherit's a good idea or not, not safety.Some places will charge you a prorate on the hydro cert date anyway, so no realreason to not use till empty even if it will put you past the cert date. Weldingsuppliers and user owned bottles is REALLY a random game. The hoses are sort of nebulous. I've got OLD hoses that are still great, thougha little bit checked. I've got NEW ones that SUCK. Cracked BADLY and I threwthem away months after I got them. If you do decide they need replacement,get the best american made ones you can find. The chinese ones just don't lastat all. GREAT advice on the treatment of the torch and regulators. By the way, the regulatorsare probably good and USUALLY ARE rebuildable and preferrable to, again,imported ones. Most good welding suppliers will take them and forward to theirlocal rebuilder. I think Victors and Smiths have a lifetime warranty, whichmeans stuff that is now obsolete will get you half off retail at a place thathonors the warranty. Half off retail is usually a tad cheaper than you canfind online and helps your local supplier.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
Terry,Generally, the tips will only fit a specific brand and/or series of torch. Incase you haven't looked at torches lately, there a large number of victor knockofffs out there, but I dont know whether the tips are identical or if they fit. My victor set is 30+ yrs old and it never fails me. The hoses lasted 25 years,and it seems their life depends on how you care for them. On that note, ifyour hoses aren't oily, cracked, crazed, whatever, they are probably OK.Over the years i picked up every tip available for the torch including rosebudand cutting torch on ebay or used tool stores. As far as tanks gi, Tools is right, if your tank is full of gas its ok to keepit full beyond cert date. On a purely economic level, I jot down the tank datesand refill prior to expiration, whether theyre empty or full. I got burned withthe $70 to recert along with the $40 refill charge, and i dont want to spendthe extra for nothing. If the tank cert runs out at their shop, they recertas their business expense, and you dont pay for it.--------Tom KreinerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Terry,Generally, the tips will only fit a specific brand and/or series of torch. Incase you haven't looked at torches lately, there a large number of victor knockofffs out there, but I dont know whether the tips are identical or if they fit. My victor set is 30+ yrs old and it never fails me. The hoses lasted 25 years,and it seems their life depends on how you care for them. On that note, ifyour hoses aren't oily, cracked, crazed, whatever, they are probably OK.Over the years i picked up every tip available for the torch including rosebudand cutting torch on ebay or used tool stores. As far as tanks gi, Tools is right, if your tank is full of gas its ok to keepit full beyond cert date. On a purely economic level, I jot down the tank datesand refill prior to expiration, whether theyre empty or full. I got burned withthe $70 to recert along with the $40 refill charge, and i dont want to spendthe extra for nothing. If the tank cert runs out at their shop, they recertas their business expense, and you dont pay for it.--------Tom KreinerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Original Posted By: "tools"
Don,I have the jig now and in the process of figuring out how to make it 2 incheswider. GardinerSent from my iPad> On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:21 PM, "Don Emch" wrote:> > > Well just in case any of you are having a tough time falling asleep tonight....or if you want to laugh at a very amateurish hand drawn Weight and Balancesheet.... here it is.> > For quick background. Essentially it is a "plans built" (according to Don Emch,Ha!) airframe. Long fuselage with plans built steel split axle gear. Ifollowed the plans the best I could with the exception of brakes, small tailwheel,nose tank, slanting the cabanes back 3.5" and cheating slightly on the A-65engine mount by extending it about 1". As far as I know that is about allI did. (Hopefully I can still sit on the Top Curmudgeon Board). According tomy measurements here, my wing leading edge is 6" forward of the axle. Whichif you look at the plans and note that I moved the wing back 3.5" then you'llsee that the axle is located according to plans. I really think that movingthe wing back is key for both weight and balance and being able to keep the axleat plans location while using brakes. A lot more is accomplished versus extendingthe engine mount. My seat, baggage, and fuel "arms" were derived by actuallyputting fuel, baggage and people in those loca!> tions while on the scales and working the math backwards to get accurate armlengths. A couple of scenarios are given as samples in flight conditions too.You can see with me at about 185 lbs. and running the tank dry I approach theaft limit... but then I'll probably have a few other things on my mind at thatpoint.> > Interestingly, It feels the nicest in flight when the C.G. is hovering aroundthe 17" - 18" aft of leading edge area. I think that wing likes it there.> > Don Emch> NX899DE> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 853#420853> > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet ... ta_456.pdf> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Don,I have the jig now and in the process of figuring out how to make it 2 incheswider. GardinerSent from my iPad> On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:21 PM, "Don Emch" wrote:> > > Well just in case any of you are having a tough time falling asleep tonight....or if you want to laugh at a very amateurish hand drawn Weight and Balancesheet.... here it is.> > For quick background. Essentially it is a "plans built" (according to Don Emch,Ha!) airframe. Long fuselage with plans built steel split axle gear. Ifollowed the plans the best I could with the exception of brakes, small tailwheel,nose tank, slanting the cabanes back 3.5" and cheating slightly on the A-65engine mount by extending it about 1". As far as I know that is about allI did. (Hopefully I can still sit on the Top Curmudgeon Board). According tomy measurements here, my wing leading edge is 6" forward of the axle. Whichif you look at the plans and note that I moved the wing back 3.5" then you'llsee that the axle is located according to plans. I really think that movingthe wing back is key for both weight and balance and being able to keep the axleat plans location while using brakes. A lot more is accomplished versus extendingthe engine mount. My seat, baggage, and fuel "arms" were derived by actuallyputting fuel, baggage and people in those loca!> tions while on the scales and working the math backwards to get accurate armlengths. A couple of scenarios are given as samples in flight conditions too.You can see with me at about 185 lbs. and running the tank dry I approach theaft limit... but then I'll probably have a few other things on my mind at thatpoint.> > Interestingly, It feels the nicest in flight when the C.G. is hovering aroundthe 17" - 18" aft of leading edge area. I think that wing likes it there.> > Don Emch> NX899DE> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 853#420853> > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet ... ta_456.pdf> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
Can you just go to the outside of the angle iron? Would that get it close to whereyou wouldn't need to actually change the fixture?Don EmchNX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Can you just go to the outside of the angle iron? Would that get it close to whereyou wouldn't need to actually change the fixture?Don EmchNX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A Couple of Welding Questions
Re: Pietenpol-List: A Couple of Welding Questions
Original Posted By: macz(at)peak.org
Moving the axel only changes the weight on the tail while on the ground...not inthe air.GaryNX308MBSent from my iPhone> On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:59 PM, "dgaldrich" wrote:> > > Waaiiit a minute. Moving the location of the wheels should have very little,if any, effect on CG. What DOES change, from a CG perspective, when you movethe wheels forward is the weight on the tail wheel. A couple of pounds increasemakes a large difference since the arm is so long and moving the wheels forwardincreases it. Using Jack's spreadsheet, I added just 5 pounds to the tailwheelweight and it moved the CG aft by 1 inch. That's 20% of the total allowablerange. A Scott 2000 tailwheel from a Piper Cub is about five pounds heavierthan an original BHP tail skid. As Jack, and others, have said, accuratemeasurement is important. Bathroom scales are for my fat ass, not aircraft.> > You have correctly noticed that moving the wing also has almost a 1 for 1 relationshipto CG. Moving the wing aft 1 inch moves the CG almost 1 inch forwardand is by far the most effective way of achieving a correctly balanced airplane.That's one of the advantages of this design is that it's relatively easyto do since the cabanes are equal length and parallel, more or less.> > Dave> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 910#420910> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:36:32 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A Couple of Welding Questions
Moving the axel only changes the weight on the tail while on the ground...not inthe air.GaryNX308MBSent from my iPhone> On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:59 PM, "dgaldrich" wrote:> > > Waaiiit a minute. Moving the location of the wheels should have very little,if any, effect on CG. What DOES change, from a CG perspective, when you movethe wheels forward is the weight on the tail wheel. A couple of pounds increasemakes a large difference since the arm is so long and moving the wheels forwardincreases it. Using Jack's spreadsheet, I added just 5 pounds to the tailwheelweight and it moved the CG aft by 1 inch. That's 20% of the total allowablerange. A Scott 2000 tailwheel from a Piper Cub is about five pounds heavierthan an original BHP tail skid. As Jack, and others, have said, accuratemeasurement is important. Bathroom scales are for my fat ass, not aircraft.> > You have correctly noticed that moving the wing also has almost a 1 for 1 relationshipto CG. Moving the wing aft 1 inch moves the CG almost 1 inch forwardand is by far the most effective way of achieving a correctly balanced airplane.That's one of the advantages of this design is that it's relatively easyto do since the cabanes are equal length and parallel, more or less.> > Dave> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 910#420910> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:36:32 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A Couple of Welding Questions