Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short fusePietenpol> > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought > white > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard. > I made > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top > as our > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I > made slanted > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to > go forward > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers > get there > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I > have not > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so > I took > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange, > and > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they > made up > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the > space up > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As > far as CG > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with > air > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to > those of > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you > go long > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of > flight. So I > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have > no nose > pressure to even hold then.> > Mike C.> > > > > > _-> _-> _-> _-> ======================================================================== > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:26:09 -0500
Pietenpol-List: Landing gear comparisons
Pietenpol-List: Landing gear comparisons
Original Posted By: jimboyer(at)direcway.com
A few questions regarding landing gear.Aesthetics aside, what exactly are the known advantages/disadvantages of thestraight axle gear and the split axle gear? This could relate to groundhandling, drag, smoothness of landings...whatever.Is there anyone out there that has flown both types? Which did you preferand why?Is one style better suited to hard runways? Grass?Does it make a large difference, performance-wise, when large, balloonwheels (like on Ken Perkins' Piet, for example) are used, rather than thesmaller, Cub-size wheels many others have used?I am sure these questions have been addressed in the past, but maybe thereare some opinions out there that have not been heard.BillLanding gear comparisonsA few questions regarding landing gear.Aesthetics aside, what exactly are the known advantages/disadvantages of the straightaxle gear and the split axle gear? This could relate to ground handling,drag, smoothness of landings...whatever.Is there anyone out there that has flown both types? Which did you prefer and why?Is one style better suited to hard runways? Grass?Does it make a large difference, performance-wise, when large, balloon wheels (likeon Ken Perkins' Piet, for example) are used, rather than the smaller, Cub-sizewheels many others have used?I am sure these questions have been addressed in the past, but maybe there aresome opinions out there that have not been heard.Bill________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:52:29 -0800
A few questions regarding landing gear.Aesthetics aside, what exactly are the known advantages/disadvantages of thestraight axle gear and the split axle gear? This could relate to groundhandling, drag, smoothness of landings...whatever.Is there anyone out there that has flown both types? Which did you preferand why?Is one style better suited to hard runways? Grass?Does it make a large difference, performance-wise, when large, balloonwheels (like on Ken Perkins' Piet, for example) are used, rather than thesmaller, Cub-size wheels many others have used?I am sure these questions have been addressed in the past, but maybe thereare some opinions out there that have not been heard.BillLanding gear comparisonsA few questions regarding landing gear.Aesthetics aside, what exactly are the known advantages/disadvantages of the straightaxle gear and the split axle gear? This could relate to ground handling,drag, smoothness of landings...whatever.Is there anyone out there that has flown both types? Which did you prefer and why?Is one style better suited to hard runways? Grass?Does it make a large difference, performance-wise, when large, balloon wheels (likeon Ken Perkins' Piet, for example) are used, rather than the smaller, Cub-sizewheels many others have used?I am sure these questions have been addressed in the past, but maybe there aresome opinions out there that have not been heard.Bill________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:52:29 -0800
Re: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short
Original Posted By: "Christian Bobka"
My Pietenpol was built from the 1933 plans drawn by Orrin Hoopman. Thefuselage was modified by extending the firewall six inches forward (BHP'srecommendation when using small Continentals, etc. instead of the Ford A)and the width from the firewall back to the rear instrument panel wasincreased by two inches. This allowed more space for the fuselage tank and Icould have easily made a tank holding at least 17 US gallons. The tank Imade holds about 15 US gal. and is adequate for the kind of flying I havealways done. As it is, the airplane's endurance exceeds mine, and I like tolimit each flight to about 1.5 hours because it isn't verycomfortable---even though I am about 5' 8" and about 175 lbs. I have alwaysused the wing center section as a storage space and have a small lockabledoor on the underside, so 15 gallons is the total fuel capacity.The original tank was made from 0.028" galvanized steel sheet with foldedand soft-soldered seams. I couldn't locate any terneplate so used galvanizedsteel. It was heavier than an equivalent aluminum tank, but:1. It was less costly because I could do the whole job myself with theequipment I had at the time.2. Repairs could be safely accomplished without using a flame (Never neededrepair).3. The extra weight was tolerable since it was well forward.4. It is durable.This tank lasted for 30 years and I replaced it 3 years ago with anidentical new one.Years earlier I had used a sloshing sealer which began todisintegrate, and bits floating around in the fuel scare me. I removed thetank and had it steam cleaned, but the problem persisted. So I built a newtank and won't even think of using sloshing sealer in it (I suspect autogasoline is somehow implicated, but have no proof).Regarding trim change with fuel burn, my 85 hp Pietenpol is nose heavy withthe tank full, so I "trim" with the throttle using about 2350 to 2375 RPM incruise initially and gradually back off as the nose lightens up. However,stick forces are so light that it isn't at all burdensome to cruise at anyRPM one chooses. The above procedure provides a "hands off" condition, butonly in smooth air. My Pietenpol has never been tail heavy in flight, evenwith the A65 engine (I switched to a C85 after about 115 hours with an A65).A friend built a nearly identical airplane from the same jigs and itexhibits the typical Pietenpol tail heaviness in flight with an A65 engine.We never found out why they were different in this respect. However, bothare quite nose heavy in a power-off glide, regardless of fuel quantity.Altogether, I am content with the nose fuselage tank and don't hesitate torecommend it for the same reasons Mike C. does.Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Camrose, Alberta, Canada)________________________________________________________________________________
My Pietenpol was built from the 1933 plans drawn by Orrin Hoopman. Thefuselage was modified by extending the firewall six inches forward (BHP'srecommendation when using small Continentals, etc. instead of the Ford A)and the width from the firewall back to the rear instrument panel wasincreased by two inches. This allowed more space for the fuselage tank and Icould have easily made a tank holding at least 17 US gallons. The tank Imade holds about 15 US gal. and is adequate for the kind of flying I havealways done. As it is, the airplane's endurance exceeds mine, and I like tolimit each flight to about 1.5 hours because it isn't verycomfortable---even though I am about 5' 8" and about 175 lbs. I have alwaysused the wing center section as a storage space and have a small lockabledoor on the underside, so 15 gallons is the total fuel capacity.The original tank was made from 0.028" galvanized steel sheet with foldedand soft-soldered seams. I couldn't locate any terneplate so used galvanizedsteel. It was heavier than an equivalent aluminum tank, but:1. It was less costly because I could do the whole job myself with theequipment I had at the time.2. Repairs could be safely accomplished without using a flame (Never neededrepair).3. The extra weight was tolerable since it was well forward.4. It is durable.This tank lasted for 30 years and I replaced it 3 years ago with anidentical new one.Years earlier I had used a sloshing sealer which began todisintegrate, and bits floating around in the fuel scare me. I removed thetank and had it steam cleaned, but the problem persisted. So I built a newtank and won't even think of using sloshing sealer in it (I suspect autogasoline is somehow implicated, but have no proof).Regarding trim change with fuel burn, my 85 hp Pietenpol is nose heavy withthe tank full, so I "trim" with the throttle using about 2350 to 2375 RPM incruise initially and gradually back off as the nose lightens up. However,stick forces are so light that it isn't at all burdensome to cruise at anyRPM one chooses. The above procedure provides a "hands off" condition, butonly in smooth air. My Pietenpol has never been tail heavy in flight, evenwith the A65 engine (I switched to a C85 after about 115 hours with an A65).A friend built a nearly identical airplane from the same jigs and itexhibits the typical Pietenpol tail heaviness in flight with an A65 engine.We never found out why they were different in this respect. However, bothare quite nose heavy in a power-off glide, regardless of fuel quantity.Altogether, I am content with the nose fuselage tank and don't hesitate torecommend it for the same reasons Mike C. does.Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Camrose, Alberta, Canada)________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short
Original Posted By:
Have them meet at right angles.Chris Bobka----- Original Message -----
Have them meet at right angles.Chris Bobka----- Original Message -----
> Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a
Original Posted By: "Graham Hansen"
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a >short fuse Pietenpol>> > > > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought> > white> > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.> > I made> > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top> > as our> > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I> > made slanted> > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to> > go forward> > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers> > get there> > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I> > have not> > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so> > I took> > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,> > and> > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they> > made up> > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the> > space up> > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As> > far as CG> > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with> > air> > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to> > those of> > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you> > go long> > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of> > flight. So I> > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have> > no nose> > pressure to even hold then.> >> > Mike C.> >> >> >> >> >> > _-> > _-> > _-> > _-> > ========================================================================> >> >> >> >>>________________________________________________________________________________
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a >short fuse Pietenpol>> > > > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought> > white> > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.> > I made> > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top> > as our> > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I> > made slanted> > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to> > go forward> > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers> > get there> > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I> > have not> > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so> > I took> > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,> > and> > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they> > made up> > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the> > space up> > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As> > far as CG> > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with> > air> > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to> > those of> > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you> > go long> > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of> > flight. So I> > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have> > no nose> > pressure to even hold then.> >> > Mike C.> >> >> >> >> >> > _-> > _-> > _-> > _-> > ========================================================================> >> >> >> >>>________________________________________________________________________________
> Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a
Original Posted By: jimboyer(at)direcway.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in ashort fuse Pietenpol>> > > > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought> > white> > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.> > I made> > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top> > as our> > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I> > made slanted> > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to> > go forward> > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers> > get there> > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I> > have not> > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so> > I took> > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,> > and> > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they> > made up> > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the> > space up> > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As> > far as CG> > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with> > air> > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to> > those of> > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you> > go long> > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of> > flight. So I> > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have> > no nose> > pressure to even hold then.> >> > Mike C.> >> >> >> >> >> > _-> > _-> > _-> > _-> > ========================================================================> >> >> >> >>>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:37:57 -0800
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in ashort fuse Pietenpol>> > > > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought> > white> > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.> > I made> > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top> > as our> > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I> > made slanted> > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to> > go forward> > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers> > get there> > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I> > have not> > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so> > I took> > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,> > and> > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they> > made up> > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the> > space up> > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As> > far as CG> > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with> > air> > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to> > those of> > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you> > go long> > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of> > flight. So I> > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have> > no nose> > pressure to even hold then.> >> > Mike C.> >> >> >> >> >> > _-> > _-> > _-> > _-> > ========================================================================> >> >> >> >>>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:37:57 -0800