> Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line

An archive of the Matronics Pietenpol Listserve.
Locked
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

> Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By:> WilliamTCA(at)aol.com
In defense of Tony - or more to the point the defense of an conservative approach to building has its merits. Most of the advice requested from builders to this blog are from people learning to build. They are not experienced and if they were almost by definition they wouldn't be asking the questions in the first place. Based on my experience with local Pietenpol builders my conclusion is that a conventional and conservative has proven to more successfully than pushing the envelope. There have been about 20 Pietenpol built in my area of southern Ontario. The successful ones have been powered by aircraft engines. The ones that have not used aircraft engines have by in large not been successful. This DOES NOT MEAN THEY COULDNT HAVE BEEN SUCESSFUL BUT THEY HAVENT BEEN - it is a fact not an opinion.I am a fan of innovation and admire those who innovate but not everyone has the skills to do that. I am considering doing something quite radical in my next project but there is no way I would encourage others to do the same because it can lead others to follow in a path that is more dangerous and could ultimately lead to a poor outcome. Building a scratch built aircraft is a job that only the most diligent can complete. Those who persevere should have the greatest chance of success=2C they deserve it. Following Tony is good advice even if it is out of date and even wrong. You could do a lot worse by not following it. I have two good friends that have lost 15 years or more each of good flying because they chose not to use an aircraft engine. Are they regretful=2C perhaps not=2C but from my perspective they should be. So when giving advice think about what the experience of the person asking the question=2C not what your particular talent or experience is. > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "bdewenter"
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> >> > Mike=2C> > Perhaps the reason why Tony Bingelis gets high marks in your book is because what you were looking for just happened to be his strength=2C namely information on simple plans built plane with a Continental engine. Some people see this as traditional EAA=2C all the way back to the modern mechanics Baby ace that started the EAA in 1953.> > However=2C some of us think of the EAA as a place to innovate and develop expanded ideas. Not necessarily complex ones=2C I myself are more interested in ones that give working people more access to flight=2C getting the out of the spectator seats and into the workshop.> > Right in front of me is Bingelis's 1988 book firewall forward. A great resource if you happen to be building a plane like yours. However=2C I can make a pretty good claim that the book is otherwise dated=2C and he barely disguises his anti innovation bias=2C often with hints that it is dangerous or foolhardy. > > Look in the first few pages and see that Bingelis is anti-liquid cooling=2C predicting they will not be a significant number of non-type certified engines ever. Explain how that accounts for Rotax 912s? His Comments on other non traditional engines are equally off the mark. I am not a VW guy=2C But there is almost nothing in his comments on them that is still valid. Bingelis's book includes the comment that car engine "Invariably require a radiator"=2C in the photo is BHP personal Corvair powered Aircamper=2C no radiator.> > Tony was not big on testing things=2C and his data reflects that he often blindly repeated things from other sources that he felt were credible. An easy example is that his engine weight data in the book is incorrect. He wrote that an O-200 weighs 188 pounds=2C without really noting that this is the base weight=2C it actually is about 50 pounds heavier. Anyone with a scale could tell this=2C but Tony didn't test stuff like that. If anyone used 188 in a W&B calculation to make a motor mount=2C they had a rude surprise awaiting them at the scales.> > Tony also is not shy about making comments about props that revealed he never tested them. Warp Drive has made more than 50=2C000 props=2C yet the book says Ground adjustable props for light planes are not common. His comments on prop efficiency are old wives tales he is repeating as facts=2C even though Rutan and Wittman had long proved higher rpm works=2C 10 years before Tony wrote the book as 'fact.' Comments like "Keep your prop as long as possible as long as possible" don't actually teach anyone anything. Tony's math on tip speed works=2C only if you are sitting still. If you would like to see the real formula for Tip speed=2C it is in many less celebrated books=2C including my manual. Tony didn't know what vector addition is=2C but that didn't stop him from dolling out advice on props.> > His comments on batteries are no longer valid today. Odyssey and interstate dominate the market now=2C people don't put Gills in home builts anymore. I just watched a 2.1 pound Li battery that cost $122 start a 180Hp Lycoming the other day. That is 19.9 pounds lighter than the Gill that Tony recommends. In the book he states that NiCad batteries and Gell Cells don't work. He knows nothing of AGM batteries. He is stuck in the 1970s=2C and every new thing to him was ominous.> > Tony has drawings of fuel systems that endlessly show aluminum had lines in the cockpit rigidly plumbed=2C even though it is now accepted that this is a serious design mistake in many installations and the root cause of many fatal post crash fires. They have stuff in auto fuel these days that will harm many of the items he recommends in fuel systems.> > Flat out=2C no one should but Tony's work ahead of the current manufactures recommendations on a product=2C but they do all the time. I have seen people ignore the factory design on a Zenith 650 for canopy attachment and use an inappropriate design from Tony's books=2C because it was "Better." Keep in mind that a CH-650's have had fatal accidents from loss of control after people opened the canopy. Sound like a good plane to do canopy innovation on?> > Tony's details on items like control cables are very good=2C and 50% of the stuff in the books is still valid. Problem is if you are a new guy=2C which half is it? I could dissect the book page by page=2C but perhaps it is just more useful to tell people not to blindly follow 26 year old advice from a dead guy who never worked on the airframe engine combination you are building. > > Mike=2C no one has written more than me about stupid people offering poor advice on the net and in person. Get a look at: http://flycorvair.net/2013/10/08/a-visi ... ne-asylum/ for specific advice on how to avoid these people. My point is Tony's work was dated when he wrote it=2C and he went past what he understood and cast negative opinions on things that he was unwilling to test nor even read about the tests of others. That isn't what Experimentals are about. They are about being willing to learn. -ww.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 549#420549> > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol
Locked