Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 1:19 am

Original Posted By: Gordon Brimhall
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear>Bill, you can get the plans for the wood landing gear from DonPitenpol but>if you just want to look at it, try the 1932 Flying & Gliding manual.The>illustration in it is identical to the larger drawing that isavailable from>D.P. If you don't have the FGM you might as well just buy the plans.The>cost should be very much the same. My plans are glued to a piece ofplyboard>and are too beat up to get a good copy.>>Don Hicks>________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 4:41 am

Original Posted By:>> DonanClara(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear>Howard>>I built the Penguin practice plane and have been doing taxi testingand>tried to get it off the ground once.>>It's a great magazine. I have an original Popular Machanix 1932 Ithink>which has some wonderful projects in it. It's laying someplace hereamound>all my junk, spruce sticks and mis, plans.>>Gordon>>>----- Original Message ----->From: Howard Wilkinson >To: Pietenpol Discussion >Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:17 PM>Subject: Re: Landing Gear>>>> If already have a set of plans don't buy another.... the Flying And>> Glider Manuals are great fun to read. The 1932 edition shows plans>> for the Powell race... (a cute biplane), the Heath super soarer>> glider, The Penguin practice plane, and the Ramsey Flying Bathtub,as>> well as articles on building good wings, designing your own>> hanger/workshop, and "handy kinks for the plane builder". TheModern>> Mechanics Flying and Glider Manuals are available I believe in 4 or5>> issues as reprints from EAA and contain "plans" for many very>> attractive small aircraft including such things as the Driggs Dart,>> Lincoln Sport, Heath Baby Bullet, and a couple of really nice LesLong>> designs among others too numerous to mention including of coursethe>> Piet and the Sky Scout. An investment that will yield many hoursof>> daydreaming pleasure

........>>>> -----Original Message-----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 5:08 am

Original Posted By: TXTdragger(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear>Gang,> I just received my Piet plans from Don Pietenpol>and started studying them. As I went through them I>noticed that the landing gear was made from steel tube>instead of the classic wood design. Does anyone have>the wood landing gear plans? I'm not sure which>method I will use but would like to compare them. Any>info would be greatly appreciated.>>>Bill>>________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 9:03 am

Original Posted By: Gordon Brimhall
thanks, guys, for all the input on the rudder bar. Isit a correct assumption that what I gathered from thedifferent responses, that 4130 tubing IS chromemolley or very similar. I have been using 4130 tubingthroughout. so then 4130 tubing is ok for the rudderbar? does anybody wrap it to keep the paint fromwearing off?________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 9:08 am

Original Posted By: del magsam
Gang, I just received my Piet plans from Don Pietenpoland started studying them. As I went through them Inoticed that the landing gear was made from steel tubeinstead of the classic wood design. Does anyone havethe wood landing gear plans? I'm not sure whichmethod I will use but would like to compare them. Anyinfo would be greatly appreciated.Bill________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 11:50 am

Original Posted By: william hutson
Bill; The Flying & Glider Manuals avialable from the EAA have the original Pietsfrom '29 showing the wood landing gear...Earl Myers-----Original Message-----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 8:17 pm

Original Posted By: Gary Leopold
Bill, you can get the plans for the wood landing gear from Don Pitenpol but if you just want to look at it, try the 1932 Flying & Gliding manual. The illustration in it is identical to the larger drawing that is available from D.P. If you don't have the FGM you might as well just buy the plans. The cost should be very much the same. My plans are glued to a piece of plyboard and are too beat up to get a good copy.Don Hicks ________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 10:17 pm

Original Posted By: DonanClara(at)aol.com
If already have a set of plans don't buy another.... the Flying AndGlider Manuals are great fun to read. The 1932 edition shows plansfor the Powell race... (a cute biplane), the Heath super soarerglider, The Penguin practice plane, and the Ramsey Flying Bathtub, aswell as articles on building good wings, designing your ownhanger/workshop, and "handy kinks for the plane builder". The ModernMechanics Flying and Glider Manuals are available I believe in 4 or 5issues as reprints from EAA and contain "plans" for many veryattractive small aircraft including such things as the Driggs Dart,Lincoln Sport, Heath Baby Bullet, and a couple of really nice Les Longdesigns among others too numerous to mention including of course thePiet and the Sky Scout. An investment that will yield many hours ofdaydreaming pleasure

........-----Original Message-----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Sep 23, 1999 11:37 pm

Original Posted By: Howard Wilkinson
HowardI built the Penguin practice plane and have been doing taxi testing andtried to get it off the ground once.It's a great magazine. I have an original Popular Machanix 1932 I thinkwhich has some wonderful projects in it. It's laying someplace here amoundall my junk, spruce sticks and mis, plans.Gordon----- Original Message -----________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Sep 24, 1999 1:02 pm

Original Posted By: Gordon Brimhall
Gordon: I'm falling behind on my correspondence...... With all theadministrative stuff from the IHA. We are now up to 30 members. I too love those old mags..... hours of interesting reading.You Inquired about the Fly In location..... it is approximately 12miles south west of the town of Shawmut Montana as the crow flys.Shawmut is just east of Harlowton (16 miles) about 1/2 way acrossMontana on Hwy 12.Get started now ......... Eventually we will establish a date, and Iwill attend even if nobody else shows up

-----Original Message-----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Sep 24, 1999 1:35 pm

Original Posted By: Howard Wilkinson
HowardGreat start for the new airplane group. I have had so many people contact mein the last day I just can't believe it.Thanks for moving me to the open spot #02 I will start working on the NewIHA Web Site tonite. I have moved my other stuff to one of my other websites.If I can't fly up maybe I bring the Practice Plane for the kids to playwith.Tow it behind the Harley.GordonIHA #02SAA # 952EAA # 0595215----- Original Message -----________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Sun Jan 30, 2000 1:00 pm

Original Posted By: william hutson

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Oct 26, 2000 9:44 pm

Original Posted By: del magsam
> > Thanks to all on tail post feedback. Here's another one. I am ready to> > start on land gear vees. Plans call for a 65* angle. I saw a Piet at> > Oshkosh, NX17WR. The front legs where closer to vertical than the plans> > call for, more like the Pipers. It seems to me this would help preventa> > tendency to nose over. The Cubs are almost Straight up and down on the> > front legs of the VEE. Has anybody else made this change or plannedit??> > By the way had the Franklin going today and put 20 mins on it 2 times,now> > it has about 3 hours of break in.> > Ted, A Pietenpoller from PEO.> >________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:20:08 -0700 (PDT)

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:26 pm

Original Posted By: dpaul
you'll want something like an 18-20" wheel. try to get one with the widest hubyou can.... if you can't find one with at least a 6" hub (and I doubt you will)then you'll have to have some of your own hubs turned. Essentially yourjust buying the rim ring.DJ----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:43 pm

Original Posted By: "Norman Stapelberg"
Dave,Aluminum, 21" and 36 spokes(72 spokes are lighter than 80), also get thewidest hubs you can as the angle of the holes will line up better if youbuild 5 1/2 or 6" hubs.Be sure you check the weld real close, I got 3 rims and 2 of them cracked atthe weld when I took the spokes out.Another thing, when you get the tires, make sure they go with the rims, thetires I got have real fat or wide beads and are a REAL pain to seat on thenarrow rims.Skip Motorcycle shops, here in Atlanta get $32.00 plus cost of a tube to fix aflat.MessageDave,Aluminum, 21" and 36 spokes(72 spokes are lighter than 80), also get thewidest hubs you can as the angle of theholes will line up better if you build 5 1/2 or 6" hubs.Be sure you check the weldreal close, I got 3 rims and 2 of them cracked atthe weld whenI took the spokes out.Another thing, when you get the tires, make sure they go with the rims,the tires I got have real fat or wide beads and are a REAL pain to seat on thenarrow rims.SkipMotorcycle shops, here in Atlantaget $32.00 plus cost of a tube tofix a flat.________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:35 pm

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
List, I've found a motorcycle shop in Rosebud Missouri that has hundreds of usedmotorcycle wheels sorted into bins. I'm going there Saturday to pick out my Pietwheels. Any suggestions as to what to look for and what to avoid? Thanks.Dave Paulsen________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:53:39 -0500

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:46 pm

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
HiI would like to know what the weight penalty is for wooden cabanes andstruts.Have anybody made a comparison between wood and steel yet? Deon EngelmannEAA322 Midrand # SA12055PretoriaSouth Africa________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:11:29 -0500

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:42 pm

Original Posted By: "DJ Vegh"
Chris,I asked this question several months ago on this list and didn't get anyresponse. Asked around locally and decided it would be ok. The guy who didmy welding said I should not put any stress on the rim for 6 months, noproblem for me, to give the weld time to harden.Also I think that once the wheel is re-laced, there will be a lot lesspressure on the weld.Anyway I have one on my Piet project.SkipOne of my rims broke at the weld too. Anyone know if it's ok to reweld(tig) the rim.Chris T.Sacramento, Ca________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:16 pm

Original Posted By: Gadd, Skip
MessageHi Skip ; My name is John Ficklen, I live on St George Island, Fl down inthe panhandle. I'm on the Piet list but don't send much time on it. My Aircamperis nearly finished. Hope to have it at S&F. I come to Atlanta quite oftento see friends and family and would love to see your project. please. PLeasesend me your phone number and maybe we can make some arangements. Thanks John ----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:29 pm

Original Posted By: dpaul
Dave,Dale Johnson and I went through this a couple of years ago.We made the mistake of building our hubs before locating rims. The hubs were builtto Howard Henderson's plans calling for 40 spokes.We spent about three hours in a mosquito infested motorcycle boneyard looking foramatching set of 40 spoke, aluminum rims.We found LOTS of 36 spoke rims. Many were new and still in the protective wrap.We would occasionally find 40 spoke rims. Finally, we found a matching set inusable condition. They were 19" rims from older Honda Goldwings.Some of the bigger Kawasaki's also had 40 spoke rims.The weight difference between aluminum rims and steel rims is minimal.I would recommend that you find your rims BEFORE you build the hubs.If I were to do another pair I wouldn't hesitate to use 36 spoke steel rims.Greg Cardinal in MinneapolisPS. As Dale and I were walking out of the boneyard with our hard fought prizewe noticed a pair of rims leaning against the building. The rims were, you guessedit,a matched set of 40 spoke, 19 inch, aluminum rims marked $20.00 ea. !!!!! ----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:41 pm

Original Posted By: dpaul
Hi Dave: If you don't find them there try Fog Hollow motorcycle salvage. They have alocation in Wellston, a St.Louis suburb and in Eureka, Mo on hwy 44. They alsohave a website.Dennis ----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:55 pm

Original Posted By: PAT HOEVELMANN

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:30 pm

Original Posted By: Dennis Engelkenjohn
Thanks Dennis! Eureka sounds great. Question: Did you attach your landing gearto the fuse by drilling and bolting through struts, the wedges between thestruts or doesn't it make any difference?Another question if you don't mind. On "Sky Gypsy," do you think those wheelsare covered with fabric or metal. I'm wondering if that would be a good way tostrengthen a spoked wheel or if it's just cosmetic. Hope you're making good progress on the Piet.Dave ----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:48 am

Original Posted By: Jim Markle

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:09 am

Original Posted By: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing GearI've been reading the posts regarding landing gear and had a 2-cent thought -- kind of like Loyd in "Dumb and Dumber": "Uh, wait a minute...uh, yup, I justhad an idea." : )Is it possible to make the landing gear so bullet-proof that in a forced, really "off-field" landing, the landing gear survives reasonably well but transmits damage to the fuselage proper? Obviously it should be as strong as possible, but I would think in some instances, I'd rather sacrifice the landinggear than the airframe and my bod. Then again, if you wipe out the gear, you'll probably damage the fuselage, too... Was just thinking about it... My plan of the day is to rip some white ash into 2-inch strips for the lower fuselage cross braces...Have a great day, everyone! Fred B. ________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:13 am

Original Posted By: Michael Fisher
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing GearGood idea, Good thinking.Corky________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:53 -0900

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:39 am

Original Posted By: "Richard Navratil"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing GearOf course, Bernard wrote that landing gear statement for the Flying & Glider Manual before he himself switched to a steel tube gear for the 1933 Improved Air Camper. He was talking about not substituting steel for wood in the legs of the straight axle gear.Forrest Lovley________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:15 am

Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:39 am

Original Posted By: "Jim Markle"
Jack,Will your new axle be 1 1/2" X .120?Alex S.-------------- Original message -------------- Hi Fred,You dont want the gear to be so strong that it survives a really hard landing,only to transmit devastating loads to the airframe. Recommended G loading forlanding gear to withstand is about 3.1 Gs. My axle was good for a little over2 Gs, and that was not enough. My new axle will be capable of withstandingloads of 3.8 Gs without yielding.Jack-----Original Message-----I've been reading the posts regarding landing gear and had a 2-cent thought --kind of like Loyd in "Dumb and Dumber": "Uh, wait a minute...uh, yup, I just hadan idea." : )Is it possible to make the landing gear so bullet-proof that in a forced, really"off-field" landing, the landing gear survives reasonably well but transmitsdamage to the fuselage proper? Obviously it should be as strong as possible,but I would think in some instances, I'd rather sacrifice the landing gear thanthe airframe and my bod. Then again, if you wipe out the gear, you'll probablydamage the fuselage, too... Was just thinking about it... My plan of the day is to rip some white ash into 2-inch strips for the lower fuselagecross braces...Have a great day, everyone! Fred B. Jack,Will your new axle be 1 1/2" X .120?Alex S.-------------- Original message -------------- Hi Fred,You dont want the gear to be so strongthat it survives a really hard landing, only to transmit devastating loads tothe airframe. Recommended G loading for landing gear to withstand is about3.1 Gs. My axle was good for a little over 2 Gs, and that was not enough.My new axle will be capable of withstanding loads of 3.8 Gs withoutyielding.Jack-----Original Message-----I've been readingthe posts regarding landing gear and had a 2-cent thought -- kind of likeLoyd in "Dumb and Dumber": "Uh, wait a minute...uh, yup, I just had an idea.": )Is it possibleto make the landing gear so bullet-proof that in a forced, really "off-field"landing, the landing gear survives reasonably well but transmits damageto the fuselage proper? Obviously it should be as strong as possible, butI would think in some instances, I'd rather sacrifice the landing gear than theairframe and my bod. Then again, if you wipe out the gear, you'll probablydamage the fuselage, too... Was just thinking about it...My plan ofthe day is to rip some white ash into 2-inch strips for the lower fuselage crossbraces...Have a greatday, everyone! Fred B. ________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:48 am

Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"
Well, I think the cables may actually provide only minimal compressive strength at landing. It does seem to me that the real benefit at landing is in the compression of the spruce gear legs themselves.In my incredibly naive, rather short sighted, no engineering background, usually don't know what the heck I'm talking about....opinion......BHP's design is well within safe limits.The maximum compressive crushing strength parallel to the grain of spruce being 5650 lbs per square inch, in addition to the shock absorbing properties of the bungy, probably explains why this design has been working pretty darn well for over 70 years.....

I may be using the wrong number from the spruce strength table but even if I use any of the other small numbers (except the tension numbers), I'm still ok....Jim in Plano.....> Dave-- the Piet axle has suspension, the Fly Baby (as you know) does> not. The only thing that cushions your landings in a Fly Baby> are the tires. We had a Fly Baby that made a hard landing here too a> few years ago and the gear legs shattered like toothpicks---laminated too> they are !> I would have no reservation in sanding down the gear legs on a Piet to an> airfoil/teardrop shape again. Our strength in the Piets gear legs comes> from those two sets of X brace cables----and boy is that gear ever> tough.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing GearDate: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:08:35 -0000

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:22 pm

Original Posted By:
Hi Forrest,Did Bernard consider the steel tube gear more robust than thewood gear?Or was the change simply to keep up with the currenttrends in airplanes at the time?Greg CardinalMinneapolis----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:59 pm

Original Posted By:
Thanks for the comments about landing gear strength. I'm very close to being finishedwith the gear. I disassembled my gear assembly tonight and put an undercoaton all the metal parts. I'll shape the wood legs like most of you suggested.Mike and John were right about the Flybaby gear. It was made with pinewood and the only shock absorption was low air pressure in the tires. Thanks.Dave Paulsen________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:00 pm

Original Posted By:> Michael Fisher
>

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:27 am

Original Posted By: FTLovley(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing GearI think Bernard just changed the gear to the split axle type because it was easier to build, lighter, less drag, and most important, it was safer when youlanded in tall hay. The straight axle tended to put airplanes on their back in tall grass. Just one of the reasons he called it the "Improved Aircamper".Forrest Lovley________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:23 pm

Original Posted By: "Gordon Bowen"
Hi Guys,Some discussion in my hangar has rasied some questions about landing geargeometry. Our local crop duster pilot flies a Cessna 188 AgWagon and has theU/C set with toe in. I was talking to a Gere Biplane builder who has the U/Cset with toe out (about 2 degrees overall). With the straight gear Pietenpol(and mine with J3 type gear) there is no toe in or out. The Agwagon has atailwheel whilst the Gere has a tail skid.Any ideas on the pro's and con's of the different methods?CheersPeterWonthaggi Australiahttp://www.cpc-world.com 4:43 PM ________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:36 pm

Original Posted By: Peter W Johnson
Peter,I put in a slight toe-in. Theory--keep the gear from wanting to squat like a duck when landing hard or taxiing with heavy load. Used laser levels to sight out about 40 feet in front of edge of each wheel. Made the distance between outside edges of wheels very slightly more narrow at 40' (about 1/2inch) as compared to directly in front of the wheels. Set in about 0.25 degree toe-in, using thin washers.Gordon ----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:19 pm

Original Posted By: "Peter W Johnson"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing GearIn a message dated 10/30/2007 7:38:35 PM Central Daylight Time, gbowen(at)ptialaska.net writes:Peter,I put in a slight toe-in. Theory--keep the gear from wanting to squat like a duck when landing hard or taxiing with heavy load. Used laser levels to sightout about 40 feet in front of edge of each wheel. Made the distance between outside edges of wheels very slightly more narrow at 40' (about 1/2inch) as compared to directly in front of the wheels. Set in about 0.25 degree toe-in,using thin washers.GordonPeter,I agree totally with Gordon and his reasons. Originally, my split axle gear had too much toe - in. It would splay the gear apart when pulling it backward, and pushing 'er forward you could feel the tires slipping. Early on in my test period, I was landing in a pretty nasty right crosswind, so I put down the upwind (right) gear on the ground first,and it very nearly groundlooped to the left, because that was the direction that wheel was pointing. That was the closest I've ever come to groundloopingmy plane. If not for the excellent rudder authority of the Pietenpol, even atlow speeds, the tail would surely have went on around. To fix the problem, I pulled one wheel at a time, and removed the wheel bearings and all grease. Tied the tail and gear off to the structure of the hanger, and heated up the lower vee of the gear with a Rosebud torch, while a helper slipped a 10 foot piece of pipe over the axle and bent it back till we ended up with just a veryslight toe - in, all the while maintaining the camber angle. I've also modifiedthe gear from bunji's to springs, and the gear has worked very well ever since. Close to 350 hrs on 'er now !!Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:58 pm

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Thanks Guys,I may put a bit of toe-in on mine.CheersPeter _____

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:03 am

Original Posted By: hvandervoo(at)aol.com

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:18 am

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Hans,I=92m not too sure of the geometry on a Gere but the builder was adamant abouttoe out. I think it is fixed whether loaded or not. Again this would be thesame as the Piet. It should only change the camber when the load is changed.CheersPeter. _____

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:18 am

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Clif,I had a long conversation with the builder at our local SAAA NationalConvention over the weekend. He was quite adamant that it should be toe outand not toe in. He runs a skate board wheel in his tail skid to protect thepavement on hard runways.Bye the way, this particular Gere Sport has won our Concours d Elegance andhas been Grand Champion for two years. A beautiful aircraft now sporting aRotec radial on the front!I=92ll try the toe-in first and see how it goes.CheersPeter _____

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:52 am

Original Posted By: hvandervoo(at)aol.com

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:14 am

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Toe out will cause a taildragger to dart back and forth like a drunkensquirrel! Even in a slight crosswind the wheels load and unload a littleand toe out will cause the plane to dart back and forth. Anyone recommending toe out either has not flown a properly set up plane,or likes to watch people sweat landings. A slight toe in will impartdirectional stability. Straight is good also. Jim T.-----Original Message-----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:54 pm

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Hans,Good point, I never thought of that.CheersPeter. _____

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:35 am

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:24 pm

Original Posted By: hvandervoo(at)aol.com

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:41 pm

Original Posted By: "walt evans"

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:43 pm

Original Posted By: "walt evans"

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:07 pm

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Now I=92m totally confused. Perhaps dead straight is best after all.Peter.Wonthaggi AustraliaHYPERLINK "http://www.cpc-world.com/"http://www.cpc-world.com _____

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:46 pm

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller