Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Jack (et al),Here is my debate:You, and others, have said things that have caused me to pause and considermy decisions, and sometimes change my path. As always, you are the epitomeof common sense and good judgment..or are you? I know that you know spam candrivers that look at you in your little home-made airplane (exquisite as itis, even with its "reliable" engine) and say, if not to you at least tothemselves, "I would/could never do that." "You're going to fly it where? ToBrodhead?" Or, how about the guys who say flying a taildragger is toodangerous! And all of those spam can drivers know ground pounders who say,"You're a pilot? You fly a Cessna/Piper/Beech? Isn't that scary? I couldnever do that!"The great mathematician, Augusta De Morgan, said:"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on, While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on." So, everyone has their limits. When we make the decision to build anexperimental airplane, we set ourselves on a less traveled path.but that'sjust the beginning.Consider the individual who decides:To build an airplane,To build a wood & fabric airplane,To build a wood & fabric airplane designed in 1929,To build a wood & fabric airplane, designed in 1929, with Poplar instead ofA/C Spruce,To build a wood & fabric airplane, designed in 1929, with Poplar instead ofA/C Spruce, and fir spars,To build a wood & fabric airplane, designed in 1929, with Poplar instead ofA/C Spruce, with fir spars, and wooden struts,To build a wood & fabric airplane, designed in 1929, with Poplar instead ofA/C Spruce, with fir spars, wooden struts, and a non-A/C engine,To build a wood & fabric airplane, designed in 1929, with Poplar instead ofA/C Spruce, with fir spars, wooden struts, a non-A/C engine, with ahome-made prop,To build a wood & fabric airplane, designed in 1929, with Poplar instead ofA/C Spruce, with fir spars, wooden struts, a non-A/C engine, a home-madeprop, painted with house paint instead of dope,"ad infinitum.."At which point would most builders stop.at which point would you stop? Myex-father-in-law, insurance agent, thought I was nuts to start flying in thefirst place (age 17)!Am I nuts? Maybe. Nuts about flying.Am I suicidal? Definitely not!I fully respect your opinion about A/C engines if for no other reason thanyou are vastly more experienced than I. But this project has been a seriesof path choices for me, and, for some reason, I keep choosing theless-traveled path.In the end, I expect that I will have many, many taxi hours and ground runsof my "crank-breaking" Corvair, not that that will expose any/all problems,but the actual take-off should be a non-event. For me, the choice of using aCorvair was a merely a result of choosing a less-traveled path.having morehp, a smoother less expensive engine, were just fortunate by-products.Meeting William Wynne was a God-send!If you know a risk management expert, please give him my contact info! ..or,are we ALL beyond risk management?Gary BootheCool, CAPietenpolWW Corvair ConversionTail done, Fuselage on gear18 ribs done
Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: Gary Boothe
I kind of lost the point,,,what is your point?walt evansNX140DL ----- Original Message -----
I kind of lost the point,,,what is your point?walt evansNX140DL ----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: gboothe5(at)comcast.net
Raymond: that's the C-series Continentals, not the A-series. The C-series havea longer stroke and different cases, thus the ability to fit a starter and otheraccessories to them as compared with the A-series, which are rare as hen'steeth with anything in the way of accessory drives from the factory. The -8configuration is most common in "our" small Continentals on these airplanes, whereasthe later C-series have many more common configurations with starters,generators, vacuum pumps, and other stuff.--------Oscar ZunigaSan Antonio, TXAir Camper NX41CCRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Raymond: that's the C-series Continentals, not the A-series. The C-series havea longer stroke and different cases, thus the ability to fit a starter and otheraccessories to them as compared with the A-series, which are rare as hen'steeth with anything in the way of accessory drives from the factory. The -8configuration is most common in "our" small Continentals on these airplanes, whereasthe later C-series have many more common configurations with starters,generators, vacuum pumps, and other stuff.--------Oscar ZunigaSan Antonio, TXAir Camper NX41CCRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: "walt"
The point being - everyone has their own level of acceptance of what is "reliable." I wish to re-iterate that Jack, Mike C, William Wynne and others have helped me to balance my frugal approach to building with an overall view of practicality and safety.GarySent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry-----Original Message-----
The point being - everyone has their own level of acceptance of what is "reliable." I wish to re-iterate that Jack, Mike C, William Wynne and others have helped me to balance my frugal approach to building with an overall view of practicality and safety.GarySent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright
Might as well toss in my two cents here since I just spent at least as much asJack did to bring a core A75 to essentially zero time, and to my mind "factorynew" specs. I also have a Corvair engine on my workbench, slowly getting builtup to power a future Piet-like project. I've spent probably a couple of thousand$$ on the Corvair and will spend maybe another couple on it before it runs,so in the end I'll have just about as much money in one as in the other.The Corvair is about 20 years newer than the Continental and will develop 25% moretakeoff power for the same dollars. I can buy common overhaul parts for theCorvair several blocks from my house at any one of a number of auto parts houses,but I can't say the same for my Continental. I'm lucky, living in a verystrong military town where there is an active aircraft community, that I canactually buy AN hardware and aircraft parts in town but I cannot go to AutoZoneand buy a set of valve springs, rockers, piston rings, bearings, spark plugs,plug wires, or other common parts for the A75. I can't order them there andnobody would know what they are. Granted, I have never had the need to dothis but it's nice to know I can find common parts for the Corvair from Bar Harborto Brownsville, San Francisco to Ft. Myers, and auto repair shops can workon many aspects of them whereas I would NEVER take ANY part of my Continentalengine to an auto repair shop.The Corvair is a more modern engine than the Continental in the way it was designed,the ignition, the type of fuel it is designed to burn, the operating RPM,the metallurgy. It is very tolerant of high temperatures and insufficient careand will very likely keep the airplane flying with one or maybe even two cylindersdead. When it's together and running as designed, it is inherently avery smooth and powerful engine and tends to operate without the cooling problemsthat are prevalent in many other auto engine conversions. It has successfullyflown in many airframes, fast and slow, over a very good period of years.I like the Corvair but I fly behind a Continental. Why? Because I needed to flymore than I wanted to spend another few years tinkering. In effect I havethe best of both worlds... I fly my Continental-powered Piet while building upand tinkering with the Corvair. One of these days, I might just take to theair in some sort of Corvair-powered Pietenpol offspring. Admittedly, I am moreof a builder than I am a flyer, although I like both. I just can't imaginebolting together a kit, registering it, going out and flying, and never spendingany time in the shop working on an airplane or engine. Not to seem trite here,but "it's all good" and there are no one-size-fits-all engines in experimentalaviation. Less filling, more taste- bring on the next round.And finally... as with women, so with engines. All have their endearing traitsand any of them can leave you confused, angry, and hurt but on a good day, theyare oh-so-sweet, all of them!--------Oscar ZunigaSan Antonio, TXAir Camper NX41CCRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:05:21 -0400
Might as well toss in my two cents here since I just spent at least as much asJack did to bring a core A75 to essentially zero time, and to my mind "factorynew" specs. I also have a Corvair engine on my workbench, slowly getting builtup to power a future Piet-like project. I've spent probably a couple of thousand$$ on the Corvair and will spend maybe another couple on it before it runs,so in the end I'll have just about as much money in one as in the other.The Corvair is about 20 years newer than the Continental and will develop 25% moretakeoff power for the same dollars. I can buy common overhaul parts for theCorvair several blocks from my house at any one of a number of auto parts houses,but I can't say the same for my Continental. I'm lucky, living in a verystrong military town where there is an active aircraft community, that I canactually buy AN hardware and aircraft parts in town but I cannot go to AutoZoneand buy a set of valve springs, rockers, piston rings, bearings, spark plugs,plug wires, or other common parts for the A75. I can't order them there andnobody would know what they are. Granted, I have never had the need to dothis but it's nice to know I can find common parts for the Corvair from Bar Harborto Brownsville, San Francisco to Ft. Myers, and auto repair shops can workon many aspects of them whereas I would NEVER take ANY part of my Continentalengine to an auto repair shop.The Corvair is a more modern engine than the Continental in the way it was designed,the ignition, the type of fuel it is designed to burn, the operating RPM,the metallurgy. It is very tolerant of high temperatures and insufficient careand will very likely keep the airplane flying with one or maybe even two cylindersdead. When it's together and running as designed, it is inherently avery smooth and powerful engine and tends to operate without the cooling problemsthat are prevalent in many other auto engine conversions. It has successfullyflown in many airframes, fast and slow, over a very good period of years.I like the Corvair but I fly behind a Continental. Why? Because I needed to flymore than I wanted to spend another few years tinkering. In effect I havethe best of both worlds... I fly my Continental-powered Piet while building upand tinkering with the Corvair. One of these days, I might just take to theair in some sort of Corvair-powered Pietenpol offspring. Admittedly, I am moreof a builder than I am a flyer, although I like both. I just can't imaginebolting together a kit, registering it, going out and flying, and never spendingany time in the shop working on an airplane or engine. Not to seem trite here,but "it's all good" and there are no one-size-fits-all engines in experimentalaviation. Less filling, more taste- bring on the next round.And finally... as with women, so with engines. All have their endearing traitsand any of them can leave you confused, angry, and hurt but on a good day, theyare oh-so-sweet, all of them!--------Oscar ZunigaSan Antonio, TXAir Camper NX41CCRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:05:21 -0400
RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Thanks, Jim. What are you working on these days? I am puttering with instrumentsand was wondering what kind of ignition switch you plan on using?Gary BootheCool, CAPietenpolWW Corvair ConversionTail done, Fuselage on gear18 ribs done-----Original Message-----
Thanks, Jim. What are you working on these days? I am puttering with instrumentsand was wondering what kind of ignition switch you plan on using?Gary BootheCool, CAPietenpolWW Corvair ConversionTail done, Fuselage on gear18 ribs done-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: Jeff wilson
Rick,With all due respect, I disagree to a certain point. Homebuilding a plans-only airplane is not an inherently dangerous activity in and of itself if that aircraft has a proven track record and is constructed to plans using the specified materials. When we start deviating from the intentions and specifications laid forth by the designer, that is where we tend to encounter a higher level of risk.Certain substitutions can be calculated and proven to be safe, indeed. Wood choice can sometimes be one of those instances, when chosen carefully, and with an understanding of the properties and limits of the substitution.Engine choice can also be a safe substitution when the chosen engine has a proven track record of safety and reliability. From my observation, and the experience of others, a poor choice of engine can have fatal results.I guess my point is that if you build the plane as designed, or in a proven configuration, using proven methods and materials, the overall risk is relatively low. But why go and mess the whole thing up by using an engine with a track record of poor performance and unreliability? I'm not pointing fingers at the Corvair, I'm painting a broad stroke.There are a lot of people who know a lot more than I do about Corvairs who can answer the question of reliability a lot better than I can. All I know is that if it's my butt that the engine is keeping up in the air, it'd better be a good one.Wayne Bressler Jr.Taildraggers, Inc.taildraggersinc.comOn Apr 2, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Rick Holland wrote:> >> Totally agree. We are talking about taking on increased risk here.> Using units of ROEDUs (Risk Of Emminent Death Units) I would calculate> the following:>> Going from no General Aviation activity to building and flying a plans> built vintage 1929 aircraft (with no prior aircraft building> experience)> - 500 ROEDUs.>> Going from building and flying a plans built vintage 1929 aircraft> with a "Real" aircraft engine to auto conversion engine> - 1 ROEDU.>> Not saying home building is all that risky, just that aviation vs.> auto engine choice pales compared to the choice of entering the plans> built homebuilding/flying activity in the first place.>> rick>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Jim wrote:>>>>>> Well said Gary. That explanation probably fits most of us building >> a Piet and whatever non-ac parts we use. Being another Corvair, >> doug fir Piet builder I'm going to frame your message.>> Thanks,>> Jim B.>>>> Jim Boyer>> Santa Rosa, CA>> Pietenpol on wheels>> Tail surfaces done>> Wing ribs done>> Corvair engine>>>>>> On Mar 31, 2010, Gary Boothe wrote:>>>> Jack (et al),>________________________________________________________________________________
Rick,With all due respect, I disagree to a certain point. Homebuilding a plans-only airplane is not an inherently dangerous activity in and of itself if that aircraft has a proven track record and is constructed to plans using the specified materials. When we start deviating from the intentions and specifications laid forth by the designer, that is where we tend to encounter a higher level of risk.Certain substitutions can be calculated and proven to be safe, indeed. Wood choice can sometimes be one of those instances, when chosen carefully, and with an understanding of the properties and limits of the substitution.Engine choice can also be a safe substitution when the chosen engine has a proven track record of safety and reliability. From my observation, and the experience of others, a poor choice of engine can have fatal results.I guess my point is that if you build the plane as designed, or in a proven configuration, using proven methods and materials, the overall risk is relatively low. But why go and mess the whole thing up by using an engine with a track record of poor performance and unreliability? I'm not pointing fingers at the Corvair, I'm painting a broad stroke.There are a lot of people who know a lot more than I do about Corvairs who can answer the question of reliability a lot better than I can. All I know is that if it's my butt that the engine is keeping up in the air, it'd better be a good one.Wayne Bressler Jr.Taildraggers, Inc.taildraggersinc.comOn Apr 2, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Rick Holland wrote:> >> Totally agree. We are talking about taking on increased risk here.> Using units of ROEDUs (Risk Of Emminent Death Units) I would calculate> the following:>> Going from no General Aviation activity to building and flying a plans> built vintage 1929 aircraft (with no prior aircraft building> experience)> - 500 ROEDUs.>> Going from building and flying a plans built vintage 1929 aircraft> with a "Real" aircraft engine to auto conversion engine> - 1 ROEDU.>> Not saying home building is all that risky, just that aviation vs.> auto engine choice pales compared to the choice of entering the plans> built homebuilding/flying activity in the first place.>> rick>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Jim wrote:>>>>>> Well said Gary. That explanation probably fits most of us building >> a Piet and whatever non-ac parts we use. Being another Corvair, >> doug fir Piet builder I'm going to frame your message.>> Thanks,>> Jim B.>>>> Jim Boyer>> Santa Rosa, CA>> Pietenpol on wheels>> Tail surfaces done>> Wing ribs done>> Corvair engine>>>>>> On Mar 31, 2010, Gary Boothe wrote:>>>> Jack (et al),>________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]"
In real estate they say...Location, location, location.When building a plane its ...Build to plans, build to plans, build to plans.Jeff WilsonN899WT ( brand new N #)St. Louis, MO________________________________________________________________________________
In real estate they say...Location, location, location.When building a plane its ...Build to plans, build to plans, build to plans.Jeff WilsonN899WT ( brand new N #)St. Louis, MO________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Pietenpol-List: reliability and safety/ risksThe two things that kill more people than crank-snapping incidents, poor workmanship,and using inferior building materials are fuel starvation and flying into weatheryouhad no bidness flying into in the first place. Just recently a friend e-mailed me about a student and instructor who got killedin a Cessna150 that was perfectly airworthy with a perfectly qualified instructor aboard. They had thefuel selector OFF on takeoff. How many times have you guys taxied out and had the engine quit on you becauseyou forgot toturn your fuel valve on ? I have. At least four times since getting my license30 yearsago. It would have been really ugly happening about 75 feet over the telephonewires on takeoff. Weather too...holy moly is weather scary. When flying to Brodhead I landed inChicago last Julyat Romeoville/Lewis U. Airport for fuel and checked out the weather computer loopand saw a wideand yellow and red/green band of heavy precip closing in on Brodhead from the NW. I calculatedthat if I launched for Brodhead that cold front and I might (or might not have)have met inmid air but it was like throwing a dart so I stood down, got a rental car for cheapand sleptin a Motel 6 with my Red Lobster meal to go watching the tv weather. Yikes ! It got uglythere at Brodhead Friday evening according to my compadres and Infidels and thoughI felt badthey all had to endure that in a tent, I was glad my plane was tucked in next toa Citation ina steel hangar ! Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 16:38:45 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Subject: Pietenpol-List: reliability and safety/ risksThe two things that kill more people than crank-snapping incidents, poor workmanship,and using inferior building materials are fuel starvation and flying into weatheryouhad no bidness flying into in the first place. Just recently a friend e-mailed me about a student and instructor who got killedin a Cessna150 that was perfectly airworthy with a perfectly qualified instructor aboard. They had thefuel selector OFF on takeoff. How many times have you guys taxied out and had the engine quit on you becauseyou forgot toturn your fuel valve on ? I have. At least four times since getting my license30 yearsago. It would have been really ugly happening about 75 feet over the telephonewires on takeoff. Weather too...holy moly is weather scary. When flying to Brodhead I landed inChicago last Julyat Romeoville/Lewis U. Airport for fuel and checked out the weather computer loopand saw a wideand yellow and red/green band of heavy precip closing in on Brodhead from the NW. I calculatedthat if I launched for Brodhead that cold front and I might (or might not have)have met inmid air but it was like throwing a dart so I stood down, got a rental car for cheapand sleptin a Motel 6 with my Red Lobster meal to go watching the tv weather. Yikes ! It got uglythere at Brodhead Friday evening according to my compadres and Infidels and thoughI felt badthey all had to endure that in a tent, I was glad my plane was tucked in next toa Citation ina steel hangar ! Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 16:38:45 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair vs. Continental - long
Original Posted By: shad bell
Rick,Agreed. Decision making is also very important.We now return you to your regularly scheduled Pietenpol programming.Wayne Bressler Jr.Taildraggers, Inc.taildraggersinc.comOn Apr 2, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Rick Holland wrote:> >> What I really meant to say, and as Mike mentioned, based on accident> statistics piloting ability is far more important than the machine you> fly in (and it's engine type).>> rick>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Wayne Bressler> wrote:>> >>>> Rick,>>>> With all due respect, I disagree to a certain point. Homebuilding a>> plans-only airplane is not an inherently dangerous activity in and >> of itself>> if that aircraft has a proven track record and is constructed to >> plans using>> the specified materials. When we start deviating from the >> intentions and>> specifications laid forth by the designer, that is where we tend to>> encounter a higher level of risk.>>>> Certain substitutions can be calculated and proven to be safe, >> indeed. Wood>> choice can sometimes be one of those instances, when chosen >> carefully, and>> with an understanding of the properties and limits of the >> substitution.>>>> Engine choice can also be a safe substitution when the chosen >> engine has a>> proven track record of safety and reliability. From my >> observation, and the>> experience of others, a poor choice of engine can have fatal results.>>>> I guess my point is that if you build the plane as designed, or in >> a proven>> configuration, using proven methods and materials, the overall risk >> is>> relatively low. But why go and mess the whole thing up by using an >> engine>> with a track record of poor performance and unreliability? I'm not >> pointing>> fingers at the Corvair, I'm painting a broad stroke.>>>> There are a lot of people who know a lot more than I do about >> Corvairs who>> can answer the question of reliability a lot better than I can. >> All I know>> is that if it's my butt that the engine is keeping up in the air, >> it'd>> better be a good one.>>>> Wayne Bressler Jr.>> Taildraggers, Inc.>> taildraggersinc.com>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Rick Holland wrote:>>>>> >>>>>>> Totally agree. We are talking about taking on increased risk here.>>> Using units of ROEDUs (Risk Of Emminent Death Units) I would >>> calculate>>> the following:>>>>>> Going from no General Aviation activity to building and flying a >>> plans>>> built vintage 1929 aircraft (with no prior aircraft building>>> experience)>>> - 500 ROEDUs.>>>>>> Going from building and flying a plans built vintage 1929 aircraft>>> with a "Real" aircraft engine to auto conversion engine>>> - 1 ROEDU.>>>>>> Not saying home building is all that risky, just that aviation vs.>>> auto engine choice pales compared to the choice of entering the >>> plans>>> built homebuilding/flying activity in the first place.>>>>>> rick>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Jim wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well said Gary. That explanation probably fits most of us >>>> building a Piet>>>> and whatever non-ac parts we use. Being another Corvair, doug fir >>>> Piet>>>> builder I'm going to frame your message.>>>> Thanks,>>>> Jim B.>>>>>>>> Jim Boyer>>>> Santa Rosa, CA>>>> Pietenpol on wheels>>>> Tail surfaces done>>>> Wing ribs done>>>> Corvair engine>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 31, 2010, Gary Boothe wrote:>>>>>>>> Jack (et al),>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > Rick Holland> Castle Rock, Colorado>> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad">>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Rick,Agreed. Decision making is also very important.We now return you to your regularly scheduled Pietenpol programming.Wayne Bressler Jr.Taildraggers, Inc.taildraggersinc.comOn Apr 2, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Rick Holland wrote:> >> What I really meant to say, and as Mike mentioned, based on accident> statistics piloting ability is far more important than the machine you> fly in (and it's engine type).>> rick>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Wayne Bressler> wrote:>> >>>> Rick,>>>> With all due respect, I disagree to a certain point. Homebuilding a>> plans-only airplane is not an inherently dangerous activity in and >> of itself>> if that aircraft has a proven track record and is constructed to >> plans using>> the specified materials. When we start deviating from the >> intentions and>> specifications laid forth by the designer, that is where we tend to>> encounter a higher level of risk.>>>> Certain substitutions can be calculated and proven to be safe, >> indeed. Wood>> choice can sometimes be one of those instances, when chosen >> carefully, and>> with an understanding of the properties and limits of the >> substitution.>>>> Engine choice can also be a safe substitution when the chosen >> engine has a>> proven track record of safety and reliability. From my >> observation, and the>> experience of others, a poor choice of engine can have fatal results.>>>> I guess my point is that if you build the plane as designed, or in >> a proven>> configuration, using proven methods and materials, the overall risk >> is>> relatively low. But why go and mess the whole thing up by using an >> engine>> with a track record of poor performance and unreliability? I'm not >> pointing>> fingers at the Corvair, I'm painting a broad stroke.>>>> There are a lot of people who know a lot more than I do about >> Corvairs who>> can answer the question of reliability a lot better than I can. >> All I know>> is that if it's my butt that the engine is keeping up in the air, >> it'd>> better be a good one.>>>> Wayne Bressler Jr.>> Taildraggers, Inc.>> taildraggersinc.com>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Rick Holland wrote:>>>>> >>>>>>> Totally agree. We are talking about taking on increased risk here.>>> Using units of ROEDUs (Risk Of Emminent Death Units) I would >>> calculate>>> the following:>>>>>> Going from no General Aviation activity to building and flying a >>> plans>>> built vintage 1929 aircraft (with no prior aircraft building>>> experience)>>> - 500 ROEDUs.>>>>>> Going from building and flying a plans built vintage 1929 aircraft>>> with a "Real" aircraft engine to auto conversion engine>>> - 1 ROEDU.>>>>>> Not saying home building is all that risky, just that aviation vs.>>> auto engine choice pales compared to the choice of entering the >>> plans>>> built homebuilding/flying activity in the first place.>>>>>> rick>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Jim wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well said Gary. That explanation probably fits most of us >>>> building a Piet>>>> and whatever non-ac parts we use. Being another Corvair, doug fir >>>> Piet>>>> builder I'm going to frame your message.>>>> Thanks,>>>> Jim B.>>>>>>>> Jim Boyer>>>> Santa Rosa, CA>>>> Pietenpol on wheels>>>> Tail surfaces done>>>> Wing ribs done>>>> Corvair engine>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 31, 2010, Gary Boothe wrote:>>>>>>>> Jack (et al),>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > Rick Holland> Castle Rock, Colorado>> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad">>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
RE: Pietenpol-List: Phase 1 update NX866BC
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
I'm still planning to be there Friday through Sunday morning, Ben.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
I'm still planning to be there Friday through Sunday morning, Ben.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Phase 1 update NX866BC
Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright