Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
I've got a Corvair for power and it's supposed to burn about 5-6gph. Myfuse tank can be no larger than about 13 gal. (limited to weight/CG issuesnot physical size)That gives me 2 hrs of flight at best..... cruising at 80mph thats only 160mile range. Fuel stops out here in the desert are far and few between. Forthe longer trips to fly-ins it'd be nice to have an extra 10 gallons or so.well... I came across these todayhttp://www.ultralight.ca/fuelsystem.htm (scroll down a little bit)Aux tanks that mount up to the struts. They look sorta like a wheel pant.about 5.3 US gal. capacity. Thats an extra 1.5 hrs of flight time.I'd like to hear some feedback from y'all. Maybe these are not such a hotidea... or maybe they' d be great... what do ya think?DJ VeghN74DVMesa, AZwww.imagedv.com/aircamper________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:38:06 -0800

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Dick, I am building my Piet with plywood and cap strip spars. I bought a set ofPiet plans from Donald Pietenpol's UK Distributor that have PFA approval.The front spars are 4 3/4 x 1 1/8 made up of 1 1/4 x 7/8 cap strips with plycompletely on one side and partially on the other. The rear spars are 4 3/4x 1 made up of 7/8 x 3/4 cap strip. The center section uses 1 1/4 x 7/8 capstrips (same as front spar). Check out my web site http://www.cpc-world.comfor some pictures. Click on "Airframe Construction" --> "Wings" --> "WingSpars".Some of the UK flying Piets are detailed at http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/.CheersP ... --Original Message-----

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Carden
Dick,Have a look to this site: http://www.solent-strut.co.ukThey are building Jim Wills modification of wing which is exactly what you need.PFA approved design.BR,Alex-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy

Original Posted By: "DJ Vegh"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aux fuel tanksWhy not put another tank in the wing center section?I've got a Corvair for power and it's supposed to burn about 5-6gph. Myfuse tank can be no larger than about 13 gal. (limited to weight/CG issuesnot physical size)That gives me 2 hrs of flight at best..... cruising at 80mph thats only 160mile range. Fuel stops out here in the desert are far and few between. Forthe longer trips to fly-ins it'd be nice to have an extra 10 gallons or so.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: At7000ft(at)aol.com
I may do that... it would take some extensive modification of the centersection as I have built it already. Maybe I could at least put a 4 gallontank in there without changing it. I'll measure it out and do the mathtonight.DJ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Doc Mosher

Original Posted By: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aux fuel tanksIn a message dated 3/24/04 10:23:10 PM Central Standard Time, djv(at)imagedv.com writes:>DJ,I think the center section is the best place to put your extra fuel. Simple reliable gravity feed, on the CG, replentish the cowl tank, no pumps, no fuel quantity indicator needed. Chuck Gantzer________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By:
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aux fuel tanksThere's two aspects of safety.1) Airworthiness2) CrashworthinessIf you optimize the design for #1, then you minimize the probability of #2 being a factor. Chuck's point is that the simple gravity flow system is more airworthy than the other design, i.e. the liklihood of engine failure due to fuel starvation is minimal. The more complicated system with fuel pumps, etc increases the liklihood of fuel starvation, thus decreasing the airworthiness.Yeah, it is more crash worthy... but do we consider that safe? And who reallywants to go do that test?I think that if more folks designed from the "airworthiness" point of view, there would be far fewer homebuilt airplane accidents.Thats my $ .02.Terry B________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Richard Carden"
Dick,I can't help you with a "proven and flying" example but I do have an articlefrom an early Sport Aviation issue that deals with designing a plywoodwebbed spar.I don't have a scanner but if you, or anyone else, wants a copy justsend a stamped, self-addressed envelope to me and I'll mail a copy.Greg Cardinal5236 Shoreview Ave.Minneapolis, MN 55417----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Kip and Beth Gardner

Original Posted By: "Richard Navratil"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aux fuel tanksIn a message dated 3/26/04 5:49:08 PM Central Standard Time, kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net writes:>Kip, This is a 'Crashworthy Device'. I've heard of this type of check valve, but haven't seen any in use. I believe it's design is a delicate balance between the fuel flow needed for sustained full power oporation, and the increasedfuel flow of a ruptured line. If the valve fails during service, it could starve the engine for fuel. If the valve fails at the crash site, it would still allow fuel to flow, especially if it is just a cracked line or fitting, allowing just a small quantity of fuel to flow. Or, if the craft came to restin an attitude that doesn't allow full fuel flow. Personally, I don't like this type of valve, and wouldn't use it. The best design would be to use one outlet, and one good quality ball valve, mounted right to the bottom of the wing tank (above the passengers head),actuated via a torque tube back to the pilot seat. Emergency check list wouldinclude turning the fuel off.Chuck GantzerNX770CG________________________________________________________________________________