Page 1 of 1

Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" question

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:15 pm
by matronics
Original Posted By: "Christopher Friel"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" question

Re: Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" question

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:31 pm
by matronics
Original Posted By: "Christopher Friel"
Chris. In my opinion, the only down side is if you ever needed to replace abe a problem with the rear spar, but if you use plywood for the leading edgeyou may not be able to get to the nut on the bolt for the fitting on thefront spar.If you use a shackle you can replace the cable fairly easy without that.Now the reality is .. how often would you need to replace a x-brace cable?I chose to use shackles.My 1/50 th of a buck.BC----- Original Message -----

Re: Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" question

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:05 pm
by matronics
Original Posted By: "Christopher Friel"
There is really no reason to use the extra shackle on that end. I just made the hole in the fitting large enough to accept a thimble. You don't need 1/8" for these. 3/32" is plenty strong for that.Dick N.----- Original Message -----

Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" question

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:12 pm
by matronics
Original Posted By: Clif Dawson

Re: Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" question

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:22 pm
by matronics
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" questionIn a message dated 10/9/04 9:16:19 PM Central Daylight Time, cjfriel(at)ucdavis.edu writes:>Chris,I used 3/32" 7X19 cable, and attached the non-turmbuckle end of the cable thimbles directly to the fitting. The hole in the fitting is a straight drilledhole, so I took a fine file, and beveled the side of the hole, to match the radius of the thimble. After over 200 hrs of test flying, the cables still havethe same 'twang' as they did when I installed them.Chuck GantzerNX770CG- nasty direct cross wind today, so I repaired the leak in the smoke tank, and a couple of other squawks.________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" question

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:39 pm
by matronics
Original Posted By: "Bert Conoly"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" questionIn a message dated 10/9/04 10:19:45 PM Central Daylight Time, CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca writes:>Clif,Yes, the fitting would have to be removed. I pre-fit the fittings & cables, then nico-press the cable end on before I permanently bolted the fitting in place. No way to get the nico-press tool in there. The cables are permanent fixture, and should never need replacement.Chuck G.________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Pietenpol-List: A "no shackle" question

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:51 pm
by matronics
Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
CliffI think you'd have a real hard time getting the nicopress sqeezer thingyinto a 4 inch inspection hole at the same time being able to hold and snugthe nicopress sleeve up against the the thimble while holding and squaringthe whole thing up- all the while squeezing that thing on.. Unless there'sa new laproscopic squeezon tool I'm not familiar with. I guess I'm like anold "wash woman" and worry about every possible problem that could come up.That's why it's taken me 9 years, 4 months and 3 days to build my plane.(But that suckers about ready to go.)Chris. Drill holes in your fitting big enough for the thimble and don'tworry about spending an extra four bucks per cable. (Until later........){PS went to Thomasville Ga flyin today but no Piets)BC----- Original Message -----