Finishing School #2, Nov. 11-13, Florida.

Builders,

Because Corvair College #39 has been moved to March 2017 (Corvair College #39 at Barnwell postponed. ) the original date has be opened up on the calendar.  Almost 90% of the people signed up for #39 opted to retain their registration for the new date, but Dan and Rachel Weseman and myself had in depth discussions of what we could offer some of the people who could not make the revised date. His included a builder flying in from England to build an engine. We are very serious about working with builders to make sure everyone is treated as fair as possible.

.

From these discussions, we have decided to organize Finishing School #2 at the SPA/Panther factory in Green Cove Springs (Jacksonville area) Florida, November 11-13.

.

First, there are some important differences between Colleges and Finishing Schools: Get a look at these short videos from the first School: Corvair Finishing School #1, Video report. The primary differences can be understood in two words Space and Pace:

.

Space: A setting like Barnwell can easily handle 90 builders without people being crowded. At the SPA shop, the space limit on engine builds  is 10-12. Big colleges require settings and planning that are a huge amount of work, ( that is why we appreciate our local hosts so much ) and would require us to pack up the tools and equipment and transport it. The finishing schools space limitation is an acceptable trade off for being able to put together a highly effective event on short notice.

.

Pace: At a regular college, the approach is flexible, so that each builder can advance at the pace he prefers, move to any milestone he likes. Builders have a very good time at Colleges, and there is nothing wrong with attending as many as you enjoy. (like 20 if you are Dan Glaze) But the goal at a finishing school is to get the builders engine done and running on the test stand. This is not done at the cost of compromised learning and understanding of the power plant, it is done though prep work and having the builder be ready with every part he needs to finish.

.

Because of the Space and Pace requirements of the finishing school are different and less accommodating than a College, the sign up is a little different: Instead of an on line form like the colleges have, finding out more about how your project fits in with the Finishing School starts with Contacting Rachel Weseman, at SPA 904-626-7777 (extension #1) She will gladly review the program, space and required prep work. If it makes sense to everyone, Rachel will be able to sign you up for the Finishing School.

.

Observer slots: The space limitation at the Finishing School is largely driven by the number of engines on the table, not the amount of people standing on the floor. For this reason, we will have a half dozen “observer slots” at this Finishing School. We are holding these available for people new to Corvairs, particularly people who are interested in Dan and Rachel’s “Engine in a Box” option: http://flywithspa.com/?s=engine+in+a+box. Call Rachel for more information on attending as an observer.

.


.

Above, a  3,000 cc engine after it break in run. This engine is now on the front of Jan Riddenour’s Tailwind in Idaho.

.

.ww.

.

 

 

Dated Sources of Information: Example – Fiberglass fuel tanks

Builders:

I am now about to demonstrate my commitment to the risk management of today’s homebuilders, by “Touching the Third Rail” of homebuilding, I am going to say something that strongly disagrees with a man who since his passing has been elevated to infallible sainthood in homebuilding,  Tony Bingelis. This will certainly generate hate mail, but that’s OK it just keeps the Christmas card list short.

.

Before people get up in arms, let me make several statements: Tony Bingelis was a real homebuilder, He made about 10 planes, he wrote a lot of useful articles, particularly in the era when many homebuilts were plans built, and the plans lacked a lot of finishing details. Critically, while his writing didn’t include phrases like “I might be wrong about this” no where did he claim to be infallible. That aspect of his legend came later, not from people who appreciated his books (like me) but from people who wanted to have an infallible saint to follow, who’s comments were often vague enough to seem to support their particular personal myth they wanted to believe.

.

Want an example? In his book on power plants, Bingelis’s advice on prop length is  “Keep your prop as long as possible, as long as possible” Sounds like a witty clever idea, but doesn’t constitute any learning, testing or experience. It is just a catch phrase that countless people have used as ‘evidence’  that their belief that props turning over 2200 rpm are inefficient, and any prop smaller than 72″ makes no thrust. Let’s compare an actual data point, from a contemporary of Bingelis: Steve Wittman. get a look at this story: From The Past: With Steve Wittman 20 years ago today. I went flying with him, his prop was a Cessna 150 prop cut down to 62″, and when we were doing 195mph, it was turning 3,600 rpm. Anyone who understands anything about the life’s work of Wittman knows that if the plane would have been 1 mph faster with a 63″ prop, it would have had one. My point is that Bingelis published a lot of great detail design stuff, but when he didn’t have first hand experience, he resorted to vague hangar mythology statements like his one on props, that later generations would treat as some kind of religious body of wisdom, which is a bad concept, in a field where we are supposed to Learn Build and fly.

.

One of the first things people are going to say is that Bingelis’s book has a disclaimer in the introduction. It does, stating that none of the information is guaranteed to work. Actually this is one of the things I dislike about his writing. Go back and read it with a fresh set of eyes. Nearly every chapter has a subtitle disclaimer in it saying ‘this may not work for you, you should ask around. Read his comments on tank sealers: he will not come out and say “Don’t use it” he kind of says it but has a CYA, statement about how you should “ask around for yourself. ” If that was how one was to get information, why was the book written?

.

What is wrong with a Fiberglass tank in the fuselage? First , It is the least crash worthy of any tank material. Second, they put stuff in fuel today that was not even dreamed of when Bingelis’s book was written in 1986.  The stuff can even be regional, and it might be in the tank of fuel you get on a cross country, after years without issue. Third, fuel tank sealers that worked great 15 years ago, don’t reliably work against the ethanol content in fuel today. Fourth, I have done a lot of high end composite work, and most home made fuel tanks including the one pictures are brittle pieces of crap, because the guy who laid them up had no training, and put about twice as much resin in the weave as desirable.

.

So what is the real lesson here? I had a guy tell me that he is building a Pietenpol, and his Piet buddies, told him that Bingelis’s books are “timeless” and that he didn’t need anything other than the plans. I pointed out to him that I own an original set of 1930’s flying and glider manuals, I love them, they worth more than $1,500, but I am not going to build a Pietenpol tank out of soldered tern plate, just because that is what is shown in the plans, and 1930 or 1986, it doesn’t matter, dated information is dated information. Books on aerodynamics structures and physics of flight don’t change, however, books on materials and process do, and only a foolish person would restrict himself to information 30 years old.

.

Today, there are lots of sources for proven information. There are modern day Steve Wittmans, and you should follow them, because their suggestions are based not on quaint sayings, but on tests you can study and understand.

.

.
  .

Above, a fiberglass 12 gallon aux tank that flew for several years in the passenger compartment of my friends Caviler, a wooden low wing plane with a 60mph landing speed. The book is one of Bingelis’s three, immensely popular books. In this one, it details all the attributes of making this kind of tank, even on planes where the tank is in the fuselage, with narry a word about the kind of risk this is. The book was published 30 years ago and Bingels has been dead for 15 years. Perhaps if he was alive he might revise his recommendations in light of modern opinions about such tanks.

.

If you or your buddy have such a tank in your plane, I am not suggesting that it is “Un-airworthy” , but I am asking you as an intelligent human being to do some research and consider things. If your buddy says, “It’s been in there for years, I have seen plenty of them. besides, it is in Tony Bingelis’s book”  Then he is just the kind of mythology spreader I am speaking of, and it is a waste of time to try to get him to think, he just wants an infallible source to cite as validation for him being too cheap or lazy to change it. Please read carefully: If you have seen my story:Steel tube fuselages, “Safe” planes and 250mph accidents, and you decide that you still are ok with this kind of tank, because you have given it open minded thought, I am ok with that, that is actual thinking, not validation.

.

.

Above, dull hatchet, half hearted swipe, and it is right through. Aluminum would do much better, and I doubt any human could put a dull axe through a rotationally molded plastic tank. There are countless plastic tanks, look at SummitRacing.com and search “Fuel Cell” Yes, they are cheaper than the materials in a fiberglass tank.

.

I have been an aircraft mechanic for 25 years. If I was doing an inspection on a 70 year old plane, but only used the AD’s written up to 1986, under the justification that it was a “classic” plane and the information about it couldn’t have gotten any better since 1986, the FAA would take away my License, period. If some one was hurt in the plane because it was not compliant with a post 1986 AD, then I would be looking at a complementary vacation at a federal gated community. Experimental aircraft don’t have AD’s but the logic of using up to date information is exactly the same.

.

Why this stuff matters to me: I have been burned over 40% of my body. I have written very plainly about the experience, and written articles like this: Pietenpol Fuel lines and Cabanes but quite frankly, I think most people don’t really care. Improving the fuel lines in a Pietenpol could be done for about $100 and four hours work, yet, years later, 75% of the planes still have hard fuel lines on them. Some people don’t care, others don’t like me personally and will not improve their plane, just because the suggestion came from me. I write this knowing that the great majority of people will not take the information seriously. I am OK with that, I don’t base my happiness on the actions of others.

.

-ww.

.


.

To read about the contributions of Tony Bingelis to Homebuilding follow this EAA link:

.

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/homebuilt-aircraft-and-homebuilt-aircraft-kits/eaa-homebuilt-airplane-programs-and-resources/eaa-tony-bingelis-award/learn-more-about-tony-bingelis

.