Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-am
December 26, 1998 - January 09, 1999
> 20.00 . A very good refrence.
>
> ocb
>
> >From steve(at)byu.edu Thu Dec 24 07:41:23 1998
> >Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 3792"@adena.byu.edu
> [128.187.22.180])
> > by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
> > with ESMTP id <01J5PKD8AJ9S8WW34C(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
> oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
> >Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:38:41 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com>
> >Subject: Western A/C supply
> >Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
> >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Message-id:
> >MIME-version: 1.0
> >X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.43 (NDS) (via Mercury MTS v1.43 (NDS))
> >Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> >X-Listname:
> >
> >Does western a/c/ have a web page? If not, do they have a no. where I
> >can get a catalog?
> >
> >I've obtained a rib jig, and no longer can find a reason not to get
> >started. What about basswood, or clear white pine? These are the
> first
> >of about a million questions.
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1/4 scale Piet |
Thanks for the info Phil
Sounds like a OK deal.
Gordon
Phil Peck wrote:
> Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> > That sounds nice.
> > But what did you actually get for 18 bucks on the Piet plans?
> >
> > Like how many sheets of plans, How many pages in the builders manual?
> >
> > Gordon
>
> cut them in half ! If you have scratch build any thing before the Piet
> will be easy. One would be tempted to blow up these plans to build a
> real piet. It shows a sixty size four cycle so your forty might work
> if you fly the piet real real scale. But I wouldn't try it. The piet is
> pretty simple and every detail seems there. The wing rib airfoil is not
> scale. But I can't see any other differance from the full scale plans.
> (though I think my wife hid my full size one's as I can't seem to find
> them !) The instructions are the construcion article in RCM magizine
> July 82. I think the plans are well worth the money. If you had a copy
> of RCM july 82 you could see the plans.phil
________________________________________________________________________________
c'est formidable qu'il y a des francais qui peuvent discutez des avions.
>You tellin me there's gonna be Cajuns up there?
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:19:32 -0600
>>From: Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net>
>>Subject: Re: salut
>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>>
>>I may be the only Cajun Piet enthusiast, so I just gotta ask: Mais,
>>cher, can you talk like dat while you flyin'? Be car-ful, yeah...
>>
>>Kevin Southwick
>>Houston, Texas
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Date: Thursday, December 24, 1998 6:56 PM
>> Subject: salut
>>
>>
>> <<
>> >Jim:
>> >
>> >Comment ca se fait que vous etes en Belgique pour la Noel? Le nom
>=
>>Wright
>> >n'est pas Belgique n'est ce pas? Bonne Annee (je suis Americain,
>=
>>mais nais
>> >en France de parents Americain).
>> >
>> >Mark Boynton
>> >Phoenix, Arizona
>> >
>>
>>
>> Mon Dieu, les Franchophones sur le Piet net. Quois en plus!
>>
>> Mike B ( Piet N 687MB
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
suis-je cajun aussi. mais je vivre a los angeles. repondez en francais
merci
>You tellin me there's gonna be Cajuns up there?
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:19:32 -0600
>>From: Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net>
>>Subject: Re: salut
>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>>
>>I may be the only Cajun Piet enthusiast, so I just gotta ask: Mais,
>>cher, can you talk like dat while you flyin'? Be car-ful, yeah...
>>
>>Kevin Southwick
>>Houston, Texas
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Date: Thursday, December 24, 1998 6:56 PM
>> Subject: salut
>>
>>
>> <<
>> >Jim:
>> >
>> >Comment ca se fait que vous etes en Belgique pour la Noel? Le nom
>=
>>Wright
>> >n'est pas Belgique n'est ce pas? Bonne Annee (je suis Americain,
>=
>>mais nais
>> >en France de parents Americain).
>> >
>> >Mark Boynton
>> >Phoenix, Arizona
>> >
>>
>>
>> Mon Dieu, les Franchophones sur le Piet net. Quois en plus!
>>
>> Mike B ( Piet N 687MB
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: martin montague
Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 1:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: salut
>suis-je cajun aussi. mais je vivre a los angeles. repondez en francais
>
>merci
>
Pas bon. This is a universal group & should not be internalized.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Western A/C supply |
Could I get a repeat on the phone number for Western A/C? Prev. msgs.
deleted.
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi I am thinking of building a pietenpool aircamper and I would like to know
if anyone has but floats of any kind on this model?
With all the lakes here in British Columbia, it would be a great fun
machine. I am particularly intersted in the proper fitings for the wood
fuselage.
Thanks. Garth Upton, 3716 Salloum Rd. Westbank B.C. V4T 1E5
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
Welcome Garth,
One of the first Pietenpols built in Canada, Rouyn-Noranda Quebec in the
mid thirties, would have to back into my Recreational Flyer library to
verify, had a small five cylinder Velie radial 65 hp +AEA-1900 and spent its
whole life on floats and skis. I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be
possible to do it again using newer power. If you need more info I'll try to
find the issue. Is there an RAA chapter in your area? It really helps to
associate with other builders.
John Mc
Happy New Year Folks
-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Upton +ADw-upton+AEA-silk.net+AD4-
Date: Monday, December 28, 1998 2:32 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Subscribe
+AD4-Hi I am thinking of building a pietenpool aircamper and I would like to
know
+AD4-if anyone has but floats of any kind on this model?
+AD4-
+AD4-With all the lakes here in British Columbia, it would be a great fun
+AD4-machine. I am particularly intersted in the proper fitings for the wood
+AD4-fuselage.
+AD4-
+AD4-Thanks. Garth Upton, 3716 Salloum Rd. Westbank B.C. V4T 1E5
+AD4-
________________________________________________________________________________
Garth,
There is definitely a precedent regarding Pietenpol
floatplanes here in Canada. There was one in the
Toronto area a few years back. As I recall, it had a
larger engine than the norm and reportedly was a
good performer on floats---although there couldn't
have been much room for baggage or cargo. I read
about it in THE INTERNATIONAL PIETENPOL NEWS
which was (is??) published by the International Pie-
tenpol Association. I'll see if I can locate that issue
of the IPA News and get back to you with details.
Speaking of the IPA, does anyone out there have any
idea what happened to it? I sent in my membership
dues several years back, together with an article and
photos. Bob Taylor wrote to acknowledge receipt of
same and I have had no communication since. Very
strange....
The IPA News was published whenever they had enough
material to put together an issue. I really enjoyed getting
that little publication and have missed it very much since
it stopped coming.
For years, I have been going to join the Buckeye Pietenpol Association, but
never seemed to get +ACI-a round tuit+ACI-. I'll have
to get a money order tomorrow and stop procrastinating.
Back to you, Garth: Pietenpols are excellent skiplanes+ADs- I
test flew mine on skis and have flown it quite a lot from
snow-covered fields and lakes. Its only shortcoming as a
skiplane is that it has a lousy heater+ACE- Generally, an airplane
that flies well with skis will also do well on floats because
its takeoff/landing speed is not too high and it generates
lots of lift at relatively low airspeeds.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
J'AI PAS DEMANDER POUR L'INTERNALIZATON DE CETTE GROUPE, SEULEMENT DE DIRE
BONJOURS. SI TU VEU PAS C'EST PAS MA PROBLEMME. MAINLY THAT I WAS JUST
SAYING HELLO IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THAT FORGET IT.MOST PILOTS ARE VERY
FRIENDLY MAYBE YOU EITHER ARE NOT A PILOT OR HAVE NOT LEARNED THE TOTAL
EXPERINECE OF BEING A PILOT.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: martin montague
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 1:56 AM
>Subject: Re: salut
>
>
>>suis-je cajun aussi. mais je vivre a los angeles. repondez en francais
>>
>>merci
>>
>
>Pas bon. This is a universal group & should not be internalized.
>
>
>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
I'm about to proove that in this world,,, THERE IS,,, such a thing as a
stupid question!
I'm still interested in ford model A, or a willys jeep flat head... "go
devil" engine for my airplane. However the weight of all that cast iron
bothers me. Does any one in the group know how practical it would be
to have a one-off casting of a jeep, or ford A engine block done in
aluminium?
Then one could just put in the origonal parts, + an aluminium head, and
set it up direct drive. It seems to me that a fellow could build up a
reasonably powerfull engine, that was close to the origonal, and save
about 1/2 the weight.
Does anybody have an opinion on this?
I may be just blowing smoke, but if the cost of an aluminium casting was
close to that of a modern re-drive, it might be still worth it.
Considering that an auto conversion with re-drive runs about 5000.00
ocb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Martin,
It may shock you to learn that there are a whole bunch of us friendly
pilots (41 years flying here) building Piets who don't speak francais, and
after a week or so do kinda wonder why you guys don't go to your private email
for these private conversations that don't include the "group" and don't have
anything to do with Piets.
Warren
martin montague wrote:
> J'AI PAS DEMANDER POUR L'INTERNALIZATON DE CETTE GROUPE, SEULEMENT DE DIRE
> BONJOURS. SI TU VEU PAS C'EST PAS MA PROBLEMME. MAINLY THAT I WAS JUST
> SAYING HELLO IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THAT FORGET IT.MOST PILOTS ARE VERY
> FRIENDLY MAYBE YOU EITHER ARE NOT A PILOT OR HAVE NOT LEARNED THE TOTAL
> EXPERINECE OF BEING A PILOT.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: martin montague
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 1:56 AM
> >Subject: Re: salut
> >
> >
> >>suis-je cajun aussi. mais je vivre a los angeles. repondez en francais
> >>
> >>merci
> >>
> >
> >Pas bon. This is a universal group & should not be internalized.
> >
> >
> >Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net> |
Martin,
Ah, I see what you mean now. I think it would be wonderful to
internationalize the Piet discussion group. I'm just a lowly subscriber
myself. Perhaps you could ask the newsgroup coordinator.
Well, you've got me on the pilot experiece. I've got 20 hours as a student
pilot and each weekend I go fly a few more hours so I can finish my license.
I surely hope I have not exprienced the full range of flying, as I look
forward to having a lot more fun in the future.
I don't have a Piet, but when I get finished with some of my other projects
(two house renovations, rebuilding my diesel Mercedes engine, building a
violin, forming a quartet, and of course, becoming fluent in my family's
mother tongue) why then I'll order my plans! I've got two young daughters
right now and my wife and I stay busy with being parents.
I also am interested in getting a Bellanca Viking for family trips. It's a
rag-n-tube job which cruises at about 200mph!
Do you already have a Piet?
Cheers,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: martin montague
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 4:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: salut
>J'AI PAS DEMANDER POUR L'INTERNALIZATON DE CETTE GROUPE, SEULEMENT DE DIRE
>BONJOURS. SI TU VEU PAS C'EST PAS MA PROBLEMME. MAINLY THAT I WAS JUST
>SAYING HELLO IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THAT FORGET IT.MOST PILOTS ARE VERY
>FRIENDLY MAYBE YOU EITHER ARE NOT A PILOT OR HAVE NOT LEARNED THE TOTAL
>EXPERINECE OF BEING A PILOT.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: martin montague
>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 1:56 AM
>>Subject: Re: salut
>>
>>
>>>suis-je cajun aussi. mais je vivre a los angeles. repondez en francais
>>>
>>>merci
>>>
>>
>>Pas bon. This is a universal group & should not be internalized.
>>
>>
>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net> |
I'm about to prove that even an idiot can have an opinion...
I wonder if the physical deminsions of a cast iron block made into aluminium
would accomodate engine stress.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 5:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines
>I'm about to proove that in this world,,, THERE IS,,, such a thing as a
>stupid question!
>
>I'm still interested in ford model A, or a willys jeep flat head... "go
>devil" engine for my airplane. However the weight of all that cast iron
>bothers me. Does any one in the group know how practical it would be
>to have a one-off casting of a jeep, or ford A engine block done in
>aluminium?
>
>Then one could just put in the origonal parts, + an aluminium head, and
>set it up direct drive. It seems to me that a fellow could build up a
>reasonably powerfull engine, that was close to the origonal, and save
>about 1/2 the weight.
>
>Does anybody have an opinion on this?
>
>I may be just blowing smoke, but if the cost of an aluminium casting was
>close to that of a modern re-drive, it might be still worth it.
>Considering that an auto conversion with re-drive runs about 5000.00
>
>ocb
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| From: | Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net> |
Fellow Pieters,
I am very sorry for posting the last few To Martin msgs. I thought I was
posting directly to him.
I hope I don't make mistakes like this in the cockpit!
Cheers,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net>
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 9:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: salut
>Martin,
>
>Ah, I see what you mean now. I think it would be wonderful to
>internationalize the Piet discussion group. I'm just a lowly subscriber
>myself. Perhaps you could ask the newsgroup coordinator.
>
>Well, you've got me on the pilot experiece. I've got 20 hours as a student
>pilot and each weekend I go fly a few more hours so I can finish my
license.
>I surely hope I have not exprienced the full range of flying, as I look
>forward to having a lot more fun in the future.
>
>I don't have a Piet, but when I get finished with some of my other projects
>(two house renovations, rebuilding my diesel Mercedes engine, building a
>violin, forming a quartet, and of course, becoming fluent in my family's
>mother tongue) why then I'll order my plans! I've got two young daughters
>right now and my wife and I stay busy with being parents.
>
>I also am interested in getting a Bellanca Viking for family trips. It's a
>rag-n-tube job which cruises at about 200mph!
>
>Do you already have a Piet?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Kevin
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: martin montague
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 4:20 AM
>Subject: Re: salut
>
>
>>J'AI PAS DEMANDER POUR L'INTERNALIZATON DE CETTE GROUPE, SEULEMENT DE DIRE
>>BONJOURS. SI TU VEU PAS C'EST PAS MA PROBLEMME. MAINLY THAT I WAS JUST
>>SAYING HELLO IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THAT FORGET IT.MOST PILOTS ARE VERY
>>FRIENDLY MAYBE YOU EITHER ARE NOT A PILOT OR HAVE NOT LEARNED THE TOTAL
>>EXPERINECE OF BEING A PILOT.
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: martin montague
>>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>>Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 1:56 AM
>>>Subject: Re: salut
>>>
>>>
>>>>suis-je cajun aussi. mais je vivre a los angeles. repondez en francais
>>>>
>>>>merci
>>>>
>>>
>>>Pas bon. This is a universal group & should not be internalized.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
Hey, it's not a stupid question!
Unfortunately, there may be a few problems.
Aluminum is much more difficult to cast than iron, cost might be an issue
for most of us.. A simple part like the head is not too difficult, but the
block..... hmm.
Do babbitt bearings have a mechanical stop to prevent spinning? If they are
not poured around some sort of lug, you'd probably want to arrange for this
to prevent thermal expansion from allowing a "spun" bearing.
You'd need to cast in iron or steel liners to run the pistons in to prevent
aluminum to aluminum contact, which is bad without special (and remarkably
unsuccessfull) piston alloys ala the Vega motor. Liners could be pressed or
screwed in, but if not cast in place you need to run these wet to allow good
thermal transfer. This means you now need an o-ring or other type seal top
and bottom to keep the water jacket out of the combustion chamber and oil
pan.
Lastly, don't forget to build the longer fuselague as you've changed your
w&b.
Larry
oil can wrote:
> I'm about to proove that in this world,,, THERE IS,,, such a thing as a
> stupid question!
>
> I'm still interested in ford model A, or a willys jeep flat head... "go
> devil" engine for my airplane. However the weight of all that cast iron
> bothers me. Does any one in the group know how practical it would be
> to have a one-off casting of a jeep, or ford A engine block done in
> aluminium?
>
> Then one could just put in the origonal parts, + an aluminium head, and
> set it up direct drive. It seems to me that a fellow could build up a
> reasonably powerfull engine, that was close to the origonal, and save
> about 1/2 the weight.
>
> Does anybody have an opinion on this?
>
> I may be just blowing smoke, but if the cost of an aluminium casting was
> close to that of a modern re-drive, it might be still worth it.
> Considering that an auto conversion with re-drive runs about 5000.00
>
> ocb
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Guys- I was wondering why lately I've been getting grumpy and I
think I found out the reason: lack of Piet flying. Yesterday was
a balmy 38 F here in Cleveland so after work I went out and before
sunset flew about 30 min. My disposition has improved greatly.
The mechanics were out flying a PA-11 , basically I'm told a Cub
w/ 90 hp. They let me take it around once. Wow, this thing had
all the awesome things like an enclosed cabin and a heater !!!!
I felt spoiled.
Happy New Year to all !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
Craig:
Were you ever able to make that trip to the corvair authority? If so, what
was your impression of what he has to offer by way of corvair conversions?
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> I want to thank you Peter for giving me the address for the Corvair
> Authority. No, I have not seen his website. I just found out however
that
> I will be making a trip to Orlando in Oct. which is just a little ways
from
> Port Orange where the Corvair Authority is located. If I can talk my
wife
> into a little "side trip", I will maybe get some answers. Thanks again
for
> the info. I'll keep you posted. If you could send me your e-mail
address,
> I could e-mail you direct.
>
> Craig
> chanson(at)polar.polarcomm.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Now you know how I feel not having mine finished and just going out and
starting up the engine. Is 30 minutes all you could take or is that all it
took to get over the grumpys? I think I would be looking at covering that
front cockpit and installing some cockpit heat. Or move to Texas. Frost
bite occurs after how many minutes? Frost bite once a week is better than
the grumys.
jas
>Guys- I was wondering why lately I've been getting grumpy and I
>think I found out the reason: lack of Piet flying. Yesterday was
>a balmy 38 F here in Cleveland so after work I went out and before
>sunset flew about 30 min. My disposition has improved greatly.
>The mechanics were out flying a PA-11 , basically I'm told a Cub
>w/ 90 hp. They let me take it around once. Wow, this thing had
>all the awesome things like an enclosed cabin and a heater !!!!
>I felt spoiled.
>
>Happy New Year to all !
>
>Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
Re: stupid question,
I read someplace, several years ago (I think it was in the BPAN) that
someone out there has cast aluminum blocks available for the model A
Ford. I seem to remember they
were a little pricey, but you might want to check it out. I think the
quickest way to find
out about this would be to contact Grant MacLaren, or get in touch with
one of the
Model A groups.
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
Just rec a one page flyer from John Grega on his imatation piet. What a rip off
to pay a buck for a one page very bad print of a piet with couple pictures.
Anyway he lists the following on his paper.
Buckeye Piet association $10.00 per year.
International Piet association $8.00 per yr
Pietenpol Directory $23.00
Gordon
Graham Hansen wrote:
> Garth,
>
> There is definitely a precedent regarding Pietenpol
> floatplanes here in Canada. There was one in the
> Toronto area a few years back. As I recall, it had a
> larger engine than the norm and reportedly was a
> good performer on floats---although there couldn't
> have been much room for baggage or cargo. I read
> about it in THE INTERNATIONAL PIETENPOL NEWS
> which was (is??) published by the International Pie-
> tenpol Association. I'll see if I can locate that issue
> of the IPA News and get back to you with details.
>
> Speaking of the IPA, does anyone out there have any
> idea what happened to it? I sent in my membership
> dues several years back, together with an article and
> photos. Bob Taylor wrote to acknowledge receipt of
> same and I have had no communication since. Very
> strange....
>
> The IPA News was published whenever they had enough
> material to put together an issue. I really enjoyed getting
> that little publication and have missed it very much since
> it stopped coming.
>
> For years, I have been going to join the Buckeye Pietenpol Association, but
> never seemed to get +ACI-a round tuit+ACI-. I'll have
> to get a money order tomorrow and stop procrastinating.
>
> Back to you, Garth: Pietenpols are excellent skiplanes+ADs- I
> test flew mine on skis and have flown it quite a lot from
> snow-covered fields and lakes. Its only shortcoming as a
> skiplane is that it has a lousy heater+ACE- Generally, an airplane
> that flies well with skis will also do well on floats because
> its takeoff/landing speed is not too high and it generates
> lots of lift at relatively low airspeeds.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
What did you expect for a buck. Postage was 35 cents. I built my plane
using his plans and I think it turned out good. True you can't move the
wings around but how often are you going to be replacing the engine anyway?
Put the wings in the correct position the first time and there is no need
to move the wings. jas
>Just rec a one page flyer from John Grega on his imatation piet. What a
rip off
>to pay a buck for a one page very bad print of a piet with couple pictures.
>
>Anyway he lists the following on his paper.
>Buckeye Piet association $10.00 per year.
>International Piet association $8.00 per yr
>Pietenpol Directory $23.00
>
>Gordon
>
>
>Graham Hansen wrote:
>
>> Garth,
>>
>> There is definitely a precedent regarding Pietenpol
>> floatplanes here in Canada. There was one in the
>> Toronto area a few years back. As I recall, it had a
>> larger engine than the norm and reportedly was a
>> good performer on floats---although there couldn't
>> have been much room for baggage or cargo. I read
>> about it in THE INTERNATIONAL PIETENPOL NEWS
>> which was (is??) published by the International Pie-
>> tenpol Association. I'll see if I can locate that issue
>> of the IPA News and get back to you with details.
>>
>> Speaking of the IPA, does anyone out there have any
>> idea what happened to it? I sent in my membership
>> dues several years back, together with an article and
>> photos. Bob Taylor wrote to acknowledge receipt of
>> same and I have had no communication since. Very
>> strange....
>>
>> The IPA News was published whenever they had enough
>> material to put together an issue. I really enjoyed getting
>> that little publication and have missed it very much since
>> it stopped coming.
>>
>> For years, I have been going to join the Buckeye Pietenpol Association, but
>> never seemed to get +ACI-a round tuit+ACI-. I'll have
>> to get a money order tomorrow and stop procrastinating.
>>
>> Back to you, Garth: Pietenpols are excellent skiplanes+ADs- I
>> test flew mine on skis and have flown it quite a lot from
>> snow-covered fields and lakes. Its only shortcoming as a
>> skiplane is that it has a lousy heater+ACE- Generally, an airplane
>> that flies well with skis will also do well on floats because
>> its takeoff/landing speed is not too high and it generates
>> lots of lift at relatively low airspeeds.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Graham Hansen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
Hello Mark ,
I did get about 5 miles from where the Corvair Authority was, however, I
called and just got an answering machine. Unfortunately, I could not leave
a number for him to get back with me because I was traveling through. I do
have a relative on the west coast of Florida that is interested in
experimental aircraft. I will e-mail him and see if he could ever go there.
Sorry I failed.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
I at least expected him to answer my question about what the plans consisted of.
So I get one stinking sheet of paper with a cutaway drawing and two hard to see
pictures on other side with specs that are in my kit planes plans issue already.
So what did I get for a BUCK
1 32 cent stamp & envolope
1 8 1/2" x 11" hard to read page.
And no answer to my question.
I used to send out a 40 page catalog for free and I paid the Darn postage 2
stamps..
Gordon
Jim Sury wrote:
> What did you expect for a buck. Postage was 35 cents. I built my plane
> using his plans and I think it turned out good. True you can't move the
> wings around but how often are you going to be replacing the engine anyway?
> Put the wings in the correct position the first time and there is no need
> to move the wings. jas
>
> >Just rec a one page flyer from John Grega on his imatation piet. What a
> rip off
> >to pay a buck for a one page very bad print of a piet with couple pictures.
> >
> >Anyway he lists the following on his paper.
> >Buckeye Piet association $10.00 per year.
> >International Piet association $8.00 per yr
> >Pietenpol Directory $23.00
> >
> >Gordon
> >
> >
> >Graham Hansen wrote:
> >
> >> Garth,
> >>
> >> There is definitely a precedent regarding Pietenpol
> >> floatplanes here in Canada. There was one in the
> >> Toronto area a few years back. As I recall, it had a
> >> larger engine than the norm and reportedly was a
> >> good performer on floats---although there couldn't
> >> have been much room for baggage or cargo. I read
> >> about it in THE INTERNATIONAL PIETENPOL NEWS
> >> which was (is??) published by the International Pie-
> >> tenpol Association. I'll see if I can locate that issue
> >> of the IPA News and get back to you with details.
> >>
> >> Speaking of the IPA, does anyone out there have any
> >> idea what happened to it? I sent in my membership
> >> dues several years back, together with an article and
> >> photos. Bob Taylor wrote to acknowledge receipt of
> >> same and I have had no communication since. Very
> >> strange....
> >>
> >> The IPA News was published whenever they had enough
> >> material to put together an issue. I really enjoyed getting
> >> that little publication and have missed it very much since
> >> it stopped coming.
> >>
> >> For years, I have been going to join the Buckeye Pietenpol Association, but
> >> never seemed to get +ACI-a round tuit+ACI-. I'll have
> >> to get a money order tomorrow and stop procrastinating.
> >>
> >> Back to you, Garth: Pietenpols are excellent skiplanes+ADs- I
> >> test flew mine on skis and have flown it quite a lot from
> >> snow-covered fields and lakes. Its only shortcoming as a
> >> skiplane is that it has a lousy heater+ACE- Generally, an airplane
> >> that flies well with skis will also do well on floats because
> >> its takeoff/landing speed is not too high and it generates
> >> lots of lift at relatively low airspeeds.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Graham Hansen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DRebholtz(at)aol.com |
Bob
there is an aluminum version of the model A engine made by Donovan
racing
I believe they call it their model "D". It was available with an OHV
conversion
and other go-faster stuff. This was a number of years ago,so I have
no idea
as to present day cost or availability. I think Donovan was out of
Southern
California. Hope this helps.
Dave Rebholtz
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: landing gear |
Hey guys,
I am ready to order the material for my split axle landing gear per the
1933 plans. The plans call out for 13/8" 14 guage tubingfor the vee's.
Aircraft Spruce only carries either .095 or .065 wall thickness. Which one
should I use? Should I go with the weight savings or should I go for the
strength? 14 guage =.078
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: landing gear |
Ron,
I've attached a message that was sent out a while ago regarding Dillsburg
Aeroplane works, from whom I bought our 4130 tubing. I can't recall
the wall thickness we purchased to approximate 14 Ga.; perhaps I can
check my records tonight for you. Alternately, maybe you can coax the
proprietor of Dillsburg to make a suggestion for you. As I recall, they
had in stock something that was closer than what you describe from ASSCO.
Good luck,
-Bill
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:12:54 -0500 (EST)
> From: PTNPOL(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: landing gear
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> X-Listname:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I am ready to order the material for my split axle landing gear per the
> 1933 plans. The plans call out for 13/8" 14 guage tubingfor the vee's.
> Aircraft Spruce only carries either .095 or .065 wall thickness. Which one
> should I use? Should I go with the weight savings or should I go for the
> strength? 14 guage =.078
>
>
----- Begin Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources of AN hardware. |
The Dillsburg Aeroplane Works is at (717) 432-4589. Prices are slightly
better than other places, and delivery was quick, but you'd better know
EXACTLY what you want (gauge numbers are not understood there, so convert
to decimal before ordering). The characterization someone made on the
list earlier of a "grumpy old man" is an understatement. Personally, I
would be tempted to pay the small premium and order from Wick's in the
future.
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:24:15 +0000
> From: rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta)
> Subject: Re: Sources of AN hardware.
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> X-Listname:
>
> I'm afraid I dont know, but someone on the Piet mailing list
> might. I am forwarding this email to them.
>
> On 17 Aug 98 at 8:23, Dan Shotwell wrote:
>
> > Richard, My name is Dan Shotwell. I'm building a Piet in my
> > basement in Chatham, Ohio. Do you have the adress and /or phone
> > number of the guy in Dillsburg, Pa who sells 4130 tubing and AN
> > hardware? I think his business is called Dillsburg Aircraft Supply
> > or something like that. Thanks, Dan You can also reach me at
> > danshotwell(at)wellmanfrictionproducts.com or at 330-667-2915 after
> > 6:00 PM.
> >
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> "Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right."
> - Henry Ford (1863-1947)
>
----- End Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
Craig et al,
I live in Jacksonville, and plan on going to Port Orange to see the
Corvair conversion in the not too distant future. Actually, when I
talked to him he told me his facility was located south of New Smyrna at
Massey Air ranch about 20 mi south of Port Orange (just an extra couple
of minutes on I 95)
Since I am just now in the process of ordering plans and making a jig
for the ribs, I haven't been in too much of a hurry to go down there.
However, if there's anything I can find out for you, let me know.
Larry
>Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:15:09 -0600
>From: Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com>
>Subject: Re: Corvair Authority
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Hello Mark ,
>
>I did get about 5 miles from where the Corvair Authority was, however,
I
>called and just got an answering machine. Unfortunately, I could not
leave
>a number for him to get back with me because I was traveling through.
I do
>have a relative on the west coast of Florida that is interested in
>experimental aircraft. I will e-mail him and see if he could ever go
there.
>Sorry I failed.
>
>Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Didn't somebody say they made the center section longer and the outer
sections shorter. Could I get some details? Was any engineering
analysis done?
I am getting ready to start building the wings and I have a small
(large;-)) problem. I am working in the basement and I can't get a
standard wing panel around the corner and up the stairs.
I have considered building a one piece wing in the basement and them
knocking out a section of wall to remove it. My wife disagrees ;-)
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
Dublin, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
Craig:
Thanks for the info.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> Hello Mark ,
>
> I did get about 5 miles from where the Corvair Authority was, however, I
> called and just got an answering machine. Unfortunately, I could not
leave
> a number for him to get back with me because I was traveling through. I
do
> have a relative on the west coast of Florida that is interested in
> experimental aircraft. I will e-mail him and see if he could ever go
there.
> Sorry I failed.
>
> Craig
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Dean wrote:
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: landing gear |
Steel tubing follows the B.W.G. / Stubs gage to
decimal chart. 14 gage is .083.
Dillsburg carries this in the size you need.
Reach them at:
Dillsburg Aeroplane Works
114 Sawmill Rd.
Dillsburg, PA 17019
717 432-4589
>>> 12/29 11:12 PM >>>
Hey guys,
I am ready to order the material for my split axle landing gear per
the
1933 plans. The plans call out for 13/8" 14 guage tubingfor the vee's.
Aircraft Spruce only carries either .095 or .065 wall thickness. Which one
should I use? Should I go with the weight savings or should I go for
the
strength? 14 guage .078=09
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Dean,
I built the three piece wing,and made my wings one bay longer. Then Put a
hole in the wall which actually enhanced the utility of the room and value
to the house. It now has a 6 foot sliding door. I did not use cement in the
new stair well. i was advised against it since it would altimately crack. I
used 6X6" pressure treated lumber. They were interlaced between the wall and
the stairs. They hold each other that way. The wall has not moved in 12
years and is better to look at than cement. Contractor estimates were
$7,000.00, but decided to perform the work myself. It only cost me $1,800.00
and that's canadian. Be very carefull about changing things from the
drawings. I hear someone has done just what you've asked, but you don't know
the problems he may have encountered along the way. I'm sure if an
engineering analysis were done, the triangulation would be lost. There is a
balance between the inner bays and the outer bays around flying strut pickup
point. I don't think you want to change that. I did by adding one bay and
was there efver a domino effect of changes that had to be incorporated.
Today I wouldn't do it.
Best of luck,
Domenic Bellissimo/ Toronto
Best of luck
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 9:26 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 3 piece wing
>Didn't somebody say they made the center section longer and the outer
>sections shorter. Could I get some details? Was any engineering
>analysis done?
>
>I am getting ready to start building the wings and I have a small
>(large;-)) problem. I am working in the basement and I can't get a
>standard wing panel around the corner and up the stairs.
>
>I have considered building a one piece wing in the basement and them
>knocking out a section of wall to remove it. My wife disagrees ;-)
>
>Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
>Dublin, OH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: center section |
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Michael Brusilow wrote:
> Dean wrote:
>
> sections shorter. Could I get some details? Was any engineering
> analysis done?
>
>
> My Piet ( flying since 1988 ) has a three foot center section
> designed by Chad Willie. The wing length is standard. Chad sells prints
> ( or did ) for the center section.
>
> The advantage of the extended center section is a larger fuel
> tank, I have a 16 gal tank.
>
> If you are interested, I will try to dig up Chad's address &
> phone number.He has moved since I last contacted him.
>
> Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: landing gear |
I used the .095, second time around. Either would be fine I suspect, but I
didn't want a repeat of the problem I had when I used .035 by mistake,
Stevee
See steve.byu.edu for more details.
-----Original Message-----
PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 10:13 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: landing gear
Hey guys,
I am ready to order the material for my split axle landing gear per
the
1933 plans. The plans call out for 13/8" 14 guage tubingfor the vee's.
Aircraft Spruce only carries either .095 or .065 wall thickness. Which one
should I use? Should I go with the weight savings or should I go for the
strength? 14 guage =.078
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: landing gear |
>Hey guys,
>
> I am ready to order the material for my split axle landing gear per the
>1933 plans. The plans call out for 13/8" 14 guage tubingfor the vee's.
>Aircraft Spruce only carries either .095 or .065 wall thickness. Which one
>should I use? Should I go with the weight savings or should I go for the
>strength? 14 guage =.078
>
One thing you might want to think about regarding the strength of the split
landing gear is the geometry of the bungee strut. I was a passenger in a
very hard cross wind landing where it went over center with the wheel
resting against the wing strut. The wheel did not go back down even when
the wingtip was lifted off the ground. When we started to carry/wheel it
back to a hanger one of the helpers bumped the wheel. It popped back down
into a (nearly) normal position and we were able to roll it on it's wheels
back to a hanger for repairs. We changed from the bungee struts going clear
to the opposite side of the fuselage by adding a vee and shorting the bungee
struts.
The problem as I see it is that the triangle (looking from the front of the
plane) is kind of flat (unequal length sides). When the bungee cords
stretch it gets even flatter. The higher the wheel goes the less downward
force the wheel can support. At very large displacements the downward force
becomes less than the weight of the plane even though the bungees are
putting lots of force on the long side of the triangle. Most of their force
is put into compression force on the other two sides of the triangle.
In the above case the limit stop was a bolt in a slot. The limit stop
stretched/bent slightly. I am not sure this part was to plans or even
detailed in the plans. If the limit stops were set up to allow less travel
it may be an improvement but the addition of a vee (as on Cubs and other
production aircraft with bungees) is better.
Of course this is just my opinion and it was an extreme situation.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
Domenic:
Thanks for the information. I live in Arizona and just happen to work in
Glendale. I've talked with Gary McGill, the seller of the plans for the
prop duplicating machine. Nice enough guy, but he says he is kind of out of
doing that kind of stuff anymore. He said he could sell me a copy of the
plans, but that he is building a home right now and I'd have to try and give
him a call before dropping by. The problem is, I haven't been able to catch
him at home, and for whatever reason he hasn't returned my calls. A couple
of questions for you - do the plans he sells come as measured drawings, and,
do you still happen to have the plans you bought. If you do still have
them, would you be willing to part with them? I'm getting the feeling I'm
not going to get very far with Gary McGill.
> Mark,
> Hi! I'm using my brother's computer and internet provider. His name is
> Raffaele and mine is Domenico. The prop carving machine I built from
plans
> is advetized in sport Aviation:
> Kite Industries, Dept. A-5, P.O. Box 2566, Glendale, AZ 85311-2566.
> The cost is still $15.00 and says this can be done for $50.00, but the
add
> is more than 25 years old and the wording haas never been changed. I
> estimate I spent about $200. I purchased new plywood (use 3/4"). I used
> expensice pillow bearings for the carriage, he specified wood blocks with
a
> hole in it (not very accurate I don't think?). I had a steel cylinder and
> plate welded together to mount the Prop. master and blank (two required).
In
> the middle of the cylinder at the plate a large 1/2 bolt was welded. The
> thread should protrude above the height of the cylinder so you can
tighten
> down both the master and the blank and the height of the cylinder should
be
> below the height of any prop. you will be carving. After welding it was
> trued square on a lathe. I used a router for the carving (1 H.P.), but
you
> really need 2 H.P. I actually burned a brand new one, which was replaced
> because it was only 2 days old. The cutter was a one inch ball cutter
> available at special order from an Italian manufacturer. I think Vermont
> also makes them. For thte follower I used a 1" ball bearing which matches
> the conteur of the cutter. If you can't find a one inch don't worry, use
a
> 3/4" cutter. It will be better for the router anyway. The ball bearing
was
> epoxied into the end of a shaft of the same diameter. of course you have
to
> have the end of the shaft machined out to accept the ball shape. Make
> absolutely sure the router can't move on you or you will end up with a
> skewed prop. It can be saved but will be hard to balance.
> To tell you the truth, I'm going to redesign from router use to dado
blade.
> It will go much faster in roughing out a blank and save me a router.
Place
> .015 to .020 tape on the Master to protect it from the pressure of the
ball
> bearing or the person you borrowed the master from may ask you to buy him
> another. The presure will dent the finish. You only want to use the
machine
> to rough out only. The balance .015 to .020 thou. left to carve on the
prop
> is there for you to finish by hand. You'll need to draw 10 stations on
each
> side in the same locations on each side. You will need templates for each
> individual station. You then sand and graduate from 80 to 600 grit and
keep
> checking each station with the templates. You should also read a prop.
> carving book available from the EAA. Before you get to the last couple of
> thousands of an inch you'll want to balance the prop. from side to side.
Our
> RAA chapter has a prop. balancing fixture. If you ask around I'll bet you
> can find one. It's about 4 1/2 feet high. Has two round bars on each
side,
> supported by a frame structure all the way to the base. Tthe base has
four
> adjustable feet. This is so you can Level it with a spirit level. this is
> very important. When I prepared my blank I inserted a steel cylinder
inside
> the prop. hole from the base of the prop. to about half way up the hole
and
> equal to the height of the prop. hub. This insert will mate steel to
steel
> and prevent any wood burn which is evident on many props. The base of the
> prop. also has countersunk holes to pick up "Lycoming type" (can't
remember
> what they are called) studs (for a lack of a better word). These "studs"
are
> what the proppeller bolts screw into. The radial stress/work is performed
by
> these studs and not the prop. bolts. The bolts need only hold the prop.
onto
> the hub. I hope I have been of some help, and not too winded. Of all the
> work done on the Piet. the prop. was the most challanging mentally. It
has
> to be done right or else...
> Regards,
>
> Domenic
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mboynton(at)excite.com <mboynton(at)excite.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: prop stuff
>
>
> >Raffaele:
> >
> >I'm curious about the carving duplicator you mention (built from plans).
> >Would you give a little more info on it (source of plans, cost,
> >effectiveness,procedure, etc.). What type of material did you use for
the
> >prop? Thanks.
> >
> >Mark Boynton
> >Phoenix, AZ
> >
> >
> >
> >> I carved mine with the help of Jack Watson on a carving duplicator I
> >also
> >> put together from plans. Then Jack did the finishing. It's for a 110
> >corvair
> >> and it's 66"X32" others I've heard are using 66"X30". Static tests
> >yeilded
> >> 2560 RPM. Don't yet know what the max. RPM will be when it unloads. I
> >> haven't flown it yet.
> >> My latest update: This past week-end I was doing some low to medium
speed
> >> testing on the inactive runway, but had to reduce speed before I
reached
> >the
> >> active runway. Seems to track real good even with the heavy cross wind
I
> >was
> >> experiencing. It got real light one time but I had to keep it down
since
> >I
> >> don't have4 my flight permit yet. My weight and balance report was
> >> calculated by Brian Kenney. Everything looks good, although I did come
in
> >> heavy for my empty weight at 807lbs. But then I've got a starter,
> >> Alternator, finned oil pan and head covers, 12 US gal. fuel tank and
a
> >lot
> >> of wiring. I'm confident that it will be a good performer.
> >> Regards,
> >> Domenic Bellissimo
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com>
> >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 8:00 AM
> >> Subject: Re: prop stuff
> >>
> >>
> >> >Hey Group:
> >> >Engine block is done for Corvair Piet so need to get prop going.
Using
> >> >Vi K's aluminum hub assembly. Please give me your opinions on prop
> >> >specifics (diam. + pitch). Any thoughts on glass vs. metal leading
> >> >edges? Thinking compromise pitch best since have 110 horses avail.
(vs.
> >> >climb or cruise pitch).
> >> >Keep building!
> >> >CJ Beck / Wichita
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: landing gear |
**Very good description of split gear geometry deleted.**
In the above case the limit stop was a bolt in a slot. The limit stop
stretched/bent slightly. I am not sure this part was to plans or even
detailed in the plans. If the limit stops were set up to allow less travel
it may be an improvement but the addition of a vee (as on Cubs and other
production aircraft with bungees) is better.
Of course this is just my opinion and it was an extreme situation.
Jim
In my case my limiting means is a 1/8" cable loop wrapped around both gear
"T's" Works well, and I have tested it believe me. I know of one "Vee"
type that was tested to destruction, the Vee stayed in place, but the wheel
still folded up to the strut as you describe because the bolts pulled
through the end fittings. (Bungees stayed put!) No damage to the airframe
however. Piets are tough!
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
Larry,
You going to the Authority would be wonderful. I guess I was wondering what
kind of workmanship he had on his conversions. I believe that he has plans
that can be bought and I was also wondering what quality they are. Peter
Frantz, a subscriber was also wondering about the same things I believe. If
he is reading these e-mails maybe he can add to the things we would like to
know.
Thanks, this is what it is all about. Happy New Year to you and I'll be
waiting for your info.
P.S. Send some warm weather up to North Dakota for me will you?
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello Group!
After finishing my wing ribs, I read a suggestion from BP, in the articla on
the Sky Scout that the diagonal brace aft of the rear spar should be from top
to bottom rather than from bottom to top as shown on the original Aircamper
drawings. Is this critical? Could an additional brace be used to reinforce
this bay? It would not be too difficult to add a cross-brace diagonal with
gussets, I suppose. What say you?
Don Cooley
P.S. Happy New Year!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Oh no!
I was ready to glue the stabilizer together when I realized that I have
to install the hinges first. I haven't gotten them yet! (Silly me, I
thought I'd build the tail peices and install the hinges later ;-))
I haven't got access to a torch right now, so I can't make my own. Where
have other people been getting hinges? Any chance I can get something
suitable at the local hardware store?
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
Dublin, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re: landing gear |
Thanks for the advice everyone on the landing gear. As far as the geometry
problem on the split axle gear, I think Steve was right. The 1/8" cable per
the 1933 plans on the struts should keep the landing gear from folding up.
The plans says to allow the strut to have a 2 1/2" action. Is this enough?
Did you solder the cable Steve or did you nicopress the cable?
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
Dean,
Vi Kappler makes a set of cast aluminum hinges for about $30.00. He is listed
on the BPA pages under Piet Stuff for Sale, I think.
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: landing gear |
Ron- I just ordered my material for the gear last night, and went through
the same thought process. I opted for the .095 option, for the peace of mind.
Also, I decided to go the spring route rather than bungees, for some of the
same reasons listed by others, plus reduction of maintenance. There is a
drawing of a spring assembly in BPAN Vol 6, page 2. It specifies an H56
Laminar spring. This is a heavy die spring used in die molds. The specs
are 1051 pounds force to compress to 30% of free length (max deflection), or
1.8 inches. 2 of them compress to 30% at 2100 pounds, ample for the Piet.
Cost is $17.20 each, significantly less than the coil springs in the ASS
catalog. They are available at:
Precision Punch and Plastic Co.
6100 Blue Circle Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
(612) 933-0993
fax (612) 935-5380
Al Swanson
Fuselage done, ribs done. Teaching myself welding and working on the metal
parts.
>Hey guys,
>
> I am ready to order the material for my split axle landing gear per the
>1933 plans. The plans call out for 13/8" 14 guage tubingfor the vee's.
>Aircraft Spruce only carries either .095 or .065 wall thickness. Which one
>should I use? Should I go with the weight savings or should I go for the
>strength? 14 guage =.078
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Are you talking about the hinges the connect the horiz stab to the
elevator? Do you just mean you have to cut the holes for the hinges
first, or you have to actually install them? I have JUST started work
on my tail section.
---Dean Dayton wrote:
>
> Oh no!
>
> I was ready to glue the stabilizer together when I realized that I
have
> to install the hinges first. I haven't gotten them yet! (Silly me, I
> thought I'd build the tail peices and install the hinges later ;-))
>
> I haven't got access to a torch right now, so I can't make my own.
Where
> have other people been getting hinges? Any chance I can get
something
> suitable at the local hardware store?
>
> Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
> Dublin, OH
>
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
It looks to me like the outermost hinges on the horizontal stabilizer
must be installed before the cross brace is installed. Then the cross
brace is going to have to be trimmed around the bolt and nut.
It may also be difficult to get a wrench or socket between the gusset to
tighten up some of the nuts.
I am leary of drilling holes for hardware that I don't have yet. The
hole pattern may not be exactly as expected.
Do you see another way to do this? Am I misreading the plans?
>Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:06:27 -0800 (PST)
>From: Richard DeCosta
>Subject: Re: hinges
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Are you talking about the hinges the connect the horiz stab to the
>elevator? Do you just mean you have to cut the holes for the hinges
>first, or you have to actually install them? I have JUST started work
>on my tail section.
>
>
>---Dean Dayton wrote:
>>
>> Oh no!
>>
>> I was ready to glue the stabilizer together when I realized that I
>have
>> to install the hinges first. I haven't gotten them yet! (Silly me, I
>> thought I'd build the tail peices and install the hinges later ;-))
>>
>> I haven't got access to a torch right now, so I can't make my own.
>Where
>> have other people been getting hinges? Any chance I can get
>something
>> suitable at the local hardware store?
>>
>> Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
>> Dublin, OH
>>
>>
>>
>
>==
>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>"Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>It looks to me like the outermost hinges on the horizontal stabilizer
>must be installed before the cross brace is installed. Then the cross
>brace is going to have to be trimmed around the bolt and nut.
>
>It may also be difficult to get a wrench or socket between the gusset to
>tighten up some of the nuts.
>
>I am leary of drilling holes for hardware that I don't have yet. The
>hole pattern may not be exactly as expected.
>
>Do you see another way to do this? Am I misreading the plans?
Dean- Good thinking going on with you. Your sequence of assembly
can go either way. I opted for finishing the elevators and vertical
stab/rudder
and then installing the hinges. I used a forstner drill bit to make access
holes
in those plywood gussets you mention to get the self-locking elastic stop nuts
on those hinge bolts. I think about 1/2" or 3/4" diam.....just enough to
get my
open/closed head wench into. I put those holes on the bottom side of the
elevator so if anyone ever needs to replace the hinges all they need to do is
cut the fabric circle out an whala, the back of the nut/bolt is there.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks for the info Mike.
Now one more question. What is a forstner bit?
>I used a forstner drill bit to make access
>holes
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Thanks for the info Mike.
>
>Now one more question. What is a forstner bit?
Dean- Sure thing. It's a drill bit that has a smaller
steel shaft but the head is like a hockey puck with
a point out the bottom and two cutting 'blades' on the
sides. They usually sell them in sets of 4 or 5 in little
wood boxes. FAIRly reasonable too as I recall for a
set of import brands- which for the Piet was perfect.
I used them for lots of other holes in the Piet. They
let you drill thru without damaging anything underneath.
The ultimate drill I found though is called a Unibit. It is
a cone shaped bit with 'steps' in it and cuts wood/alum,
steel. Awesome. I shelled out big bucks but got it back
doing things like holes in the cowling and cockpit alum.
covers. Perfect holes. It was as I recall 35$ to 40$ for
the larger size but I use it still of other things. Course the
old hole saws are fine too but I tend to loose them or the
arbors. I'm sure that's more infor than you wanted but
we're kind of slow at work this new year's eve !!
Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Don,
I think I read somewhere that someone was slipping a Piet in for a landing,
and that a diagonal snapped. So Bernard switched it around to put it in
compression instead of tension. With my limited knowledge, I'd say leave them
the way they are and don't do any hot dogging after you get her flying.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Mike - That's great info. Thanks for sharing.
>I'm sure that's more infor than you wanted but
>we're kind of slow at work this new year's eve !!
________________________________________________________________________________
> get my
> open/closed head wench into.
God, I've been looking for one of these for years. Where did you find her?
{;-)
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: landing gear |
Steve,
Are you describing the Piper type gear with the telescoping lower gear
strut? Some type have a compression spring? I've used 6X1" urethane pucks in
compression. The duro number is 90 (red colour). Jack Watson also has these
pucks. I'm trying to picture the "vee" you are refering to. Is it the vee
attached to the lower strut fittings that sort of hold the whole gear
structure together?
I haven't tested it yet, still waiting for my flight permit.
Regards,
Domenico Bellissimo
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 5:14 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: landing gear
>In my case my limiting means is a 1/8" cable loop wrapped around both gear
>"T's" Works well, and I have tested it believe me. I know of one "Vee"
>type that was tested to destruction, the Vee stayed in place, but the wheel
>still folded up to the strut as you describe because the bolts pulled
>through the end fittings. (Bungees stayed put!) No damage to the airframe
>however. Piets are tough!
>
>Steve E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
Dean,
I used standard "eye" bolts. But if you do? You must use clevis bolts with
castle nuts and pin rather than lock nuts. This is because there is rotation
on the parts and could work a lock nut off. Also I think someone from
Brodhead (Vi Kapler I think?) sell a complete set of original style aluminum
hinges. this would also save you some weight.
Domenico
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 9:31 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: hinges
>Oh no!
>
>I was ready to glue the stabilizer together when I realized that I have
>to install the hinges first. I haven't gotten them yet! (Silly me, I
>thought I'd build the tail peices and install the hinges later ;-))
>
>I haven't got access to a torch right now, so I can't make my own. Where
>have other people been getting hinges? Any chance I can get something
>suitable at the local hardware store?
>
>Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
>Dublin, OH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
I'm sure I've got the plans somewhere, if I find them I'll make a copy for
you. . The plans came on 8 1/2" pamphlet. the photo's were hard ro make out,
but necessary. Send me your address.
Domenico Bellissimo
-----Original Message-----
From: mboynton(at)excite.com <mboynton(at)excite.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 5:06 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: prop stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>> get my
>> open/closed head wench into.
>
>
OOOPS. That's what happens when I
forget to use the sphellcheeekker.
MC
>God, I've been looking for one of these for years. Where did you find her?
>
>{;-)
>
>Jim
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
Happy New Year to all! Drink tonite like you were flyin in the morning.
Stay warm, (they say it'll drop into the 30's here in No. Fla. tonite)
and be safe.
Larry Ragan
Jacksonville, Fl.
lragan(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Happy New Year |
30's? Thats tropical! It's -5 here now! Brrrrr....
---Larry Ragan wrote:
>
> Happy New Year to all! Drink tonite like you were flyin in the
morning.
> Stay warm, (they say it'll drop into the 30's here in No. Fla.
tonite)
> and be safe.
>
>
>
>
> Larry Ragan
> Jacksonville, Fl.
> lragan(at)hotmail.com
>
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Hart <robihart(at)rph.health.wa.gov.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Happy New Year |
Dear all
Have some of our stuff: 101 yesterday, predicted 105 today.
Happy new year all.
Rob Hart
Oz piets: the only ones to fly inverted...
>
> 30's? Thats tropical! It's -5 here now! Brrrrr....
>
>
> ---Larry Ragan wrote:
> >
> > Happy New Year to all! Drink tonite like you were flyin in the
> morning.
> > Stay warm, (they say it'll drop into the 30's here in No. Fla.
> tonite)
> > and be safe.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Larry Ragan
> > Jacksonville, Fl.
> > lragan(at)hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> "Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Happy New Year |
Ouch! Where in Australia are you?
>Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 07:09:33 +0800
>From: Rob Hart <robihart(at)rph.health.wa.gov.au>
>Subject: Re: Happy New Year
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Dear all
>
>Have some of our stuff: 101 yesterday, predicted 105 today.
>Happy new year all.
>
>Rob Hart
>Oz piets: the only ones to fly inverted...
>>
>> 30's? Thats tropical! It's -5 here now! Brrrrr....
>>
>>
>> ---Larry Ragan wrote:
>> >
>> > Happy New Year to all! Drink tonite like you were flyin in the
>> morning.
>> > Stay warm, (they say it'll drop into the 30's here in No. Fla.
>> tonite)
>> > and be safe.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Larry Ragan
>> > Jacksonville, Fl.
>> > lragan(at)hotmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ==
>> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>> "Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Aluminium Model "A" |
Well, I found out all I need to know about that Ford Model "A" engine
cast from aluminium. It does exist, it's made by Donovan Racing, it's
called the Model"D", and the price is a mere $7500.00. And that may, or
may not include the custom crank.
I still think that if a fellow could get a one-off casting in
aluminium,,,or even a plain cast iron block from the Willy's Jeep 134L
flat head, he could have a heck of an engine.
1/3 less cubes than the model "A"
1/3 more torque
Modern main bearings
pressurized oil system
big valves...it's a good breather
And even in the iron version, it is 2/3 the size of the Model "A" so one
would have less dead weight in the nose. Also, it's direct drive stright
off the crank, so no re-drive to buy, and cruise is at 2000 rpm.
ocb
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aluminium Model "A" |
I'll have to ask my friend I bought my 57 Willies from, he took stock engine
out and put a chevy 6 in it. My 57 Willies Truck is for sale if anybody
interested. Or cash plus trade.
Gordon
oil can wrote:
> Well, I found out all I need to know about that Ford Model "A" engine
> cast from aluminium. It does exist, it's made by Donovan Racing, it's
> called the Model"D", and the price is a mere $7500.00. And that may, or
> may not include the custom crank.
>
>
> I still think that if a fellow could get a one-off casting in
> aluminium,,,or even a plain cast iron block from the Willy's Jeep 134L
> flat head, he could have a heck of an engine.
>
> 1/3 less cubes than the model "A"
>
> 1/3 more torque
>
> Modern main bearings
>
> pressurized oil system
>
> big valves...it's a good breather
>
> And even in the iron version, it is 2/3 the size of the Model "A" so one
> would have less dead weight in the nose. Also, it's direct drive stright
> off the crank, so no re-drive to buy, and cruise is at 2000 rpm.
>
> ocb
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re: landing gear |
Steve- I am planning on using the wire wheels. I wonder how that will
look with the springs. Did they have springs back in the 30's?
I wonder if some of the problems with the gear folding up was with people
leaving the 1/8" safety strap off of the strut?
Thanks for the info
Happy new year,
-=Ron Lebfrom=-
________________________________________________________________________________
You can get cast aluminum hinges from Vi. Kapler. They are $27.00 for a
set. There is some filing required for proper fit. Address: Vitalis J.
Kapler
Forest Hills Dr. S. W.
Mn 55902
507-288-3322
> From: Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: hinges
> Date: Thursday, December 31, 1998 2:28 AM
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | landing grear in Flying & Glider |
I wrote to Don Pietenpol about plans for the "Jenny" style gear, and
he said he doesnt sell them (anymore?). I was thinking of using the
landing gear plans shown in the 1932 Flying & Glider Mag. Are these
plans complete & accurate? Anyone know of a larger (oh, the
eyestrain!) version of these plans, maybe from Orrin?
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: landing grear in Flying & Glider |
Richard,
Orrin has a full sheet set of plans for the Jenny style gear, right
out of the Flying & Glider manual.
Good Luck,
Warren
Richard DeCosta wrote:
> I wrote to Don Pietenpol about plans for the "Jenny" style gear, and
> he said he doesnt sell them (anymore?). I was thinking of using the
> landing gear plans shown in the 1932 Flying & Glider Mag. Are these
> plans complete & accurate? Anyone know of a larger (oh, the
> eyestrain!) version of these plans, maybe from Orrin?
>
> Richard
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> "Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net> |
Martin,
Ok. You've got me on the French. So, where are you from?
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: martin montague
Date: Monday, December 28, 1998 5:54 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: salut
>suis-je cajun aussi. mais je vivre a los angeles. repondez en francais
>
>merci
>
>>You tellin me there's gonna be Cajuns up there?
>>
>>
>>>Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:19:32 -0600
>>>From: Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net>
>>>Subject: Re: salut
>>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>>>
>>>I may be the only Cajun Piet enthusiast, so I just gotta ask: Mais,
>>>cher, can you talk like dat while you flyin'? Be car-ful, yeah...
>>>
>>>Kevin Southwick
>>>Houston, Texas
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
>>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>> Date: Thursday, December 24, 1998 6:56 PM
>>> Subject: salut
>>>
>>>
>>> <<
>>> >Jim:
>>> >
>>> >Comment ca se fait que vous etes en Belgique pour la Noel? Le nom
>>=
>>>Wright
>>> >n'est pas Belgique n'est ce pas? Bonne Annee (je suis Americain,
>>=
>>>mais nais
>>> >en France de parents Americain).
>>> >
>>> >Mark Boynton
>>> >Phoenix, Arizona
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Mon Dieu, les Franchophones sur le Piet net. Quois en plus!
>>>
>>> Mike B ( Piet N 687MB
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
Hi guys, it been awhile but I got the 0-290 hung on my peit last nite,
now for the plumbing and heat boxs for cabin and carb heat
the engine mount is 9 5/8" long and the wing moved back to the
origenal print specs and my CG works out g
ood on paper, so come spring Super Peit!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
whats a cajun doing in Texas
---Kevin Southwick wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> Ok. You've got me on the French. So, where are you from?
>
> Kevin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: martin montague
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Monday, December 28, 1998 5:54 AM
> Subject: Re: salut
>
>
> >suis-je cajun aussi. mais je vivre a los angeles. repondez en
francais
> >
> >merci
> >
> >>You tellin me there's gonna be Cajuns up there?
> >>
> >>
> >>>Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:19:32 -0600
> >>>From: Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net>
> >>>Subject: Re: salut
> >>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >>>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> >>>
> >>>I may be the only Cajun Piet enthusiast, so I just gotta ask:
Mais,
> >>>cher, can you talk like dat while you flyin'? Be car-ful, yeah...
> >>>
> >>>Kevin Southwick
> >>>Houston, Texas
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
> >>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >>> Date: Thursday, December 24, 1998 6:56 PM
> >>> Subject: salut
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <<
> >>> >Jim:
> >>> >
> >>> >Comment ca se fait que vous etes en Belgique pour la Noel?
Le nom
> >>=
> >>>Wright
> >>> >n'est pas Belgique n'est ce pas? Bonne Annee (je suis
Americain,
> >>=
> >>>mais nais
> >>> >en France de parents Americain).
> >>> >
> >>> >Mark Boynton
> >>> >Phoenix, Arizona
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mon Dieu, les Franchophones sur le Piet net. Quois en plus!
> >>>
> >>> Mike B ( Piet N 687MB
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290 0n Peit |
any peit in Missouri or around southwest?
---Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
>
> Hi guys, it been awhile but I got the 0-290 hung on my peit last nite,
> now for the plumbing and heat boxs for cabin and carb heat
> the engine mount is 9 5/8" long and the wing moved back to the
> origenal print specs and my CG works out g
> ood on paper, so come spring Super Peit!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks, I just ordered a set. The price is up to $35 now.
>Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:14:48 +0000
>From: Phil Phillips
>Subject: Re: hinges
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>You can get cast aluminum hinges from Vi. Kapler. They are $27.00 for
a
>set. There is some filing required for proper fit. Address: Vitalis
J.
>Kapler
>Forest Hills Dr. S. W.
Rochester,
>Mn 55902
>507-288-3322
>
>----------
>> From: Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com>
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: hinges
>> Date: Thursday, December 31, 1998 2:28 AM
>>
>
>
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290 0n Peit |
-----Original Message-----
From: Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman
Date: Saturday, January 02, 1999 6:46 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 0-290 0n Peit
>Hi guys, it been awhile but I got the 0-290 hung on my peit last nite,
>now for the plumbing and heat boxs for cabin and carb heat
>the engine mount is 9 5/8" long and the wing moved back to the
>origenal print specs and my CG works out g
>ood on paper, so come spring Super Peit!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
HI Eli: How much does the 0-290 weigh, and did you install a starter &
altenator.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: landing grear in Flying & Glider |
Roger Mann uses the Bungee Jenny style gear on the exp piet and the Ace
style for the Ul piet, I am going to use the Bungee as it is better.
Gordon
Richard DeCosta wrote:
> I wrote to Don Pietenpol about plans for the "Jenny" style gear, and
> he said he doesnt sell them (anymore?). I was thinking of using the
> landing gear plans shown in the 1932 Flying & Glider Mag. Are these
> plans complete & accurate? Anyone know of a larger (oh, the
> eyestrain!) version of these plans, maybe from Orrin?
>
> Richard
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> "Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: landing grear in Flying & Glider |
Your right, the landing gear plans in the 1932 Flying and Glider manual
are very small and hard to read. I think when I build my full size piet
I can use them plus my plans from RagWing.
Gordon The Cheap Brimhall
Richard DeCosta wrote:
> I wrote to Don Pietenpol about plans for the "Jenny" style gear, and
> he said he doesnt sell them (anymore?). I was thinking of using the
> landing gear plans shown in the 1932 Flying & Glider Mag. Are these
> plans complete & accurate? Anyone know of a larger (oh, the
> eyestrain!) version of these plans, maybe from Orrin?
>
> Richard
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> "Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290 0n Peit |
the engine turned out to be 243 lb. no starter or alt
this is Robert, Eli is my 13 yr old that set up the computor
I've got 105 TT on my peit but just wanted more power, then I got a
good deal on a runout 0-290 and I doubled my horses for about
1500-2000 after selling my 65 cont.
Robert B.
---Michael Brusilow wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Saturday, January 02, 1999 6:46 AM
> Subject: 0-290 0n Peit
>
>
> >Hi guys, it been awhile but I got the 0-290 hung on my peit last
nite,
> >now for the plumbing and heat boxs for cabin and carb heat
> >the engine mount is 9 5/8" long and the wing moved back to the
> >origenal print specs and my CG works out g
> >ood on paper, so come spring Super Peit!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
>
> HI Eli: How much does the 0-290 weigh, and did you install a
starter &
> altenator.
>
> Mike B ( Piet N687MB)
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Any suggestions on dressing up gussets after the staples are pulled. I know
they will never be seen, but I'm the one who knows the holes are there. Was
going to use wood putty, but was afraid it would eventually flake out.
Ron E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\New Folder\aircraft\Piet quick |
build kit.u
> Does everyone know about the Piet quick build kit? Click below. Mike
>B ( Piet N687MB )
> Attachment Converted: "D:\FRONTIER\EUDORA\ATTACHES\Piet quick build
kit.url"
Mike,
What is the actual URL that you were pinting at? I clicked and went
to the BPA opening page.
Replicraft will sell you many of the pieces on up to a partially
completed fuselage.
Dave
Waiting for the ice storm to hit western NY in a few hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
>Replicraft will sell you many of the pieces on up to a partially
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
Hi Oil Can,
I suppose if you could find a foundry to cast a few you might sell
enough to bring down your cost, but then it would probably be an expensive
process to machine and sleeve the blocks. Are you a machinist? My research
shows that a Ford engine ready to fly weighs about 244 lbs. Chech out the
BPA website there are references to Fords putting out a reliable 100 hp!
I started building an Air cooled version of the B engine a while back. I
sawed the cracked watercooled cylinders off just at the bottom of the valve
chamber and was planning to use cylinders of my own design and Deutz
aluminum heads converted to gas. I successfully made one head, but there is
still the problem of cam lobe spacing etc........
Then I stumbled onto an ADC Cirrus engine and the conversion stalled!
Let us know if you continue on this idea, the only Stupid question is the
one thought about but unanswered.
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 2:08 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines
>I'm about to proove that in this world,,, THERE IS,,, such a thing as a
>stupid question!
>
>I'm still interested in ford model A, or a willys jeep flat head... "go
>devil" engine for my airplane. However the weight of all that cast iron
>bothers me. Does any one in the group know how practical it would be
>to have a one-off casting of a jeep, or ford A engine block done in
>aluminium?
>
>Then one could just put in the origonal parts, + an aluminium head, and
>set it up direct drive. It seems to me that a fellow could build up a
>reasonably powerfull engine, that was close to the origonal, and save
>about 1/2 the weight.
>
>Does anybody have an opinion on this?
>
>I may be just blowing smoke, but if the cost of an aluminium casting was
>close to that of a modern re-drive, it might be still worth it.
>Considering that an auto conversion with re-drive runs about 5000.00
>
>ocb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Hey Dean, are your stairs finished in. I removed mine and stood a wing panel
on end and it tilted through the openning . It made that first step a
dillily! It didn't take long and the stairs put back don't even squeak
anymore!
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 7:25 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 3 piece wing
>Didn't somebody say they made the center section longer and the outer
>sections shorter. Could I get some details? Was any engineering
>analysis done?
>
>I am getting ready to start building the wings and I have a small
>(large;-)) problem. I am working in the basement and I can't get a
>standard wing panel around the corner and up the stairs.
>
>I have considered building a one piece wing in the basement and them
>knocking out a section of wall to remove it. My wife disagrees ;-)
>
>Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
>Dublin, OH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
The plain truth is, I was sort of hoping that someone else would pick up
my idea, cast off several, then I could buy one from him...
What I will probably end up doing, is using either a plain 134L jeep
flat head, (with an aluminium high compression head,) stripped of the
cast iron manifolds etc.+ maybe 4 carbs, and headers. Or just bite the
bullet and go with a 4 cyl geo and a commercial re-drive.
I might just for kicks look into the aluminium block idea a little
longer, as there are commercial foundrys nearby.
ocb
>From steve(at)byu.edu Sat Jan 2 18:43:23 1999
>Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 2144"@adena.byu.edu
[128.187.22.180])
> by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
> with ESMTP id <01J62S3YTYU48WWENX(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:40:28 -0700
>From: jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry)
>Subject: Re: engines
>Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>Message-id: <5C6B032999(at)adena.byu.edu>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 (via Mercury MTS v1.43
(NDS))
> (via Mercury MTS v1.43 (NDS))
>Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>X-Listname:
>
>Hi Oil Can,
> I suppose if you could find a foundry to cast a few you might sell
>enough to bring down your cost, but then it would probably be an
expensive
>process to machine and sleeve the blocks. Are you a machinist? My
research
>shows that a Ford engine ready to fly weighs about 244 lbs. Chech out
the
>BPA website there are references to Fords putting out a reliable 100
hp!
>I started building an Air cooled version of the B engine a while back.
I
>sawed the cracked watercooled cylinders off just at the bottom of the
valve
>chamber and was planning to use cylinders of my own design and Deutz
>aluminum heads converted to gas. I successfully made one head, but
there is
>still the problem of cam lobe spacing etc........
> Then I stumbled onto an ADC Cirrus engine and the conversion
stalled!
>Let us know if you continue on this idea, the only Stupid question is
the
>one thought about but unanswered.
>
>John Mc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 2:08 AM
>Subject: engines
>
>
>>I'm about to proove that in this world,,, THERE IS,,, such a thing as
a
>>stupid question!
>>
>>I'm still interested in ford model A, or a willys jeep flat head...
"go
>>devil" engine for my airplane. However the weight of all that cast
iron
>>bothers me. Does any one in the group know how practical it would be
>>to have a one-off casting of a jeep, or ford A engine block done in
>>aluminium?
>>
>>Then one could just put in the origonal parts, + an aluminium head,
and
>>set it up direct drive. It seems to me that a fellow could build up a
>>reasonably powerfull engine, that was close to the origonal, and save
>>about 1/2 the weight.
>>
>>Does anybody have an opinion on this?
>>
>>I may be just blowing smoke, but if the cost of an aluminium casting
was
>>close to that of a modern re-drive, it might be still worth it.
>>Considering that an auto conversion with re-drive runs about 5000.00
>>
>>ocb
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
John McNarry,
I read with interest your account of the air-cooled Ford engine
conversion you started.
There is a Pietenpol that dates back to 1935 on display in the
Reynolds Alberta Museum at Wetaskiwin, Alberta. I believe it
was built at Brandon, Manitoba because the Canadian Aviation
Historical Society indicates the builder as "The Brandon Aero Association".
It belonged to H. (Hank) Stokke of Wembley, AB
and he had applied for the registration CF-BDH on March 5,
1935. However, he never formally registered the aircraft.
During the early 1960's, I did a lot of flying in the Grande Prairie
area and tried to buy the a/c from him in order to restore it. No
luck! He wouldn't sell it at that time. Reportedly, it had been flown
(if so, illegally), but was in rags when I tried to buy it. Eventually it
wound up in the museum and they restored it for display. Other
than the engine, it is very authentic and conforms with the plans in
the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual in all other respects.
This airplane had (still has?) a Model A Ford engine converted
to air cooling. I understand someone had developed an air-cooled
version during the 1930's. This could have been one of those. It
has been a long time since I looked at it closely in Grande Prairie,
but I recall that there was a means of using oil to assist in cooling
this particular engine. It had a deeply-finned head with oil passages
through it . I'll have to go look at it again one of these days---it is only
about 20 miles from here. Trouble is, it is suspended from the ceil-
ing and a long way above everything else. Perhaps binoculars would help.
Some old timers who messed about with Pietenpols and Ford A engines during
the thirties never seemed enthusiastic about the air-cooled version when I
asked them about it. I wonder why.....
In spite of having a perfectly good Piet with a C85, I sometimes get
the urge to build another one with a water-cooled Ford A. However,
getting hold of a good "A" could pose a problem, and this in effect "saves
me from myself". [Basically, it isn't the lack of an engine that holds me
back (I have a couple of spare Continentals). It is inertia!]
Anyway, I thought you and the group might like to know about this. If
I find any more information, I'll post it.
Cheers,
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
>Hey Dean, are your stairs finished in. I removed mine and stood a wing
panel
>on end and it tilted through the openning . It made that first step a
>dillily! It didn't take long and the stairs put back don't even squeak
>anymore!
Fortunately, no. After working out the geometry, I'm pretty sure I can
get the wing panels out this way. I'm still not sure about a long
fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
I could not get to the previously mentioned url, but after a bit of
searching I came up with:
http://www.replicraftaviation.com/pietquickbuild.htm
This may be the same site or a new one, but regardless, I'm rather
excited about this development. Could be just what I need to go from
wishing I had the time to building!
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build Kit |
Larry Neal wrote:
> I could not get to the previously mentioned url, but after a bit of
> searching I came up with:
>
> http://www.replicraftaviation.com/pietquickbuild.htm
>
> This may be the same site or a new one, but regardless, I'm rather
> excited about this development. Could be just what I need to go from
> wishing I had the time to building!
>
> Larry
They sent me about 40 pages worth of stuff including many drawings with
B.H. Pietenpol name on them dated 3-23-33 so I have more information to
build from. I may even buy some parts from them.
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
Larry,
Just got two fat, free books from Replicraft. Enclosed are LOTS of ways to
cheat and get your Piet in the air...fast!
E-mail them and mention you want stuff specifically on Pietenpol.
Ron E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: Piet on floats |
Garth+ADs- I found the article about the Piet on floats. The aircraft, CF-AFN,
was built between 1932 and 1935 and flew regularly untill it was grounded by
fuel shortges during WW11. It spent all its time on floats and skis.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet on floats |
Were the floats the same ones that are in the Flying & Glider manual?
I am going to be building those someday, too.
Anyone have any pics of this Piet on floats? (or any Piet on floats
for that matter).
---John McNarry wrote:
>
>
> Garth+ADs- I found the article about the Piet on floats. The
aircraft, CF-AFN,
> was built between 1932 and 1935 and flew regularly untill it was
grounded by
> fuel shortges during WW11. It spent all its time on floats and skis.
>
> John
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet on floats |
>Were the floats the same ones that are in the Flying & Glider manual?
>I am going to be building those someday, too.
>
Weren't the floats in the Flying and Glider manual for a smaller plane?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet on floats |
I havent actually received my mag yet, but the catalog I bought them
from said "Pietenpol Floats". Maybe they were for the Sky Scout?
---Dean Dayton wrote:
>
> >Were the floats the same ones that are in the Flying & Glider manual?
> >I am going to be building those someday, too.
> >
>
> Weren't the floats in the Flying and Glider manual for a smaller
plane?
>
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet on floats |
I dug out my copy. The article titled "Pietenpol Floats" appears to have
nothing to do with Pietenpol. It is a design for a single place biplane
on floats. The floats only have 800 lbs of displacement, not enough for
an Aircamper at gross.
>I havent actually received my mag yet, but the catalog I bought them
>from said "Pietenpol Floats". Maybe they were for the Sky Scout?
>
>---Dean Dayton wrote:
>>
>> >Were the floats the same ones that are in the Flying & Glider
manual?
>> >I am going to be building those someday, too.
>> >
>>
>> Weren't the floats in the Flying and Glider manual for a smaller
>plane?
>>
>>
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build Kit |
Gordon, Ron,
Don't have mine yet, but I'd ask this anyway.
What do you guys think about the quality shown in this catalog vs pricing?
Larry
Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> Larry Neal wrote:
>
> > I could not get to the previously mentioned url, but after a bit of
> > searching I came up with:
> >
> > http://www.replicraftaviation.com/pietquickbuild.htm
> >
> > This may be the same site or a new one, but regardless, I'm rather
> > excited about this development. Could be just what I need to go from
> > wishing I had the time to building!
> >
> > Larry
>
> They sent me about 40 pages worth of stuff including many drawings with
> B.H. Pietenpol name on them dated 3-23-33 so I have more information to
> build from. I may even buy some parts from them.
>
> Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
Graham,
Thanks for the history, There were several piets built in the Brandon area
in the thirties. I have a picture of one CF-ARH taken in the 1954.
( picture on R. DeCosta's site), it was owned by a Reginald French. I have
heard a story about one crashing in Riding Mountain National Park on a
flight from Hartney to Sifton. Apparently the pilot survived the crash but
didn't make it out of the woods. Are you still writing a history of Canadian
Piets? The Piet on Floats is pictured in the March /April 1992 Recreational
Flyer.
I could scan the photos and send to Richard's site if there is interest
enough....... I'm not sure how the quality will turn out.
If you need a little more inertia, Graham, I know where to find a "B" engine
sitting in a grain bin. Inertia with energy becomes momentum!
John
________________________________________________________________________________
>John McNarry,
>
>I read with interest your account of the air-cooled Ford engine
>conversion you started.
>
>There is a Pietenpol that dates back to 1935 on display in the
>Reynolds Alberta Museum at Wetaskiwin, Alberta. I believe it
>was built at Brandon, Manitoba because the Canadian Aviation
>Historical Society indicates the builder as "The Brandon Aero Association".
>It belonged to H. (Hank) Stokke of Wembley, AB
>and he had applied for the registration CF-BDH on March 5,
>1935. However, he never formally registered the aircraft.
>
>During the early 1960's, I did a lot of flying in the Grande Prairie
>area and tried to buy the a/c from him in order to restore it. No
>luck! He wouldn't sell it at that time. Reportedly, it had been flown
>(if so, illegally), but was in rags when I tried to buy it. Eventually it
>wound up in the museum and they restored it for display. Other
>than the engine, it is very authentic and conforms with the plans in
>the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual in all other respects.
>
>This airplane had (still has?) a Model A Ford engine converted
>to air cooling. I understand someone had developed an air-cooled
>version during the 1930's. This could have been one of those. It
>has been a long time since I looked at it closely in Grande Prairie,
>but I recall that there was a means of using oil to assist in cooling
>this particular engine. It had a deeply-finned head with oil passages
>through it . I'll have to go look at it again one of these days---it is
only
>about 20 miles from here. Trouble is, it is suspended from the ceil-
>ing and a long way above everything else. Perhaps binoculars would help.
>
>Some old timers who messed about with Pietenpols and Ford A engines during
>the thirties never seemed enthusiastic about the air-cooled version when I
>asked them about it. I wonder why.....
>
>In spite of having a perfectly good Piet with a C85, I sometimes get
>the urge to build another one with a water-cooled Ford A. However,
>getting hold of a good "A" could pose a problem, and this in effect "saves
>me from myself". [Basically, it isn't the lack of an engine that holds me
>back (I have a couple of spare Continentals). It is inertia!]
>
>Anyway, I thought you and the group might like to know about this. If
>I find any more information, I'll post it.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Graham
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet on floats |
I've always thought it would be way cool to have a Pietenpol on floats. Does
anyone know where a set of plans for floats would be available? How much
would they weigh? Would it be feasable to use floats with a Model A Piet?
I built a set of floats for my r.c. plane using foam core, and covering with
fiberglass / resin. Worked great, lots of fun and quite a challenge. I
noticed that it landed on the water better if I came in a little hot, and
didn't flare for the touch - down. Whenever I flared, it would bounce off
the water, and become airborn below stall speed, and end up flopped over on
its back.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build Kit |
Larry Neal wrote:
> Gordon, Ron,
>
> Don't have mine yet, but I'd ask this anyway.
> What do you guys think about the quality shown in this catalog vs pricing?
>
> Larry
>
>
Can't say. they show a steel fuselage then say it was built from Grega plans.
Show a wing kit for 1000 plus which includes fittings. But I only got one
catalog and I don't think it was complete.
Gordon
> Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> > Larry Neal wrote:
> >
> > > I could not get to the previously mentioned url, but after a bit of
> > > searching I came up with:
> > >
> > > http://www.replicraftaviation.com/pietquickbuild.htm
> > >
> > > This may be the same site or a new one, but regardless, I'm rather
> > > excited about this development. Could be just what I need to go from
> > > wishing I had the time to building!
> > >
> > > Larry
> >
> > They sent me about 40 pages worth of stuff including many drawings with
> > B.H. Pietenpol name on them dated 3-23-33 so I have more information to
> > build from. I may even buy some parts from them.
> >
> > Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Hart <robihart(at)rph.health.wa.gov.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Happy New Year |
Sunny Perth, on the West Coast, and bordering on the Indian Ocean.
Just North of Margaret River, where all the surfers come from.
> Ouch! Where in Australia are you?
>
>
> >Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 07:09:33 +0800
> >From: Rob Hart <robihart(at)rph.health.wa.gov.au>
> >Subject: Re: Happy New Year
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> >
> >Dear all
> >
> >Have some of our stuff: 101 yesterday, predicted 105 today.
> >Happy new year all.
> >
> >Rob Hart
> >Oz piets: the only ones to fly inverted...
> >>
> >> 30's? Thats tropical! It's -5 here now! Brrrrr....
> >>
> >>
> >> ---Larry Ragan wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Happy New Year to all! Drink tonite like you were flyin in the
> >> morning.
> >> > Stay warm, (they say it'll drop into the 30's here in No. Fla.
> >> tonite)
> >> > and be safe.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Larry Ragan
> >> > Jacksonville, Fl.
> >> > lragan(at)hotmail.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ==
> >> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> >> "Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
There was a Piet on floats in Maine a while ago. The guy had a big CG
problem. In fact,he flew it from the front seat.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
There was a
Piet on floats in
Maine a while ago. The guy had a big CG problem. In fact,he flew it from
the
front seat.
size3>
Mike B ( Piet
N687MB
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
There was a Piet on floats in Maine a while ago. The guy had a big CG
problem. In fact,he flew it from the front seat.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
There was a
Piet on floats in
Maine a while ago. The guy had a big CG problem. In fact,he flew it from
the
front seat.
size3>
Mike B ( Piet
N687MB
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
Sorry Rob but your not the only Peit to go enverted!!!
I put my peit into a enverted spin, hope I never do that agin!!!! I's
doing a modified split-S, I thought kinda like a wing over, stuck in
to much rudder and stall upside down, did 3 turns scared me worse than
my pax,
anyway Peits forevere if you keep em rightside up!!!!
---Rob Hart wrote:
>
> Sunny Perth, on the West Coast, and bordering on the Indian Ocean.
> Just North of Margaret River, where all the surfers come from.
>
>
> > Ouch! Where in Australia are you?
> >
> >
> > >Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 07:09:33 +0800
> > >From: Rob Hart <robihart(at)rph.health.wa.gov.au>
> > >Subject: Re: Happy New Year
> > >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> > >
> > >Dear all
> > >
> > >Have some of our stuff: 101 yesterday, predicted 105 today.
> > >Happy new year all.
> > >
> > >Rob Hart
> > >Oz piets: the only ones to fly inverted...
> > >>
> > >> 30's? Thats tropical! It's -5 here now! Brrrrr....
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---Larry Ragan wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Happy New Year to all! Drink tonite like you were flyin in the
> > >> morning.
> > >> > Stay warm, (they say it'll drop into the 30's here in No. Fla.
> > >> tonite)
> > >> > and be safe.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Larry Ragan
> > >> > Jacksonville, Fl.
> > >> > lragan(at)hotmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> ==
> > >> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> > >> "Mind that bus!" "What bus?" SPLAT!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet on floats |
There are several available. Wag-aero used to sell a set of plans for a
1500 float (it was also available as a shorter 1200 I believe). Zenair
also sells a set of plans for thier floats as well as partial and full
kits. If you're looking at kits, you could also check out the Full Lotus
inflatable floats. Granted, they are not a classic looking float, but they
are pretty incredible! They're pretty much leak proof and indistructable
not to mention light and relatively inespensive. Finally, there's the
Superfloat by Aerocomp. These are also a strong, light float at a
reasonable price. Try: http://www.aerocompinc.com/index.htm
Ken
On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
> I've always thought it would be way cool to have a Pietenpol on floats. Does
> anyone know where a set of plans for floats would be available? How much
> would they weigh? Would it be feasable to use floats with a Model A Piet?
> I built a set of floats for my r.c. plane using foam core, and covering with
> fiberglass / resin. Worked great, lots of fun and quite a challenge. I
> noticed that it landed on the water better if I came in a little hot, and
> didn't flare for the touch - down. Whenever I flared, it would bounce off
> the water, and become airborn below stall speed, and end up flopped over on
> its back.
> Chuck
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: enverted flight |
Was there any indication of structural damage? I've read that the Piet
wings are only good for about 1g inverted.
Was the recovery difficult or just scary?
>Sorry Rob but your not the only Peit to go enverted!!!
> I put my peit into a enverted spin, hope I never do that agin!!!! I's
>doing a modified split-S, I thought kinda like a wing over, stuck in
>to much rudder and stall upside down, did 3 turns scared me worse than
>my pax,
>anyway Peits forevere if you keep em rightside up!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: landing gear |
No, I'm refering to the split axle gear on the 33' plans.
Stevee
Steve,
Are you describing the Piper type gear with the telescoping lower gear
strut? Some type have a compression spring? I've used 6X1" urethane pucks in
compression. The duro number is 90 (red colour). Jack Watson also has these
pucks. I'm trying to picture the "vee" you are refering to. Is it the vee
attached to the lower strut fittings that sort of hold the whole gear
structure together?
I haven't tested it yet, still waiting for my flight permit.
Regards,
Domenico Bellissimo
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 5:14 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: landing gear
>In my case my limiting means is a 1/8" cable loop wrapped around both gear
>"T's" Works well, and I have tested it believe me. I know of one "Vee"
>type that was tested to destruction, the Vee stayed in place, but the wheel
>still folded up to the strut as you describe because the bolts pulled
>through the end fittings. (Bungees stayed put!) No damage to the airframe
>however. Piets are tough!
>
>Steve E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: landing gear |
I Nicopressed a 1/8" dia SS ring and slipped it over the "T" on the upper
and lower strut then wrapped with bungee. I think it was about 14 inch long
piece of cable. Measure thrice, cut once.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 9:24 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Re: landing gear
Thanks for the advice everyone on the landing gear. As far as the geometry
problem on the split axle gear, I think Steve was right. The 1/8" cable
per
the 1933 plans on the struts should keep the landing gear from folding up.
The plans says to allow the strut to have a 2 1/2" action. Is this enough?
Did you solder the cable Steve or did you nicopress the cable?
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: landing gear |
>I Nicopressed a 1/8" dia SS ring and slipped it over the "T" on the upper
>and lower strut then wrapped with bungee. I think it was about 14 inch long
>piece of cable. Measure thrice, cut once.
>
>Steve E.
Also for you straight axle/wood gear builders you can make yourself a
safety loop at the ash bottom piece around the bungee's just in case the
bungee lets go. This keeps the axle from traveling too high and bashing
up the bottom of the fuselage.....not to mention hopefully preventing a
groundloop.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
I got home New Year's Day from the airport and my thermometer
read 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Other than the temperature the day
was perfect. Sunny, calm winds, a nice clean fresh blanket of
snow making everything look pristine. I put on layers of clothes
and a full face mask with an arctic type hat and the only thing that
really got cold were my toes. (front cockpit cover was on)
The flying was just gorgeous- you could see forever and there wasn't
another plane in the sky ! (I was the only fool in the area !)
I'm going to have to fix the tach or the tach cable though- one minute
the tach was reading 2150 rpm and the next it was reading zero !
I've got the 90 degree adapter on the tach so it might even be that.
Guess it didn't like the cold too well. I'll bet this doesn't happen to
Ted B . in Naples, Florida !!
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.5 F Degrees |
>I'm going to have to fix the tach or the tach cable though- one minute
>the tach was reading 2150 rpm and the next it was reading zero !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.5 F Degrees |
Maybe the engine stopped and you were just to cold to notice;-)
>I'm going to have to fix the tach or the tach cable though- one minute
>the tach was reading 2150 rpm and the next it was reading zero !
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
Dublin, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.5 F Degrees |
I'm curious, why did you need a face mask ? Does your airplane not have
a wind screen ? Or are you getting wind blast forced into the cockpit
comming from the bottom of the wing above ?
I remember readind that the fighter pilots from the 1930's era had a
leather apron that went from above their shoulders, over the open
cockpit, and then (I think) under the insterment panel. This was said to
keep the pilot out of the wind, and was much warmer.
Kind of like a tonnu cover for the back of a pick-up truck.
ocb
>From steve(at)byu.edu Mon Jan 4 13:18:21 1999
>Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 2705"@adena.byu.edu
[128.187.22.180])
> by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
> with ESMTP id <01J659BA6WIW8WWFC3(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:15:12 -0500
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: 8.5 F Degrees
>Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>Message-id: <86FFA33EFB(at)adena.byu.edu>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 (via Mercury MTS
v1.44 (NDS))
> (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
>Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>X-Listname:
>
>I got home New Year's Day from the airport and my thermometer
>read 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Other than the temperature the day
>was perfect. Sunny, calm winds, a nice clean fresh blanket of
>snow making everything look pristine. I put on layers of clothes
>and a full face mask with an arctic type hat and the only thing that
>really got cold were my toes. (front cockpit cover was on)
>The flying was just gorgeous- you could see forever and there wasn't
>another plane in the sky ! (I was the only fool in the area !)
>I'm going to have to fix the tach or the tach cable though- one minute
>the tach was reading 2150 rpm and the next it was reading zero !
>I've got the 90 degree adapter on the tach so it might even be that.
>Guess it didn't like the cold too well. I'll bet this doesn't happen
to
>Ted B . in Naples, Florida !!
>
>Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Could anyone who is using this address for my Pietenpol site:
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
please change your bookmarks/links to this instead:
http://fly.to/Pietenpol
as my IP address (207.140.1.221) will likely change in a few weeks,
and all bookmarks/links pointing to that will go nowhere. Thanks!
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.5 F Degrees |
>I'm curious, why did you need a face mask ? Does your airplane not have
>a wind screen ? Or are you getting wind blast forced into the cockpit
>comming from the bottom of the wing above ?
>
Bob- I do have Lexan windscreens and believe me I had my face
stuck right up behind that sucker. I'm sure you could go without
the face mask but when you need to turn your head and move around
the wind will get you. (or when you make an uncoordinated turn and
the slipstream lets you know. That's why I don't even have a ball on my
inst. panel.)
>I remember readind that the fighter pilots from the 1930's era had a
>leather apron that went from above their shoulders, over the open
>cockpit, and then (I think) under the insterment panel. This was said to
>keep the pilot out of the wind, and was much warmer.
>Kind of like a tonnu cover for the back of a pick-up truck.
That sounds like an excellent idea !
Mike C.
>ocb
>
>
>>From steve(at)byu.edu Mon Jan 4 13:18:21 1999
>>Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 2705"@adena.byu.edu
>[128.187.22.180])
>> by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
>> with ESMTP id <01J659BA6WIW8WWFC3(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
>oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>>Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:15:12 -0500
>>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>>Subject: 8.5 F Degrees
>>Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Message-id: <86FFA33EFB(at)adena.byu.edu>
>>MIME-version: 1.0
>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 (via Mercury MTS
>v1.44 (NDS))
>> (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
>>Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>>X-Listname:
>>
>>I got home New Year's Day from the airport and my thermometer
>>read 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Other than the temperature the day
>>was perfect. Sunny, calm winds, a nice clean fresh blanket of
>>snow making everything look pristine. I put on layers of clothes
>>and a full face mask with an arctic type hat and the only thing that
>>really got cold were my toes. (front cockpit cover was on)
>>The flying was just gorgeous- you could see forever and there wasn't
>>another plane in the sky ! (I was the only fool in the area !)
>>I'm going to have to fix the tach or the tach cable though- one minute
>>the tach was reading 2150 rpm and the next it was reading zero !
>>I've got the 90 degree adapter on the tach so it might even be that.
>>Guess it didn't like the cold too well. I'll bet this doesn't happen
>to
>>Ted B . in Naples, Florida !!
>>
>>Mike C.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Fellers- I e-mailed Grant MacLaren about flying on
New Year's Day and here is a neat piece of history
he replied with about Bernard Pietenpol as told by
Vi Kapler.
Mike C.
>From: GMacLaren(at)aol.com
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:45:18 EST
>To: Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov
>Subject: Re: 8.5 F Degrees
>X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189
>
>Wonderful!
>
>Vi Kapler told me that BHP flew all winter
>long. The hangar doors were made in a "T"
>shape -- the upper arms of the tee swung
>open to clear the snow and only the width
>of the gear opened at the bottom -- to reduce
>snow removal chores.
>
>Before the hangar was built, BHP kept his
>engine oil on the stove in his shop in the
>winter. Pouring that warm oil into the
>"A" made it easier to start.
>
>He flew a lot in the winter. The state had
>a bounty on wolves in those days. BHP got
>very good at resting his gun on the struts
>and shooting the wolves from the air. Vi
>told me frozen wolf carcasses were stacked
>"like cord wood" inside along the back wall
>of the hangar.
>
>Thanks for the story.
>-=Grant=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: enverted flight |
Status: RO
the recovery was to badddddd, it jecked the stick out of my hand, an i
grabbed it and started to force it back, an thought it was going to
set me up for a flat spin , so i relaxed a sec. an thought OK
spin...forward, opposit rudder....no!!!!upside down...back,
toprudder..3 turns an I'sss out of it!!!!
don't ever want to do that again. On my plane if you go into a tight
turn, it'll roll on over on to its back realy quick, may have a riggin
problem???but I've got it in my hanger right now puttin a 0-290 (125
hp) on it for a super Peit, just more climb realy no more going under
powerlines, its one thing going under lines cause you want to but not
cause you have toooooooo
---Dean Dayton wrote:
>
> Was there any indication of structural damage? I've read that the
Piet
> wings are only good for about 1g inverted.
>
> Was the recovery difficult or just scary?
>
>
>
> >Sorry Rob but your not the only Peit to go enverted!!!
> > I put my peit into a enverted spin, hope I never do that agin!!!!
I's
> >doing a modified split-S, I thought kinda like a wing over, stuck in
> >to much rudder and stall upside down, did 3 turns scared me worse
than
> >my pax,
> >anyway Peits forevere if you keep em rightside up!!!!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Piets at Oshkosh |
>From: GMacLaren(at)aol.com
>Michael --
>Did you see jack Cox's mention of Piets
>flying into Osh '99?
>It's in the latest Sport Aviation --
>first page of his "Hot Line."
>(I continue to work with all
>at Oshkosh -- Tom P. wants it to
>happen, so getting much cooperation
>from staff.
>-=Grant=-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
you guys ever herd of westack? they make a realy good eltronic tack,
and all ya gotta do is run a 2 wire instead of that big mechanical
tack housing. it only cost 100.00 for everything
robert b.
---Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> I got home New Year's Day from the airport and my thermometer
> read 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Other than the temperature the day
> was perfect. Sunny, calm winds, a nice clean fresh blanket of
> snow making everything look pristine. I put on layers of clothes
> and a full face mask with an arctic type hat and the only thing that
> really got cold were my toes. (front cockpit cover was on)
> The flying was just gorgeous- you could see forever and there wasn't
> another plane in the sky ! (I was the only fool in the area !)
> I'm going to have to fix the tach or the tach cable though- one minute
> the tach was reading 2150 rpm and the next it was reading zero !
> I've got the 90 degree adapter on the tach so it might even be that.
> Guess it didn't like the cold too well. I'll bet this doesn't
happen to
> Ted B . in Naples, Florida !!
>
> Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I gave it consideration, but finally decided with the old (new) mechanical
unit. The digital look in a plane this vintage didn't seem to fit. I put
my digital stopwatch right next to my analog tach to remind myself how
period authentic I made it.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
or Robert or Teresa Bozeman
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:14 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: tack drives
you guys ever herd of westack? they make a realy good eltronic tack,
and all ya gotta do is run a 2 wire instead of that big mechanical
tack housing. it only cost 100.00 for everything
robert b.
---Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> I got home New Year's Day from the airport and my thermometer
> read 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Other than the temperature the day
> was perfect. Sunny, calm winds, a nice clean fresh blanket of
> snow making everything look pristine. I put on layers of clothes
> and a full face mask with an arctic type hat and the only thing that
> really got cold were my toes. (front cockpit cover was on)
> The flying was just gorgeous- you could see forever and there wasn't
> another plane in the sky ! (I was the only fool in the area !)
> I'm going to have to fix the tach or the tach cable though- one minute
> the tach was reading 2150 rpm and the next it was reading zero !
> I've got the 90 degree adapter on the tach so it might even be that.
> Guess it didn't like the cold too well. I'll bet this doesn't
happen to
> Ted B . in Naples, Florida !!
>
> Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks
I just went their and changed my mark. I don't remember the piet taking
off?
Maybe I missed it before, I still think you have the best piet site.
Gordon
Richard DeCosta wrote:
> Could anyone who is using this address for my Pietenpol site:
>
> http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
>
> please change your bookmarks/links to this instead:
>
> http://fly.to/Pietenpol
>
> as my IP address (207.140.1.221) will likely change in a few weeks,
> and all bookmarks/links pointing to that will go nowhere. Thanks!
>
> Richard
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: enverted flight |
Well looks you have an aerobatic piet.
get that 0-290 in it and you will be able to do snap rolls.
nice that the plane will hold together.
Gordon
Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
> the recovery was to badddddd, it jecked the stick out of my hand, an i
> grabbed it and started to force it back, an thought it was going to
> set me up for a flat spin , so i relaxed a sec. an thought OK
> spin...forward, opposit rudder....no!!!!upside down...back,
> toprudder..3 turns an I'sss out of it!!!!
> don't ever want to do that again. On my plane if you go into a tight
> turn, it'll roll on over on to its back realy quick, may have a riggin
> problem???but I've got it in my hanger right now puttin a 0-290 (125
> hp) on it for a super Peit, just more climb realy no more going under
> powerlines, its one thing going under lines cause you want to but not
> cause you have toooooooo
>
> ---Dean Dayton wrote:
> >
> > Was there any indication of structural damage? I've read that the
> Piet
> > wings are only good for about 1g inverted.
> >
> > Was the recovery difficult or just scary?
> >
> >
> >
> > >Sorry Rob but your not the only Peit to go enverted!!!
> > > I put my peit into a enverted spin, hope I never do that agin!!!!
> I's
> > >doing a modified split-S, I thought kinda like a wing over, stuck in
> > >to much rudder and stall upside down, did 3 turns scared me worse
> than
> > >my pax,
> > >anyway Peits forevere if you keep em rightside up!!!!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
The piet taking off is new. I am soon going to be launching a video
section to my site. Currently, videos are in this directory:
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/videos/
Dont bookmark it, tho... :)
---Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> Thanks
>
> I just went their and changed my mark. I don't remember the piet
taking
> off?
>
> Maybe I missed it before, I still think you have the best piet site.
>
> Gordon
>
>
> Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
> > Could anyone who is using this address for my Pietenpol site:
> >
> > http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
> >
> > please change your bookmarks/links to this instead:
> >
> > http://fly.to/Pietenpol
> >
> > as my IP address (207.140.1.221) will likely change in a few weeks,
> > and all bookmarks/links pointing to that will go nowhere. Thanks!
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > ==
> > http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> >
> >
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
Actually, the Westach Tach (tacha tacha tacha ;-) ) I've seen has an
analog face. The guts behind the face are digital. It uses the same
principal as those after market automobile tachs. They have a block that
attaches to one of the ignition leads which senses the change in the
magnetic feild around the cable. Even sheilded ignition cables produce
some magnetic field. The nice thing about the westach units is that they
can be added as a suppliment to the mechanical. They are also available in
the small 2 1/4" variety. Unfortunately, I do believe that they require a
12V source to work which means that they wouldn't work too well on a
non-electric plane. However, I've never really checked this out.
Another method I've seen on portable units used to calibrate tachs and
used on model planes, employs a light sensor that counts the number of
changes in light intensity. The neat thing is that they can also be
calibrated simply by pointing them at any flourescent light. Since
electricity in North America is provided at 60 Hz, the should read 3600
rpm or some factor thereof. I think it shows up as 1800 since the meter is
set for 2 light pulses per revolution, one per blade.
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
> I gave it consideration, but finally decided with the old (new) mechanical
> unit. The digital look in a plane this vintage didn't seem to fit. I put
> my digital stopwatch right next to my analog tach to remind myself how
> period authentic I made it.
>
> Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Cold weather Peit |
Re: Mike C's comments about cold weather Piet flying, it aint very
comfortable especially if you are of a certain age. I more or less
solved that problem.
!) I lowered the seat as far as it would go.
2) I installed a bigger wind screen.
3) I wear full jet helment with a sliding face mask.
4) of course, a front cockpit cover.
5) It is still too cold. When Oct. rolls around, the Piet is in the
hangar for the winter
6) FYI. I live in northern NY State
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Re: Mike C's comments about cold weather Piet flying, it aint very
comfortable especially if you are of a certain age. I more or less
solved that
problem.
!) I lowered the seat as far as it would go.
2) I installed a
bigger wind
screen.
size3>
3) I wear full jet helment with a sliding face mask.
4) of course, a front cockpit cover.
5) It is still too cold. When
Oct. rolls
around, the Piet is in the hangar for the winter
6) FYI. I live in northern NY
State
Mike B ( Piet N687MB
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Jodel Mailing List Up and Running |
Good news for wood a/c builders, flyers, and enthusiasts.
Ping Hansen and Hans Teijgeler have got a Mailing List up and running for the Jodel
range of homebuilt all-wood a/c.
Pietenpol builders will be able to make a valuable contribution to the interest
group because of their wood aircraft building experience.
The Jodel interest group covers every Jodel from the D9 ultralight through to D140
5 place.
Go to http://www.decollage.org/jodel/ and click on Mailing List to subscribe.
Leo
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Hart <robihart(at)rph.health.wa.gov.au> |
> From: Richard DeCosta
> Subject: Re: my site's url is now http://fly.to/Pietenpol
> Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> The piet taking off is new. I am soon going to be launching a video
> section to my site. Currently, videos are in this directory:
>
> http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/videos/
>
Richard
Coooooool web site mate. Real good with the takeoff and all the info
on your selection of ship. Might even get the wife to believe these
things don't fall out of the sky at the drop of a hat.....
Rob
Oz Piets: nearly the only ones to fly inverted...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
For those of you Piet enthusiasts who haven't visited DeCosta's Piet web
site yet, you owe it to yourselves. Great images and links. Thanks
Richard.
Larry Ragan
>Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 09:52:09 -0800
>From: Gordon Brimhall
>Subject: Re: my site's url is now http://fly.to/Pietenpol
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Thanks
>
>I just went their and changed my mark. I don't remember the piet taking
>off?
>
>Maybe I missed it before, I still think you have the best piet site.
>
>Gordon
>
>
>Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
>> Could anyone who is using this address for my Pietenpol site:
>>
>> http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
>>
>> please change your bookmarks/links to this instead:
>>
>> http://fly.to/Pietenpol
>>
>> as my IP address (207.140.1.221) will likely change in a few weeks,
>> and all bookmarks/links pointing to that will go nowhere. Thanks!
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> ==
>> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Richard DeCosta - Cessna 172...... |
This is trivia for Richard DeCosta ....
I went to your web site.... and thought it interesting
that you would have the airplane that I used for nearly
a year as my backdrop!
The C172 on your web page caught my eye as being
very familiar. Just for kicks, I actually found the
specs on it (from 1996!) and posted them below.
Actually, I was looking at possibly buying a 172
and this one had caught my eye then. I find myself
without the funds for owning, giving instruction,
four kids, wife, house repairs..... the usual story
for now.
-----------
Incidently - took my instrument instructor
written exam last week --->
Too bad no piets I know of are IFR certified!!!
-----------
[INLINE] 1964 Cessna 172
[INLINE]
PHOTOS AVAILABLE
[INLINE] Exterior (48K jpg)
[INLINE] Panel (56K jpg)
[INLINE] Interior/Panel (45K jpg)
EXTERIOR
Very Good
INTERIOR
Very Good
AVIONICS
2 VORs - NARCO LOC AND GLIDE SCOPE
KMA 24 Audio panel w/3 light marker
VAL Com 760
NARCO Com 120
Registration: N7757U
Aircraft Total Time: 5500 Hours TT
Zero Time Continental O-300 Engine 2/3/86 by Van Dusen
Engine Time: 770 Hours SMOH
Apollo Loran
King KT 76a Transponder
King KR6 ADF
Radio master switch and push to talk button
EQUIPMENT
Turn Coordinator
Alternate Static Air
4-Place Intercom - Voice Activated
Carburetor Ice Detector
DG & Horizon - New Style
REMARKS
20 Hours Per Quart of Oil
Full IFR Including Glide Scope & Localizer
[INLINE]
ASKING: $25,500
Please Mention WINGS Online When You Call:
Cylinder Head Temperature Gauge
--
/--------------------\ |~~\_____/~~\__ |
|scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~\|~~~ |
This is trivia for Richard DeCosta ....
I went to your web site.... and thought it interesting
that you would have the airplane that I used for nearly
a year as my backdrop!
The C172 on your web page caught my eye as being
very familiar. Just for kicks, I actually found the
specs on it (from 1996!) and posted them below.
Actually, I was looking at possibly buying a 172
and this one had caught my eye then. I find myself
without the funds for owning, giving instruction,
four kids, wife, house repairs..... the usual story
for now.
-----------
Incidently - took my instrument instructor
written exam last week --->
--> SCORE
= 100% !!!! ---
Too bad no piets I know of are IFR certified!!!
-----------
[INLINE] 1964 Cessna 172
[INLINE]
PHOTOS AVAILABLE
[INLINE] Exterior (48K jpg)
[INLINE] Panel (56K jpg)
[INLINE] Interior/Panel (45K jpg)
LOGBOOK SUMMARY
Annual: January 1996
EXTERIOR
Very Good
INTERIOR
Very Good
AVIONICS
2 VORs - NARCO LOC AND GLIDE
SCOPE
KMA 24 Audio panel w/3 light
marker
VAL Com 760
NARCO Com 120
Registration: N7757U
Aircraft Total Time: 5500
Hours TT
Zero Time Continental O-300
Engine 2/3/86 by Van Dusen
Engine Time: 770 Hours SMOH
Apollo Loran
King KT 76a Transponder
King KR6 ADF
Radio master switch and
push to talk button
EQUIPMENT
Turn Coordinator
Alternate Static Air
4-Place Intercom - Voice
Activated
Carburetor Ice Detector
DG Horizon
- New Style
REMARKS
20 Hours Per Quart of Oil
Full IFR Including Glide
Scope Localizer
[INLINE]
ASKING: $25,500
Please Mention WINGS Online When You Call:
Bob Whitlock
(317) 825-5868 - Days
(317) 825-0383 - Home
Cylinder Head Temperature Gauge
--
/--------------------\ |~~\_____/~~\__
|
|DAVID SCOTT |______ \______======
)-+
|scott(at)haulpak.com | o'
~~\|~~~ |
\--------------------/
(O)
title: Design Engineer
tel;work: 309-672-7706
tel;fax: 309-672-7753
tel;home: not posted
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Richard DeCosta - Cessna 172...... |
Yup, I think I found that cessna on one of the aircraft marketplace
web site. I was looking for a good pic for my site, and the
marketplace sites are full of them!
---David Scott wrote:
>
> This is trivia for Richard DeCosta ....
>
> I went to your web site.... and thought it interesting
> that you would have the airplane that I used for nearly
> a year as my backdrop!
>
> The C172 on your web page caught my eye as being
> very familiar. Just for kicks, I actually found the
> specs on it (from 1996!) and posted them below.
>
> Actually, I was looking at possibly buying a 172
> and this one had caught my eye then. I find myself
> without the funds for owning, giving instruction,
> four kids, wife, house repairs..... the usual story
> for now.
> -----------
> Incidently - took my instrument instructor
> written exam last week --->
> Too bad no piets I know of are IFR certified!!!
> -----------
>
>
> [INLINE] 1964 Cessna 172
>
> [INLINE]
>
> PHOTOS AVAILABLE
>
> [INLINE] Exterior (48K jpg)
> [INLINE] Panel (56K jpg)
> [INLINE] Interior/Panel (45K jpg)
>
>
> EXTERIOR
>
> Very Good
>
> INTERIOR
>
> Very Good
>
> AVIONICS
>
> 2 VORs - NARCO LOC AND GLIDE SCOPE
>
> KMA 24 Audio panel w/3 light marker
>
> VAL Com 760
>
> NARCO Com 120
>
>
> Registration: N7757U
>
> Aircraft Total Time: 5500 Hours TT
>
> Zero Time Continental O-300 Engine 2/3/86 by Van Dusen
>
> Engine Time: 770 Hours SMOH
> Apollo Loran
>
> King KT 76a Transponder
>
> King KR6 ADF
>
> Radio master switch and push to talk button
>
> EQUIPMENT
>
> Turn Coordinator
>
> Alternate Static Air
>
> 4-Place Intercom - Voice Activated
>
> Carburetor Ice Detector
>
>
> REMARKS
>
> 20 Hours Per Quart of Oil
>
> Full IFR Including Glide Scope & Localizer
>
> [INLINE]
>
> ASKING: $25,500
>
> Please Mention WINGS Online When You Call:
>
>
> Cylinder Head Temperature Gauge
>
> --
> /--------------------\ |~~\_____/~~\__ |
> |scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~\|~~~ |
>
>
This is trivia for Richard DeCosta ....
I went to your web site.... and thought it interesting
that you would have the airplane that I used for nearly
a year as my backdrop!
The C172 on your web page caught my eye as being
very familiar.=A0=A0 Just for kicks, I actually found the
specs on it (from 1996!) and posted them below.
Actually, I was looking at possibly buying a 172
and this one had caught my eye then.=A0 I find myself
without the funds for owning, giving instruction,
four kids, wife, house repairs..... the usual story
for now.
-----------
Incidently - took my instrument instructor
=A0=A0 written exam last week --->
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --> SCORE
100%=A0 !!!!=A0 ---<
=A0=A0 Too bad no piets I know of are IFR certified!!!
-----------
=A0
=A0
[INLINE] 1964 Cessna 172
=A0=A0 [INLINE]
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 PHOTOS AVAILABLE
=A0
=A0=A0 [INLINE] Exterior (48K jpg)
=A0=A0 [INLINE] Panel (56K jpg)
=A0=A0 [INLINE] Interior/Panel (45K jpg)
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 LOGBOOK SUMMARY=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Annual: January 1996
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 EXTERIOR
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Very Good
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 INTERIOR
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Very Good
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AVIONICS
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 2 VORs - NARCO LOC AND GLIDE
SCOPE
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 KMA 24 Audio panel w/3 light
marker
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 VAL Com 760
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 NARCO Com 120
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Registration: N7757U
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Aircraft Total Time: 5500
Hours TT
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Zero Time Continental O-300
Engine 2/3/86 by Van Dusen
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Engine Time: 770 Hours SMOH
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Apollo Loran
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 King KT 76a Transponder
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 King KR6 ADF
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Radio master switch and
push to talk button
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 EQUIPMENT
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Turn Coordinator
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Alternate Static Air
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 4-Place Intercom - Voice
Activated
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Carburetor Ice Detector
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DG & Horizon
- New Style
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 REMARKS
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 20 Hours Per Quart of Oil
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Full IFR Including Glide
Scope & Localizer
=A0
=A0=A0 [INLINE]
=A0=A0=A0 ASKING: $25,500
=A0=A0=A0 Please Mention WINGS Online When You Call:
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Bob Whitlock
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
(317) 825-5868 - Days
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
(317) 825-0383 - Home
=A0=A0=A0=A0 Cylinder Head Temperature Gauge
--=A0
/--------------------\=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |~~\_____/~~\__=A0
|
|DAVID SCOTT=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |______ \______=
)-+
|scott(at)haulpak.com=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 o'=A0=A0=A0=A0
~~\|~~~=A0 |
\--------------------/=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
(O)
=A0
>
> begin: vcard
0240;Peoria;IL;61650-0240;U.S.A.
> email;internet: scott(at)haulpak.com
> title: Design Engineer
> tel;work: 309-672-7706
> tel;fax: 309-672-7753
> tel;home: not posted
> version: 2.1
>
>
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: enverted flight |
Back in the late 60's or early 70's Forrest Lovely flew an original "Piet"
from Minn. to Maine. When he departed Albany NY he did a snap roll on
departure. He was only 16 or 17 at the time and there was a picture and
article in the ALB newspaper about this kid doing a cross country in a 1930
vintage homebuilt airplane.
Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> Well looks you have an aerobatic piet.
>
> get that 0-290 in it and you will be able to do snap rolls.
>
> nice that the plane will hold together.
>
> Gordon
>
> Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
>
> > the recovery was to badddddd, it jecked the stick out of my hand, an i
> > grabbed it and started to force it back, an thought it was going to
> > set me up for a flat spin , so i relaxed a sec. an thought OK
> > spin...forward, opposit rudder....no!!!!upside down...back,
> > toprudder..3 turns an I'sss out of it!!!!
> > don't ever want to do that again. On my plane if you go into a tight
> > turn, it'll roll on over on to its back realy quick, may have a riggin
> > problem???but I've got it in my hanger right now puttin a 0-290 (125
> > hp) on it for a super Peit, just more climb realy no more going under
> > powerlines, its one thing going under lines cause you want to but not
> > cause you have toooooooo
> >
> > ---Dean Dayton wrote:
> > >
> > > Was there any indication of structural damage? I've read that the
> > Piet
> > > wings are only good for about 1g inverted.
> > >
> > > Was the recovery difficult or just scary?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Sorry Rob but your not the only Peit to go enverted!!!
> > > > I put my peit into a enverted spin, hope I never do that agin!!!!
> > I's
> > > >doing a modified split-S, I thought kinda like a wing over, stuck in
> > > >to much rudder and stall upside down, did 3 turns scared me worse
> > than
> > > >my pax,
> > > >anyway Peits forevere if you keep em rightside up!!!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David B. Schober <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: enverted flight |
>>>>Back in the late 60's or early 70's Forrest Lovely flew an original
"Piet"
>from Minn. to Maine. When he departed Albany NY he did a snap roll on
>departure. He was only 16 or 17 at the time and there was a picture and
>article in the ALB newspaper about this kid doing a cross country in a
>1930
>vintage homebuilt airplane.
Right, I was there. I didn't see the departure,but if I remember right,
he had a leaky fuel tank . The local EAA chapter helped him fix it.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
From: David B. Schober
Pietenpol
Discussion
Re: enverted flightDate: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 7:02
AM
Back in the late 60's or
early 70's
Forrest Lovely flew an original Pietfrom Minn. to
Maine.
When he departed Albany NY he did a snap roll ondeparture. He
was only
16 or 17 at the time and there was a picture andarticle in the
ALB
newspaper about this kid doing a cross country in a
1930vintage
homebuilt airplane.
Right, I was there. I didn't see the
departure,but if I
remember right, he had a leaky fuel tank . The local EAA chapter helped
him fix
it.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
I wasn't there but I've known Forrest since the mid 70's. I lived in the
Poughkeepsie area for about 20 years before miving here to WV. Wish I
was back in NY! Forrest and I met at Blakesburgh IA at the AAA fly ins
there. Our families used to camp there and all our kids played together.
He is the person that got me interested in Pietenpols. There used to be
quite a few of them that would show up at the AAA fly ins till the mid
to late 80's. Unfortunatly there was some political problems and many of
the members dropped out. I was back there this year for the first time
since '87 and I think only one Piet was there other than the Scout that
is in the Museum there. (Forrest built that Scout).
Mike, where in NY do you live. I know there is a lot of antique
airplanes in the Hudson Valley. I try to go to Rhinebeck as often as I
can. We have a Howard Fly in there when they have the Bi-Plane fly-in.
(the weekend after July 4). It would be a good weekend to bring your
Piet there.
Michael Brusilow wrote:
> From: David B. Schober <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: enverted flight
> Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 7:02 AM >>>>Back in the late 60's or
> early 70's Forrest Lovely flew an original "Piet"
> >from Minn. to Maine. When he departed Albany NY he did a snap roll on
>
> >departure. He was only 16 or 17 at the time and there was a picture
> and
> >article in the ALB newspaper about this kid doing a cross country in
> a >1930
> >vintage homebuilt airplane. Right, I was there. I didn't see the
> departure,but if I remember right, he had a leaky fuel tank . The
> local EAA chapter helped him fix it. Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
I wasn't there but I've known Forrest since the mid 70's. I lived in the
Poughkeepsie area for about 20 years before miving here to WV. Wish I was
back in NY! Forrest and I met at Blakesburgh IA at the AAA fly ins there.
Our families used to camp there and all our kids played together. He is
the person that got me interested in Pietenpols. There used to be quite
a few of them that would show up at the AAA fly ins till the mid to late
80's. Unfortunatly there was some political problems and many of the members
dropped out. I was back there this year for the first time since '87 and
I think only one Piet was there other than the Scout that is in the Museum
there. (Forrest built that Scout).
Mike, where in NY do you live. I know there is a lot of antique airplanes
in the Hudson Valley. I try to go to Rhinebeck as often as I can. We have
a Howard Fly in there when they have the Bi-Plane fly-in. (the weekend
after July 4). It would be a good weekend to bring your Piet there.
Michael Brusilow wrote:
From: David B. Schober
dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu>
To: Pietenpol Discussion piet(at)byu.edu>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: enverted flight
Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 7:02 AM>>>>Back
in the late 60's or early 70's Forrest Lovely flew an original "Piet"
>from Minn. to Maine. When he departed Albany
NY he did a snap roll on
>departure. He was only 16 or 17 at the time
and there was a picture and
>article in the ALB newspaper about this kid
doing a cross country in a >1930
>vintage homebuilt airplane.Right,
I was there. I didn't see the departure,but if I remember right, he had
a leaky fuel tank . The local EAA chapter helped him fix it.Mike
B ( Piet N687MB )
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fw: Streamlining round tubing |
>and as a VW mechanic (It paid my High School and College equivalent) I
built the VW
>engine convertion first, just for the fun of it.
>
>The Piet will not fly with one (maybe it was expesive to give it a try and
>fail), so the only "light wing loading" two seater alternative I found was
>the Tub...
What if you used a reduction unit? How do you think a Piet would fly then?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: enverted flight |
To all:
I didn't realize a Piet was capable of that - at least not exiting in one
piece. Just what are its limits? Don't think I'd like to try and duplicate
that feat.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> Back in the late 60's or early 70's Forrest Lovely flew an original
"Piet"
> from Minn. to Maine. When he departed Albany NY he did a snap roll on
> departure. He was only 16 or 17 at the time and there was a picture and
> article in the ALB newspaper about this kid doing a cross country in a
1930
> vintage homebuilt airplane.
>
> Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> > Well looks you have an aerobatic piet.
> >
> > get that 0-290 in it and you will be able to do snap rolls.
> >
> > nice that the plane will hold together.
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> > Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
> >
> > > the recovery was to badddddd, it jecked the stick out of my hand, an
i
> > > grabbed it and started to force it back, an thought it was going to
> > > set me up for a flat spin , so i relaxed a sec. an thought OK
> > > spin...forward, opposit rudder....no!!!!upside down...back,
> > > toprudder..3 turns an I'sss out of it!!!!
> > > don't ever want to do that again. On my plane if you go into a tight
> > > turn, it'll roll on over on to its back realy quick, may have a
riggin
> > > problem???but I've got it in my hanger right now puttin a 0-290 (125
> > > hp) on it for a super Peit, just more climb realy no more going under
> > > powerlines, its one thing going under lines cause you want to but not
> > > cause you have toooooooo
> > >
> > > ---Dean Dayton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Was there any indication of structural damage? I've read that the
> > > Piet
> > > > wings are only good for about 1g inverted.
> > > >
> > > > Was the recovery difficult or just scary?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Sorry Rob but your not the only Peit to go enverted!!!
> > > > > I put my peit into a enverted spin, hope I never do that agin!!!!
> > > I's
> > > > >doing a modified split-S, I thought kinda like a wing over, stuck
in
> > > > >to much rudder and stall upside down, did 3 turns scared me worse
> > > than
> > > > >my pax,
> > > > >anyway Peits forevere if you keep em rightside up!!!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
*
>
> David B.Schober, CPE
> Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
> Fairmont State College
> National Aerospace Education Center
> Rt. 3 Box 13
> Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
> (304) 842-8300
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Gentlemen-
I know it's only January but I would like to take a straw
poll of everyone on-line to see who may possibly be coming WITH
their Piet to EAA 99 for the 70th year Anniversary.
Try to be realistic- I know everyone who's close would like to say
yes, but for estimating the count I'd rather hedge on the more
definite possibilities.
REMEMBER even if you have just started your Piet or maybe
have a year or so to finish you too can contribute to this event's
success by spreading the word to anyone who
has a flying Piet/GN-1 to seriously consider joining our squadron
of Bernie's beauties. This is our golden opportunity to give this wonderful
little affordable design a place in the spotlight and give a shot in the arm
to guys who just can't afford a Glassair or Lancair.
Earl Myers here in OH has a beautiful Ford powered Sky Scout
covered and on the gear which I'm hoping will make the trip to Wisc.
this summer and I hope many more of you might also be able to
make a strong showing at Oshkosh. It's not too late to kick it in high
gear. Last year at this time I JUST finished fabric covering and was
starting to put on the silver, etc. and just made the trip to Wisc. in time.
Grant MacLaren is spearheading this effort with EAA and seeing that
this is his
last official year as our BPAN editor we should not only try to make this
a banner year as a tribute to the Pietenpol family, but to show thanks to Grant
for all he has so freely given to us.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: enverted flight |
I wasn't aware that a Piet could fly enverted. But I always wondered if
one could fly (inverted)
mboynton(at)excite.com wrote:
> To all:
>
> I didn't realize a Piet was capable of that - at least not exiting in
> one
> piece. Just what are its limits? Don't think I'd like to try and
> duplicate
> that feat.
>
> Mark Boynton
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
> > Back in the late 60's or early 70's Forrest Lovely flew an original
> "Piet"
> > from Minn. to Maine. When he departed Albany NY he did a snap roll
> on
> > departure. He was only 16 or 17 at the time and there was a picture
> and
> > article in the ALB newspaper about this kid doing a cross country in
> a
> 1930
> > vintage homebuilt airplane.
> >
> > Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> >
> > > Well looks you have an aerobatic piet.
> > >
> > > get that 0-290 in it and you will be able to do snap rolls.
> > >
> > > nice that the plane will hold together.
> > >
> > > Gordon
> > >
> > > Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
> > >
> > > > the recovery was to badddddd, it jecked the stick out of my
> hand, an
> i
> > > > grabbed it and started to force it back, an thought it was going
> to
> > > > set me up for a flat spin , so i relaxed a sec. an thought OK
> > > > spin...forward, opposit rudder....no!!!!upside down...back,
> > > > toprudder..3 turns an I'sss out of it!!!!
> > > > don't ever want to do that again. On my plane if you go into a
> tight
> > > > turn, it'll roll on over on to its back realy quick, may have a
> riggin
> > > > problem???but I've got it in my hanger right now puttin a 0-290
> (125
> > > > hp) on it for a super Peit, just more climb realy no more going
> under
> > > > powerlines, its one thing going under lines cause you want to
> but not
> > > > cause you have toooooooo
> > > >
> > > > ---Dean Dayton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Was there any indication of structural damage? I've read that
> the
> > > > Piet
> > > > > wings are only good for about 1g inverted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Was the recovery difficult or just scary?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >Sorry Rob but your not the only Peit to go enverted!!!
> > > > > > I put my peit into a enverted spin, hope I never do that
> agin!!!!
> > > > I's
> > > > > >doing a modified split-S, I thought kinda like a wing over,
> stuck
> in
> > > > > >to much rudder and stall upside down, did 3 turns scared me
> worse
> > > > than
> > > > > >my pax,
> > > > > >anyway Peits forevere if you keep em rightside up!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> *
>
> *
> >
> > David B.Schober, CPE
> > Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
> > Fairmont State College
> > National Aerospace Education Center
> > Rt. 3 Box 13
> > Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
> > (304) 842-8300
> >
> >
> > When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
> eyes
> > turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always
> be.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________________
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Streamlining round tubing |
>>and as a VW mechanic (It paid my High School and College equivalent) I
>built the VW
>>engine convertion first, just for the fun of it.
>>
>>The Piet will not fly with one (maybe it was expesive to give it a try and
>>fail), so the only "light wing loading" two seater alternative I found was
>>the Tub...
>
>What if you used a reduction unit? How do you think a Piet would fly then?
>
The reduction for this instalation will be of about 1.5 : 1 that will give
the engine a take off "speed" of about 3,500 rpm with the prop at a good
2,333 rpms.
My dought was that the increase in diameter of the prop and the "penalty" of
the reduction weight and friction could neutralize the benefits...
maybe someone will try this combo and comment, I will like to know their
Hands on experience for sure.
Saludos
Gary Gower
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Keith Schindler <keith_schindler(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol Discussion Group |
Fritz Wagoner directed me to this address to ask about a Pietenpol
discussion group. What can you tell me about it? Thanks for your
reply.
Keith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net |
Greetings!
Michael Brusilow has an album of photos for you to
see using the FREE PhotoPoint photo sharing service. Simply click on the
link below to go directly to their photo album area on the PhotoPoint
web site, where you can see all the photos that they have prepared
for you.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=12623&a=32188
Click on the link above to see the photos. If the above link
is not clickable, simply cut and paste it into your web browser.
Here is a message from Michael Brusilow
describing the photos:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought I might try this. The ground photo is at a QB fly-in. The air photo is
at Brodhead
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to know how to share your own photos using the
free PhotoPoint service, click on this link:
http://www.photopoint.com/
The PhotoPoint server is a free service courtesy of Pantellic
Software. We hope you find it useful!
-PhotoPoint Automated Attendant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com> |
Ah! "Mr Sam" appears!
At Brodhead '96 I saw "Mr Sam". I'm sure it had big air tires on it at that time.
The photos
pointed to in the N687MB message show a much smaller diameter tire.
What was the incentive to switch to the smaller tires? I haven't settled on a
wheel/tire size
yet and thought that the big wheels really looked sharp on "MR Sam".
Dick Winkel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Mike,
C-GDCB from Toronto will be there. I'm also organizing a Southern Ontarion
flyout to Brodhead for the 70th. Brian Kenney, Jim Armstrong, Jack Watson,
Stan Vander Ploeg have all indicated they will fly in a gaggle to Brodhead.
I'm going to be working on Charlie Barker, and Peter Mchugh to come when we
meet for our Canadian Mid-winter Break (Party) in Feb.99.
Regards
Domenico Bellissimo
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 3:32 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Oshkosh 1999
>Gentlemen-
>
> I know it's only January but I would like to take a straw
>poll of everyone on-line to see who may possibly be coming WITH
>their Piet to EAA 99 for the 70th year Anniversary.
>Try to be realistic- I know everyone who's close would like to say
>yes, but for estimating the count I'd rather hedge on the more
>definite possibilities.
> REMEMBER even if you have just started your Piet or maybe
>have a year or so to finish you too can contribute to this event's
>success by spreading the word to anyone who
>has a flying Piet/GN-1 to seriously consider joining our squadron
>of Bernie's beauties. This is our golden opportunity to give this
wonderful
>little affordable design a place in the spotlight and give a shot in the
arm
>to guys who just can't afford a Glassair or Lancair.
>
> Earl Myers here in OH has a beautiful Ford powered Sky Scout
>covered and on the gear which I'm hoping will make the trip to Wisc.
>this summer and I hope many more of you might also be able to
>make a strong showing at Oshkosh. It's not too late to kick it in high
>gear. Last year at this time I JUST finished fabric covering and was
>starting to put on the silver, etc. and just made the trip to Wisc. in
time.
>
> Grant MacLaren is spearheading this effort with EAA and seeing that
>this is his
>last official year as our BPAN editor we should not only try to make this
>a banner year as a tribute to the Pietenpol family, but to show thanks to
Grant
>for all he has so freely given to us.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 7:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: N687MB
>Ah! "Mr Sam" appears!
>At Brodhead '96 I saw "Mr Sam". I'm sure it had big air tires on it at
that time. The photos
>pointed to in the N687MB message show a much smaller diameter tire.
>What was the incentive to switch to the smaller tires? I haven't settled
on a wheel/tire size
>yet and thought that the big wheels really looked sharp on "MR Sam".
>
>Dick Winkel
>
>
Right you are Dick. Mr Sam did have 800 tires. Took them off for two
reasons:
1) The airplane was higher making it more difficult to get in,
2) It landed different from the 600 tires. Maybe it was my imagination, but
it seemed to me the airplane flew better with the smaller tires.
Mike B ( N687MB )
2)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
Larry,
Thank you for your response about the Corvair Authority. It sounds great.
I really am disappointed that I could not make arrangements while I was
there in sunny (warm) Florida. I wish that he would get an e-mail address
so that we could more easily get in touch with him. Next time I am in
Florida I will definitely stop by.
I am just starting on my ribs so I am also a long way from needing his
expertise. Next time you have more info let me know. Thank you.
Craig
P.S. The state of N.D. does provide each and every person in the state with
a pair on Red Long Johns with a trap door in the rear every August. (When
it starts getting cold) The trap door is the bonus that you were asking
about. Truthfully, the cold weather is good. It keeps the mosquitoes away
for a few months. Tonight it is predicted to get to a balmy -30 degrees F.
( That's below zero without the wind chill) With wind chill they are
predicting -70 degrees. When I get my Piet done I plan on flying during the
winter. If we can ride snowmobiles up here during the winter at speeds up
to 60MPH then why can't we fly airplanes at 60 MPH.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.5 F Degrees |
I got home New Year's Day from the airport and my thermometer read 85
degrees Fahrenheit. Other than the temperature the day was perfect. Sunny,
calm winds, a nice clean fresh blanket of sand on the beach making
everything look pristine. I put on my Tshirt and went flying. The flying
was just gorgeous - you could see forever and there wasn't another plane in
the sky. I think everyone was either at the beach, playing golf or hung
over! My tach worked perfectly.
Mike, since the only difference between our flights was were the decimal
point was located in the temperature that must be the problem. ;-))
Happy New Year.
Ted
>I got home New Year's Day from the airport and my thermometer
>read 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Other than the temperature the day
>was perfect. Sunny, calm winds, a nice clean fresh blanket of
>snow making everything look pristine. I put on layers of clothes
>and a full face mask with an arctic type hat and the only thing that
>really got cold were my toes. (front cockpit cover was on)
>The flying was just gorgeous- you could see forever and there wasn't
>another plane in the sky ! (I was the only fool in the area !)
>I'm going to have to fix the tach or the tach cable though- one minute
>the tach was reading 2150 rpm and the next it was reading zero !
>I've got the 90 degree adapter on the tach so it might even be that.
>Guess it didn't like the cold too well. I'll bet this doesn't happen to
>Ted B . in Naples, Florida !!
>
>Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.5 F Degrees |
You guys are making me jealous.
Craig from ND
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Discussion Group |
Keith,
You have just wandered into the best darn discussion group this side of the
Mississippi River!!
There is loads of information given each and almost every day. If you are
looking to build a Piet., then you have come to the right spot on your dial.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Streamlining round tubing |
I may not be right with this, but for what it's worth, assuming a 65 hp
volkswagon engine...
Torque= 65Hpx5252/3500rpm=97 ftlbs of torque
Troque with a psru reducing rpm to 2330, 65x5252/2330=146 ft lbs
It seems to me that the VW engine would work alright. I seem to remember
reading something about cooling problems using the VW at the low speed
of the piet however. There may also be some sort of problem with the VW
running at high rpm turning a short prop and not properly converting the
engine power into thrust.
ocb
>From steve(at)byu.edu Wed Jan 6 09:57:21 1999
>Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 3545"@adena.byu.edu
[128.187.22.180])
> by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
> with ESMTP id <01J67UWI4FXU8WWIE7(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 09:35:32 -0800
>From: Brent Reed
>Subject: Fw: Streamlining round tubing
>Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>Message-id:
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 (via Mercury MTS v1.44
(NDS))
> (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
>Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>X-Listname:
>
>>and as a VW mechanic (It paid my High School and College equivalent) I
>built the VW
>>engine convertion first, just for the fun of it.
>>
>>The Piet will not fly with one (maybe it was expesive to give it a try
and
>>fail), so the only "light wing loading" two seater alternative I found
was
>>the Tub...
>
>What if you used a reduction unit? How do you think a Piet would fly
then?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.5 F Degrees |
>Mike, since the only difference between our flights was were the decimal
>point was located in the temperature that must be the problem. ;-))
>
>Happy New Year.
>
>Ted
>
Ted ! Ahhhhh!!! Man, does your story sound alot more appealing than
mine. I'd really like to do some low level 'beach running' down there in
Florida
with you someday. It's getting there that's the bugger.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subj: VW Engines
Date: Fri, Jul 24, 1998 11:57 AM EDT
From: Andrew.Pietenpol(at)stpaul.com
To: GMacLaren(at)aol.com, PietenpolDon(at)Juno.com
This past week PBS aired a 3 hour show called "PLANE CRAZY." Hope you can
see it on public TV in your area!!
It was about a man who built (or attemptedto build) a plane in 30 days.
Any-who,
on his second 30 day attempt, he built a Fisher designed kit
"YOUNGSTER", with
the help of the Fisher family. (6 people it took)
A lesson can be learned here if you think about it; and the point about
VW engines
I want to demonstrate is this:
The Fisher plane weighed just 320 pounds (dry). The pilot added 180
lbs+. (It's a
single place plane.) It took off of from a super nice flat blacktop
runway of 2500+
feet. This "Youngster" ate up over half the runway, and barely flew --
with very
little extra power -- at about 45-50 mph behind its' VW engine . . .
"Struggle" may
be a better word.
The thinking part comes in here: People are always asking: "CAN I USE A VW
ENGINE IN A PIET?" The answer is a resounding "NO".
In the "Youngster" example you have an airplane weighing half that of
an Air
Camper, carrying only one person and operating in an almost perfect
environment
-- and it can barely fly.
Lets change a few elements in the equation: Using the same VW engine;
double
the weight to 650 lbs, double the people to 360 lbs, double the fuel to
80-100 lbs --
then take off from a short grass runway that has not been mowed in a
month. Add
a dew drop or two, and a few gopher holes. Hummmmmm. Do you want a VW
engine? NO WAY!
VW proponents will come back and say: "Well, you know they made some larger
displacement engines in the mid 70's." Increasing CC's does increase
the torque.
But the margin of improvement is not great enough, and most VW's are
middle-of-the-road type.
How often have you ever seen a Sky Scout or Air Camper fly behind a VW
engine? NEVER! It has been tried and it did not pan out.
Corvairs, A65's, A85's, Model A's, perform well, and I personally
believe (not
proven) that if a guy wanted to play around with that JABARU engine
certified out
of Austrailia, a lot of fun could be had at a moderate cost.
I see gear reduction kits and Rotax engines as places for things to go
wrong, parts
to break, and additional expense.
Follow the PLANS + Build it with Quality Materials = An Airplane that
flies well, is
safe and you can be proud of yourself when you fly/show it to others!!!
Andrew Pietenpol
A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of Pietenpol Air
Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft engine.
At my request, Brian supplied this article for use in our BPA
Newsletter and
for my use in answering the many Pietenpol newcomers who ask us "Can I
power a Piet with a VW engine?''
March 6, 1996 - Grant; for your use as requested. Feel free to
editorialize.
Why a VW "Beetle" engine is not a good choice in a Pietenpol!
A Volkswagen "Bug" engine and it's derivatives can produce enough
horsepower to
fly a Pietenpol Air Camper. This alone is not enough of a reason to
select it as a
Pietenpol engine. This is why.
The efficiency of a propeller (irrespective of how well it is designed)
is a function of
the difference between the speed of the airplane and the speed of the
propeller
wash. As the speed of the prop wash approaches the speed of the
airplane, the
propeller approaches 100% of theoretical efficiency.
At the same time, thrust is caused by the propeller throwing air
backwards. The
faster the air, the more the thrust. As the air speed approaches the
speed of the
airplane the thrust goes to zero! At zero forward speed the thrust is
maximum.
Put these two together and you see you can't have both at once. If the
airplane is
not moving it has a lot of thrust, its efficiency is zero--it is doing
no work. As the
airplane accelerates, the work (force times distance) and the
efficiency increases
but the thrust decreases. In the case of a zero drag airplane the
airplane can
accelerate until it reaches the thrust speed. There is zero thrust and
the propeller is
approaching 100% efficiency.
Since most aircraft don't have zero drag (especially Pietenpols!), the
airplane comes
to equilibrium somewhere between the two extremes. In the case of a
Piet with a
large propeller and a slow turning engine, it is when the propeller is
at about 75%
efficiency. You can not get better than that unless you clean up the drag.
One variable you can adjust in a propeller, that has an effect on
efficiency, is the
propeller diameter. The bigger the propeller the more air it can push
backwards.
Therefore for a given propeller wash speed there is more thrust. Or
another way to
look at it; for a required thrust, a bigger propeller needs less wash
speed. Therefore,
if you remember about efficiency, there is more efficiency because for
a given
thrust the velocity of the propeller wash is less.
Diameter also effects pitch. The larger the diameter, the less pitch
you need (the air
can move slower). This effects the speed range of the aircraft. A large
propeller is
like having a car with one low gear. A small propeller is like having
one high gear. If
you have a slow airplane, a low gear can work fine, in a fast airplane,
it won't work
because the engine will not produce any power to get going (fast
airplanes always
have surplus horsepower).
The relationship for best propeller efficiency has been determined to
be that the
propeller tip speed should be approximately 2.3 times the aircraft
speed at cruise.
This you can't achieve. The diameter is too large or the rpm is too
slow. The bigger
the diameter and the slower the engine the better. This is why World
War One
aircraft perform so well (best propeller efficiency) on low power -
1400 rpm engines
turning 80" propellers.. Because our engine choices require more revs.
to produce
power, we have to compromise and lose efficiency. A Piet with a 72"
propeller,
2300 max. rpm and 65 horsepower is the typical compromise with a
Continental
engine, but a Model "A" with 55 horsepower will do about the same.
Unfortunately,
to retain reliability, Model "A's" are usually built to produce 50
horsepower - or a bit
less.
The Corvair engine is another compromise. They have a loss of
efficiency due to
the small diameter propeller and accelerate poorly (due to the tall
gear effect) but
produces good power.
So how does this relate to a VW engine?
In order to use a Volkswagen engine, it has to really rev (over 3300
rpm) to produce
sufficient power. This requires a small propeller to keep the tip
speeds down. It
therefore has poor efficiency, or a too "tall" gear. If you pitch it so
you can take off,
you won't fly faster than about 50 mph. If you pitch it for cruise you
will need a
6000 ft strip for take-off! The Corvair works because it has surplus
horsepower and
can afford to waste some. The VW can't afford the wasted horsepower.
The only approach with a VW that will work is the one that Pazmany used
on his
PL-4. It uses a reduction belt. You then need a starter, and
alternator, wiring etc.
You also need to think about cooling. At 60 mph there is not much ram
air. The
Corvair requires a blower to get proper cooling. If you go this route
you have two
projects instead of one! In Pazmany's configuration, the installation
probably weighs
enough to allow an acceptable C.G. If not, this is your second major
problem. If you
solve these problems, get use to an engine revving like crazy, making
much noise, as
you cruise along.
Aircraft are a compromise. In a slow airplane you must use a large
displacement,
slow turning engine if you want to keep it simple!
How about a diesel?
Someone in the 1970's put a Mercedes diesel in a Pietenpol. They
brought it to
Oshkosh and created a lot of interest. The problem was it didn't have
enough
power. The engine was replaced with something else and it flew OK.
The limitation with diesel engines is their power-to-weight ratio. They
tend to be
heavy for the power they produce. The VW diesel engine is not that
heavy, but I
don't think that it will produce enough power. You need about 50 hp to
fly an Air
Camper - a bit less to fly the Sky Scout. You need this type of power
at no more
than about 2500 rpm. This is why a VW beetle engine is no good -
because you
have to rev it too high to obtain the needed power.
The other factors to consider in the over-all weight of a VW Diesel, is
that you will
probably need a gear reduction unit, and if you use a gear reduction
unit, you will
also need a starter. Water in the cooling system weighs 10 lbs. a
gallon etc. I am
sure you will be over 250 lbs. when you are finished.
Fuel is also an issue. You could use Jet A, but how will you get that
big hose nozzle
in your Pietenpol filler tube?
I am not trying to discourage anyone from developing a new airplane
design. Just
think about it long and hard before you try it. (And understand that
everthing you
change on an airplane produces and/or requires changes elsewhere in the
design.
gem)
I think building an airplane it enough of a project. Building an engine
is another
complete project. I know someone who has been putting an auto engine in
a flying
airplane and is now in his fifth year in doing so!
A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of Pietenpol Air
Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
engine.
Can you add folding wings to a Pietenpol?
As far as we know this has not been successfully done. It may be done
in the future
by some clever individual, but here are some of the design issues:
Assuming that the rear spar of the wing is the pivot point and the
wings fold straight
back without turning (like Tiger and Gypsy Moths), the first issue is
weight transfer.
As the wings fold back approximately 80 to 100 lbs go from near the
C.G. to a
distance of approximately 6 feet from the C.G. This weight transfer has
to be
handled via the rear fuselage to the tailwheel or skid. This means a
stronger and
stiffer tail spring. The fuselage may need strengthening. If you lift
by the tail it may
also need strengthening.
The center section of the wing behind the spar must be removed to allow the
folding. This is probably the easiest problem. The distance between the
two pivot
points must be equal to twice the distance between the rear spar and
the trailing
edge. If memory serves me correctly this is a major problem. The way to
solve this
problem is to put a hinge offset from the rear spar (to the rear). Then
the control
cables have to be disconnected. The major problem with this change is
that the rear
lift strut attachment point would have to be disconnected to fold the
wings. The
centerline of the hinge and the centerline of the strut attachment bolt
has to be the
same. The front strut has to be disconnected in either case. A spreader
is required
between the two struts (because of the inter-strut wires) and a support
is required to
hold the struts off the ground. The wings, if not supported by the
struts, are very
flimsy in torsion. You could move the rear attachment point for the
struts to below
the hinge point and attach the front strut to it. This is how the
Kitfox does it. Then
you have to redesign the fuselage and the cabanes as the loads are now
going in
different planes and values.
What effect are all these changes going to have on the finished
airplane weight and
C.G? The resulting airplane will not be a Pietenpol Air Camper.
The Pietenpol was designed to operate with a gross weight of 1050 lbs, a 50
horsepower engine and carry two people. It was designed to do this very
efficiently
with the minimum of structure. Adding a folding wing to an existing
design like the
Pietenpol is a difficult or maybe impossible task. If you want this
feature I would
consider building a Kitfox instead of a Pietenpol.
Bernard Pietenpol did design and built a biplane in 1926; three years
before he built
his two-place Air Camper and five years before his one-place Sky Scout.
Mr. Pietenpol's biplane was his second ship. It was Gnome-powered (a
rotary) and
never flew more than a few feet. As a flying machine, it was not a
success, but no
doubt provided valuable lessons for his future accomplishments.
No plans were ever drawn; and no Pietenpol Biplane has been built since Mr.
Pietenpol's 1926 experiment.
In recent years, at least one designer claims to have ''modified'' a
Pietenpol Air
Camper by adding a wing. It certainly was not a ''Pietenpol.'' Although
its designer
wrote a glowing account of it for Sport Aviation more than ten years
ago, it has not
been built in any quantity.
One of our BPA members owned the ''modified'' plane in its last years.
Here is
what he said about it.
''Dear Grant,
I can't remember the year now but I met you and Howard Henderson at Creve
Coeur airport not long after Howard made his first flight in N444MH. At
the time
my good friend, Roger Moore and I owned the ''biplane version'' of the
Piet. You
may recall that it had some aerodynamic problems that I considered to
be just an
extreme aft CG problem. I began to tackle the problem by moving the
battery from
a position just aft of the rear seat to the floor of the front cockpit
just aft of the
firewall bulkhead.
''There was some improvement in pitch stability with this change so I
believed that I
was on the right track. I then added lead ingots to the engine
compartment as far
forward as I could get them. At twenty pounds of lead in the engine
compartment a
definite improvement in pitch stability could be felt. I had a friend
stand out by the
runway edge to watch the elevator as I made a full stall landing. He
reported that
coming into the flare the elevator was about 15 degrees down and when
the airplane
touched down in a full stall the elevator was only just level with the
horizontal
stabilizer.
''Obviously I was still a long way from solving the problem. An
aeronautical
engineer friend, Lee Lawson, took very careful measurements and weights and
made a biplane computer study for us. I don't recall the exact findings
now but it
went something like this: Move the top wing aft 16 inches, (this would
have made it
a staggerwing), increase the horizontal stabilizer dimensions by 20
percent, (that part
was doable), but the last recommendation made the hair stand up on the
back of my
neck: Add 110 pounds of ballast to the firewall. No telling how many
guys had come
close to disaster whilst flying her. We donated her to the St. Louis
Aviation Museum
as a permanent static display. Unfortunately, she was taken by the last
flood."
(signed) Charles D. Trevena (2 Winegarden Ct., O'Fallon MO 63366)
... Certainly no one in the BPA would discourage anyone from designing and
building their own biplane. But this writer, and many others in our
association, would
be very disappointed if Mr. Pietenpol's name was attached to another
person's
design. It would NOT be a Pietenpol.
Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one change
requires many
other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be just that --
a new design. It
should not carry the name "Pietenpol."
Pietenpols forever!
-=Grant MacLaren=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com> |
> 1) The airplane was higher making it more difficult to get in,
>
Many thanks for the reply. The attraction of "Mr Sam" was the jaunty
appearance of the noise pointing into the air while sitting on those big tires.
But, I'm looking for a ship that I could fly for the next 30 years... looks like
the smalller tires will be better to live with, as well as more affordable.
Regards,
Dick Winkel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center
section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center
>section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel.
>
Larry- I put a 17 gallon nose tank in my Piet and used the
entire center section for luggage. You could put whatever you
want in the center section really. You'd have to see if they
make an affordable chute for a potentially 1100 lb. gross weight
vs. the ultralight versions. My guess is that it would be BIG $$$.
If you build it right, you'd never need to think of using a BRS
anywho. You could almost land one of these on a football field.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center
> >section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel.
> >
> Larry- I put a 17 gallon nose tank in my Piet and used the
> entire center section for luggage. You could put whatever you
> want in the center section really. You'd have to see if they
> make an affordable chute for a potentially 1100 lb. gross weight
> vs. the ultralight versions. My guess is that it would be BIG $$$.
> If you build it right, you'd never need to think of using a BRS
> anywho. You could almost land one of these on a football field.
>
> Mike C.
>
Unless you plan on using structural steel I-beams for spars, how will
building it right help you land a Piet in a football field after a dozing
King Air pilot clips 12' off your right wing? What if your're flying
around the mountains or forest or crowded city and have an engine failure?
or, an unintentional spin at 200' (yup, these things will help you from
50' up)?
Not convinced? Try http://users.aol.com/BRSchute/BRS.HTML for more
details. A 1050 (coresponds to gross weight of plane) softpack looks like
it might fit in the center section of the wing and is available for $2895
and thier 1200 Vertical Launch System is available for $3295. Plus, they
have 10% off until Jan 15.
Hope this helps. I already have a spot picked out for my installation even
though I'll need the 1500 version.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
Before I decided on the Piet I attended a forum at Oshkosh on the
Hummelbird. Moray Hummel quoted..." Why would you want to add extra weight
and complexity trying to anchor a chute to the airframe? If it ain't safe
don't get in it!"
The Piets and the GN-1 both have an excellent structural record no in flight
airframe failures attributed to the design. Now if we can only get the
pilots to be that good.......
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 1:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRS
>Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center
>section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 11:15 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRS
>Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center
>section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel.
>
>
Yes there was. A fellow in New Hampshire built a Piet a while back with a
BRS. I saw it at Rhinebeck. I believe it was at the Piet fly-in which was
held at Cole Palens' that year. I don't recall the builder's name, but he
had a BRS for sure. Where the chute was located, I don't remember either.
Sorry, not much help.
I do recall that Ed Snyder & I ( we both flew our Piets in ) didn't think it
was such a good idea.
A few years back I researched all the Piet accidents in the FAA files. There
was only one structural failure & that was in a Piet whose lift struts
collapsed under negative gs. The aircraft did not have jury struts.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
I plan on being there.
Ted
Naples, FL
>Gentlemen-
>
> I know it's only January but I would like to take a straw
>poll of everyone on-line to see who may possibly be coming WITH
>their Piet to EAA 99 for the 70th year Anniversary.
>Try to be realistic- I know everyone who's close would like to say
>yes, but for estimating the count I'd rather hedge on the more
>definite possibilities.
> REMEMBER even if you have just started your Piet or maybe
>have a year or so to finish you too can contribute to this event's
>success by spreading the word to anyone who
>has a flying Piet/GN-1 to seriously consider joining our squadron
>of Bernie's beauties. This is our golden opportunity to give this wonderful
>little affordable design a place in the spotlight and give a shot in the arm
>to guys who just can't afford a Glassair or Lancair.
>
> Earl Myers here in OH has a beautiful Ford powered Sky Scout
>covered and on the gear which I'm hoping will make the trip to Wisc.
>this summer and I hope many more of you might also be able to
>make a strong showing at Oshkosh. It's not too late to kick it in high
>gear. Last year at this time I JUST finished fabric covering and was
>starting to put on the silver, etc. and just made the trip to Wisc. in time.
>
> Grant MacLaren is spearheading this effort with EAA and seeing that
>this is his
>last official year as our BPAN editor we should not only try to make this
>a banner year as a tribute to the Pietenpol family, but to show thanks to Grant
>for all he has so freely given to us.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Vortex generators |
I was at the airport the other day and asked one of the ultralite pilots
what the metal angles were on the leading edge of his wing. He told me
they were vortex generators that helped to increase lift and decrease
stall speed.by directing better airflow over the wing. Thought they
might be used on the Piet to improve performance. If not it makes for
interesting info. I just typed in" vortex generator" in the search for
differant links. I was amazed at the improvements for aircraft by using
such small angled pieces of metal !
phil
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vortex generators |
Phil,
The Hawker 800 XP uses 'em too. I think they are more effective in the rain.
With a wet wing, the air tends to become seperated from the wing, and the
vortex generators help to prevent this from hapening, especially with a
laminar flow (high speed) airfoil.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
I wont even pretend to know what I'm talking about, But...
VW engine with psru, 65 hp 65hpx5252/2330rpm=146.5 ft-lbs
C-65 engine direct drive 65 hpx5252/2400rpm=142 ft-lbs
Does this mean that the limiting factor of the 65 hp volkswagon engine
with psru attached is cooling, or am i missing something about torque?
I assume that in this situation both would use a nearly equal propeller.
ocb
>From steve(at)byu.edu Thu Jan 7 05:03:05 1999
>Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 1074"@adena.byu.edu
[128.187.22.180])
> by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
> with ESMTP id <01J68YXTXIK48WWIX0(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:01:37 -0500
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: VW Info
>Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>Message-id: <6100A25EB(at)adena.byu.edu>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 (via Mercury MTS
v1.44 (NDS))
> (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
>Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>X-Listname:
>
>
> Subj: VW Engines
> Date: Fri, Jul 24, 1998 11:57 AM EDT
> From: Andrew.Pietenpol(at)stpaul.com
> To: GMacLaren(at)aol.com, PietenpolDon(at)Juno.com
>
> This past week PBS aired a 3 hour show called "PLANE CRAZY." Hope
you can
> see it on public TV in your area!!
>
> It was about a man who built (or attemptedto build) a plane in 30
days.
>Any-who,
> on his second 30 day attempt, he built a Fisher designed kit
>"YOUNGSTER", with
> the help of the Fisher family. (6 people it took)
>
> A lesson can be learned here if you think about it; and the point
about
>VW engines
> I want to demonstrate is this:
>
> The Fisher plane weighed just 320 pounds (dry). The pilot added 180
>lbs+. (It's a
> single place plane.) It took off of from a super nice flat blacktop
>runway of 2500+
> feet. This "Youngster" ate up over half the runway, and barely flew
--
>with very
> little extra power -- at about 45-50 mph behind its' VW engine . .
.
>"Struggle" may
> be a better word.
>
> The thinking part comes in here: People are always asking: "CAN I
USE A VW
> ENGINE IN A PIET?" The answer is a resounding "NO".
>
> In the "Youngster" example you have an airplane weighing half that
of
>an Air
> Camper, carrying only one person and operating in an almost perfect
>environment
> -- and it can barely fly.
>
> Lets change a few elements in the equation: Using the same VW
engine;
>double
> the weight to 650 lbs, double the people to 360 lbs, double the
fuel to
>80-100 lbs --
> then take off from a short grass runway that has not been mowed in
a
>month. Add
> a dew drop or two, and a few gopher holes. Hummmmmm. Do you want a
VW
> engine? NO WAY!
>
> VW proponents will come back and say: "Well, you know they made
some larger
> displacement engines in the mid 70's." Increasing CC's does
increase
>the torque.
> But the margin of improvement is not great enough, and most VW's
are
> middle-of-the-road type.
>
> How often have you ever seen a Sky Scout or Air Camper fly behind a
VW
> engine? NEVER! It has been tried and it did not pan out.
>
> Corvairs, A65's, A85's, Model A's, perform well, and I personally
>believe (not
> proven) that if a guy wanted to play around with that JABARU engine
>certified out
> of Austrailia, a lot of fun could be had at a moderate cost.
>
> I see gear reduction kits and Rotax engines as places for things to
go
>wrong, parts
> to break, and additional expense.
>
> Follow the PLANS + Build it with Quality Materials = An Airplane
that
>flies well, is
> safe and you can be proud of yourself when you fly/show it to
others!!!
>
> Andrew Pietenpol
>
>
> A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
> The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
> Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
Pietenpol Air
> Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
engine.
> At my request, Brian supplied this article for use in our BPA
>Newsletter and
> for my use in answering the many Pietenpol newcomers who ask us
"Can I
> power a Piet with a VW engine?''
>
> March 6, 1996 - Grant; for your use as requested. Feel free to
>editorialize.
>
> Why a VW "Beetle" engine is not a good choice in a Pietenpol!
>
> A Volkswagen "Bug" engine and it's derivatives can produce enough
>horsepower to
> fly a Pietenpol Air Camper. This alone is not enough of a reason to
>select it as a
> Pietenpol engine. This is why.
>
> The efficiency of a propeller (irrespective of how well it is
designed)
>is a function of
> the difference between the speed of the airplane and the speed of
the
>propeller
> wash. As the speed of the prop wash approaches the speed of the
>airplane, the
> propeller approaches 100% of theoretical efficiency.
>
> At the same time, thrust is caused by the propeller throwing air
>backwards. The
> faster the air, the more the thrust. As the air speed approaches
the
>speed of the
> airplane the thrust goes to zero! At zero forward speed the thrust
is
>maximum.
>
> Put these two together and you see you can't have both at once. If
the
>airplane is
> not moving it has a lot of thrust, its efficiency is zero--it is
doing
>no work. As the
> airplane accelerates, the work (force times distance) and the
>efficiency increases
> but the thrust decreases. In the case of a zero drag airplane the
>airplane can
> accelerate until it reaches the thrust speed. There is zero thrust
and
>the propeller is
> approaching 100% efficiency.
>
> Since most aircraft don't have zero drag (especially Pietenpols!),
the
>airplane comes
> to equilibrium somewhere between the two extremes. In the case of a
>Piet with a
> large propeller and a slow turning engine, it is when the propeller
is
>at about 75%
> efficiency. You can not get better than that unless you clean up
the drag.
>
> One variable you can adjust in a propeller, that has an effect on
>efficiency, is the
> propeller diameter. The bigger the propeller the more air it can
push
>backwards.
> Therefore for a given propeller wash speed there is more thrust. Or
>another way to
> look at it; for a required thrust, a bigger propeller needs less
wash
>speed. Therefore,
> if you remember about efficiency, there is more efficiency because
for
>a given
> thrust the velocity of the propeller wash is less.
>
> Diameter also effects pitch. The larger the diameter, the less
pitch
>you need (the air
> can move slower). This effects the speed range of the aircraft. A
large
>propeller is
> like having a car with one low gear. A small propeller is like
having
>one high gear. If
> you have a slow airplane, a low gear can work fine, in a fast
airplane,
>it won't work
> because the engine will not produce any power to get going (fast
>airplanes always
> have surplus horsepower).
>
> The relationship for best propeller efficiency has been determined
to
>be that the
> propeller tip speed should be approximately 2.3 times the aircraft
>speed at cruise.
> This you can't achieve. The diameter is too large or the rpm is too
>slow. The bigger
> the diameter and the slower the engine the better. This is why
World
>War One
> aircraft perform so well (best propeller efficiency) on low power -
>1400 rpm engines
> turning 80" propellers.. Because our engine choices require more
revs.
>to produce
> power, we have to compromise and lose efficiency. A Piet with a 72"
>propeller,
> 2300 max. rpm and 65 horsepower is the typical compromise with a
>Continental
> engine, but a Model "A" with 55 horsepower will do about the same.
>Unfortunately,
> to retain reliability, Model "A's" are usually built to produce 50
>horsepower - or a bit
> less.
>
> The Corvair engine is another compromise. They have a loss of
>efficiency due to
> the small diameter propeller and accelerate poorly (due to the tall
>gear effect) but
> produces good power.
>
> So how does this relate to a VW engine?
>
> In order to use a Volkswagen engine, it has to really rev (over
3300
>rpm) to produce
> sufficient power. This requires a small propeller to keep the tip
>speeds down. It
> therefore has poor efficiency, or a too "tall" gear. If you pitch
it so
>you can take off,
> you won't fly faster than about 50 mph. If you pitch it for cruise
you
>will need a
> 6000 ft strip for take-off! The Corvair works because it has
surplus
>horsepower and
> can afford to waste some. The VW can't afford the wasted
horsepower.
>
> The only approach with a VW that will work is the one that Pazmany
used
>on his
> PL-4. It uses a reduction belt. You then need a starter, and
>alternator, wiring etc.
> You also need to think about cooling. At 60 mph there is not much
ram
>air. The
> Corvair requires a blower to get proper cooling. If you go this
route
>you have two
> projects instead of one! In Pazmany's configuration, the
installation
>probably weighs
> enough to allow an acceptable C.G. If not, this is your second
major
>problem. If you
> solve these problems, get use to an engine revving like crazy,
making
>much noise, as
> you cruise along.
>
> Aircraft are a compromise. In a slow airplane you must use a large
>displacement,
> slow turning engine if you want to keep it simple!
>
> How about a diesel?
> Someone in the 1970's put a Mercedes diesel in a Pietenpol. They
>brought it to
> Oshkosh and created a lot of interest. The problem was it didn't
have
>enough
> power. The engine was replaced with something else and it flew OK.
>
> The limitation with diesel engines is their power-to-weight ratio.
They
>tend to be
> heavy for the power they produce. The VW diesel engine is not that
>heavy, but I
> don't think that it will produce enough power. You need about 50 hp
to
>fly an Air
> Camper - a bit less to fly the Sky Scout. You need this type of
power
>at no more
> than about 2500 rpm. This is why a VW beetle engine is no good -
>because you
> have to rev it too high to obtain the needed power.
>
> The other factors to consider in the over-all weight of a VW
Diesel, is
>that you will
> probably need a gear reduction unit, and if you use a gear
reduction
>unit, you will
> also need a starter. Water in the cooling system weighs 10 lbs. a
>gallon etc. I am
> sure you will be over 250 lbs. when you are finished.
>
> Fuel is also an issue. You could use Jet A, but how will you get
that
>big hose nozzle
> in your Pietenpol filler tube?
>
> I am not trying to discourage anyone from developing a new airplane
>design. Just
> think about it long and hard before you try it. (And understand
that
>everthing you
> change on an airplane produces and/or requires changes elsewhere in
the
>design.
> gem)
>
> I think building an airplane it enough of a project. Building an
engine
>is another
> complete project. I know someone who has been putting an auto
engine in
>a flying
> airplane and is now in his fifth year in doing so!
>
>
> A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
> The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
> Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
Pietenpol Air
> Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
>engine.
>
> Can you add folding wings to a Pietenpol?
>
> As far as we know this has not been successfully done. It may be
done
>in the future
> by some clever individual, but here are some of the design issues:
>
> Assuming that the rear spar of the wing is the pivot point and the
>wings fold straight
> back without turning (like Tiger and Gypsy Moths), the first issue
is
>weight transfer.
> As the wings fold back approximately 80 to 100 lbs go from near the
>C.G. to a
> distance of approximately 6 feet from the C.G. This weight transfer
has
>to be
> handled via the rear fuselage to the tailwheel or skid. This means
a
>stronger and
> stiffer tail spring. The fuselage may need strengthening. If you
lift
>by the tail it may
> also need strengthening.
>
> The center section of the wing behind the spar must be removed to
allow the
> folding. This is probably the easiest problem. The distance between
the
>two pivot
> points must be equal to twice the distance between the rear spar
and
>the trailing
> edge. If memory serves me correctly this is a major problem. The
way to
>solve this
> problem is to put a hinge offset from the rear spar (to the rear).
Then
>the control
> cables have to be disconnected. The major problem with this change
is
>that the rear
> lift strut attachment point would have to be disconnected to fold
the
>wings. The
> centerline of the hinge and the centerline of the strut attachment
bolt
>has to be the
> same. The front strut has to be disconnected in either case. A
spreader
>is required
> between the two struts (because of the inter-strut wires) and a
support
>is required to
> hold the struts off the ground. The wings, if not supported by the
>struts, are very
> flimsy in torsion. You could move the rear attachment point for the
>struts to below
> the hinge point and attach the front strut to it. This is how the
>Kitfox does it. Then
> you have to redesign the fuselage and the cabanes as the loads are
now
>going in
> different planes and values.
>
> What effect are all these changes going to have on the finished
>airplane weight and
> C.G? The resulting airplane will not be a Pietenpol Air Camper.
>
> The Pietenpol was designed to operate with a gross weight of 1050
lbs, a 50
> horsepower engine and carry two people. It was designed to do this
very
>efficiently
> with the minimum of structure. Adding a folding wing to an existing
>design like the
> Pietenpol is a difficult or maybe impossible task. If you want this
>feature I would
> consider building a Kitfox instead of a Pietenpol.
>
>
> Bernard Pietenpol did design and built a biplane in 1926; three
years
>before he built
> his two-place Air Camper and five years before his one-place Sky
Scout.
>
> Mr. Pietenpol's biplane was his second ship. It was Gnome-powered
(a
>rotary) and
> never flew more than a few feet. As a flying machine, it was not a
>success, but no
> doubt provided valuable lessons for his future accomplishments.
>
> No plans were ever drawn; and no Pietenpol Biplane has been built
since Mr.
> Pietenpol's 1926 experiment.
>
> In recent years, at least one designer claims to have ''modified''
a
>Pietenpol Air
> Camper by adding a wing. It certainly was not a ''Pietenpol.''
Although
>its designer
> wrote a glowing account of it for Sport Aviation more than ten
years
>ago, it has not
> been built in any quantity.
>
> One of our BPA members owned the ''modified'' plane in its last
years.
>Here is
> what he said about it.
>
> ''Dear Grant,
> I can't remember the year now but I met you and Howard Henderson at
Creve
> Coeur airport not long after Howard made his first flight in
N444MH. At
>the time
> my good friend, Roger Moore and I owned the ''biplane version'' of
the
>Piet. You
> may recall that it had some aerodynamic problems that I considered
to
>be just an
> extreme aft CG problem. I began to tackle the problem by moving the
>battery from
> a position just aft of the rear seat to the floor of the front
cockpit
>just aft of the
> firewall bulkhead.
>
> ''There was some improvement in pitch stability with this change so
I
>believed that I
> was on the right track. I then added lead ingots to the engine
>compartment as far
> forward as I could get them. At twenty pounds of lead in the engine
>compartment a
> definite improvement in pitch stability could be felt. I had a
friend
>stand out by the
> runway edge to watch the elevator as I made a full stall landing.
He
>reported that
> coming into the flare the elevator was about 15 degrees down and
when
>the airplane
> touched down in a full stall the elevator was only just level with
the
>horizontal
> stabilizer.
>
> ''Obviously I was still a long way from solving the problem. An
>aeronautical
> engineer friend, Lee Lawson, took very careful measurements and
weights and
> made a biplane computer study for us. I don't recall the exact
findings
>now but it
> went something like this: Move the top wing aft 16 inches, (this
would
>have made it
> a staggerwing), increase the horizontal stabilizer dimensions by 20
>percent, (that part
> was doable), but the last recommendation made the hair stand up on
the
>back of my
> neck: Add 110 pounds of ballast to the firewall. No telling how
many
>guys had come
> close to disaster whilst flying her. We donated her to the St.
Louis
>Aviation Museum
> as a permanent static display. Unfortunately, she was taken by the
last
>flood."
> (signed) Charles D. Trevena (2 Winegarden Ct., O'Fallon MO 63366)
>
> ... Certainly no one in the BPA would discourage anyone from
designing and
> building their own biplane. But this writer, and many others in our
>association, would
> be very disappointed if Mr. Pietenpol's name was attached to
another
>person's
> design. It would NOT be a Pietenpol.
>
> Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one change
>requires many
> other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be just that
--
>a new design. It
> should not carry the name "Pietenpol."
>
> Pietenpols forever!
> -=Grant MacLaren=-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
>I plan on being there.
>
>Ted
>Naples, FL
TED- EXCELLENT !!!
Grant MacLaren has just asked me to be the 'clearinghouse'
to keep track of who is coming to EAA 99.
EAA is planning on having us all fly in together and giving
us special parking all together. More later from Grant I'm
sure.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Ken B. wrote:
>Unless you plan on using structural steel I-beams for spars, how will
>building it right help you land a Piet in a football field after a dozing
>King Air pilot clips 12' off your right wing? What if your're flying
>around the mountains or forest or crowded city and have an engine failure?
>or, an unintentional spin at 200' (yup, these things will help you from
>50' up)?
Ken- You are exactly right with the above info. It would be nice to
have if you aren't knocked unconcious and can't activate the BRS or
if you aren't on fire and don't want to ride out the descent of a chute.
I hear that the Cirrus or something is coming from the factory with
a BRS as standard equip.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
To All:
I recall hearing about someone building a scaled up (1.25) Piet. Does
anyone have any information about that project and who the builder is?
Thanks.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >I plan on being there.
> >
> >Ted
> >Naples, FL
>
> TED- EXCELLENT !!!
>
> Grant MacLaren has just asked me to be the 'clearinghouse'
> to keep track of who is coming to EAA 99.
> EAA is planning on having us all fly in together and giving
> us special parking all together. More later from Grant I'm
> sure.
>
> Mike C.
Are those of us who are still in the building stage invited to come
join this party and camp out with all you lucky people who are flying
yours?
Gordon
Wing Ribs Layed Out.
________________________________________________________________________________
KING AIR PILOTS DON'T DOZE..........THEY SNOOZE!
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 8:25 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: BRS
>Ken B. wrote:
>
>>Unless you plan on using structural steel I-beams for spars, how will
>>building it right help you land a Piet in a football field after a dozing
>>King Air pilot clips 12' off your right wing? What if your're flying
>>around the mountains or forest or crowded city and have an engine failure?
>>or, an unintentional spin at 200' (yup, these things will help you from
>>50' up)?
>
>Ken- You are exactly right with the above info. It would be nice to
>have if you aren't knocked unconcious and can't activate the BRS or
>if you aren't on fire and don't want to ride out the descent of a chute.
>I hear that the Cirrus or something is coming from the factory with
>a BRS as standard equip.
>
>Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ESchlanser(at)aol.com |
<< Now if we can only get the pilots to be that good....... >>
I'm a CFII lurker from the Tailwind group, but I've got to step in here.
You have revealed a significant reason for the 'chutes. As pilots, we are not
always as good as we should be. Sometimes as pilots our mistakes or
misperceptions will result in consequences out of proportion to the original
simple, honest miscalculation. In that case, the ace in the hole might be a
'chute. The BRS 'chute warrented front page on the Wall Street Journal (or was
it the NY Times) with the story that Cirrus Designs had attached one to their
newly certificated SR20. This design feature is the only comprehensible answer
to many non-pilots to the question, "What happens when the engine quits?". It
was a surprise to the reporter that some pilots objected to the 'chutes. Their
arguments that the extra weight will detract from payoad and performance, that
unintended ground damage could result, and the associated expense of a
totalled airframe all were not justifiable arguments to the 200 people who
have already ordered these airplanes. There are many people who want two
engines, some want seat belts, and some now want 'chutes. It's a reduction in
risk that many have chosen to take for the sake of their families and friends.
It's also a really new solution to the safety of GA airframes. If you want to
ride a motorcycle without a helmet or fly without a 'chute, it's still a free
country. Now if you talk about mandating these 'chutes on GA planes, you may
have a basis for argument. But, to deny their usefulness is rigidity to change
and progress and you expose yourself to logical arguments in their favor.
Someone, somewhere, sometime will run out of gas above an overcast without an
instrument rating or even gyro instruments and need this device. Other
situations come to mind, but I need to get out of here. Hope this helps.
Respectfully submitted, Eric Schlanser
________________________________________________________________________________
Sounds to me if your figures are correct that the VW would be a better
engine and could even swing a larger prop than the C-65
As in all cases you will find people will justify what they like even though
other things are good. But what do I know, I am learning also. Lists I am
on.
VW Power
AirSoob
KitFox
RagWing
Jodel
KR
Storch
Pietenpol
FishNet
Gordon
RW1 UL Piet Building
Pietenpol Building
Plans I have:
RW1 Piet Ultra
Pietenpol
RW2 Special Pitts
RW8 PT2S Trainer
RW11 Vagabond
J-3 Cub
C 150
Powell P-H Racer
Heath Glider
Ramsey Flying Bath Tub
Lawrence Water Glider
oil can wrote:
> I wont even pretend to know what I'm talking about, But...
>
> VW engine with psru, 65 hp 65hpx5252/2330rpm=146.5 ft-lbs
>
> C-65 engine direct drive 65 hpx5252/2400rpm=142 ft-lbs
>
> Does this mean that the limiting factor of the 65 hp volkswagon engine
> with psru attached is cooling, or am i missing something about torque?
> I assume that in this situation both would use a nearly equal propeller.
> ocb
>
> >From steve(at)byu.edu Thu Jan 7 05:03:05 1999
> >Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 1074"@adena.byu.edu
> [128.187.22.180])
> > by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
> > with ESMTP id <01J68YXTXIK48WWIX0(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
> oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
> >Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:01:37 -0500
> >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> >Subject: VW Info
> >Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
> >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Message-id: <6100A25EB(at)adena.byu.edu>
> >MIME-version: 1.0
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 (via Mercury MTS
> v1.44 (NDS))
> > (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
> >Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> >X-Listname:
> >
> >
> >
> > Subj: VW Engines
> > Date: Fri, Jul 24, 1998 11:57 AM EDT
> > From: Andrew.Pietenpol(at)stpaul.com
> > To: GMacLaren(at)aol.com, PietenpolDon(at)Juno.com
> >
> > This past week PBS aired a 3 hour show called "PLANE CRAZY." Hope
> you can
> > see it on public TV in your area!!
> >
> > It was about a man who built (or attemptedto build) a plane in 30
> days.
> >Any-who,
> > on his second 30 day attempt, he built a Fisher designed kit
> >"YOUNGSTER", with
> > the help of the Fisher family. (6 people it took)
> >
> > A lesson can be learned here if you think about it; and the point
> about
> >VW engines
> > I want to demonstrate is this:
> >
> > The Fisher plane weighed just 320 pounds (dry). The pilot added 180
> >lbs+. (It's a
> > single place plane.) It took off of from a super nice flat blacktop
> >runway of 2500+
> > feet. This "Youngster" ate up over half the runway, and barely flew
> --
> >with very
> > little extra power -- at about 45-50 mph behind its' VW engine . .
> .
> >"Struggle" may
> > be a better word.
> >
> > The thinking part comes in here: People are always asking: "CAN I
> USE A VW
> > ENGINE IN A PIET?" The answer is a resounding "NO".
> >
> > In the "Youngster" example you have an airplane weighing half that
> of
> >an Air
> > Camper, carrying only one person and operating in an almost perfect
> >environment
> > -- and it can barely fly.
> >
> > Lets change a few elements in the equation: Using the same VW
> engine;
> >double
> > the weight to 650 lbs, double the people to 360 lbs, double the
> fuel to
> >80-100 lbs --
> > then take off from a short grass runway that has not been mowed in
> a
> >month. Add
> > a dew drop or two, and a few gopher holes. Hummmmmm. Do you want a
> VW
> > engine? NO WAY!
> >
> > VW proponents will come back and say: "Well, you know they made
> some larger
> > displacement engines in the mid 70's." Increasing CC's does
> increase
> >the torque.
> > But the margin of improvement is not great enough, and most VW's
> are
> > middle-of-the-road type.
> >
> > How often have you ever seen a Sky Scout or Air Camper fly behind a
> VW
> > engine? NEVER! It has been tried and it did not pan out.
> >
> > Corvairs, A65's, A85's, Model A's, perform well, and I personally
> >believe (not
> > proven) that if a guy wanted to play around with that JABARU engine
> >certified out
> > of Austrailia, a lot of fun could be had at a moderate cost.
> >
> > I see gear reduction kits and Rotax engines as places for things to
> go
> >wrong, parts
> > to break, and additional expense.
> >
> > Follow the PLANS + Build it with Quality Materials = An Airplane
> that
> >flies well, is
> > safe and you can be proud of yourself when you fly/show it to
> others!!!
> >
> > Andrew Pietenpol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
> > The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
> > Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
> Pietenpol Air
> > Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
> engine.
> > At my request, Brian supplied this article for use in our BPA
> >Newsletter and
> > for my use in answering the many Pietenpol newcomers who ask us
> "Can I
> > power a Piet with a VW engine?''
> >
> > March 6, 1996 - Grant; for your use as requested. Feel free to
> >editorialize.
> >
> > Why a VW "Beetle" engine is not a good choice in a Pietenpol!
> >
> > A Volkswagen "Bug" engine and it's derivatives can produce enough
> >horsepower to
> > fly a Pietenpol Air Camper. This alone is not enough of a reason to
> >select it as a
> > Pietenpol engine. This is why.
> >
> > The efficiency of a propeller (irrespective of how well it is
> designed)
> >is a function of
> > the difference between the speed of the airplane and the speed of
> the
> >propeller
> > wash. As the speed of the prop wash approaches the speed of the
> >airplane, the
> > propeller approaches 100% of theoretical efficiency.
> >
> > At the same time, thrust is caused by the propeller throwing air
> >backwards. The
> > faster the air, the more the thrust. As the air speed approaches
> the
> >speed of the
> > airplane the thrust goes to zero! At zero forward speed the thrust
> is
> >maximum.
> >
> > Put these two together and you see you can't have both at once. If
> the
> >airplane is
> > not moving it has a lot of thrust, its efficiency is zero--it is
> doing
> >no work. As the
> > airplane accelerates, the work (force times distance) and the
> >efficiency increases
> > but the thrust decreases. In the case of a zero drag airplane the
> >airplane can
> > accelerate until it reaches the thrust speed. There is zero thrust
> and
> >the propeller is
> > approaching 100% efficiency.
> >
> > Since most aircraft don't have zero drag (especially Pietenpols!),
> the
> >airplane comes
> > to equilibrium somewhere between the two extremes. In the case of a
> >Piet with a
> > large propeller and a slow turning engine, it is when the propeller
> is
> >at about 75%
> > efficiency. You can not get better than that unless you clean up
> the drag.
> >
> > One variable you can adjust in a propeller, that has an effect on
> >efficiency, is the
> > propeller diameter. The bigger the propeller the more air it can
> push
> >backwards.
> > Therefore for a given propeller wash speed there is more thrust. Or
> >another way to
> > look at it; for a required thrust, a bigger propeller needs less
> wash
> >speed. Therefore,
> > if you remember about efficiency, there is more efficiency because
> for
> >a given
> > thrust the velocity of the propeller wash is less.
> >
> > Diameter also effects pitch. The larger the diameter, the less
> pitch
> >you need (the air
> > can move slower). This effects the speed range of the aircraft. A
> large
> >propeller is
> > like having a car with one low gear. A small propeller is like
> having
> >one high gear. If
> > you have a slow airplane, a low gear can work fine, in a fast
> airplane,
> >it won't work
> > because the engine will not produce any power to get going (fast
> >airplanes always
> > have surplus horsepower).
> >
> > The relationship for best propeller efficiency has been determined
> to
> >be that the
> > propeller tip speed should be approximately 2.3 times the aircraft
> >speed at cruise.
> > This you can't achieve. The diameter is too large or the rpm is too
> >slow. The bigger
> > the diameter and the slower the engine the better. This is why
> World
> >War One
> > aircraft perform so well (best propeller efficiency) on low power -
> >1400 rpm engines
> > turning 80" propellers.. Because our engine choices require more
> revs.
> >to produce
> > power, we have to compromise and lose efficiency. A Piet with a 72"
> >propeller,
> > 2300 max. rpm and 65 horsepower is the typical compromise with a
> >Continental
> > engine, but a Model "A" with 55 horsepower will do about the same.
> >Unfortunately,
> > to retain reliability, Model "A's" are usually built to produce 50
> >horsepower - or a bit
> > less.
> >
> > The Corvair engine is another compromise. They have a loss of
> >efficiency due to
> > the small diameter propeller and accelerate poorly (due to the tall
> >gear effect) but
> > produces good power.
> >
> > So how does this relate to a VW engine?
> >
> > In order to use a Volkswagen engine, it has to really rev (over
> 3300
> >rpm) to produce
> > sufficient power. This requires a small propeller to keep the tip
> >speeds down. It
> > therefore has poor efficiency, or a too "tall" gear. If you pitch
> it so
> >you can take off,
> > you won't fly faster than about 50 mph. If you pitch it for cruise
> you
> >will need a
> > 6000 ft strip for take-off! The Corvair works because it has
> surplus
> >horsepower and
> > can afford to waste some. The VW can't afford the wasted
> horsepower.
> >
> > The only approach with a VW that will work is the one that Pazmany
> used
> >on his
> > PL-4. It uses a reduction belt. You then need a starter, and
> >alternator, wiring etc.
> > You also need to think about cooling. At 60 mph there is not much
> ram
> >air. The
> > Corvair requires a blower to get proper cooling. If you go this
> route
> >you have two
> > projects instead of one! In Pazmany's configuration, the
> installation
> >probably weighs
> > enough to allow an acceptable C.G. If not, this is your second
> major
> >problem. If you
> > solve these problems, get use to an engine revving like crazy,
> making
> >much noise, as
> > you cruise along.
> >
> > Aircraft are a compromise. In a slow airplane you must use a large
> >displacement,
> > slow turning engine if you want to keep it simple!
> >
> > How about a diesel?
> > Someone in the 1970's put a Mercedes diesel in a Pietenpol. They
> >brought it to
> > Oshkosh and created a lot of interest. The problem was it didn't
> have
> >enough
> > power. The engine was replaced with something else and it flew OK.
> >
> > The limitation with diesel engines is their power-to-weight ratio.
> They
> >tend to be
> > heavy for the power they produce. The VW diesel engine is not that
> >heavy, but I
> > don't think that it will produce enough power. You need about 50 hp
> to
> >fly an Air
> > Camper - a bit less to fly the Sky Scout. You need this type of
> power
> >at no more
> > than about 2500 rpm. This is why a VW beetle engine is no good -
> >because you
> > have to rev it too high to obtain the needed power.
> >
> > The other factors to consider in the over-all weight of a VW
> Diesel, is
> >that you will
> > probably need a gear reduction unit, and if you use a gear
> reduction
> >unit, you will
> > also need a starter. Water in the cooling system weighs 10 lbs. a
> >gallon etc. I am
> > sure you will be over 250 lbs. when you are finished.
> >
> > Fuel is also an issue. You could use Jet A, but how will you get
> that
> >big hose nozzle
> > in your Pietenpol filler tube?
> >
> > I am not trying to discourage anyone from developing a new airplane
> >design. Just
> > think about it long and hard before you try it. (And understand
> that
> >everthing you
> > change on an airplane produces and/or requires changes elsewhere in
> the
> >design.
> > gem)
> >
> > I think building an airplane it enough of a project. Building an
> engine
> >is another
> > complete project. I know someone who has been putting an auto
> engine in
> >a flying
> > airplane and is now in his fifth year in doing so!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
> > The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
> > Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
> Pietenpol Air
> > Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
> >engine.
> >
> > Can you add folding wings to a Pietenpol?
> >
> > As far as we know this has not been successfully done. It may be
> done
> >in the future
> > by some clever individual, but here are some of the design issues:
> >
> > Assuming that the rear spar of the wing is the pivot point and the
> >wings fold straight
> > back without turning (like Tiger and Gypsy Moths), the first issue
> is
> >weight transfer.
> > As the wings fold back approximately 80 to 100 lbs go from near the
> >C.G. to a
> > distance of approximately 6 feet from the C.G. This weight transfer
> has
> >to be
> > handled via the rear fuselage to the tailwheel or skid. This means
> a
> >stronger and
> > stiffer tail spring. The fuselage may need strengthening. If you
> lift
> >by the tail it may
> > also need strengthening.
> >
> > The center section of the wing behind the spar must be removed to
> allow the
> > folding. This is probably the easiest problem. The distance between
> the
> >two pivot
> > points must be equal to twice the distance between the rear spar
> and
> >the trailing
> > edge. If memory serves me correctly this is a major problem. The
> way to
> >solve this
> > problem is to put a hinge offset from the rear spar (to the rear).
> Then
> >the control
> > cables have to be disconnected. The major problem with this change
> is
> >that the rear
> > lift strut attachment point would have to be disconnected to fold
> the
> >wings. The
> > centerline of the hinge and the centerline of the strut attachment
> bolt
> >has to be the
> > same. The front strut has to be disconnected in either case. A
> spreader
> >is required
> > between the two struts (because of the inter-strut wires) and a
> support
> >is required to
> > hold the struts off the ground. The wings, if not supported by the
> >struts, are very
> > flimsy in torsion. You could move the rear attachment point for the
> >struts to below
> > the hinge point and attach the front strut to it. This is how the
> >Kitfox does it. Then
> > you have to redesign the fuselage and the cabanes as the loads are
> now
> >going in
> > different planes and values.
> >
> > What effect are all these changes going to have on the finished
> >airplane weight and
> > C.G? The resulting airplane will not be a Pietenpol Air Camper.
> >
> > The Pietenpol was designed to operate with a gross weight of 1050
> lbs, a 50
> > horsepower engine and carry two people. It was designed to do this
> very
> >efficiently
> > with the minimum of structure. Adding a folding wing to an existing
> >design like the
> > Pietenpol is a difficult or maybe impossible task. If you want this
> >feature I would
> > consider building a Kitfox instead of a Pietenpol.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bernard Pietenpol did design and built a biplane in 1926; three
> years
> >before he built
> > his two-place Air Camper and five years before his one-place Sky
> Scout.
> >
> > Mr. Pietenpol's biplane was his second ship. It was Gnome-powered
> (a
> >rotary) and
> > never flew more than a few feet. As a flying machine, it was not a
> >success, but no
> > doubt provided valuable lessons for his future accomplishments.
> >
> > No plans were ever drawn; and no Pietenpol Biplane has been built
> since Mr.
> > Pietenpol's 1926 experiment.
> >
> > In recent years, at least one designer claims to have ''modified''
> a
> >Pietenpol Air
> > Camper by adding a wing. It certainly was not a ''Pietenpol.''
> Although
> >its designer
> > wrote a glowing account of it for Sport Aviation more than ten
> years
> >ago, it has not
> > been built in any quantity.
> >
> > One of our BPA members owned the ''modified'' plane in its last
> years.
> >Here is
> > what he said about it.
> >
> > ''Dear Grant,
> > I can't remember the year now but I met you and Howard Henderson at
> Creve
> > Coeur airport not long after Howard made his first flight in
> N444MH. At
> >the time
> > my good friend, Roger Moore and I owned the ''biplane version'' of
> the
> >Piet. You
> > may recall that it had some aerodynamic problems that I considered
> to
> >be just an
> > extreme aft CG problem. I began to tackle the problem by moving the
> >battery from
> > a position just aft of the rear seat to the floor of the front
> cockpit
> >just aft of the
> > firewall bulkhead.
> >
> > ''There was some improvement in pitch stability with this change so
> I
> >believed that I
> > was on the right track. I then added lead ingots to the engine
> >compartment as far
> > forward as I could get them. At twenty pounds of lead in the engine
> >compartment a
> > definite improvement in pitch stability could be felt. I had a
> friend
> >stand out by the
> > runway edge to watch the elevator as I made a full stall landing.
> He
> >reported that
> > coming into the flare the elevator was about 15 degrees down and
> when
> >the airplane
> > touched down in a full stall the elevator was only just level with
> the
> >horizontal
> > stabilizer.
> >
> > ''Obviously I was still a long way from solving the problem. An
> >aeronautical
> > engineer friend, Lee Lawson, took very careful measurements and
> weights and
> > made a biplane computer study for us. I don't recall the exact
> findings
> >now but it
> > went something like this: Move the top wing aft 16 inches, (this
> would
> >have made it
> > a staggerwing), increase the horizontal stabilizer dimensions by 20
> >percent, (that part
> > was doable), but the last recommendation made the hair stand up on
> the
> >back of my
> > neck: Add 110 pounds of ballast to the firewall. No telling how
> many
> >guys had come
> > close to disaster whilst flying her. We donated her to the St.
> Louis
> >Aviation Museum
> > as a permanent static display. Unfortunately, she was taken by the
> last
> >flood."
> > (signed) Charles D. Trevena (2 Winegarden Ct., O'Fallon MO 63366)
> >
> > ... Certainly no one in the BPA would discourage anyone from
> designing and
> > building their own biplane. But this writer, and many others in our
> >association, would
> > be very disappointed if Mr. Pietenpol's name was attached to
> another
> >person's
> > design. It would NOT be a Pietenpol.
> >
> > Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one change
> >requires many
> > other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be just that
> --
> >a new design. It
> > should not carry the name "Pietenpol."
> >
> > Pietenpols forever!
> > -=Grant MacLaren=-
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
---Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
>
> Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> > >I plan on being there.
> > >
> > >Ted
> > >Naples, FL
> >
> > TED- EXCELLENT !!!
> >
> > Grant MacLaren has just asked me to be the 'clearinghouse'
> > to keep track of who is coming to EAA 99.
> > EAA is planning on having us all fly in together and giving
> > us special parking all together. More later from Grant I'm
> > sure.
> >
> > Mike C.
>
> Are those of us who are still in the building stage invited to come
> join this party and camp out with all you lucky people who are flying
> yours?
>
> Gordon
> Wing Ribs Layed Out.
I surely hope so! Anyone near Maine going that I can split costs with?
Richard
18 ribs & 3 tail pieces glued.
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Big Tires, wasRE: N687MB |
I have a set to 800's and also a set of 6x600 golf cart tires. I have been
wanting to try them. Other than the nose high attitude, was is the change
if flight characteristics? How about speeds? Inquiring minds want to know,
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
Richard Winkel
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 7:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: N687MB
> 1) The airplane was higher making it more difficult to get in,
>
Many thanks for the reply. The attraction of "Mr Sam" was the jaunty
appearance of the noise pointing into the air while sitting on those big
tires.
But, I'm looking for a ship that I could fly for the next 30 years... looks
like
the smalller tires will be better to live with, as well as more affordable.
Regards,
Dick Winkel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Air Temperature Calibrations |
Thought since this is winter everybody would enjoy
>>Air Temperature Calibrations:
>>
>> 60 degrees - Californians put their sweaters on.
>>
>> 50 degrees - Miami residents turn on the heat.
>>
>> 45 degrees - Oregon residents go to outdoor concert.
>>
>> 40 degrees - You can see your breath, Californians shiver
>>
>> 35 degrees - Italian cars don't start.
>>
>> 32 degrees - Water freezes.
>>
>> 30 degrees - You plan your vacation to Hawaii.
>>
>> 25 degrees - Water in Iowa freezes, Californians panic to cover their
>Canadians
>>go swimming.
>>
>> 20 degrees - Politicians begin to talk about the homeless, New
>fly
>>to Hawaii.
>>
>> 15 degrees - French cars don't start, cat insists on sleeping in your
>>
>> 10 degrees - You need jumper cables to get the car going.
>>
>> 5 degrees - American cars don't start.
>>
>> 0 degrees - Alaskans put on T-shirts.
>>
>> -10 degrees - German cars don't start, eyes freeze shut when you step
>>
>> -15 degrees - You can cut your breath and use it to build an
>objects,
>>Miami residents
>>
>> -20 degrees - Cat insists on sleeping in pajamas with you,
>>homeless, Minnesotans
>start.
>>
>> -25 degrees - Too cold to think, you need jumper cables to get
>>
>> -30 degrees - You plan a two week hot bath, Swedish cars don't start.
>>
>> -40 degrees - Californians disappear, Minnesotans button top button,
>plan
>>your trip to
>>
>> -50 degrees - Congressional hot air freezes, Alaskans close the
>>
>> -80 degrees - Polar bears move South, Green Bay Packers and
>cocoa
>>at the game.
>>
>> -90 degrees - Lawyers put their hands in their own pockets.
>>
>> -100 degrees - Hell freezes over, Clinton resigns.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Big Tires, wasRE: N687MB |
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 9:34 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Big Tires, wasRE: N687MB
>
>I have a set to 800's and also a set of 6x600 golf cart tires. I have been
>wanting to try them. Other than the nose high attitude, was is the change
>if flight characteristics? How about speeds? Inquiring minds want to
know,
>
>
>Steve E.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Richard Winkel
>Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 7:19 AM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Re: N687MB
>
>
>> 1) The airplane was higher making it more difficult to get in,
>>
>
> Many thanks for the reply. The attraction of "Mr Sam" was the jaunty
>appearance of the noise pointing into the air while sitting on those big
>tires.
>But, I'm looking for a ship that I could fly for the next 30 years... looks
>like
>the smalller tires will be better to live with, as well as more affordable.
>
>Regards,
>Dick Winkel
In flight. not much change. Maybe a little more nose heavy, but not bad. I
found it somewhat more difficult to land. Maybe due to the nose high
attitude. Not much different in airspeed. 75 to 80 as always. I guess if I
persisted it would have been OK, but as I said, entry & dismount was
somewhat more difficult.
Mike B (Piet 687MB )
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
I'm sure they would love to have some static display there as well. They
would probably give you the cover of the 'Homebuilder's Tent'. Maybe while
Grant is having discussions with the EAA he can negotiate the space for
someone interested in setting up a display. Then everyone can also enjoy how
beautiful the Piet is unfinished.
Regards,
Domenic
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Brimhall
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 11:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Oshkosh 1999
>
>
>Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>> >I plan on being there.
>> >
>> >Ted
>> >Naples, FL
>>
>> TED- EXCELLENT !!!
>>
>> Grant MacLaren has just asked me to be the 'clearinghouse'
>> to keep track of who is coming to EAA 99.
>> EAA is planning on having us all fly in together and giving
>> us special parking all together. More later from Grant I'm
>> sure.
>>
>> Mike C.
>
>Are those of us who are still in the building stage invited to come
>join this party and camp out with all you lucky people who are flying
>yours?
>
>Gordon
>Wing Ribs Layed Out.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Yes I could probably supply a rib or two and some other tid bits. If we make it
we will have our camper, What arrangements are being make for camping? I know
you fly Boys can sleep under your wings but I am not going to sleep under my
Nissan.
Gordon
Raffaele Bellissimo wrote:
> I'm sure they would love to have some static display there as well. They
> would probably give you the cover of the 'Homebuilder's Tent'. Maybe while
> Grant is having discussions with the EAA he can negotiate the space for
> someone interested in setting up a display. Then everyone can also enjoy how
> beautiful the Piet is unfinished.
> Regards,
> Domenic
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Brimhall
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 11:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Oshkosh 1999
>
> >
> >
> >Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >
> >> >I plan on being there.
> >> >
> >> >Ted
> >> >Naples, FL
> >>
> >> TED- EXCELLENT !!!
> >>
> >> Grant MacLaren has just asked me to be the 'clearinghouse'
> >> to keep track of who is coming to EAA 99.
> >> EAA is planning on having us all fly in together and giving
> >> us special parking all together. More later from Grant I'm
> >> sure.
> >>
> >> Mike C.
> >
> >Are those of us who are still in the building stage invited to come
> >join this party and camp out with all you lucky people who are flying
> >yours?
> >
> >Gordon
> >Wing Ribs Layed Out.
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> Yes I could probably supply a rib or two and some other tid bits. If we make
it
> we will have our camper, What arrangements are being make for camping? I know
> you fly Boys can sleep under your wings but I am not going to sleep under my
> Nissan.
>
Gordon
Camping is no problem. Any EAA member can pitch camp in the adjacent
Camp Scholler for a nominal fee (about $14/day) which includes access to
great showers open 24 hours a day. Join the other 40,000 people who camp
there every year - its great.
Larry
P.S. Special thanks to Ken Beanlands for the airplane graphic that I
stole.
Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Mike,
I plan on camping. Do you think we will be able to camp in this "special"
area? Where will you be staying?
Ted
>>I plan on being there.
>>
>>Ted
>>Naples, FL
>
>
>TED- EXCELLENT !!!
>
>Grant MacLaren has just asked me to be the 'clearinghouse'
>to keep track of who is coming to EAA 99.
>EAA is planning on having us all fly in together and giving
>us special parking all together. More later from Grant I'm
>sure.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Well that is better than Motel 6
If we do come we will sleep in our camper and the showers will feel real good.
We
have friends in the Milwaukee area but would prefer to be where the action is.
Thanks
Gordon
PS. Yes I am a EAA Member and may even start a Chapter here in my area as I just
rec
the information and mailing list from them last week. I started a club a few years
ago up north and it is still going strong.
Gerard \"Larry\" Huber wrote:
> Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> >
> > Yes I could probably supply a rib or two and some other tid bits. If we make
it
> > we will have our camper, What arrangements are being make for camping? I know
> > you fly Boys can sleep under your wings but I am not going to sleep under my
> > Nissan.
> >
> Gordon
>
> Camping is no problem. Any EAA member can pitch camp in the adjacent
> Camp Scholler for a nominal fee (about $14/day) which includes access to
> great showers open 24 hours a day. Join the other 40,000 people who camp
> there every year - its great.
>
> Larry
>
> P.S. Special thanks to Ken Beanlands for the airplane graphic that I
> stole.
>
> (_) (_)
> Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
> the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lpasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
Certainly I'm no expert either, but the A 65 and VW 65 would not be using
the same prop. The VW prop will be quite a lot shorter. You will have more
thrust with the A 65.
Thanks, Larry Pasley
Carlisle, Arkansas
> I wont even pretend to know what I'm talking about, But...
>
> VW engine with psru, 65 hp 65hpx5252/2330rpm=146.5 ft-lbs
>
> C-65 engine direct drive 65 hpx5252/2400rpm=142 ft-lbs
>
> Does this mean that the limiting factor of the 65 hp volkswagon engine
> with psru attached is cooling, or am i missing something about torque?
> I assume that in this situation both would use a nearly equal propeller.
> ocb
>
>
> >From steve(at)byu.edu Thu Jan 7 05:03:05 1999
> >Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 1074"@adena.byu.edu
> [128.187.22.180])
> > by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
> > with ESMTP id <01J68YXTXIK48WWIX0(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
> oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
> >Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:01:37 -0500
> >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> >Subject: VW Info
> >Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
> >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Message-id: <6100A25EB(at)adena.byu.edu>
> >MIME-version: 1.0
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 (via Mercury MTS
> v1.44 (NDS))
> > (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
> >Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> >X-Listname:
> >
> >
> >
> > Subj: VW Engines
> > Date: Fri, Jul 24, 1998 11:57 AM EDT
> > From: Andrew.Pietenpol(at)stpaul.com
> > To: GMacLaren(at)aol.com, PietenpolDon(at)Juno.com
> >
> > This past week PBS aired a 3 hour show called "PLANE CRAZY." Hope
> you can
> > see it on public TV in your area!!
> >
> > It was about a man who built (or attemptedto build) a plane in 30
> days.
> >Any-who,
> > on his second 30 day attempt, he built a Fisher designed kit
> >"YOUNGSTER", with
> > the help of the Fisher family. (6 people it took)
> >
> > A lesson can be learned here if you think about it; and the point
> about
> >VW engines
> > I want to demonstrate is this:
> >
> > The Fisher plane weighed just 320 pounds (dry). The pilot added 180
> >lbs+. (It's a
> > single place plane.) It took off of from a super nice flat blacktop
> >runway of 2500+
> > feet. This "Youngster" ate up over half the runway, and barely flew
> --
> >with very
> > little extra power -- at about 45-50 mph behind its' VW engine . .
> .
> >"Struggle" may
> > be a better word.
> >
> > The thinking part comes in here: People are always asking: "CAN I
> USE A VW
> > ENGINE IN A PIET?" The answer is a resounding "NO".
> >
> > In the "Youngster" example you have an airplane weighing half that
> of
> >an Air
> > Camper, carrying only one person and operating in an almost perfect
> >environment
> > -- and it can barely fly.
> >
> > Lets change a few elements in the equation: Using the same VW
> engine;
> >double
> > the weight to 650 lbs, double the people to 360 lbs, double the
> fuel to
> >80-100 lbs --
> > then take off from a short grass runway that has not been mowed in
> a
> >month. Add
> > a dew drop or two, and a few gopher holes. Hummmmmm. Do you want a
> VW
> > engine? NO WAY!
> >
> > VW proponents will come back and say: "Well, you know they made
> some larger
> > displacement engines in the mid 70's." Increasing CC's does
> increase
> >the torque.
> > But the margin of improvement is not great enough, and most VW's
> are
> > middle-of-the-road type.
> >
> > How often have you ever seen a Sky Scout or Air Camper fly behind a
> VW
> > engine? NEVER! It has been tried and it did not pan out.
> >
> > Corvairs, A65's, A85's, Model A's, perform well, and I personally
> >believe (not
> > proven) that if a guy wanted to play around with that JABARU engine
> >certified out
> > of Austrailia, a lot of fun could be had at a moderate cost.
> >
> > I see gear reduction kits and Rotax engines as places for things to
> go
> >wrong, parts
> > to break, and additional expense.
> >
> > Follow the PLANS + Build it with Quality Materials = An Airplane
> that
> >flies well, is
> > safe and you can be proud of yourself when you fly/show it to
> others!!!
> >
> > Andrew Pietenpol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
> > The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
> > Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
> Pietenpol Air
> > Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
> engine.
> > At my request, Brian supplied this article for use in our BPA
> >Newsletter and
> > for my use in answering the many Pietenpol newcomers who ask us
> "Can I
> > power a Piet with a VW engine?''
> >
> > March 6, 1996 - Grant; for your use as requested. Feel free to
> >editorialize.
> >
> > Why a VW "Beetle" engine is not a good choice in a Pietenpol!
> >
> > A Volkswagen "Bug" engine and it's derivatives can produce enough
> >horsepower to
> > fly a Pietenpol Air Camper. This alone is not enough of a reason to
> >select it as a
> > Pietenpol engine. This is why.
> >
> > The efficiency of a propeller (irrespective of how well it is
> designed)
> >is a function of
> > the difference between the speed of the airplane and the speed of
> the
> >propeller
> > wash. As the speed of the prop wash approaches the speed of the
> >airplane, the
> > propeller approaches 100% of theoretical efficiency.
> >
> > At the same time, thrust is caused by the propeller throwing air
> >backwards. The
> > faster the air, the more the thrust. As the air speed approaches
> the
> >speed of the
> > airplane the thrust goes to zero! At zero forward speed the thrust
> is
> >maximum.
> >
> > Put these two together and you see you can't have both at once. If
> the
> >airplane is
> > not moving it has a lot of thrust, its efficiency is zero--it is
> doing
> >no work. As the
> > airplane accelerates, the work (force times distance) and the
> >efficiency increases
> > but the thrust decreases. In the case of a zero drag airplane the
> >airplane can
> > accelerate until it reaches the thrust speed. There is zero thrust
> and
> >the propeller is
> > approaching 100% efficiency.
> >
> > Since most aircraft don't have zero drag (especially Pietenpols!),
> the
> >airplane comes
> > to equilibrium somewhere between the two extremes. In the case of a
> >Piet with a
> > large propeller and a slow turning engine, it is when the propeller
> is
> >at about 75%
> > efficiency. You can not get better than that unless you clean up
> the drag.
> >
> > One variable you can adjust in a propeller, that has an effect on
> >efficiency, is the
> > propeller diameter. The bigger the propeller the more air it can
> push
> >backwards.
> > Therefore for a given propeller wash speed there is more thrust. Or
> >another way to
> > look at it; for a required thrust, a bigger propeller needs less
> wash
> >speed. Therefore,
> > if you remember about efficiency, there is more efficiency because
> for
> >a given
> > thrust the velocity of the propeller wash is less.
> >
> > Diameter also effects pitch. The larger the diameter, the less
> pitch
> >you need (the air
> > can move slower). This effects the speed range of the aircraft. A
> large
> >propeller is
> > like having a car with one low gear. A small propeller is like
> having
> >one high gear. If
> > you have a slow airplane, a low gear can work fine, in a fast
> airplane,
> >it won't work
> > because the engine will not produce any power to get going (fast
> >airplanes always
> > have surplus horsepower).
> >
> > The relationship for best propeller efficiency has been determined
> to
> >be that the
> > propeller tip speed should be approximately 2.3 times the aircraft
> >speed at cruise.
> > This you can't achieve. The diameter is too large or the rpm is too
> >slow. The bigger
> > the diameter and the slower the engine the better. This is why
> World
> >War One
> > aircraft perform so well (best propeller efficiency) on low power -
> >1400 rpm engines
> > turning 80" propellers.. Because our engine choices require more
> revs.
> >to produce
> > power, we have to compromise and lose efficiency. A Piet with a 72"
> >propeller,
> > 2300 max. rpm and 65 horsepower is the typical compromise with a
> >Continental
> > engine, but a Model "A" with 55 horsepower will do about the same.
> >Unfortunately,
> > to retain reliability, Model "A's" are usually built to produce 50
> >horsepower - or a bit
> > less.
> >
> > The Corvair engine is another compromise. They have a loss of
> >efficiency due to
> > the small diameter propeller and accelerate poorly (due to the tall
> >gear effect) but
> > produces good power.
> >
> > So how does this relate to a VW engine?
> >
> > In order to use a Volkswagen engine, it has to really rev (over
> 3300
> >rpm) to produce
> > sufficient power. This requires a small propeller to keep the tip
> >speeds down. It
> > therefore has poor efficiency, or a too "tall" gear. If you pitch
> it so
> >you can take off,
> > you won't fly faster than about 50 mph. If you pitch it for cruise
> you
> >will need a
> > 6000 ft strip for take-off! The Corvair works because it has
> surplus
> >horsepower and
> > can afford to waste some. The VW can't afford the wasted
> horsepower.
> >
> > The only approach with a VW that will work is the one that Pazmany
> used
> >on his
> > PL-4. It uses a reduction belt. You then need a starter, and
> >alternator, wiring etc.
> > You also need to think about cooling. At 60 mph there is not much
> ram
> >air. The
> > Corvair requires a blower to get proper cooling. If you go this
> route
> >you have two
> > projects instead of one! In Pazmany's configuration, the
> installation
> >probably weighs
> > enough to allow an acceptable C.G. If not, this is your second
> major
> >problem. If you
> > solve these problems, get use to an engine revving like crazy,
> making
> >much noise, as
> > you cruise along.
> >
> > Aircraft are a compromise. In a slow airplane you must use a large
> >displacement,
> > slow turning engine if you want to keep it simple!
> >
> > How about a diesel?
> > Someone in the 1970's put a Mercedes diesel in a Pietenpol. They
> >brought it to
> > Oshkosh and created a lot of interest. The problem was it didn't
> have
> >enough
> > power. The engine was replaced with something else and it flew OK.
> >
> > The limitation with diesel engines is their power-to-weight ratio.
> They
> >tend to be
> > heavy for the power they produce. The VW diesel engine is not that
> >heavy, but I
> > don't think that it will produce enough power. You need about 50 hp
> to
> >fly an Air
> > Camper - a bit less to fly the Sky Scout. You need this type of
> power
> >at no more
> > than about 2500 rpm. This is why a VW beetle engine is no good -
> >because you
> > have to rev it too high to obtain the needed power.
> >
> > The other factors to consider in the over-all weight of a VW
> Diesel, is
> >that you will
> > probably need a gear reduction unit, and if you use a gear
> reduction
> >unit, you will
> > also need a starter. Water in the cooling system weighs 10 lbs. a
> >gallon etc. I am
> > sure you will be over 250 lbs. when you are finished.
> >
> > Fuel is also an issue. You could use Jet A, but how will you get
> that
> >big hose nozzle
> > in your Pietenpol filler tube?
> >
> > I am not trying to discourage anyone from developing a new airplane
> >design. Just
> > think about it long and hard before you try it. (And understand
> that
> >everthing you
> > change on an airplane produces and/or requires changes elsewhere in
> the
> >design.
> > gem)
> >
> > I think building an airplane it enough of a project. Building an
> engine
> >is another
> > complete project. I know someone who has been putting an auto
> engine in
> >a flying
> > airplane and is now in his fifth year in doing so!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
> > The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
> > Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
> Pietenpol Air
> > Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
> >engine.
> >
> > Can you add folding wings to a Pietenpol?
> >
> > As far as we know this has not been successfully done. It may be
> done
> >in the future
> > by some clever individual, but here are some of the design issues:
> >
> > Assuming that the rear spar of the wing is the pivot point and the
> >wings fold straight
> > back without turning (like Tiger and Gypsy Moths), the first issue
> is
> >weight transfer.
> > As the wings fold back approximately 80 to 100 lbs go from near the
> >C.G. to a
> > distance of approximately 6 feet from the C.G. This weight transfer
> has
> >to be
> > handled via the rear fuselage to the tailwheel or skid. This means
> a
> >stronger and
> > stiffer tail spring. The fuselage may need strengthening. If you
> lift
> >by the tail it may
> > also need strengthening.
> >
> > The center section of the wing behind the spar must be removed to
> allow the
> > folding. This is probably the easiest problem. The distance between
> the
> >two pivot
> > points must be equal to twice the distance between the rear spar
> and
> >the trailing
> > edge. If memory serves me correctly this is a major problem. The
> way to
> >solve this
> > problem is to put a hinge offset from the rear spar (to the rear).
> Then
> >the control
> > cables have to be disconnected. The major problem with this change
> is
> >that the rear
> > lift strut attachment point would have to be disconnected to fold
> the
> >wings. The
> > centerline of the hinge and the centerline of the strut attachment
> bolt
> >has to be the
> > same. The front strut has to be disconnected in either case. A
> spreader
> >is required
> > between the two struts (because of the inter-strut wires) and a
> support
> >is required to
> > hold the struts off the ground. The wings, if not supported by the
> >struts, are very
> > flimsy in torsion. You could move the rear attachment point for the
> >struts to below
> > the hinge point and attach the front strut to it. This is how the
> >Kitfox does it. Then
> > you have to redesign the fuselage and the cabanes as the loads are
> now
> >going in
> > different planes and values.
> >
> > What effect are all these changes going to have on the finished
> >airplane weight and
> > C.G? The resulting airplane will not be a Pietenpol Air Camper.
> >
> > The Pietenpol was designed to operate with a gross weight of 1050
> lbs, a 50
> > horsepower engine and carry two people. It was designed to do this
> very
> >efficiently
> > with the minimum of structure. Adding a folding wing to an existing
> >design like the
> > Pietenpol is a difficult or maybe impossible task. If you want this
> >feature I would
> > consider building a Kitfox instead of a Pietenpol.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bernard Pietenpol did design and built a biplane in 1926; three
> years
> >before he built
> > his two-place Air Camper and five years before his one-place Sky
> Scout.
> >
> > Mr. Pietenpol's biplane was his second ship. It was Gnome-powered
> (a
> >rotary) and
> > never flew more than a few feet. As a flying machine, it was not a
> >success, but no
> > doubt provided valuable lessons for his future accomplishments.
> >
> > No plans were ever drawn; and no Pietenpol Biplane has been built
> since Mr.
> > Pietenpol's 1926 experiment.
> >
> > In recent years, at least one designer claims to have ''modified''
> a
> >Pietenpol Air
> > Camper by adding a wing. It certainly was not a ''Pietenpol.''
> Although
> >its designer
> > wrote a glowing account of it for Sport Aviation more than ten
> years
> >ago, it has not
> > been built in any quantity.
> >
> > One of our BPA members owned the ''modified'' plane in its last
> years.
> >Here is
> > what he said about it.
> >
> > ''Dear Grant,
> > I can't remember the year now but I met you and Howard Henderson at
> Creve
> > Coeur airport not long after Howard made his first flight in
> N444MH. At
> >the time
> > my good friend, Roger Moore and I owned the ''biplane version'' of
> the
> >Piet. You
> > may recall that it had some aerodynamic problems that I considered
> to
> >be just an
> > extreme aft CG problem. I began to tackle the problem by moving the
> >battery from
> > a position just aft of the rear seat to the floor of the front
> cockpit
> >just aft of the
> > firewall bulkhead.
> >
> > ''There was some improvement in pitch stability with this change so
> I
> >believed that I
> > was on the right track. I then added lead ingots to the engine
> >compartment as far
> > forward as I could get them. At twenty pounds of lead in the engine
> >compartment a
> > definite improvement in pitch stability could be felt. I had a
> friend
> >stand out by the
> > runway edge to watch the elevator as I made a full stall landing.
> He
> >reported that
> > coming into the flare the elevator was about 15 degrees down and
> when
> >the airplane
> > touched down in a full stall the elevator was only just level with
> the
> >horizontal
> > stabilizer.
> >
> > ''Obviously I was still a long way from solving the problem. An
> >aeronautical
> > engineer friend, Lee Lawson, took very careful measurements and
> weights and
> > made a biplane computer study for us. I don't recall the exact
> findings
> >now but it
> > went something like this: Move the top wing aft 16 inches, (this
> would
> >have made it
> > a staggerwing), increase the horizontal stabilizer dimensions by 20
> >percent, (that part
> > was doable), but the last recommendation made the hair stand up on
> the
> >back of my
> > neck: Add 110 pounds of ballast to the firewall. No telling how
> many
> >guys had come
> > close to disaster whilst flying her. We donated her to the St.
> Louis
> >Aviation Museum
> > as a permanent static display. Unfortunately, she was taken by the
> last
> >flood."
> > (signed) Charles D. Trevena (2 Winegarden Ct., O'Fallon MO 63366)
> >
> > ... Certainly no one in the BPA would discourage anyone from
> designing and
> > building their own biplane. But this writer, and many others in our
> >association, would
> > be very disappointed if Mr. Pietenpol's name was attached to
> another
> >person's
> > design. It would NOT be a Pietenpol.
> >
> > Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one change
> >requires many
> > other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be just that
> --
> >a new design. It
> > should not carry the name "Pietenpol."
> >
> > Pietenpols forever!
> > -=Grant MacLaren=-
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Great new Flyin' Story! |
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/Stories-HomemadeHero.shtml
Many thanks to Joe Czaplicki for sending me a copy of this story,
which appeared in the June, 1940 issue of Popular Aviation. It's a
superb story about a guy who used his Pietenpol on skiis to rescue
quite a few people stranded in a blizzard.
Dont forget to click on the small pics for a larger version.
Enjoy!
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 6:10 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Oshkosh 1999
>Mike,
>
>I plan on camping. Do you think we will be able to camp in this "special"
>area? Where will you be staying?
>
>Ted
>
>>>I plan on being there.
>>>
>>>Ted
>>>Naples, FL
>>
>>
>>TED- EXCELLENT !!!
>>
>>Grant MacLaren has just asked me to be the 'clearinghouse'
>>to keep track of who is coming to EAA 99.
>>EAA is planning on having us all fly in together and giving
>>us special parking all together. More later from Grant I'm
>>sure.
>>
>>Mike C.
If I remember correctly, there is a daily charge to access the flight
line whether you have an aircraft on exhibit or not. Am I correct?
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Great new Flyin' Story! |
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard DeCosta
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 6:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Great new Flyin' Story!
>http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/Stories-HomemadeHero.shtml
>
>Many thanks to Joe Czaplicki for sending me a copy of this story,
>which appeared in the June, 1940 issue of Popular Aviation. It's a
>superb story about a guy who used his Pietenpol on skiis to rescue
>quite a few people stranded in a blizzard.
>
>Dont forget to click on the small pics for a larger version.
>
>Enjoy!
>
>Richard
>
>
>==
>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
>
INCREDIBLE, INCREDIBLE, INCREDIBLE
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JKend81933(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Pietenpol discussion group |
How can I be added to the pietenpol discussion group?
Jim K
jkend81933(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
I must be missing something here. If the VW is putting out 2330rpm at
146.5ft-lbs and the C-65 is putting out 2400rpm at 142ft-lbs why can't the vw
be swinging the same size prop? It is running 70 rpm faster but has 4.5 ft lbs
more torque.
What we need here is an Impartual Expert to explain.
Gordon
lpasley wrote:
> Certainly I'm no expert either, but the A 65 and VW 65 would not be using
> the same prop. The VW prop will be quite a lot shorter. You will have more
> thrust with the A 65.
> Thanks, Larry Pasley
> Carlisle, Arkansas
>
> ----------
> > I wont even pretend to know what I'm talking about, But...
> >
> > VW engine with psru, 65 hp 65hpx5252/2330rpm=146.5 ft-lbs
> >
> > C-65 engine direct drive 65 hpx5252/2400rpm=142 ft-lbs
> >
> > Does this mean that the limiting factor of the 65 hp volkswagon engine
> > with psru attached is cooling, or am i missing something about torque?
> > I assume that in this situation both would use a nearly equal propeller.
> > ocb
> >
> >
> > >From steve(at)byu.edu Thu Jan 7 05:03:05 1999
> > >Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 1074"@adena.byu.edu
> > [128.187.22.180])
> > > by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
> > > with ESMTP id <01J68YXTXIK48WWIX0(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
> > oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
> > >Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:01:37 -0500
> > >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> > >Subject: VW Info
> > >Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
> > >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > >Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
> > >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> > >Message-id: <6100A25EB(at)adena.byu.edu>
> > >MIME-version: 1.0
> > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 (via Mercury MTS
> > v1.44 (NDS))
> > > (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
> > >Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> > >X-Listname:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Subj: VW Engines
> > > Date: Fri, Jul 24, 1998 11:57 AM EDT
> > > From: Andrew.Pietenpol(at)stpaul.com
> > > To: GMacLaren(at)aol.com, PietenpolDon(at)Juno.com
> > >
> > > This past week PBS aired a 3 hour show called "PLANE CRAZY." Hope
> > you can
> > > see it on public TV in your area!!
> > >
> > > It was about a man who built (or attemptedto build) a plane in 30
> > days.
> > >Any-who,
> > > on his second 30 day attempt, he built a Fisher designed kit
> > >"YOUNGSTER", with
> > > the help of the Fisher family. (6 people it took)
> > >
> > > A lesson can be learned here if you think about it; and the point
> > about
> > >VW engines
> > > I want to demonstrate is this:
> > >
> > > The Fisher plane weighed just 320 pounds (dry). The pilot added 180
> > >lbs+. (It's a
> > > single place plane.) It took off of from a super nice flat blacktop
> > >runway of 2500+
> > > feet. This "Youngster" ate up over half the runway, and barely flew
> > --
> > >with very
> > > little extra power -- at about 45-50 mph behind its' VW engine . .
> > .
> > >"Struggle" may
> > > be a better word.
> > >
> > > The thinking part comes in here: People are always asking: "CAN I
> > USE A VW
> > > ENGINE IN A PIET?" The answer is a resounding "NO".
> > >
> > > In the "Youngster" example you have an airplane weighing half that
> > of
> > >an Air
> > > Camper, carrying only one person and operating in an almost perfect
> > >environment
> > > -- and it can barely fly.
> > >
> > > Lets change a few elements in the equation: Using the same VW
> > engine;
> > >double
> > > the weight to 650 lbs, double the people to 360 lbs, double the
> > fuel to
> > >80-100 lbs --
> > > then take off from a short grass runway that has not been mowed in
> > a
> > >month. Add
> > > a dew drop or two, and a few gopher holes. Hummmmmm. Do you want a
> > VW
> > > engine? NO WAY!
> > >
> > > VW proponents will come back and say: "Well, you know they made
> > some larger
> > > displacement engines in the mid 70's." Increasing CC's does
> > increase
> > >the torque.
> > > But the margin of improvement is not great enough, and most VW's
> > are
> > > middle-of-the-road type.
> > >
> > > How often have you ever seen a Sky Scout or Air Camper fly behind a
> > VW
> > > engine? NEVER! It has been tried and it did not pan out.
> > >
> > > Corvairs, A65's, A85's, Model A's, perform well, and I personally
> > >believe (not
> > > proven) that if a guy wanted to play around with that JABARU engine
> > >certified out
> > > of Austrailia, a lot of fun could be had at a moderate cost.
> > >
> > > I see gear reduction kits and Rotax engines as places for things to
> > go
> > >wrong, parts
> > > to break, and additional expense.
> > >
> > > Follow the PLANS + Build it with Quality Materials = An Airplane
> > that
> > >flies well, is
> > > safe and you can be proud of yourself when you fly/show it to
> > others!!!
> > >
> > > Andrew Pietenpol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
> > > The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
> > > Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
> > Pietenpol Air
> > > Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
> > engine.
> > > At my request, Brian supplied this article for use in our BPA
> > >Newsletter and
> > > for my use in answering the many Pietenpol newcomers who ask us
> > "Can I
> > > power a Piet with a VW engine?''
> > >
> > > March 6, 1996 - Grant; for your use as requested. Feel free to
> > >editorialize.
> > >
> > > Why a VW "Beetle" engine is not a good choice in a Pietenpol!
> > >
> > > A Volkswagen "Bug" engine and it's derivatives can produce enough
> > >horsepower to
> > > fly a Pietenpol Air Camper. This alone is not enough of a reason to
> > >select it as a
> > > Pietenpol engine. This is why.
> > >
> > > The efficiency of a propeller (irrespective of how well it is
> > designed)
> > >is a function of
> > > the difference between the speed of the airplane and the speed of
> > the
> > >propeller
> > > wash. As the speed of the prop wash approaches the speed of the
> > >airplane, the
> > > propeller approaches 100% of theoretical efficiency.
> > >
> > > At the same time, thrust is caused by the propeller throwing air
> > >backwards. The
> > > faster the air, the more the thrust. As the air speed approaches
> > the
> > >speed of the
> > > airplane the thrust goes to zero! At zero forward speed the thrust
> > is
> > >maximum.
> > >
> > > Put these two together and you see you can't have both at once. If
> > the
> > >airplane is
> > > not moving it has a lot of thrust, its efficiency is zero--it is
> > doing
> > >no work. As the
> > > airplane accelerates, the work (force times distance) and the
> > >efficiency increases
> > > but the thrust decreases. In the case of a zero drag airplane the
> > >airplane can
> > > accelerate until it reaches the thrust speed. There is zero thrust
> > and
> > >the propeller is
> > > approaching 100% efficiency.
> > >
> > > Since most aircraft don't have zero drag (especially Pietenpols!),
> > the
> > >airplane comes
> > > to equilibrium somewhere between the two extremes. In the case of a
> > >Piet with a
> > > large propeller and a slow turning engine, it is when the propeller
> > is
> > >at about 75%
> > > efficiency. You can not get better than that unless you clean up
> > the drag.
> > >
> > > One variable you can adjust in a propeller, that has an effect on
> > >efficiency, is the
> > > propeller diameter. The bigger the propeller the more air it can
> > push
> > >backwards.
> > > Therefore for a given propeller wash speed there is more thrust. Or
> > >another way to
> > > look at it; for a required thrust, a bigger propeller needs less
> > wash
> > >speed. Therefore,
> > > if you remember about efficiency, there is more efficiency because
> > for
> > >a given
> > > thrust the velocity of the propeller wash is less.
> > >
> > > Diameter also effects pitch. The larger the diameter, the less
> > pitch
> > >you need (the air
> > > can move slower). This effects the speed range of the aircraft. A
> > large
> > >propeller is
> > > like having a car with one low gear. A small propeller is like
> > having
> > >one high gear. If
> > > you have a slow airplane, a low gear can work fine, in a fast
> > airplane,
> > >it won't work
> > > because the engine will not produce any power to get going (fast
> > >airplanes always
> > > have surplus horsepower).
> > >
> > > The relationship for best propeller efficiency has been determined
> > to
> > >be that the
> > > propeller tip speed should be approximately 2.3 times the aircraft
> > >speed at cruise.
> > > This you can't achieve. The diameter is too large or the rpm is too
> > >slow. The bigger
> > > the diameter and the slower the engine the better. This is why
> > World
> > >War One
> > > aircraft perform so well (best propeller efficiency) on low power -
> > >1400 rpm engines
> > > turning 80" propellers.. Because our engine choices require more
> > revs.
> > >to produce
> > > power, we have to compromise and lose efficiency. A Piet with a 72"
> > >propeller,
> > > 2300 max. rpm and 65 horsepower is the typical compromise with a
> > >Continental
> > > engine, but a Model "A" with 55 horsepower will do about the same.
> > >Unfortunately,
> > > to retain reliability, Model "A's" are usually built to produce 50
> > >horsepower - or a bit
> > > less.
> > >
> > > The Corvair engine is another compromise. They have a loss of
> > >efficiency due to
> > > the small diameter propeller and accelerate poorly (due to the tall
> > >gear effect) but
> > > produces good power.
> > >
> > > So how does this relate to a VW engine?
> > >
> > > In order to use a Volkswagen engine, it has to really rev (over
> > 3300
> > >rpm) to produce
> > > sufficient power. This requires a small propeller to keep the tip
> > >speeds down. It
> > > therefore has poor efficiency, or a too "tall" gear. If you pitch
> > it so
> > >you can take off,
> > > you won't fly faster than about 50 mph. If you pitch it for cruise
> > you
> > >will need a
> > > 6000 ft strip for take-off! The Corvair works because it has
> > surplus
> > >horsepower and
> > > can afford to waste some. The VW can't afford the wasted
> > horsepower.
> > >
> > > The only approach with a VW that will work is the one that Pazmany
> > used
> > >on his
> > > PL-4. It uses a reduction belt. You then need a starter, and
> > >alternator, wiring etc.
> > > You also need to think about cooling. At 60 mph there is not much
> > ram
> > >air. The
> > > Corvair requires a blower to get proper cooling. If you go this
> > route
> > >you have two
> > > projects instead of one! In Pazmany's configuration, the
> > installation
> > >probably weighs
> > > enough to allow an acceptable C.G. If not, this is your second
> > major
> > >problem. If you
> > > solve these problems, get use to an engine revving like crazy,
> > making
> > >much noise, as
> > > you cruise along.
> > >
> > > Aircraft are a compromise. In a slow airplane you must use a large
> > >displacement,
> > > slow turning engine if you want to keep it simple!
> > >
> > > How about a diesel?
> > > Someone in the 1970's put a Mercedes diesel in a Pietenpol. They
> > >brought it to
> > > Oshkosh and created a lot of interest. The problem was it didn't
> > have
> > >enough
> > > power. The engine was replaced with something else and it flew OK.
> > >
> > > The limitation with diesel engines is their power-to-weight ratio.
> > They
> > >tend to be
> > > heavy for the power they produce. The VW diesel engine is not that
> > >heavy, but I
> > > don't think that it will produce enough power. You need about 50 hp
> > to
> > >fly an Air
> > > Camper - a bit less to fly the Sky Scout. You need this type of
> > power
> > >at no more
> > > than about 2500 rpm. This is why a VW beetle engine is no good -
> > >because you
> > > have to rev it too high to obtain the needed power.
> > >
> > > The other factors to consider in the over-all weight of a VW
> > Diesel, is
> > >that you will
> > > probably need a gear reduction unit, and if you use a gear
> > reduction
> > >unit, you will
> > > also need a starter. Water in the cooling system weighs 10 lbs. a
> > >gallon etc. I am
> > > sure you will be over 250 lbs. when you are finished.
> > >
> > > Fuel is also an issue. You could use Jet A, but how will you get
> > that
> > >big hose nozzle
> > > in your Pietenpol filler tube?
> > >
> > > I am not trying to discourage anyone from developing a new airplane
> > >design. Just
> > > think about it long and hard before you try it. (And understand
> > that
> > >everthing you
> > > change on an airplane produces and/or requires changes elsewhere in
> > the
> > >design.
> > > gem)
> > >
> > > I think building an airplane it enough of a project. Building an
> > engine
> > >is another
> > > complete project. I know someone who has been putting an auto
> > engine in
> > >a flying
> > > airplane and is now in his fifth year in doing so!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
> > > The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands Crescent,
> > > Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
> > Pietenpol Air
> > > Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental aircraft
> > >engine.
> > >
> > > Can you add folding wings to a Pietenpol?
> > >
> > > As far as we know this has not been successfully done. It may be
> > done
> > >in the future
> > > by some clever individual, but here are some of the design issues:
> > >
> > > Assuming that the rear spar of the wing is the pivot point and the
> > >wings fold straight
> > > back without turning (like Tiger and Gypsy Moths), the first issue
> > is
> > >weight transfer.
> > > As the wings fold back approximately 80 to 100 lbs go from near the
> > >C.G. to a
> > > distance of approximately 6 feet from the C.G. This weight transfer
> > has
> > >to be
> > > handled via the rear fuselage to the tailwheel or skid. This means
> > a
> > >stronger and
> > > stiffer tail spring. The fuselage may need strengthening. If you
> > lift
> > >by the tail it may
> > > also need strengthening.
> > >
> > > The center section of the wing behind the spar must be removed to
> > allow the
> > > folding. This is probably the easiest problem. The distance between
> > the
> > >two pivot
> > > points must be equal to twice the distance between the rear spar
> > and
> > >the trailing
> > > edge. If memory serves me correctly this is a major problem. The
> > way to
> > >solve this
> > > problem is to put a hinge offset from the rear spar (to the rear).
> > Then
> > >the control
> > > cables have to be disconnected. The major problem with this change
> > is
> > >that the rear
> > > lift strut attachment point would have to be disconnected to fold
> > the
> > >wings. The
> > > centerline of the hinge and the centerline of the strut attachment
> > bolt
> > >has to be the
> > > same. The front strut has to be disconnected in either case. A
> > spreader
> > >is required
> > > between the two struts (because of the inter-strut wires) and a
> > support
> > >is required to
> > > hold the struts off the ground. The wings, if not supported by the
> > >struts, are very
> > > flimsy in torsion. You could move the rear attachment point for the
> > >struts to below
> > > the hinge point and attach the front strut to it. This is how the
> > >Kitfox does it. Then
> > > you have to redesign the fuselage and the cabanes as the loads are
> > now
> > >going in
> > > different planes and values.
> > >
> > > What effect are all these changes going to have on the finished
> > >airplane weight and
> > > C.G? The resulting airplane will not be a Pietenpol Air Camper.
> > >
> > > The Pietenpol was designed to operate with a gross weight of 1050
> > lbs, a 50
> > > horsepower engine and carry two people. It was designed to do this
> > very
> > >efficiently
> > > with the minimum of structure. Adding a folding wing to an existing
> > >design like the
> > > Pietenpol is a difficult or maybe impossible task. If you want this
> > >feature I would
> > > consider building a Kitfox instead of a Pietenpol.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bernard Pietenpol did design and built a biplane in 1926; three
> > years
> > >before he built
> > > his two-place Air Camper and five years before his one-place Sky
> > Scout.
> > >
> > > Mr. Pietenpol's biplane was his second ship. It was Gnome-powered
> > (a
> > >rotary) and
> > > never flew more than a few feet. As a flying machine, it was not a
> > >success, but no
> > > doubt provided valuable lessons for his future accomplishments.
> > >
> > > No plans were ever drawn; and no Pietenpol Biplane has been built
> > since Mr.
> > > Pietenpol's 1926 experiment.
> > >
> > > In recent years, at least one designer claims to have ''modified''
> > a
> > >Pietenpol Air
> > > Camper by adding a wing. It certainly was not a ''Pietenpol.''
> > Although
> > >its designer
> > > wrote a glowing account of it for Sport Aviation more than ten
> > years
> > >ago, it has not
> > > been built in any quantity.
> > >
> > > One of our BPA members owned the ''modified'' plane in its last
> > years.
> > >Here is
> > > what he said about it.
> > >
> > > ''Dear Grant,
> > > I can't remember the year now but I met you and Howard Henderson at
> > Creve
> > > Coeur airport not long after Howard made his first flight in
> > N444MH. At
> > >the time
> > > my good friend, Roger Moore and I owned the ''biplane version'' of
> > the
> > >Piet. You
> > > may recall that it had some aerodynamic problems that I considered
> > to
> > >be just an
> > > extreme aft CG problem. I began to tackle the problem by moving the
> > >battery from
> > > a position just aft of the rear seat to the floor of the front
> > cockpit
> > >just aft of the
> > > firewall bulkhead.
> > >
> > > ''There was some improvement in pitch stability with this change so
> > I
> > >believed that I
> > > was on the right track. I then added lead ingots to the engine
> > >compartment as far
> > > forward as I could get them. At twenty pounds of lead in the engine
> > >compartment a
> > > definite improvement in pitch stability could be felt. I had a
> > friend
> > >stand out by the
> > > runway edge to watch the elevator as I made a full stall landing.
> > He
> > >reported that
> > > coming into the flare the elevator was about 15 degrees down and
> > when
> > >the airplane
> > > touched down in a full stall the elevator was only just level with
> > the
> > >horizontal
> > > stabilizer.
> > >
> > > ''Obviously I was still a long way from solving the problem. An
> > >aeronautical
> > > engineer friend, Lee Lawson, took very careful measurements and
> > weights and
> > > made a biplane computer study for us. I don't recall the exact
> > findings
> > >now but it
> > > went something like this: Move the top wing aft 16 inches, (this
> > would
> > >have made it
> > > a staggerwing), increase the horizontal stabilizer dimensions by 20
> > >percent, (that part
> > > was doable), but the last recommendation made the hair stand up on
> > the
> > >back of my
> > > neck: Add 110 pounds of ballast to the firewall. No telling how
> > many
> > >guys had come
> > > close to disaster whilst flying her. We donated her to the St.
> > Louis
> > >Aviation Museum
> > > as a permanent static display. Unfortunately, she was taken by the
> > last
> > >flood."
> > > (signed) Charles D. Trevena (2 Winegarden Ct., O'Fallon MO 63366)
> > >
> > > ... Certainly no one in the BPA would discourage anyone from
> > designing and
> > > building their own biplane. But this writer, and many others in our
> > >association, would
> > > be very disappointed if Mr. Pietenpol's name was attached to
> > another
> > >person's
> > > design. It would NOT be a Pietenpol.
> > >
> > > Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one change
> > >requires many
> > > other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be just that
> > --
> > >a new design. It
> > > should not carry the name "Pietenpol."
> > >
> > > Pietenpols forever!
> > > -=Grant MacLaren=-
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Great new Flyin' Story! |
100 below 0 in texas , was born at night ,but it was not last night lad!
Doug
> From: Richard DeCosta
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Great new Flyin' Story!
> Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 7:35 PM
>
> http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/Stories-HomemadeHero.shtml
>
> Many thanks to Joe Czaplicki for sending me a copy of this story,
> which appeared in the June, 1940 issue of Popular Aviation. It's a
> superb story about a guy who used his Pietenpol on skiis to rescue
> quite a few people stranded in a blizzard.
HOMEMADE HERO - by Richard Martin
The Noel King family almost froze to death in the blizzard-swept
reaches of the Texas panhandle and their misfortune proved to he the
bedrock upon which a new aerial reputation has been founded.
Harold hawk of Perryton, TX, emerged the hero of the little drama and today
he's being touted as a candidate for Carnegie hero consideration- just
because lie's handy with his hands and loves to fly.
With a tiny homemade unlicensed plane equipped with a pair of homemade
skiis he accomplished in the span of two day s more aerial rescues and
demonstrated more new uses for the airplane than the average pilot does in
a lifetime. I Hawk got on the hero trail when the Kings-Mr. and Mrs.,
Loretta, two years old and Gracie Fay, seven months old were caught in one
of the swirling, biting blizzards that sweep across the Texas panhandle
during the blustery winter months. Drifts had piled higher and higher on
the highway and it wasn't long before the King automobile slid drunkenly
into the ditch-hopelessly stuck.
The temperature stood at 100 below zero and the wind was blowing a 50 mph
gale as the stranded family struggled to the protection of a pipeline
"booster" station over a mile down the road. The girl's arms were frozen to
the elbows and the baby's cheeks were frostbitten when they finally reached
the shelter. A frantic telephone call to Perryton, 20 miles distant, and
the Kings' plight was explained by the station attendant, who emphasized
the need of first aid equipment and a special milk formula for the baby.
Roads were hopelessly blocked and the situation seemed desperate-until some
body in Perryton remembered Harold Hawk. Hawk is a wholesale oil dealer in
Perryton-when he isn't out at his own airport tinkering with some new
gadget. He has a herd of 150 cattle and, when the sub-zero weather and deep
snow settled over the ranges, it looked like Hawk was going to lose those
cattle by starvation and freezing-but he didn't. With the aid of Howard
Holt and Ken Crisp, a plumber and a jeweler, Hawk had equipped his plane
with a crude pair of homemade skiis -the first skiis ever placed on an
airplane in the state of Texas. Once the skiis had been built and
test-flown, it was a simple task for Hawk to fly feed 20 miles to his
hungry cattle.
It was just as simple a task for this self-taught flyer to bring
help to the Kings for, early the next morning, with the wind still blowing
dangerously, he delivered the first aid supplies and special milk to the
booster plant. That after noon he returned and flew Mr. King, whose feet
were frozen, back to the Perryton hospital. On the second trip he bundled
the mother and two children (carrying the baby on his lap) into the plane
and, 20 minutes later, they too were receiving much-needed hospitalization.
The next day Hawk flew Fred Tarbox the 35 miles back to his ranch, the
latter having been stranded in Perryton by blocked highways. Returning,
Hawk noticed a car stalled in deep drifts Swinging low he sought signs of
life but found none. Still, there were no tracks leading from the car. So
Hawk landed and taxied close.
Inside the car he could see the huddled figure of a man. It was Oscar
Flowers, Ochiltree County attorney, whose hands and feet were badly frozen.
He had been forced to sit all night in the heaterless car with the
thermometer hovering around the five-below mark. Again Hawk bundled a
cold-stiffened passenger into his homemade plane and the Perry-ton hospital
soon had another patient.
Ray Houston, a young Perryton resident, had been caught by the blizzard at
an outlying ranch house. He was safe enough, but his mother became worried
about him. So once more Hawk cranked up his plane, this time to bring a lad
home so his mother could stop worrying.
During lulls in this rescue work and everyday trips to feed his cattle,
Hawk dabbled a bit at mail carrying. He gathered up the mail at the
Perryton post office then flew a route of his own choosing, dropping
letters to snowbound ranchers after attracting their attention by zooming
low over the ranch houses.
These are the highlights of a brief span of heroism that has brought Harold
Hawk nationwide newspaper attention. But without the background of the man,
they don't assume their real significance.
In 1934 he built his plane, a Pietenpol, powering it with a Model "A" Ford
engine. It took him a year and a half to complete the job, but even then he
had a long way to go -there wasn't anybody to teach him to fly.
So Harold did the next best thing- he taught himself to fly. For 35 hours
he taxied the little two-passenger, open cockpit job around his pasture,
some-times lifting it a foot or so off the ground. Then one day a forgotten
fence loomed suddenly ahead-and a flyer was born. Since that first
unwitting solo flight, Hawk has rolled up over 900 hours in the air and has
soloed 18 students on the same plane. But the thing that brings a glow of
pride to his eyes are those homemade skiis. They're made of two oak planks,
four feet long and six inches wide. The curved tips are metal which was
bent into shape and bolted to the wooden runners. To keep the skiis in
position during flight and still provide the necessary "give" for landings,
Hawk and his co-workers used two screen-door springs, attached to the brace
wires.
Neither Holt, Hawk nor Crisp had ever seen an airplane ski before they set
about building this pair-but so far these skiis have made about 200
take-offs and landings in 75 hours of flying-and they haven't missed yet.
The Pietenpol cost Hawk $500 and many hours to build. The four-cylinder
engine is not converted in any way and cooling is secured by half of a
regular Ford radiator mounted in the cowling behind the engine. The plane
cruises at 100 mph and gets automobile gasoline mileage.
What does Hawk think of all this effort to make him a hero? Well, he
"allows it's kinda nice to know that people are interested enough to drive
200 miles to see him and his plane," but he thinks he got his greatest kick
when the doctor said the two-year old girl wasn't going to lose use of her
arms be-cause they were frozen.
END.
Back to Flying Stories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web site by Richard DeCosta. This site is not affiliated with the Pietenpol
family. Please stop by my main home page also.
>
> Dont forget to click on the small pics for a larger version.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
My pleasure.
Funny enough, Ive seen it popping up on other e-mails around the
newsgroups. Kinda cool to see my creation being proliferated :-)
Boy, I am a geek!
Ken
> P.S. Special thanks to Ken Beanlands for the airplane graphic that I
> stole.
>
> Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
> the impossible.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <j-m-duprey(at)erols.com> |
Hi guys
I have only just begun building. I want to attend Broadhead this year,
for my first time does anyone know the dates this year as I need to
schedule time off early.
Thanks
John Duprey
________________________________________________________________________________
Not sure when Broadhead starts but EAA Air Adventure starts July 28th.
I was back in the area last year but not during the meet. This year maybe
we will make it if we can find some loose funds to do it. Retirement is
nice, can go anytime, just have a retirement funding problem. Why can't I
get a retirement like the President.
Gordon
John Duprey wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> I have only just begun building. I want to attend Broadhead this year,
> for my first time does anyone know the dates this year as I need to
> schedule time off early.
>
> Thanks
> John Duprey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Michael Brusilow wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, there is a daily charge to access the flight
> line whether you have an aircraft on exhibit or not. Am I correct?
>
That's correct - last year they changed the policy and there is only one
admission charge that includes flightline access. If you fly in you are
already on the flightline & if you stay there you don't need a pass
until you go off the flightline and try to get back in. If you camp by
your plane (only is designated areas) you will need to purchase the
camper credentials and flightline pass at that time. For those
individuals that arrive early with a show plane, there is a limited
amount of camping in the trees south of the Theater in the Woods - It
fills fast and there are regular villages that spring up for the
convention (Sally's Oaken Alley and the Cajun Condo's or Corner etc.)
Security makes sure everyone has camper credentials. Hope this helps.
Larry
Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)itol.com> |
John Duprey wrote:
>
> I have only just begun building. I want to attend Broadhead this year,
> for my first time does anyone know the dates this year as I need to
> schedule time off early.
>
The Brodhead gathering occurs during the EAA convention time. As guests
of the local airport, they set the dates etc. and we get to enjoy. If
everything is the same as past years the Brodhead event will occur From
Friday July 30, 199 Thru Sunday August 1, 1999 (The BIG day is
Saturday). Of course with the special honors being extended by the EAA
for the 70th celebration, who knows. There are generally a few Piets
that fly from Brodhead to Oshkosh on Sunday to catch the end of the
convention. Maybe Sunday will be the best day to launch a mass group to
OSH - Does anyone know more details about the special OSH event?
Larry
Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Larry wrote:
>>
>>>> last year they changed the policy and there is only one
admission charge that includes flightline access. If you fly in you are
already on the flightline & if you stay there you don't need a pass
until you go off the flightline and try to get back in. If you camp by
your plane (only is designated areas) you will need to purchase the
camper credentials and flightline pass at that time. >>>>
Right Larry. Let me see now- we are invited to gather & put on a "show "
& then are charged for doing so. Wonderful! If I may say so, I think OSK
is overdone. Low & slow is no longer a main attraction- as it once was-
it is mostly war birds & glass & glitter.
Nothing beats a bunch of guys flying in to a no radio grass strip,
sitting around with a pop in one hand & a hot dog in the other & talking
fabric & wood. Something like Brodhead.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Larry wrote:
last year they changed the policy and
there is
only oneadmission charge that includes flightline access. If you fly
in you
arealready on the flightline if you stay there you don't need
a
passuntil you go off the flightline and try to get back in. If you
camp
byyour plane (only is designated areas) you will need to purchase
thecamper credentials and flightline pass at that time.
Right Larry. Let me see now- we are invited
to gather
put on a show then are charged for doing so.
Wonderful!
If I may say so, I think OSK is overdone. Low slow is no longer a
main
attraction- as it once was- it is mostly war birds glass
glitter.
Nothing beats a bunch of guys flying in to a no radio grass strip,
December 26, 1998 - January 09, 1999
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-am