Pietenpol-List Archive Browser

From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Wheels (and forward fuselage length)....
Date: Dec 31, 2003
FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE Dave, I understand you plan to use a C 85 engine and extend the forward fuselage by 6 inches. In the May 1956 issue of THE EXPERIMENTER (which became SPORT AVIATION published by EAA), there was an excellent article about the Pietenpol airplanes written by George Hardie, Jr. It included letters from builders and owners of Pietenpols. I shall quote a letter from Bernard Pietenpol himself which could be of interest to the group and perhaps answer some of your questions: Dear Sir: Received the last Experimenter and read it with much interest. You seem to be getting a bit of interest in home-built aeroplanes again. I am getting some mail and orders for blueprints and was wonder- ing if you would publish a few changes that should be made if they wish to build from the original plans. As I don't have the time to change the plans, only the following changes are recommended. In making up the fuselage landing gear fittings, make the strap go way across the bottom. Where the flying struts are fastened to the wing, slant the wing fittings at about the slant of the flying struts. Cub wing fittings would work swell. Some sort of stop should be put on the controls. If a 65 HP engine is used, make the fuselage just 6 inches longer in front, and make the upper engine mount fittings go back at least 3 inches further on the longeron. A complete Cub landing gear couldbe used to advantage. If I ever get the time, I would like to build up one more ship and the only changes I would make are the ones listed. The ship Mr. Schermerhorn has, has most of these changes ex- cept for the longer fuselage. I built one with with a foot longer fuselage, but that was too much--does not handle good in a steep slip. Wishing you the best, B. H. Pietenpol So there you have the word of the old master, himself. I built mine incorporating all of his recommendations, plus I made the fuselage 2 inches wider at the cockpits. Initally, I used a Continental A 65 with a wooden propeller and had to move the wing back about 3 inches because I have an Aeronca 7ac/ 11ac engine mount which extends 8 inches ahead of the firewall. Then I switched to a C 85 - 12 and was able to move the wing ahead about 3/4 inch, still using a wooden prop. Even with Slick magnetos (which are quite compact), the -12 engine(sans electrics) is very close to the firewall. Two advantages of the 6 inch longer fuselage is the extra leg room in the front pit and additional space for a nose tank, if desired. Graham Hansen EAA 2063 (Pietenpol CF-AUN) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 95 HP Corvair engines
Date: Dec 31, 2003
Ron wrote (a while back)- >Oscar, Correct me if I'm wrong >there should virtually be no difference between the 95 block >and the 110 block. I hope that the post that followed yours that day cleared up the issue. I reserve the right to be wrong occasionally, and I used one of those rights after I posted a wrong ;op >It's my understanding that the difference in horsepower comes from the cam >and carbs and both of these are replaced during the conversion. And the heads. But your point was that a 95 HP should make a dandy core, and you're right... provided you don't have the wrong heads. Right? There is a picture of the chambers of the heads that you want, on Mark Langford's valve job page at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/valvejob.html for example. If your 95 HP has heads with that chamber configuration, you're doing great. If not, you just need the right heads... everything else is good to go. The retarded cam gear can be replaced with the proper timed gear when you get your new/rebuilt cam (if your cam gear is retarded). Shoot, I've thrown in everything I can think of that might be wrong, confusing, or contentious here- but the bottom line is that a 95 HP should make a perfectly good starting engine. >There may be some minor variations in the combustion chamber design >but nothing to alter the final horsepower output. I believe the combustion chamber design ("open" as opposed to "squish") and the smog controls were what resulted in the factory rating of 95 HP instead of the 110 HP that the non-smoggers were enjoying. But I reserve the right to be wrong again! >I don't see where relieving the case is an issue. You're correct. The cases should be identical; factory-relieved to clear the 8409 crank throws and the increased stroke. >Are you confusing the 95 hp engine with the 80/102/150 hp engines, >or did I miss something? Yes, I'm confusing them and no, you're not missing anything. I mean no, I'm not confused- you're right and missing nothing. I'm not confused about your being right nor missing anything. I'm not confused... this is New Year's Eve 2003, the third year of the 21st century... or is it really only the 2nd year since the century ends on the even-numbered year? I'm confused... but I may be wrong, too. Pass me some more champagne to help with all this *hic* confusion and let's all get ready to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Pietenpol in 2004! Here's to a grand old design; may she fly on into the 22nd century!!! Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com>
Subject: Re: Wheels (and forward fuselage length)....
Date: Dec 31, 2003
Thanks Graham!!! This is great news! I did plan on having a nose tank and really do need the leg room. I've made just one other change to my fuselage, which had to be done if I was going to have a Pietenpol. I am 6", 2" , kinda long in the leg and have a very tender, old back. I had a Flybaby with a seat very similar to that in a Piet, meaning that the back of the seat was nearly vertical. That configuration resulted in a lot of pain. So...I have moved the back bottom of the rear seat of my Piet a few inches forward. I did not change the top part of the back of the seat, just moved the bottom forward a bit. It seems to provide a lot more comfort. My feet will be farther forward, but hopefully I haven't done anything to mess up the airplane's flying characteristics. I think there will still be sufficient room for full movement of the yoke. This also seems to set me lower in the aircraft so I don't look like a giant sticking out of the cockpit. I have a photo of this modification if anyone would be interested. Again, I hope that I haven't made a change that will cause big problems, but it was something I felt I had to do. Thanks again Graham. You must have quite a collection of aviation magazines to go back that far. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels (and forward fuselage length).... Dave, I understand you plan to use a C 85 engine and extend the forward fuselage by 6 inches. In the May 1956 issue of THE EXPERIMENTER (which became SPORT AVIATION published by EAA), there was an excellent article about the Pietenpol airplanes written by George Hardie, Jr. It included letters from builders and owners of Pietenpols. I shall quote a letter from Bernard Pietenpol himself which could be of interest to the group and perhaps answer some of your questions: Dear Sir: Received the last Experimenter and read it with much interest. You seem to be getting a bit of interest in home-built aeroplanes again. I am getting some mail and orders for blueprints and was wonder- ing if you would publish a few changes that should be made if they wish to build from the original plans. As I don't have the time to change the plans, only the following changes are recommended. In making up the fuselage landing gear fittings, make the strap go way across the bottom. Where the flying struts are fastened to the wing, slant the wing fittings at about the slant of the flying struts. Cub wing fittings would work swell. Some sort of stop should be put on the controls. If a 65 HP engine is used, make the fuselage just 6 inches longer in front, and make the upper engine mount fittings go back at least 3 inches further on the longeron. A complete Cub landing gear couldbe used to advantage. If I ever get the time, I would like to build up one more ship and the only changes I would make are the ones listed. The ship Mr. Schermerhorn has, has most of these changes ex- cept for the longer fuselage. I built one with with a foot longer fuselage, but that was too much--does not handle good in a steep slip. Wishing you the best, B. H. Pietenpol So there you have the word of the old master, himself. I built mine incorporating all of his recommendations, plus I made the fuselage 2 inches wider at the cockpits. Initally, I used a Continental A 65 with a wooden propeller and had to move the wing back about 3 inches because I have an Aeronca 7ac/ 11ac engine mount which extends 8 inches ahead of the firewall. Then I switched to a C 85 - 12 and was able to move the wing ahead about 3/4 inch, still using a wooden prop. Even with Slick magnetos (which are quite compact), the -12 engine(sans electrics) is very close to the firewall. Two advantages of the 6 inch longer fuselage is the extra leg room in the front pit and additional space for a nose tank, if desired. Graham Hansen EAA 2063 (Pietenpol CF-AUN) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: New member.
Date: Dec 31, 2003
Welcome Anthony Where do you live? Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony" <akwusmc(at)comcast.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: New member. > > All, > > Just wanted to introduce myself. > > My name is Anthony, and I just joined the Pietenpol list after having lurked for about 2 months. My dad got me Air Camper plans for Christmas, as well as a few other homebuilding goodies (all 5 Flying & Glider Annuals!). I'm not sure what plane I'm going to build, butr the Air Camper is at the top of my short list. > > Anyway, just wanted to say hello, and to wish everyone a Merry Christmas! > > Anthony > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2004
Subject: Re: sport pilot update
In a message dated 12/29/03 10:52:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov writes: > OMB now has 90 days in which to review and return the package to the FAA, > at which time it would be published in the Federal Register as a final rule. Hey Corky, I'm bettin' you'll be flying to Brodhead this summer !!! I'm sure it will be one of the best Brodheads ever. I think we've got more and more Pietenpols flying now, than there ever has been. Wouldn't it be cool, if we could all fly in to Pioneer field at Oshkosh, and get a picture with all the Pietenpols around in front of the Pietenpol hanger ??? Hey Doc Mosher, is there any way this could be arranged ? Chuck Gantzer NX770CG ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2004
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Test ... 2004 ... test
Oscar, I got this one last night.. John John Ford john(at)indstate.edu 812-237-8542 >>> taildrags(at)hotmail.com Wednesday, December 31, 2003 9:56:15 PM >>> Ron wrote (a while back)- >Oscar, Correct me if I'm wrong >there should virtually be no difference between the 95 block >and the 110 block. I hope that the post that followed yours that day cleared up the issue. I reserve the right to be wrong occasionally, and I used one of those rights after I posted a wrong ;op >It's my understanding that the difference in horsepower comes from the cam >and carbs and both of these are replaced during the conversion. And the heads. But your point was that a 95 HP should make a dandy core, and you're right... provided you don't have the wrong heads. Right? There is a picture of the chambers of the heads that you want, on Mark Langford's valve job page at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/valvejob.html for example. If your 95 HP has heads with that chamber configuration, you're doing great. If not, you just need the right heads... everything else is good to go. The retarded cam gear can be replaced with the proper timed gear when you get your new/rebuilt cam (if your cam gear is retarded). Shoot, I've thrown in everything I can think of that might be wrong, confusing, or contentious here- but the bottom line is that a 95 HP should make a perfectly good starting engine. >There may be some minor variations in the combustion chamber design >but nothing to alter the final horsepower output. I believe the combustion chamber design ("open" as opposed to "squish") and the smog controls were what resulted in the factory rating of 95 HP instead of the 110 HP that the non-smoggers were enjoying. But I reserve the right to be wrong again! >I don't see where relieving the case is an issue. You're correct. The cases should be identical; factory-relieved to clear the 8409 crank throws and the increased stroke. >Are you confusing the 95 hp engine with the 80/102/150 hp engines, >or did I miss something? Yes, I'm confusing them and no, you're not missing anything. I mean no, I'm not confused- you're right and missing nothing. I'm not confused about your being right nor missing anything. I'm not confused... this is New Year's Eve 2003, the third year of the 21st century... or is it really only the 2nd year since the century ends on the even-numbered year? I'm confused... but I may be wrong, too. Pass me some more champagne to help with all this *hic* confusion and let's all get ready to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Pietenpol in 2004! Here's to a grand old design; may she fly on into the 22nd century!!! Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2004
Subject: Re: Wow! let me try that - NOT!
Shouldn't need a new computer or Operating System, just a newer mail reader (doesn't have to be anything from Microsoft). Please be aware that not all of us get all the fancy formatting. Before Matt instituted the new features, all that stuff got stripped out & we got clean ,readable messages; now I get coded junk from the Evil Empire, which probably subliminally translates into my brain as "BUY MICROSOFT...BUY ONLY MICROSOFT!" :). I know, I know, the answer is to get a new computer, but would you all trade your Piets for RV-9's? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carbarvo(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2004
Subject: Re: Wheels
Jack...Do you know Bill Beerman in Raleigh?? He and friends are building a Piet.....Carl Vought ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Wheels
Date: Jan 01, 2004
I've corresponded with him several years ago. I believe he also owns a Stinson 108. Never met him in person, though. Jack -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Carbarvo(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels Jack...Do you know Bill Beerman in Raleigh?? He and friends are building a Piet.....Carl Vought ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2004
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: email programs
Eudora is a spiffy email program. I can't really say enough nice things about it. Mozilla has a nice email client also, but the browser doesn't handle all the Microsoft faux-Java stuff you find in a lot of web pages. Those are the two programs I recommend to folks at work who don't want to use Microsoft Outlook (which perpetuates most virii) or the GroupWise system I support (on the client side) at work. John John Ford john(at)indstate.edu 812-237-8542 >>> At7000ft(at)aol.com Thursday, January 01, 2004 6:50:12 PM >>> Shouldn't need a new computer or Operating System, just a newer mail reader (doesn't have to be anything from Microsoft). Please be aware that not all of us get all the fancy formatting. Before Matt instituted the new features, all that stuff got stripped out & we got clean ,readable messages; now I get coded junk from the Evil Empire, which probably subliminally translates into my brain as "BUY MICROSOFT...BUY ONLY MICROSOFT!" :). I know, I know, the answer is to get a new computer, but would you all trade your Piets for RV-9's? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com>
Subject: Winter activity
Date: Jan 02, 2004
Pieters- I have not seen a message posted for 3-4 days. Is everyone into a flurry of winter building or am I being left out in the cold??? Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Colin" <ckoebel3(at)comcast.net>
Subject: list posts
Date: Jan 02, 2004
Hi, I haven't seen any posts lately, is it the list or me? Colin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: list posts
Date: Jan 02, 2004
Larry and Colin, There has been a normal amount of traffic. Maybe you guys got bumped. walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin" <ckoebel3(at)comcast.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: list posts > > Hi, I haven't seen any posts lately, is it the list or me? > > Colin > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Winter activity
Date: Jan 02, 2004
I'm back on my airframe now after a long hiatus when I was workign on my Corvair engine. I'm about 80% complete withmy wing center section and as soon as that's done I'm gonna finalize the tail feathers and get the controls/cables run to them. Winter is the best time to build here in Arizona. Once summer hits forget it! DJ ----- Original Message ----- From: LAWRENCE WILLIAMS Subject: Pietenpol-List: Winter activity Pieters- I have not seen a message posted for 3-4 days. Is everyone into a flurry of winter building or am I being left out in the cold??? Larry = This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KRSBtv(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 02, 2004
Subject: Re: Winter activity
Your computer is cold, I suspect. I'm new to this list and have been seeing info for the past week, although I haven't done a post yet until today. FYI... I purchased a Pietenpol in November in Northern Georgia that has never been flown. The fellow that built it had the Atlanta FSDO do the inspection and Phase 1 paperwork in the Summer of 1998 and then he promptly suffered a heart attack, resulting in grounding him and the bird. I have to start from square 1 with the San Antonio FSDO in order to get a new Phase 1 assigned. My dad has an A&P license and we are in the process of improving a number of things. One item we didn't like is the fact that this Piet had copper brake lines going from the heel brakes to the wheels, without any provision to allow for flexing. I suspect I'll pull the copper lines and install plastic lines and hardware similar to an airplane I built in 1990. Lot's of other things to tweak in this Piet to include a new Stromberg carb, new gascolator, repair of a leak in the fiberglass fuselage tank, and the list goes on. Sterling Brooks Knot-2-Shabby Airport & Texas Longhorn Cattle Ranchito (5TA6) San Antonio Sectional Runnels County Texas (Where our motto and NOTAMS usually is... Fresh cow dung on runway! Pilots of open cockpit airplanes must land at their own risk and are encouraged to carry baby wipes, especially if the airplane IS NOT equipped with wheel pants.) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: hickpiper(at)misn.com
Subject: ATV spindles
Date: Jan 02, 2004
please contact the helpdesk. If there is anyone using ATV spindles/brakes out there, I'm curious as different methods of attaching the spindles to the gear. The particular set I am using is cast as one piece with the sockets for the ball joints being unitized with the spindle. This seems like a fairly solid way to attach them as well as allow a pivot point for setting the toe in....or is it better to cut the spindle off and use it by itself to save weight and keep it simple? thanks, Jon Jones Ironton, Mo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Darrel E. Jones" <wd6bor(at)vom.com>
Subject: Re: Piets in California??????
Date: Jan 02, 2004
Fred, It was a crummy day but there were still a few folks at Schellville. Sorry I Missed you, butmaybe you can stop by in better weather. I'm at Sonoma Skypark, in hangar K-1 if you make it by there. Darrel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Weaver" <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piets in California?????? > > Darrel... Will you be at Schelleville on New Years Day? We will be > there weather permitting.. Wittman Tailwind W10, RV6, Cessna 170, Rans > S6 and maybe a Cessna 340 twin.. All from Jackson/Westover O70. > Fred Weaver > Chris is skiing at Kirkwood today with kids and friends. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2004
From: "catdesign(at)intergate.com" <catdesign(at)intergate.com>
Subject: Re: Winter activity
Larry, See that the list has been a bit low on building details as of late would you mind telling us how well your brakes work? Are you happy with them? Any operational problems? Any thing you would change? Are the disks home made and if so how did you do it? How well do they hold on during run up? (Heck do you even do a run up with a Ford?) Thanks Chris T. Sacramento, Ca LAWRENCE WILLIAMS : > Pieters- I have not seen a message posted for 3-4 days. Is everyone into a > flurry of winter building or am I being left out in the cold??? > Larry ------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: calibrating airspeed
Date: Jan 02, 2004
Happy 2004, Pietenpolers; The list doesn't seem to be working very well, but I'll try this one anyway. It's a post that was on the KRNet a few weeks ago but it's an interesting thing to try if your airspeed indicator doesn't read accurately. Usually there isn't much you can do to realign it with reality, but this is worth a try: ======================== Hi folks I came across a neat article by Tony Bingelis on the net last night. Do a google search on pitot static error. Tony described a really simple method for adjusting any airspeed error provided you have an external static tube (as distinct to a fuselage or interior source). He suggested an o-ring be slided along the tube. Locating it in front of the little static holes in the tube results in a drop in static pressure and an increase in indicated airspeed. Behind the holes leads to the opposite. Distance from the hole determines amount of change. Once the correct position is ascertained, the o-ring is replaced by a more permanent fixture, eg. a small band of metal or filler. I guess something similar could be obtained on a fuselage side static vent using a small mound of something either in front or behind the hole that can be sanded down accordingly to suit. I reckon my airspeed [on his KR] is under-reading by about 12 knots in the cruise because the static is affected by high pressure under the wing. The above is so simple and apparently accurate that I can't wait to try it out and compare with a three leg GPS readout at different speeds. Certainly heaps easier than relocating tubes etc. It will also hopefully resolve a minor altitude error picked up by my annual transponder check whereby, for example, altitude readout on the ground by slight evacuation of the static to give 1000 feet was not obtained until 1100 feet or so in the air. The Martindale Family 29 Jane Circuit TOORMINA NSW 2452 AUSTRALIA ================================ Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: calibrating airspeed
Date: Jan 02, 2004
Hi Oscar Your post came thru ok. There are others who seem to be having the same problem as you. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: calibrating airspeed > > Happy 2004, Pietenpolers; > > The list doesn't seem to be working very well, but I'll try this one anyway. > It's a post that was on the KRNet a few weeks ago but it's an interesting > thing to try if your airspeed indicator doesn't read accurately. Usually > there isn't much you can do to realign it with reality, but this is worth a > try: > ======================== > Hi folks > > I came across a neat article by Tony Bingelis on the net last night. Do a > google > search on pitot static error. Tony described a really simple method for > adjusting any airspeed error provided you have an external static tube (as > distinct to a fuselage or interior source). He suggested an o-ring be slided > along the tube. Locating it in front of the little static holes in the tube > results in a drop in static pressure and an increase in indicated airspeed. > Behind the holes leads to the opposite. Distance from the hole determines > amount > of change. Once the correct position is ascertained, the o-ring is replaced > by a > more permanent fixture, eg. a small band of metal or filler. I guess > something > similar could be obtained on a fuselage side static vent using a small mound > of > something either in front or behind the hole that can be sanded down > accordingly > to suit. > > I reckon my airspeed [on his KR] is under-reading by about 12 knots in the > cruise because > the static is affected by high pressure under the wing. The above is so > simple > and apparently accurate that I can't wait to try it out and compare with a > three > leg GPS readout at different speeds. Certainly heaps easier than relocating > tubes etc. It will also hopefully resolve a minor altitude error picked up > by my > annual transponder check whereby, for example, altitude readout on the > ground by > slight evacuation of the static to give 1000 feet was not obtained until > 1100 > feet or so in the air. > > The Martindale Family > 29 Jane Circuit > TOORMINA NSW 2452 > AUSTRALIA > ================================ > Oscar Zuniga > San Antonio, TX > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > _________________________________________________________________ > Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. > http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mytyweav(at)earthlink.net" <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Piets in California??????
Date: Jan 03, 2004
Hey.... Thanks for the note. We were buried in weather and totally unable to attend. It killed us all. We were looking forwared to bringing in the new year with a blast. We will absolutely make it in the days soon to come. I will give you a little lead time so we won't have a problem. So glad the rest of the enthusiast's had a good time at George's place. He knows how to cook to keep em smilin'... Weav Original Message: ----------------- From: Darrel E. Jones wd6bor(at)vom.com Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:01:16 -0800 Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piets in California?????? Fred, It was a crummy day but there were still a few folks at Schellville. Sorry I Missed you, butmaybe you can stop by in better weather. I'm at Sonoma Skypark, in hangar K-1 if you make it by there. Darrel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Weaver" <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piets in California?????? > > Darrel... Will you be at Schelleville on New Years Day? We will be > there weather permitting.. Wittman Tailwind W10, RV6, Cessna 170, Rans > S6 and maybe a Cessna 340 twin.. All from Jackson/Westover O70. > Fred Weaver > Chris is skiing at Kirkwood today with kids and friends. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Darrel E. Jones" <wd6bor(at)vom.com>
Subject: Re: Piets in California??????
Date: Jan 03, 2004
Weav, The Schellville meetings have been changed to 12 noon on the second Saturday of each month to coincide with the display day for the historical aircraft exemption. I'm sure you guys will be able to find a clear day to make the hop for a visit soon. See you then, Darrel PS. George did a comendable job of cooking up hamburgers and hot dogs so everyone went home well fed. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 04, 2004
Subject: Don't need no stinkin shelf
I am building a long fuselage Piet with a corvair engine and therefore don't believe I need the shelf in the upper front of the fuselage. I plan on using a full height firewall extending above the top longerons like Mike Cuy's in his video. Question is how to finish off the upper front of the fuselage. I am assuming I can just add triangular gussets to the inside top corners (like those shown on the plans at the bottom corners) and a horizontal cross brace (maybe 1" x 3/4") between the 2 (#1) front vertical struts just under the top inside motor mount brackets. Anyone see any problems with this? Thanks Rick Holland ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Subject: Cabane Strut Length
In a message dated 12/31/03 5:36:52 PM Central Standard Time, wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes: << Jm, Mine are to plans. Guess if I had to do it over again, would have made them longer. Corky, yours are longer , aren't they. How does that work out? Know lots of guys made them longer. Can all respond? walt evans NX140DL I know, I myself couldn't get in there. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Markle To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:23 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: climbing in (the real story) How do the cabane lengths compare the the plans? I hope your's are shorter....this doesn't look good..... :-) jm >> My cabane struts are 2" longer than plans. I have yet to install the slanted struts, so I still have the 'X' cables on the right side of the front pit. Ya just wanna take a ride bad enough, and you'll get in. At 6', 210 lbs, I can get in, so I might not even go with the slanted struts. Chuck Gantzer NX770CG ________________________________________________________________________________ ETAsAhRrWUedrA2EP5OMdHy7KdxvWdQTJgIUBdg8upLV8ftJ5N9nTXL+sSlkTho=
From: lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Subject: Re: ATV spindles
John: I'm using Heager axels and brakes that I got from AS&S. They come from the ATV background, but are still removed from what you are doing. I am using aluminum Douglass ATV wheels and balloon tires. You mentioned toe in. There was an article in Custom Planes a few months back that had an excellent article about wheel alignment. They say "NO TOE IN" I built my gear legs with a tiny amount of toe in, and now I am going to have to heat up the lower ends to bend the toe in out. Leon S. Hutchinson Ks. Mostly lurking for the past 6 mos. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kolesar, Jeremy" <Jeremy.Kolesar(at)unistudios.com>
Subject: ATV spindles
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Please remove my address from this list -----Original Message----- From: lshutks(at)webtv.net [mailto:lshutks(at)webtv.net] Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ATV spindles John: I'm using Heager axels and brakes that I got from AS&S. They come from the ATV background, but are still removed from what you are doing. I am using aluminum Douglass ATV wheels and balloon tires. You mentioned toe in. There was an article in Custom Planes a few months back that had an excellent article about wheel alignment. They say "NO TOE IN" I built my gear legs with a tiny amount of toe in, and now I am going to have to heat up the lower ends to bend the toe in out. Leon S. Hutchinson Ks. Mostly lurking for the past 6 mos. RE: Pietenpol-List: ATV spindles Please remove my address from this list -----Original Message----- From: lshutks(at)webtv.net [mailto:lshutks(at)webtv.net] Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ATV spindles -- Pietenpol-List message posted by: lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) John: I'm using Heager axels and brakes that I got from ASS. They come from the ATV background, but are still removed from what you are doing. I am using aluminum Douglass ATV wheels and balloon tires. You mentioned toe in. There was an article in Custom Planes a few months back that had an excellent article about wheel alignment. They say NO TOE IN I built my gear legs with a tiny amount of toe in, and now I am going to have to heat up the lower ends to bend the toe in out. Leon S. Hutchinson Ks. Mostly lurking for the past 6 mos. http://www.matronics.com/chat http://www.matronics.com/subscription FAQ: http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm ">http://www.matronics.com/search ">http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list ">http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list ">http://www.matronics.com/chat Archives: http://www.matronics.com/archives ">http://www.matronics.com/photoshare ">http://www.matronics.com/pietenpol-list ">http://www.matronics.com/emaillists >From: <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Cabane Strut Length
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Dale and I made ours 2" longer than plans. Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis ----- Original Message ----- From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cabane Strut Length > > In a message dated 12/31/03 5:36:52 PM Central Standard Time, > wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes: > > << Jm, > Mine are to plans. Guess if I had to do it over again, would have made them > longer. Corky, yours are longer , aren't they. How does that work out? > Know lots of guys made them longer. Can all respond? > walt evans > NX140DL > I know, I myself couldn't get in there. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Markle > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:23 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: climbing in (the real story) > > > How do the cabane lengths compare the the plans? > I hope your's are shorter....this doesn't look good..... :-) > jm >> > > My cabane struts are 2" longer than plans. I have yet to install the slanted > struts, so I still have the 'X' cables on the right side of the front pit. > Ya just wanna take a ride bad enough, and you'll get in. At 6', 210 lbs, I can > get in, so I might not even go with the slanted struts. > > Chuck Gantzer > NX770CG > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: ATV spindles
Leon what size douglass wheels did you go with? this is what is planned for my piet and I'm thinking of going with a taller wheel if it is strong enough. Del Leon Stefan wrote: John: I'm using Heager axels and brakes that I got from AS&S. They come from the ATV background, but are still removed from what you are doing. I am using aluminum Douglass ATV wheels and balloon tires. You mentioned toe in. There was an article in Custom Planes a few months back that had an excellent article about wheel alignment. They say "NO TOE IN" I built my gear legs with a tiny amount of toe in, and now I am going to have to heat up the lower ends to bend the toe in out. Leon S. Hutchinson Ks. Mostly lurking for the past 6 mos. Del-New Richmond, Wi "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com" --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Subject: Re: Cabane Strut Length
Walt, Mine are 2 inches longer on 41CC and 2 1/2 inches longer on 311CC. Corky ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ellie & Jim Sheen" <sheenej(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Cabane Strut Length
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Corky, Is 41CC your first or second Piet? Has the 1/2" difference been an inprovement? From your experience, which do you prefer? Pros and cons ? I am new to the list. Where are you located? Are there any other readers that are close to Gettysburg? Jim Sheen at Gettysburg, PA ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cabane Strut Length Walt, Mine are 2 inches longer on 41CC and 2 1/2 inches longer on 311CC. Corky ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Cabane Strut Length
Date: Jan 05, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cabane Strut Length =============================== Mine are only 1" longer than the plans John > > In a message dated 12/31/03 5:36:52 PM Central Standard Time, > wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes: > > << Jm, > Mine are to plans. Guess if I had to do it over again, would have made them > longer. Corky, yours are longer , aren't they. How does that work out? > Know lots of guys made them longer. Can all respond? > walt evans > NX140DL > I know, I myself couldn't get in there. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Markle > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:23 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: climbing in (the real story) > > > How do the cabane lengths compare the the plans? > I hope your's are shorter....this doesn't look good..... :-) > jm >> > > My cabane struts are 2" longer than plans. I have yet to install the slanted > struts, so I still have the 'X' cables on the right side of the front pit. > Ya just wanna take a ride bad enough, and you'll get in. At 6', 210 lbs, I can > get in, so I might not even go with the slanted struts. > > Chuck Gantzer > NX770CG > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Corvair engines in AL
Date: Jan 05, 2004
There was a guy from Alabama that left a brief post a few weeks ago on the Yahoo Corvair group stating that he had engines. He wasn't an airplane guy, he just had a lot of junk. So after a few emails with him, I decided to drive down last weekend. I got four 110hp engines, all were complete, three were '65-'68, one was a '64. I got an extra crank, an extra set of heads, three 12 row fin oil coolers, an extra set of pushrod tubes, an extra set of valve covers, two side draft motorcycle carbs, and a gascolator for my Model-A. It was $400 for the engines, the rest he just loaded into my truck. At $400, I didn't have the heart to pay him any less. He still has five 110hp engines in the barn, one '65-'68 (suffix RH), and the rest are '64 (suffix YN if memory serves me, I was a little overwhelmed at the time). On the loft of the barn, he said there were additional heads up there, but I didn't go up to look (the floor was falling through). He also has an old van parked out back with six engines, two were partial (missing at least one head), and at least one was low HP. I couldn't check the others without emptying the van. He also had at least a dozen Corvairs on his property. My guess is there are a couple of the right cores in those. The nicest Car on the property, which is not to far off of being drivable, had a 110 badge on the trunk. This gentleman is just a good-old-boy who's partied a little hard in his life. His property was a mess. All the Corvair stuff was from his dad and he had no interest in it other than selling it. I think he had in the past twice the quantity of engines but has recently been tearing them down and selling the aluminum for scrap. What I'm saying here is if you are interested, you probably should act fast. A note about the barn. It's full of stuff. There are Corvair cylinders lying all over the place. There's a few cranks, distributors, pistons and rods, and other miscellaneous parts just lying around. This doesn't count the flathead Ford engines parts, old fenders, radios, and countless other non-Corvair parts that were interesting. The barn is falling apart with holes in the roof and only about half of it was dry. Don't expect to walk into a clean shop and have perfect engines sitting on engine stands; wear boots and get a Tetanus shot first. Just up the interstate from where he lives is a large utility trailer manufacturer/retailer. I had a hard time not buying a 16 footer and going back for more. By the way, four engines in the back is about all a Ford 150 can manage, I white knuckled it all the way home. He wanted to give me a couple of extra Corvair blocks in case one of my cranks were bad or wrong, I couldn't take them simply due to the weight in the truck already. His name was Eric Lippert in Cullman, AL. He's got no phone, but he does have satellite internet and his email is justeric1agn(at)yahoo.com. He's a nice guy, looks like he could use the money, and would like to see these engines being used as opposed to melted down. Robert Haines Du Quoin, Illinois ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Corvair engines in AL
I have a Silverado if anyone wants to work together to look into what's left and maybe go load up my truck (and share expenses), let me know.... Jim in Plano..... And thanks Robert! -----Original Message----- From: Robert Haines <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engines in AL There was a guy from Alabama that left a brief post a few weeks ago on the Yahoo Corvair group stating that he had engines. He wasn't an airplane guy, he just had a lot of junk. So after a few emails with him, I decided to drive down last weekend. I got four 110hp engines, all were complete, three were '65-'68, one was a '64. I got an extra crank, an extra set of heads, three 12 row fin oil coolers, an extra set of pushrod tubes, an extra set of valve covers, two side draft motorcycle carbs, and a gascolator for my Model-A. It was $400 for the engines, the rest he just loaded into my truck. At $400, I didn't have the heart to pay him any less. He still has five 110hp engines in the barn, one '65-'68 (suffix RH), and the rest are '64 (suffix YN if memory serves me, I was a little overwhelmed at the time). On the loft of the barn, he said there were additional heads up there, but I didn't go up to look (the floor was falling through). He also has an old van parked out back with six engines, two were partial (missing at least one head), and at least one was low HP. I couldn't check the others without emptying the van. He also had at least a dozen Corvairs on his property. My guess is there are a couple of the right cores in those. The nicest Car on the property, which is not to far off of being drivable, had a 110 badge on the trunk. This gentleman is just a good-old-boy who's partied a little hard in his life. His property was a mess. All the Corvair stuff was from his dad and he had no interest in it other than selling it. I think he had in the past twice the quantity of engines but has recently been tearing them down and selling the aluminum for scrap. What I'm saying here is if you are interested, you probably should act fast. A note about the barn. It's full of stuff. There are Corvair cylinders lying all over the place. There's a few cranks, distributors, pistons and rods, and other miscellaneous parts just lying around. This doesn't count the flathead Ford engines parts, old fenders, radios, and countless other non-Corvair parts that were interesting. The barn is falling apart with holes in the roof and only about half of it was dry. Don't expect to walk into a clean shop and have perfect engines sitting on engine stands; wear boots and get a Tetanus shot first. Just up the interstate from where he lives is a large utility trailer manufacturer/retailer. I had a hard time not buying a 16 footer and going back for more. By the way, four engines in the back is about all a Ford 150 can manage, I white knuckled it all the way home. He wanted to give me a couple of extra Corvair blocks in case one of my cranks were bad or wrong, I couldn't take them simply due to the weight in the truck already. His name was Eric Lippert in Cullman, AL. He's got no phone, but he does have satellite internet and his email is justeric1agn(at)yahoo.com. He's a nice guy, looks like he could use the money, and would like to see these engines being used as opposed to melted down. Robert Haines Du Quoin, Illinois ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Subject: Re: Cabane Strut Length
Jim, 41CC is my flying Piet and 311CC is under construction with a few mods I felt would make flying a Piet a bit more comfortable and inviting. Am located in Louisiana. Had a great-grandfather visit Gettysburg for 3 days in July back in '63. Corky in La ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Subject: Re: Cabane Strut Length
Corky Care to share the modifications you are adding to your second Piet? After reading Pietenpol articles and this archive for 6 months you start to see some kind of patterns emerge in the modifications people make or wish they made after flying for a while. I assume legal liability prevents anyone from putting the plans into AutoCad, then creating a couple modified plan sets with the most common mods and additions including: - increase center strut length - increase fuse front length - increase turtle deck height - jury struts - seat and shoulder belt installation - fuselage fuel tank - bolt/nut sizes - etc Also with AutoCad, once everything is in you can rotate the entire fuselage (or anything else) in 3D and print out perspective views at any angle. That feature alone would save builders weeks to months of agrivation and wasted wood and metal. The completed plans would need to be given to Don of course. Since this idea has been discussed before I assume legal issues prevent it from happening, but that's OK, we don't want to deprive future piet builders the "design on the fly" experience and the hours on this newsgroup trying to figure out where a bracket goes. Rick Holland Working on mock cockpit and ribs 41CC is my flying Piet and 311CC is under construction with a few mods I felt would make flying a Piet a bit more comfortable and inviting. Am located in Louisiana. Had a great-grandfather visit Gettysburg for 3 days in July back in '63. Corky in La ________________________________________________________________________________ ETAtAhUAnFwf5/Y2QhUjsnK9n9ZaEiKjp+kCFBTmeyk8GeW+E/QD8uN+tFXNuvEq
From: lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Subject: ATV Wheels
Hi Dell: I am using 8" tall wheels, 6" wide. 12x21x8 tires for the look of the old Goodyear Airwheels from the 30's. I would have liked to had smaller wheels, (J-3's had little bitty sized wheels) but as I recall 8" was the smallest wheel Douglass makes. I'm sure taller wheels would be plenty strong after watching those ATV's go air borne, then slam down as hard as they do. My entire landing gear with brakes and tires weighs 48 lbs. Someone on the list once reported that his spoke wheels weigh 18 lbs each without brakes and tires. I'm happy with the results, especially since I am using the Model A. Leon S. Nickerson Ks. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Subject: Re: Cabane Strut Length
In a message dated 1/5/2004 1:06:47 PM Central Standard Time, At7000ft(at)aol.com writes: > > Sent from the Internet > > > > Corky > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Don't need no stinkin shelf
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Rick, My two cents is to build the front like the plans. Maybe thats a very important part of the structure/strength of the nose. It would be like leaving one or both of the seat backs out of the structure and adding sling seats. You'd be removing strength from the "box" structure. Assuming you are not putting in a nose tank, why don't you put something like a fwd luggage space. Kind of like Mike Cuy, who put in storage in the center section. Believe me, it's one of those things that you think about when you're at gross weight and doing a steep turn over a friends house and pulling some "G's", and it crosses your mind,,,,"Gee, I hope that nose is strong enough". : ) walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Don't need no stinkin shelf I am building a long fuselage Piet with a corvair engine and therefore don't believe I need the shelf in the upper front of the fuselage. I plan on using a full height firewall extending above the top longerons like Mike Cuy's in his video. Question is how to finish off the upper front of the fuselage. I am assuming I can just add triangular gussets to the inside top corners (like those shown on the plans at the bottom corners) and a horizontal cross brace (maybe 1" x 3/4") between the 2 (#1) front vertical struts just under the top inside motor mount brackets. Anyone see any problems with this? Thanks Rick Holland ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Cabane Strut Length
Date: Jan 05, 2004
Walt and group, Back in the 1960's when I made my cabane (we call them "center section") struts, I didn't know any better and made them according to the plans. Access to the front pit is a bit tricky, but I had welded a step onto the rear tube of the right landing gear leg from the beginning, thus making the process much easier. In- deed, without it, I can't imagine how anyone could manage on their own. There is a technique that one develops early and, if followed, it too will assist getting aboard. Once "in the (front) saddle", the height of the wing above you is of no consequence. And I suspect that a side fuse- lage door would create an enormous improvement regard- ing entry and egress, regardless of strut length. I built a steel tubing fuselage with a door about 10 to 12 inches deep, and sold the project. The buyer finished it, flew it, and car- ried lots of different-sized passengers. He said nobody had trouble getting in or out, even though the struts were the standard length. Of course, he had the step on the land- ing gear leg as well as the door. If I were building another Pietenpol, I would be inclined to use standard length struts and incorporate a door--even with the wooden fuselage, which is a bit more difficult to accomplish than with the steel tubing truss. But most, it seems, choose to lengthen the struts by a couple of inches and, in the final analysis, this is easier than installing a door. Raising the wing will also raise the center of drag, but that doesn't seem to be a problem with the Pietenpol design which tolerates such changes rather well. Something to think about: If you make your Pietenpol easy for very large (and heavy) people to get into that front pit, you may be seriously over- loading a rather small airplane. As the design stands, it has a built-in loading limitation. Extra pounds result in a signifi- cant reduction in performance and operational safety. Most two place lightplanes with similar power are physically larger, having more wing span and area (eg. Cub, Aeronca and Taylorcraft), and they can carry a heavier load. Consider- ing its relatively small size and design antiquity, the old Pieten- pol does very well--but it needs to be flown carefully with heavy loads. Cheers, Graham (Pietenpol CF-AUN, fun flying since 1970) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Don't need no stinkin shelf
sounds exactly what I'm doing, had a designer pal look at it, he sees no problem whatsoever, I'm set up for a Subaru. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Corvair engines in AL
All I can say is wow!! Sucks to be up here in Canada!! Robert Haines wrote: > > > There was a guy from Alabama that left a brief post a few weeks ago on the > Yahoo Corvair group stating that he had engines. He wasn't an airplane guy, > he just had a lot of junk. So after a few emails with him, I decided to > drive down last weekend. I got four 110hp engines, all were complete, three > were '65-'68, one was a '64. I got an extra crank, an extra set of heads, > three 12 row fin oil coolers, an extra set of pushrod tubes, an extra set of > valve covers, two side draft motorcycle carbs, and a gascolator for my > Model-A. It was $400 for the engines, the rest he just loaded into my > truck. At $400, I didn't have the heart to pay him any less. > > He still has five 110hp engines in the barn, one '65-'68 (suffix RH), and > the rest are '64 (suffix YN if memory serves me, I was a little overwhelmed > at the time). On the loft of the barn, he said there were additional heads > up there, but I didn't go up to look (the floor was falling through). He > also has an old van parked out back with six engines, two were partial > (missing at least one head), and at least one was low HP. I couldn't check > the others without emptying the van. He also had at least a dozen Corvairs > on his property. My guess is there are a couple of the right cores in > those. The nicest Car on the property, which is not to far off of being > drivable, had a 110 badge on the trunk. > > This gentleman is just a good-old-boy who's partied a little hard in his > life. His property was a mess. All the Corvair stuff was from his dad and > he had no interest in it other than selling it. I think he had in the past > twice the quantity of engines but has recently been tearing them down and > selling the aluminum for scrap. What I'm saying here is if you are > interested, you probably should act fast. > > A note about the barn. It's full of stuff. There are Corvair cylinders > lying all over the place. There's a few cranks, distributors, pistons and > rods, and other miscellaneous parts just lying around. This doesn't count > the flathead Ford engines parts, old fenders, radios, and countless other > non-Corvair parts that were interesting. The barn is falling apart with > holes in the roof and only about half of it was dry. Don't expect to walk > into a clean shop and have perfect engines sitting on engine stands; wear > boots and get a Tetanus shot first. > > Just up the interstate from where he lives is a large utility trailer > manufacturer/retailer. I had a hard time not buying a 16 footer and going > back for more. By the way, four engines in the back is about all a Ford 150 > can manage, I white knuckled it all the way home. He wanted to give me a > couple of extra Corvair blocks in case one of my cranks were bad or wrong, I > couldn't take them simply due to the weight in the truck already. > > His name was Eric Lippert in Cullman, AL. He's got no phone, but he does > have satellite internet and his email is justeric1agn(at)yahoo.com. He's a > nice guy, looks like he could use the money, and would like to see these > engines being used as opposed to melted down. > > Robert Haines > Du Quoin, Illinois > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ellie & Jim Sheen" <sheenej(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: ATV Wheels
Date: Jan 05, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks(at)webtv.net> To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:57 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: ATV Wheels > > Hi Dell: I am using 8" tall wheels, 6" wide. 12x21x8 tires for the look > of the old Goodyear Airwheels from the 30's. I would have liked to had > smaller wheels, (J-3's had little bitty sized wheels) but as I recall > 8" was the smallest wheel Douglass makes. I'm sure taller wheels would > be plenty strong after watching those ATV's go air borne, then slam down > as hard as they do. My entire landing gear with brakes and tires weighs > 48 lbs. Someone on the list once reported that his spoke wheels weigh > 18 lbs each without brakes and tires. I'm happy with the results, > especially since I am using the Model A. Leon S. Nickerson Ks. > > > > > Hi Leon. I just weighed my 19" aluminum rimmed wheel with SS spokes, and 7.25" steel tube hub (which includes 1.25" extension for a brake disc - but not the disc), tire, and tube and it weighs 18 pounds. This design is what Mike Cuy and others have used. It looks beautiful, strong, and is not too heavy. I am just starting to fabricate the "original Jenny style" straight axle gear. Good luck and have fun, Jim Sheen > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: lease Ignore.
This is a test. Please ignore. Matt Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: lease Ignore.
This is a test. Please ignore. Matt #2 Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: lease Ignore.
This is a test. Please ignore. Matt #3 Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: javier cruz <javcr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: ets in California??????
Hi Piets I am back at home and work after a very good vacations on Ca, i want to thanks to Jim for show me his project (very kind gentleman), i have the chance for visit the Hiller Aviation Museum, and they have a Piet and other old planes, great place...let me try to atach a picture of the Piet.. PICT0126 Javier Cruz --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Berta" <mqblfg(at)mail.ru>
Subject: Re: FGKZ, the last adventures
Date: Jan 05, 2004
animal classic arm berg bowdoin cassandra fellow ana hendrick opulent jeep f's followeth ad depositary dressy choral antiquary find egg flautist handicapper inflammatory bard juliet clint marcy snuffle ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2004
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: and List Browse Fixed!
Dear Tailwind and Pietenpol Listers, I've finally located a bug in the recent modification to List processing code that enabled the passing of enclosures. It was causing some problems with the List Browse feature as well as the Digest mode. Things should be working correctly now. Sorry I didn't test that better! Best regards, Matt Dralle List Admin Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2004
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Test, Please Ignore.
This is a test. Please ignore. Matt #4 Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2004
Subject: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
From: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
Rick, I like the idea of the AutoCad Piet drawings. First time aircraft builders would really benefit from this. This project is something that Pietenpol Listers could finance and put the results in public domain. There would have to be an agreement with the Pietenpol family so that they would continue to get compensation and so the planes would be "real Pietenpols." The KR group launched a new airfoil project, financing it with donations from their list. A new airfoil was designed specifically for the KR series and is now in the public domain (free download.) I understand that most new KR's are using it. Dick Hartwig ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Corvair engines in AL
Date: Jan 06, 2004
Jim, One note about loading a pickup truck... four engines will fit nicely in the bed of a full size truck, except the wheel wells are in the way. Before I left, I used the notches in the bed liner to set 2x6's (2x4's will work as well) from side to side, put short feet midway down to the bed, and set a 1/2 sheet of plywood over the top. This made a table about eight inches off the bed over the wells, which is what the notches are there for in the first place. The feet were there since I didn't trust the 1/8" ABS molded bed liner to support over 1000lbs of engines; it surely would have cracked. The nice thing was that I was able to slide the extra heads and stuff underneath, it was a beautiful thing. The drive for me was almost six hours one way, but the weather was nice, the window was down, and I now don't have to worry about finding cores anymore. Now the following may get under some skins but I'll share anyway. :) Yesterday afternoon, I received an email from a local member of CORSA who knew I was looking for a 110 engine core. He had found a local guy who was getting rid of his parts car which had an engine in it, the asking price for the whole car was $100 and it was 10 minutes from where I work. I of course immediatly called and went by after work last night to take a look. It was a '66 smog 110 (-RA) but otherwise was a really nice core. I have already passed the torch to Jon Jones in MO since I already have all I need. I guess when it rains, it pours. Robert Haines Du Quoin, Illinois > From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engines in AL > > > I have a Silverado if anyone wants to work together to look into what's left and > maybe go load up my truck (and share expenses), let me know.... > > Jim in Plano..... > > And thanks Robert! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Haines <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engines in AL > > > There was a guy from Alabama that left a brief post a few weeks ago on the > Yahoo Corvair group stating that he had engines. He wasn't an airplane guy, > he just had a lot of junk. So after a few emails with him, I decided to > drive down last weekend. I got four 110hp engines, all were complete, three > were '65-'68, one was a '64. I got an extra crank, an extra set of heads, > three 12 row fin oil coolers, an extra set of pushrod tubes, an extra set of > valve covers, two side draft motorcycle carbs, and a gascolator for my > Model-A. It was $400 for the engines, the rest he just loaded into my > truck. At $400, I didn't have the heart to pay him any less. > > He still has five 110hp engines in the barn, one '65-'68 (suffix RH), and > the rest are '64 (suffix YN if memory serves me, I was a little overwhelmed > at the time). On the loft of the barn, he said there were additional heads > up there, but I didn't go up to look (the floor was falling through). He > also has an old van parked out back with six engines, two were partial > (missing at least one head), and at least one was low HP. I couldn't check > the others without emptying the van. He also had at least a dozen Corvairs > on his property. My guess is there are a couple of the right cores in > those. The nicest Car on the property, which is not to far off of being > drivable, had a 110 badge on the trunk. > > This gentleman is just a good-old-boy who's partied a little hard in his > life. His property was a mess. All the Corvair stuff was from his dad and > he had no interest in it other than selling it. I think he had in the past > twice the quantity of engines but has recently been tearing them down and > selling the aluminum for scrap. What I'm saying here is if you are > interested, you probably should act fast. > > A note about the barn. It's full of stuff. There are Corvair cylinders > lying all over the place. There's a few cranks, distributors, pistons and > rods, and other miscellaneous parts just lying around. This doesn't count > the flathead Ford engines parts, old fenders, radios, and countless other > non-Corvair parts that were interesting. The barn is falling apart with > holes in the roof and only about half of it was dry. Don't expect to walk > into a clean shop and have perfect engines sitting on engine stands; wear > boots and get a Tetanus shot first. > > Just up the interstate from where he lives is a large utility trailer > manufacturer/retailer. I had a hard time not buying a 16 footer and going > back for more. By the way, four engines in the back is about all a Ford 150 > can manage, I white knuckled it all the way home. He wanted to give me a > couple of extra Corvair blocks in case one of my cranks were bad or wrong, I > couldn't take them simply due to the weight in the truck already. > > His name was Eric Lippert in Cullman, AL. He's got no phone, but he does > have satellite internet and his email is justeric1agn(at)yahoo.com. He's a > nice guy, looks like he could use the money, and would like to see these > engines being used as opposed to melted down. > > > Robert Haines > Du Quoin, Illinois > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2004
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Corvair engines in AL
Thanks Robert, I have a big flatbed trailer and will probably (if this all comes together) use that. It's going to be about 10-12 hours of driving for me but if I can pick up enough cores for 3 or 4 or us, that's not bad. (Well, it is bad but worth it!) So we'll see. I sent an email but haven't heard anything yet.... And yes, when it rains it pours! You gotta love it.... Thanks again, JM -----Original Message----- From: Robert Haines <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair engines in AL Jim, One note about loading a pickup truck... four engines will fit nicely in the bed of a full size truck, except the wheel wells are in the way. Before I left, I used the notches in the bed liner to set 2x6's (2x4's will work as well) from side to side, put short feet midway down to the bed, and set a 1/2 sheet of plywood over the top. This made a table about eight inches off the bed over the wells, which is what the notches are there for in the first place. The feet were there since I didn't trust the 1/8" ABS molded bed liner to support over 1000lbs of engines; it surely would have cracked. The nice thing was that I was able to slide the extra heads and stuff underneath, it was a beautiful thing. The drive for me was almost six hours one way, but the weather was nice, the window was down, and I now don't have to worry about finding cores anymore. Now the following may get under some skins but I'll share anyway. :) Yesterday afternoon, I received an email from a local member of CORSA who knew I was looking for a 110 engine core. He had found a local guy who was getting rid of his parts car which had an engine in it, the asking price for the whole car was $100 and it was 10 minutes from where I work. I of course immediatly called and went by after work last night to take a look. It was a '66 smog 110 (-RA) but otherwise was a really nice core. I have already passed the torch to Jon Jones in MO since I already have all I need. I guess when it rains, it pours. Robert Haines Du Quoin, Illinois > From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engines in AL > > > I have a Silverado if anyone wants to work together to look into what's left and > maybe go load up my truck (and share expenses), let me know.... > > Jim in Plano..... > > And thanks Robert! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Haines <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engines in AL > > > There was a guy from Alabama that left a brief post a few weeks ago on the > Yahoo Corvair group stating that he had engines. He wasn't an airplane guy, > he just had a lot of junk. So after a few emails with him, I decided to > drive down last weekend. I got four 110hp engines, all were complete, three > were '65-'68, one was a '64. I got an extra crank, an extra set of heads, > three 12 row fin oil coolers, an extra set of pushrod tubes, an extra set of > valve covers, two side draft motorcycle carbs, and a gascolator for my > Model-A. It was $400 for the engines, the rest he just loaded into my > truck. At $400, I didn't have the heart to pay him any less. > > He still has five 110hp engines in the barn, one '65-'68 (suffix RH), and > the rest are '64 (suffix YN if memory serves me, I was a little overwhelmed > at the time). On the loft of the barn, he said there were additional heads > up there, but I didn't go up to look (the floor was falling through). He > also has an old van parked out back with six engines, two were partial > (missing at least one head), and at least one was low HP. I couldn't check > the others without emptying the van. He also had at least a dozen Corvairs > on his property. My guess is there are a couple of the right cores in > those. The nicest Car on the property, which is not to far off of being > drivable, had a 110 badge on the trunk. > > This gentleman is just a good-old-boy who's partied a little hard in his > life. His property was a mess. All the Corvair stuff was from his dad and > he had no interest in it other than selling it. I think he had in the past > twice the quantity of engines but has recently been tearing them down and > selling the aluminum for scrap. What I'm saying here is if you are > interested, you probably should act fast. > > A note about the barn. It's full of stuff. There are Corvair cylinders > lying all over the place. There's a few cranks, distributors, pistons and > rods, and other miscellaneous parts just lying around. This doesn't count > the flathead Ford engines parts, old fenders, radios, and countless other > non-Corvair parts that were interesting. The barn is falling apart with > holes in the roof and only about half of it was dry. Don't expect to walk > into a clean shop and have perfect engines sitting on engine stands; wear > boots and get a Tetanus shot first. > > Just up the interstate from where he lives is a large utility trailer > manufacturer/retailer. I had a hard time not buying a 16 footer and going > back for more. By the way, four engines in the back is about all a Ford 150 > can manage, I white knuckled it all the way home. He wanted to give me a > couple of extra Corvair blocks in case one of my cranks were bad or wrong, I > couldn't take them simply due to the weight in the truck already. > > His name was Eric Lippert in Cullman, AL. He's got no phone, but he does > have satellite internet and his email is justeric1agn(at)yahoo.com. He's a > nice guy, looks like he could use the money, and would like to see these > engines being used as opposed to melted down. > > > Robert Haines > Du Quoin, Illinois > > ________________________________________________________________________________ <28114268.1073408050367.JavaMail.root(at)wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net> <28114268.1073408050367.JavaMail.root(at)wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Jan 06, 2004
From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Corvair engines in AL
> >Thanks Robert, > >I have a big flatbed trailer and will probably (if this all comes >together) use that. > >It's going to be about 10-12 hours of driving for me but if I can >pick up enough cores for 3 or 4 or us, that's not bad. (Well, it is >bad but worth it!) > >So we'll see. I sent an email but haven't heard anything yet.... > >And yes, when it rains it pours! You gotta love it.... > >Thanks again, >JM Jim, You are moving up this way sometime soon if I remember correctly? If so, I may want to be on the receiving end of one of these cores. Sorry, I can't help retrieve them, but I just used up all my vacation time over the Christmas holidays. Might also be a good tie-in for an OH Corvair College to have some cores available, if/when I get one set up with William. Regards, KIp Gardner -- North Canton, OH ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2004
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Corvair engines in AL
Hi Kip, Nope, it was someone else that was moving up that way. Too much snow for me! I'll add your name to the list in case there's some way to get a core to you. So far there are 4 of us that want 2 cores each, but I have yet to hear back from the fellow in Alabama....so who knows.... Hey, I'm in no hurry..... :-) jm Jim, You are moving up this way sometime soon if I remember correctly? If so, I may want to be on the receiving end of one of these cores. Sorry, I can't help retrieve them, but I just used up all my vacation time over the Christmas holidays. Might also be a good tie-in for an OH Corvair College to have some cores available, if/when I get one set up with William. Regards, KIp Gardner -- North Canton, OH ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: mid- air collision
Date: Jan 07, 2004
This is from our brothers and sisters on the tailwind list. It is a little off topic but it makes a great story... Chris Bobka ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rick and Cindy" <rcaviate(at)infionline.net> > > To: "Tom Poberezny" ; "Tom and Renee Crosslin" > > ; "Tailwind Discussion" ; > > ; "Howard Grimes" ; > "Gary > > Parrish" ; "E'town Flying Service" > > ; "Scot Crosslin" ; "Paul > Poberezny" > > ; "DAVID SOUTHARD" ; "Allan > > Jackson" > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:10 PM > > Subject: Tailwind-List: Fw: mid- air collision > > > > > > > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Rick and Cindy" > > > > > > > > Ladies and Gentlemen: I sold my Wittman Tailwind a couple of months ago. > I > > > didn't meet the man who bought it until he showed up to pick it up. When > > Jim > > > arrived, turns out he was a WWII veteran of aerial combat in P-38s. A > real > > > living, breathing hero! > > > Jim shared part of this amazing story of a mid air collision in his P-38 > > > verbally while he was here, > > > and here's 'the rest of the story'. > > > Rick Crosslin > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Jim & Louise Irby" <jlirby(at)webtv.net> > > > To: ; ; ; > > > ; ; ; > > > ; ; ; > > > ; ; ; > > > ; ; ; > > > ; ; ; > > > ; ; ; > > > ; ; > > > ; ; > > > ; > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:38 PM > > > Subject: mid- air collision > > > > > > > > > > i have been urged to write this story for years, by many, before i > get > > > > any older > > > > i had a mid-air collision with my wing man while flying patrol > > > > over Remagen bridge in early 1945.the germans were trying to dive bomb > > > > the bridge and the 474fg and my 429fs of p-38s were trying to keep > them > > > > from itour sqdn comdr maj james cobb was sqdn lead as red 1, > > > > i was 2nd element leader as red 3 and lt ralph byres was red 4, my > wing > > > > man. > > > > we were circling at about 18000 when a flight of 4 FW-180s > crossed > > > > below at about 15000. they split in twos, maj cobb > > > > dove on the right pair and i took after the left pair.i was closing > fast > > > > began scoring a few hits when "WHAM", > > > > byers hit me from behind and above. the impact was so great, i > > > > couldnt breathe. my seat back had knocked the breath out of me even > with > > > > a backpack parachute on. our two aircraft were stuck together. i > couldnt > > > > see out side,all i could see was the greasy belly of an engine nacell > > > > that had crushed my canopy down on my head. while my left prop was > > > > chewing on his airplane , the vibration was terrible. i instictively > > > > yanked all the power off. throttles, prop & mixture. this caused us to > > > > break apart. i never saw the other P-38 again. others in the sqdn > > > > watched it tumble, burning, to the ground. > > > > byers never got out. > > > > when we broke apart, we weregoing straight down in a left > spiral. > > > > i pulled up to a shallow glide with the left engine on fire,quickly > > > > turned off gas and ignition and prepared to bail out.the big old rhine > > > > river under me and i assumed everything west of it was friendly > > > > territory. to be sure, i punched up 9th TAC fighter control,they came > > > > right back with a YES. > > > > now the left engine fire was almost out. i had tried to feather > it > > > > but the prop blades were bent up into grotesque shapes and kept > flipping > > > > around, causing the airplane to sort of corkscrew thru the > > > > air. > > > > all the while, the right engine and prop > > > > were windmilling smoothly. iturned on the gas and ignition, put the > > > > mixture back up > > > > and that sweetheart was running like a top, so i headed west toward > home > > > > base, > > > > A-78 at florenes, belgium with the mag-compass swinging from side to > > > > side > > > > as the bent prop continued to flip over and over. > > > > soon the sqdn caught up and lead me home.maj cobb stayed with me > > > > while i dropped the gear. he flew under and said it looked ok. now i > > > > worried about how the left wing damage would behave in a stall. > > > > after everone else was on the ground, i pulled up and got a wicked > stall > > > > at about > > > > 130. a pleasant tho, the prop and engine quit turningover and i had a > > > > stable platform. > > > > i smoked it on at about 150,climbed on the brakes as hard as i > > > > dared and slowed > > > > enough to make the turn-off at the end. > > > > now coasting, the first hardstand was empty, so with a little left > brake > > > > i spun around and parked it onthe spot. > > > > "WHAT A RIDE" this beautifull P-38 > > > > had saved my but one more time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________ <28729986.1073451008871.JavaMail.root(at)wamui06.slb.atl.earthlink.net> <28729986.1073451008871.JavaMail.root(at)wamui06.slb.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Jan 07, 2004
From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Corvair engines in AL
> >Hi Kip, >Nope, it was someone else that was moving up that way. Too much snow for me! >I'll add your name to the list in case there's some way to get a core to you. >So far there are 4 of us that want 2 cores each, but I have yet to >hear back from the fellow in Alabama....so who knows.... >Hey, I'm in no hurry..... :-) >jm Jim, OK, there's someone on the list from down south who's interested in Corvairs & is moving 'Nawth' when he retires - guess I'm having a senior moment as to who. Yes, keep me in mind for a core, but I'm in no hurry either :). Hope you hear from the guy. Kip Gardner -- North Canton, OH ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 07, 2004
From: "Ken Chambers" <kchambers(at)winternals.com>
Dick, I agree the Piet plans should be available as CAD files, and I think a Piet airfoil initiative similar to the one undertaken by the KR group might be a good idea too. I know, I know -- it's blasphemous to suggest changing Bernard's "FC-10" airfoil. And it's a thing of beauty, no doubt. But this plane would be safer if it could hang in the air longer without power. A lower drag airfoil would help and we might get a little better cruise, too. We had a good analysis of this airfoil some months ago (I forget who did it, but it's in the archives). We could begin by scouring the world for airfoils with similar characteristics and lower drag. There are lots of options out there. Ken, fighting the rats in my new fixer-upper house in Austin, Texas ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov>
Subject: Corvair engines in AL
Date: Jan 07, 2004
Kip, Its me, Atlanta to West Virginia on or about June 2 2004. Skip, 147 days. >OK, there's someone on the list from down south who's interested in >Corvairs & is moving 'Nawth' when he retires - guess I'm having a >senior moment as to who. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov>
Subject: ATV Wheels
Date: Jan 07, 2004
I weighed my 21" aluminum rimmed wheel with SS spokes, turned Fortal aluminum hubs, with tires, tubes, bronze bushings, grease cups with grease, and break disks, only weighed 20 lbs, Kind of amazing, considering I have about 50 lbs of air in the tire ;) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 07, 2004
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Caroll & Mara Holmstrom" <carollh(at)mninter.net>
<a05210600bc21b367640c@[67.72.220.191]>
Subject: Re: Corvair engines in AL
Date: Jan 07, 2004
I was looking for a couple of cores up here in Minnesota. Caroll in Hassan. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
Date: Jan 07, 2004
You know....... A great candidate would be the 23012 used on the Taylorcraft.... Good lift, great cruise speed/low drag, and good float on landing... Weav ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:36 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 07, 2004
Didn't Kevin Holcomb do some stuff on the Piet airfoil using the XFOIL program -- about mid 2002 ?? Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 07, 2004
dGhlIGR1ZGUgYXQgUmVwbGljcmFmdCBhLmsuYS4gRUFQUyBBdmlhdGlvbiAodGhlIGd1eXMgbmFt ZSBpcyBTdGV2ZSBzb21ldGhpbmcpIGhhZCBhbGwgdGhlIFBpZXQgYW5kIEdOLTEgbWV0YWwgcGFy dHMgaW4gQ0FEIGF0IG9uZSBwb2ludCBiZWNhdXNlIGhlIHdhcyBvZmZlcmluZyBhbGwgdGhlbSBm b3Igc2FsZS4NCg0KVGhlbiBoZSBkZWNpZGVkIHRvIHN3aW5kbGUgaGlzIGxhc3QgY3VzdG9tZXJz IGJ5IHJ1bm5pbmcgb2ZmIHdpdGggYWJvdXQgNSBvciAxMCBvcGVuIG9yZGVycy4gIE1pbmUgaW5j bHVkZWQuICBMYXN0IEkgaGVhcmQgaGUgbWFkZSBvZmYgd2l0aCBhYm91dCAkMTBLLg0KDQoNCkRK IFZlZ2gNCk43NERWDQpNZXNhLCBBWg0Kd3d3LmltYWdlZHYuY29tL2FpcmNhbXBlcg0KDQoNCg0K LQ0KDQogIC0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0gDQogIEZyb206IE1pY2hhZWwgQ29u a2xpbmcgDQogIFRvOiBwaWV0ZW5wb2wtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIA0KICBTZW50OiBXZWRu ZXNkYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMDcsIDIwMDQgODoxMSBQTQ0KICBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUGlldGVucG9s LUxpc3Q6IEF1dG8gQ2FkIFBpZXRlbnBvbCBkcmF3aW5ncw0KDQoNCiAgRGlkbid0IEtldmluIEhv bGNvbWIgZG8gc29tZSBzdHVmZiBvbiB0aGUgUGlldCBhaXJmb2lsIHVzaW5nIHRoZSBYRk9JTCBw cm9ncmFtIC0tIGFib3V0IG1pZCAyMDAyID8/DQoNCiAgTWlrZSBDLg0KICBQcmV0dHkgUHJhaXJp ZSwgS1MNCiAgICAtLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KICAgIEZyb206IElzYWJs Y29ya3lAYW9sLmNvbSANCiAgICBUbzogcGlldGVucG9sLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSANCiAg ICBTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMDcsIDIwMDQgMTA6MzYgQU0NCiAgICBTdWJqZWN0 OiBSZTogUGlldGVucG9sLUxpc3Q6IEF1dG8gQ2FkIFBpZXRlbnBvbCBkcmF3aW5ncw0KDQoNCiAg ICBLZW4sDQoNCiAgICBQbGVhc2Uga2VlcCB0aGlzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb24gYWlyZm9pbCBnb2lu Zy4gSSBmZWVsIHRoZSBQaWV0J3MgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgY291bGQgYmUgaW1wcm92ZWQsIGVzcGVj aWFsbHkgbGFuZGluZy4gSSBoYXZlIGZsb3duIG1hbnkgdHlwZXMgb2YgcGxhbmVzLCBTRUwsIGJ1 dCBoYXZlIG5ldmVyIGZsb3duIG9uZSB0aGF0IGhhcyBubyBmbG9hdCwgaGlnaCBkcmFnLCBhbmQg YSBzdWRkZW4gZHJvcCBvdXQgb24gbGFuZGluZyBsaWtlIGEgUGlldC4gSSBrbm93IGl0J3Mgc2Fm ZSBpZiB5b3UgZXhwZWN0IGl0IGJ1dCBJIHN1cmUgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBmbG9hdCBsaWtlIGEg Q3ViLCBDaGFtcCBvciBldmVuIGEgQmVhdmVyLg0KICAgIEkgaGF2ZSBteSByaWJzIGNvbXBsZXRl ZCBmb3IgMzExQ0MgYnV0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHdpbGxpbmcgdG8gYnVpbGQgYW5vdGhlciBzZXQgd2l0 aCBhbm90aGVyIHByb3ZlbiBhaXJmb2lsIGlmIEkga25ldyB3aGF0IHRvIHRyeS4gSSBtZWFuIG5v IGRpc3Jlc3BlY3QgdG8gQkhQIG9yIHRoZSBwdXJpc3RzLiBJZiB3ZSBkaWRuJ3Qgd2FudCB0byBp bXByb3ZlIGl0IHdlIHdvdWxkIGFsbCBiZSBidWlsZGluZyBhbmQgZmx5aW5nIFdyaWdodCBGbHll cnMgYW5kL29yIEN1cnRpc3MgUHVzaGVycy4NCg0KICAgIENvcmt5IGluIDIzIGFib3ZlIExhIHdl YXRoZXI ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 07, 2004
The Cl/Cd/Cm airfoil data that I worked up is on the Piet page within my webpage (www.airminded.net). In short the airfoil is pretty good at generating both lift and drag, not much of a suprise there. I worked the numbers up more out of curiosity than out of the desire to change anything. Kevin www.airminded.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Conkling Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Didn't Kevin Holcomb do some stuff on the Piet airfoil using the XFOIL program -- about mid 2002 ?? Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 07, 2004
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
In a message dated 1/7/04 10:37:18 AM Central Standard Time, Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes: << I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. >> I suggest keep it the same airfoil for several reasons: 1. It's part of avaition history. 2. It works. 3. It allows you to use drag to advantage, especially in emergency landing, to do a precise short field landing. Several times this fall, I would stay in the pattern for an hour, 500' AGL on short final and just do steep slip down to maybe 50 to 80', maintain 60 mph indicated, low power setting, straighten 'er right up, spot a short field landing. Every landing is different, but it's a blast to explore the capabilities of sweet flying plane !! Chuck G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 07, 2004
Kevin..... Where is the airfoil data on your website.... I've scoured for quite a while and have yet to locate it. Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Holcomb To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:10 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings The Cl/Cd/Cm airfoil data that I worked up is on the Piet page within my webpage (www.airminded.net). In short the airfoil is pretty good at generating both lift and drag, not much of a suprise there. I worked the numbers up more out of curiosity than out of the desire to change anything. Kevin www.airminded.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Conkling To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: 1/7/2004 10:09:11 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Didn't Kevin Holcomb do some stuff on the Piet airfoil using the XFOIL program -- about mid 2002 ?? Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 07, 2004
Not knowing anything about airfoil numbers the I think real question is how do the Piet numbers compare to Clark Y's, and other proven low speed airfoils? Anyone know of a website that has these numbers (and can tell me what they mean). Chris T. Sacramento, Ca ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Holcomb To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:10 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings The Cl/Cd/Cm airfoil data that I worked up is on the Piet page within my webpage (www.airminded.net). In short the airfoil is pretty good at generating both lift and drag, not much of a suprise there. I worked the numbers up more out of curiosity than out of the desire to change anything. Kevin www.airminded.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Conkling To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: 1/7/2004 10:09:11 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Didn't Kevin Holcomb do some stuff on the Piet airfoil using the XFOIL program -- about mid 2002 ?? Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 07, 2004
To All, I took the time to draw all the Piet fittings in CAD but have found them to be just slightly different then what I need for my plane so I don't use them. I have not shared them out (and will not so don't ask) because I feel it might lead someone to believe you can make all the metal fittings ahead of time. Don't do this! Make your fittings fit your assembly. Thankfully, I found this out right before I ordered my fittings from Replicraft, who went under not a week later. I would have also lost money to him if I didn't get the parts and even if I did I would still have lost money because I bet they would not have fit my plane. That is when I decided to learn how to build my own metal fittings. It's not that hard but can be frustrating at times. Fortunately, there is enough to build so I could work on something else until I was ready tackle that problem piece again. MY OPINION BELOW DON"T READ IF YOU DON"T WANT TO HEAR IT: you have been warned. Van's Aircraft is able to produce pre-punched RV kits that fits together so precise that it's amazing. They can do this because every piece is cut and drilled by computer controlled machines that are capable of using the accuracy CAD affords a manufacturer. This type of accuracy is just not possible in our (my) garage. Even if all the plans were drawn in CAD I doubt your (my) building accuracy is THAT accurate. Honestly, your construction does not need to be accurate to the .01 inch. I have built model airplanes from comercially produced CAD drawing and they still have errors. Drawing in CAD does not make plans any better or worse. You still need to mesure where the part is going to fit and make the part fit the assembly. Try to keep the dimentions as close as possible to the plans but ALLWAYS make the part to fit the assembly. It's just thet simple. I feel there is no need to take the time to redraw the plans in CAD. The most helpfull things are pictures of assemblies and parts. These can be had by simply asking anyone on this list. I will freely shair pictures I have collected to all that needs them and I know others will too. To all you first time builders, of which I an one too, take the time to study the plans. All the information is on them even if it doesn't look like it at first glance. It is also helpfull to hafe the Flying and Glider Mag the EAA sells. Make you parts fit not to the dimentions on the plans but to YOUR plane. After awhile you will get comfertable with the plans and think they are adiquite. Tones of Piet's have been built from them so they can't be that bad. Just my 2 cents sorry for the length Chris T. Sacramento, Ca ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 07, 2004
Fred click on the link for Pietenpol under the Golden Age Aircraft Page. It's right there Chris T. Sacramento, Ca ----- Original Message ----- From: Fred Weaver To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:32 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Kevin..... Where is the airfoil data on your website.... I've scoured for quite a while and have yet to locate it. Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Holcomb To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:10 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings The Cl/Cd/Cm airfoil data that I worked up is on the Piet page within my webpage (www.airminded.net). In short the airfoil is pretty good at generating both lift and drag, not much of a suprise there. I worked the numbers up more out of curiosity than out of the desire to change anything. Kevin www.airminded.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Conkling To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: 1/7/2004 10:09:11 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Didn't Kevin Holcomb do some stuff on the Piet airfoil using the XFOIL program -- about mid 2002 ?? Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Good Post, Chris. I agree completely. Besides, most people make someomodifications to the design and this would make CAD plans much less useful. Jack Phillips -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Catdesign Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings To All, I took the time to draw all the Piet fittings in CAD but have found them to be just slightly different then what I need for my plane so I don't use them. I have not shared them out (and will not so don't ask) because I feel it might lead someone to believe you can make all the metal fittings ahead of time. Don't do this! Make your fittings fit your assembly. Thankfully, I found this out right before I ordered my fittings from Replicraft, who went under not a week later. I would have also lost money to him if I didn't get the parts and even if I did I would still have lost money because I bet they would not have fit my plane. That is when I decided to learn how to build my own metal fittings. It's not that hard but can be frustrating at times. Fortunately, there is enough to build so I could work on something else until I was ready tackle that problem piece again. MY OPINION BELOW DON"T READ IF YOU DON"T WANT TO HEAR IT: you have been warned. Van's Aircraft is able to produce pre-punched RV kits that fits together so precise that it's amazing. They can do this because every piece is cut and drilled by computer controlled machines that are capable of using the accuracy CAD affords a manufacturer. This type of accuracy is just not possible in our (my) garage. Even if all the plans were drawn in CAD I doubt your (my) building accuracy is THAT accurate. Honestly, your construction does not need to be accurate to the .01 inch. I have built model airplanes from comercially produced CAD drawing and they still have errors. Drawing in CAD does not make plans any better or worse. You still need to mesure where the part is going to fit and make the part fit the assembly. Try to keep the dimentions as close as possible to the plans but ALLWAYS make the part to fit the assembly. It's just thet simple. I feel there is no need to take the time to redraw the plans in CAD. The most helpfull things are pictures of assemblies and parts. These can be had by simply asking anyone on this list. I will freely shair pictures I have collected to all that needs them and I know others will too. To all you first time builders, of which I an one too, take the time to study the plans. All the information is on them even if it doesn't look like it at first glance. It is also helpfull to hafe the Flying and Glider Mag the EAA sells. Make you parts fit not to the dimentions on the plans but to YOUR plane. After awhile you will get comfertable with the plans and think they are adiquite. Tones of Piet's have been built from them so they can't be that bad. Just my 2 cents sorry for the length Chris T. Sacramento, Ca ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 08, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings ================================= Corky and Chuck, When I made the first landing in my Piet, it was a disaster! Like you Corky, I expected to be able to come over the fence at about 60 or so, just ease back on the stick and let it down easy. Instead the damn'd plane fell out from under me and I lost it. The crash landing could probably be heard for miles, directional control was non-existent and I was just a passenger in the beast! When the dust settled I found that the jenny type gear had stood up well, the engine had not fallen off and there was no damage at all. Bless Mr. Pietenpol for designing one stout airplane! Then, I started to evaluate the situation and after some practice found that a little more airspeed with even a little power could produce excellent landings. But here is the big advantage of the airfoil and the design. The drag means that it doesn't need flaps to make a steep approach, visibility is excellent and besides, you need the extra airspeed anyway. And then this surplus energy can be translated into a little float if you want it. When you round the plane out the a three point attitude, it will stop quickly on the ground. If you are trying to get into a short field, then use the steep approach with a little less airspeed, time it right, bring the nose up and don't expect any float but keep coming right back on the stick and let it plop on. A short field landing like this can be done in just a couple of hundred feet over obstructions like you wouldn't believe. In short, once you figure out how to use these flight characteristics, it is an excellent short field plane. I guess this is why a Pietenpol was once described as a "Pasture Pilots Plane". Corky, I'm with Chuck, learn to use the advantages of the design and one can put it down almost anywhere without problem. Your landings will astound and amaze all those airport bums standing around who are grading all the touch and goes! John ==================================== > > In a message dated 1/7/04 10:37:18 AM Central Standard Time, > Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes: > > << I have flown many types of planes, SEL, > but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out > on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would > like > to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. >> > > I suggest keep it the same airfoil for several reasons: > 1. It's part of avaition history. > 2. It works. > 3. It allows you to use drag to advantage, especially in emergency landing, > to do a precise short field landing. > > Several times this fall, I would stay in the pattern for an hour, 500' AGL on > short final and just do steep slip down to maybe 50 to 80', maintain 60 mph > indicated, low power setting, straighten 'er right up, spot a short field > landing. Every landing is different, but it's a blast to explore the capabilities > of sweet flying plane !! > > Chuck G. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Doesn't even have to be anything as drastic as changing airfoils although anything could be an option. I would just like to see an AutoCad plan set of the original design (long fuselage, I would assume that the Model A builders would want to use the original paper plans?) with what most builders would agree are "necessay" additions, seat/shoulder belts, tail wheel with steering attachments, the front angled cabane strut from the engine mount bracket, nut/bolt sizes, etc. Plus modifications most builders do and Bernie himself suggested in later years, extended fuselage, longer center cabanes, etc. Plus multiple 3D perspective views of everything which only take seconds to create with AutoCad once the dimensions of everything are entered. (I would love to have a perspective view of the 3 piece wing center section plans). More drastic (and controversial) changes such as airfoil, control surface changes, etc. could be presented as options on separate plansets. With the decrease in plan building in general, and the low completion percentage something like this can only help. And you couldn't pick a better, simpler and more reasonably priced homebuild design to provide a good modernized set of plans for than the Piet. Rick Holland I agree the Piet plans should be available as CAD files, and I think a Piet airfoil initiative similar to the one undertaken by the KR group might be a good idea too. I know, I know -- it=E2=80=99s blasphemous to suggest changing Bernard=E2=80=99 s =E2=80=9CFC-10=E2=80=9D airfoil. And it=E2=80=99s a thing of beauty, no doubt. But this plane would be safer if it could hang in the air longer without power. A lower drag airfoil would help and we might get a little better cruise, too. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: "Ken Chambers" <kchambers(at)winternals.com>
Chuck I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone should get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil. It's a unique piece of history, and it's a blessing that we can build it and fly it just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that way. Meanwhile, why shouldn't we develop another airfoil option for those who want a little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list (I forget who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could avoid about half of all accidents by "keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed up". A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both those circumstances (engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations that led to crashes. There's a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. I'll see if I can find it and have them look over Kevin's "FC-10" numbers at www.airminded.net <http://www.airminded.net/> . Maybe we'll get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag. If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be just about everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking to the gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started. Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
I agree, I can almost feel a purist vs. GN-1 type war starting. Didn't people build GN-1s with J-3 wings? Would be interesting to know how those flew. I am building a long fuse piet and have not yet flown one but I have heard the same thing from several Piet bulder/flyers as Corky mentions, that the Piet has no float (although it sounds like most people love the way it flys otherwise). This may be a real dumb idea but has anyone ever built a Piet wing to the plans and just removed the undercamber (make a flat bottom out of it)? Rick Holland Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
Concerning Piet airfoil changes, if you plot the points from the 1934 wing plans on top of the single sheet rib plans that you get from Don (which Bernie himself signed, so I assume it is a tracing of one of his later rib creations), you will find that the undercamber is 6/32" LESS at the center and proportionally decreases to the front and back spar. Maybe Bernie himself detemined in later years that you need that much undercamber. (Or I don't know how to measure off of plans ). Rick Holland You know....... A great candidate would be the 23012 used on the Taylorcraft.... Good lift, great cruise speed/low drag, and good float on landing... Weav ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger
Walt-- great pic. You got the teaching technique down, brother ! Here is one for those of us caught in the cold nawth......and even those who can still fly in the south like Jim Sury and Corky. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Sounds kind of like flying flat bottom wing with 10-20 degrees of flaps all the time. 3. It allows you to use drag to advantage, especially in emergency landing, to do a precise short field landing. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Boss" <bossone(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
Date: Jan 08, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:59 PM Subject: Spam Alert: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Airfoil stuff Concerning Piet airfoil changes, if you plot the points from the 1934 wing plans on top of the single sheet rib plans that you get from Don (which Bernie himself signed, so I assume it is a tracing of one of his later rib creations), you will find that the undercamber is 6/32" LESS at the center and proportionally decreases to the front and back spar. Maybe Bernie himself detemined in later years that you need that much undercamber. (Or I don't know how to measure off of plans ). Rick Holland You know....... A great candidate would be the 23012 used on the Taylorcraft.... Good lift, great cruise speed/low drag, and good float on landing... And a nasty stall Weav ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:36 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Ken, Please keep this discussion on airfoil going. I feel the Piet's performance could be improved, especially landing. I have flown many types of planes, SEL, but have never flown one that has no float, high drag, and a sudden drop out on landing like a Piet. I know it's safe if you expect it but I sure would like to float like a Cub, Champ or even a Beaver. I have my ribs completed for 311CC but would be willing to build another set with another proven airfoil if I knew what to try. I mean no disrespect to BHP or the purists. If we didn't want to improve it we would all be building and flying Wright Flyers and/or Curtiss Pushers. Corky in 23 above La weather ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: "Textor, Jack" <jack(at)personnelincorporated.com>
This is all interesting and helpful to learn about the flight characteristics of the Piet. And I must say a little disconcerting. I just received my 100 cap strips and hope I have the correct airfoil. With the help of Doc and others I believe I do. With the landing characteristics mentioned, even with my tail time I will be sure to have an experienced Piet pilot test fly and instruct me. Jack Textor Des Moines, IA _____ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of At7000ft(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Airfoil stuff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Gorgeous..... Just great stuff.... Weav ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet > ---- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet
Well, so much for me getting any work done the rest of the day...... -----Original Message----- From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
There was a Piet in Clifton TX years ago with T-craft wings and a 70 hp Lambert or LeBlond engine. I heard it is in a museum now in south TX somewhere. It is black painted with skull and crossbones and mock german markings. I think it even had mock machine guns on it. I never talked to anyone who flew it tho. Has anyone heard of this airplane? Terry L. Bowden ph 254-715-4773 fax 254-853-3805 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2004
w/ a passenger
Subject: Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger
Mike, Who said I can fly. I'm still waiting for the Sport Pilot issue to be issued. I will say that Nathan Moss has had a good time in 41CC these last several months but not this week Corky in La ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Great Photos
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Mike, Good, Great, Photos! John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Subject: Re: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Van's Aircraft is able to produce pre-punched RV kits that fits together so precise that it's amazing. They can do this because every piece is cut and drilled by computer controlled machines that are capable of using the accuracy CAD affords a manufacturer. This type of accuracy is just not possible in our (my) garage. Even if all the plans were drawn in CAD I doubt your (my) building accuracy is THAT accurate. Honestly, your construction does not need to be accurate to the .01 inch. Agreed. I would recommend AutoCad not because more precision or accuracy is needed in the plans, but because it is faster to produce a planset using it (assuming you know how to use AutoCad), simple to make even large modifications (a good example would be producing a full 1933 drawing #1 of the long fuse showing all top and bottom view dimensions), perspective views are free, can be stored and transmitted electronically, etc. Other than that it can be redrawn on sheepskins with a stone knife, if you have the time. I have built model airplanes from comercially produced CAD drawing and they still have errors. Drawing in CAD does not make plans any better or worse. You still need to mesure where the part is going to fit and make the part fit the assembly. Try to keep the dimentions as close as possible to the plans but ALLWAYS make the part to fit the assembly. It's just thet simple. I feel there is no need to take the time to redraw the plans in CAD. The most helpfull things are pictures of assemblies and parts. Correct, and the 3D perspectives AutoCad can provide in seconds give you these kind of views from any angle and for any assembly you want, with dimensions if desired. All together in one place. These can be had by simply asking anyone on this list. I will freely shair pictures I have collected to all that needs them and I know others will too. What about builders without computer access and with no other Piet builders nearby? What I proposed was a way to make piet building easier for people and very possibly get more people building them. To all you first time builders, of which I an one too, take the time to study the plans. All the information is on them even if it doesn't look like it at first glance. Except jury struts, seat belts, front cabane from top motor mount, brakes, tailwheel. A small number of items and not necessary since the original was built without them, but I haven't seen many pictures of currently flying piets without them. It is also helpfull to hafe the Flying and Glider Mag the EAA sells. Make you parts fit not to the dimentions on the plans but to YOUR plane. After awhile you will get comfertable with the plans and think they are adiquite. Tones of Piet's have been built from them so they can't be that bad. No one is trying to say that you or anyone else can't use the original plans. They will always be available. Sorry to get another "build it to the plans" war started here, I have the original plans, a pile of wood and the help from you great folks on the pietenpol-list, I will now now shutup and build. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: what medical ?
>Mike, >Who said I can fly. I'm still waiting for the Sport Pilot issue to be >issued. I will say that Nathan Moss has had a good time in 41CC these last >several months but not this week >Corky in La Corky---how many times have you been ramp checked to see if you hold a valid medical ? I guess the only time they could hang you out to dry is if you crash or hurt someone. I'm being a bit facetious here about the ramp check, but I think if they let people drive cars they should let them fly 2 seat, light planes without a medical exam.......but then what do I know. I DO hope they pass that issue for guys just like you because you deserve the right to fly in my mind. It's when you can't tell the difference between the brake pedal and the gas pedal is when they should yank all our tickets----fly or drive ! Mike C. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Great Photos
Thank you very much, John ! I sure appreciate the ones that you've posted here and there and thru the mail a few years back from your color printer. Gosh--that one above the mountains that you posted at 12,000 ft. was wonderful !!!!! I was sure about the chill you felt there in that cockpit as I flew a few weeks ago when it was about 34 F for a while------that old van heater felt GREAT when I got in it to head home that day !!! Mike PS-- here's one or two more for ya ! At 02:23 PM >Mike, > >Good, Great, Photos! > >John > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Great Photos
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Mike, Greeeaaattt! pics (Tony the Tiger). Keep them comming, it's great for the winter blues. walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael D Cuy To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Great Photos Thank you very much, John ! I sure appreciate the ones that you've posted here and there and thru the mail a few years back from your color printer. Gosh--that one above the mountains that you posted at 12,000 ft. was wonderful !!!!! I was sure about the chill you felt there in that cockpit as I flew a few weeks ago when it was about 34 F for a while------that old van heater felt GREAT when I got in it to head home that day !!! Mike PS-- here's one or two Mike, Good, Great, Photos! John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KRSBtv(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Subject: Texas Pietenpols?
Greetings from Central Texas. I recently purchased a Pietenpol from a fellow in Northern Georgia, Mineral Bluffs to be exact. The airplane was signed off by the Atlanta FSDO in June 1998 and shortly after, the builder suffered a heart attack. As a result, this bird (N1195P) has never flown. (Not what I'm worried about that ... been a test pilot before,,,) What I'm trying to determine if there are any other Pietenpol Air Campers in and around the Abilene to San Angelo... Waco to Midland area. My dad (84 years YOUNG, A&P license, had 5 type ratings in jets when he retired, Instructor Pilot W.W.II, Crop Duster after the war ... flown corporate jets all over the world) has found dozens of discrepancies in my newly acquired Pietenpol. He said he would disinherit me unless I fixed all the stuff on his list (not that I would be an idiot to not address these issues...) I'm a previous builder of another Experimental as well. I'd sure like to see some other specimens around my part of the state, if anyone is located in my neck of the woods. Thanks, Sterling Knot-2-Shabby Airport (5TA6) San Antonio Sectional N 31' 56.182' W 99' 53.772' ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Texas Pietenpols?
Sterling, Theres a few around here in Waco. Two or three flying examples and at least one (mine) under construction. Give me a call some weekend and we'll try to make the 'rounds and see some. Terry L. Bowden ph 254-715-4773 fax 254-853-3805 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KRSBtv(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Subject: Re: Texas Pietenpols?
Terry: Thanks... I'll give you a call in a week or so. Might bring my dad with me if we can pay a short visit some weekend. Thanks, Sterling Brooks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: what medical ?
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Whenever this subject is brought up, I think of my late buddy, Jack Green, of Hebron, Texas. He had NINE bypasses. He acted and felt like a child because his circulation was SO good. Of course, the FAA denied him the medical BUT it was OK FOR HIM TO DRIVE A SCHOOL BUS FULL OF KIDS and across railroad tracks too!! Then there is Charlie G.. He flipped his single seat biplane one morning. He flew every morning. The wind was howling this particular morning and it got away from him and he flipped it. Anyway, the FAA comes out (NTSB stayed away as there was no carnage) and asked him for his papers. Needless to say, he could not find his medical. As a mater of fact, he could not find his medical for the previous 25 years as the Feds denied him his medical 25 years previous. Being the upstanding American that he is, twenty-five years earlier he said F*** them, and he kept on flying. Anyway, he had his pilot's certificate suspended for 90 days for not flying with a valid medical, and then the FAA REINSTATED HIS MEDICAL saying that they must of been wrong 25 years ago if he had amply demonstrated lo these last 25 years that he could safely fly. Go figure! I personally know these guys. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> Subject: Pietenpol-List: what medical ? > > > >Mike, > >Who said I can fly. I'm still waiting for the Sport Pilot issue to be > >issued. I will say that Nathan Moss has had a good time in 41CC these last > >several months but not this week > >Corky in La > > > Corky---how many times have you been ramp checked to see if you hold a > valid medical ? I guess the only time they could hang you out to dry is > if you crash or hurt someone. I'm being a bit facetious here about the > ramp check, but I think if they let people drive cars they should let them > fly 2 seat, light planes without a medical exam.......but then what do I > know. I DO hope they pass that issue for guys just like you because you > deserve the right to fly in my mind. It's when you can't tell the > difference between the brake pedal and the gas pedal is when they should > yank all our tickets----fly or drive ! > > Mike C. > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2004
From: Dave and Connie <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Great Photos
<5.1.1.5.2.20040108163837.0264d060(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov> Mike, Do you think that we can scrounge a ride for Ben in the F-18? It finally turned cold here (-4 Friday night) so work on the TCart will probably slow down. Everytime I clean up more parts I find more parts to fix. It will be spring before I need to order the fabric from Jim and Dondi. The guy doing the round the world trip in the Taylorcraft has a log going on his web site. He must have a very understanding wife and a big checkbook to be able to do a trip like that. Dave N36078 '41 BC-12-65 At 04:41 PM 1/8/2004, you wrote: >Thank you very much, John ! I sure appreciate the ones that you've >posted here and there and thru the mail a few years back from your color >printer. Gosh--that one above the mountains that you posted at 12,000 ft. >was wonderful !!!!! I was sure about the chill you felt there in that >cockpit as I flew a few weeks ago when it was about 34 F for a >while------that old van heater felt GREAT when I got in it to head home >that day !!! Mike PS-- here's one or two more for ya ! At 02:23 PM >>Mike, >> >>Good, Great, Photos! >> >>John >> > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. --- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: what medical ?
Date: Jan 08, 2004
I just love this stuff..... Sometimes you have to wonder where common sense got lost.. It makes me feel real good to know that Charlie didn't miss a beat for 25 years. Just think how many hours of aerial enjoyment he would have missed out on. My hat's off to him. Weav ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: what medical ? > > Whenever this subject is brought up, I think of my late buddy, Jack Green, > of Hebron, Texas. He had NINE bypasses. He acted and felt like a child > because his circulation was SO good. > > Of course, the FAA denied him the medical BUT it was OK FOR HIM TO DRIVE A > SCHOOL BUS FULL OF KIDS and across railroad tracks too!! > > Then there is Charlie G.. He flipped his single seat biplane one morning. > He flew every morning. The wind was howling this particular morning and it > got away from him and he flipped it. Anyway, the FAA comes out (NTSB stayed > away as there was no carnage) and asked him for his papers. Needless to > say, he could not find his medical. As a mater of fact, he could not find > his medical for the previous 25 years as the Feds denied him his medical 25 > years previous. > > Being the upstanding American that he is, twenty-five years earlier he said > F*** them, and he kept on flying. > > Anyway, he had his pilot's certificate suspended for 90 days for not flying > with a valid medical, and then the FAA REINSTATED HIS MEDICAL saying that > they must of been wrong 25 years ago if he had amply demonstrated lo these > last 25 years that he could safely fly. > > Go figure! > > I personally know these guys. > > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:36 PM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: what medical ? > > > > > > > > > >Mike, > > >Who said I can fly. I'm still waiting for the Sport Pilot issue to be > > >issued. I will say that Nathan Moss has had a good time in 41CC these > last > > >several months but not this week > > >Corky in La > > > > > > Corky---how many times have you been ramp checked to see if you hold a > > valid medical ? I guess the only time they could hang you out to dry is > > if you crash or hurt someone. I'm being a bit facetious here about the > > ramp check, but I think if they let people drive cars they should let > them > > fly 2 seat, light planes without a medical exam.......but then what do I > > know. I DO hope they pass that issue for guys just like you because you > > deserve the right to fly in my mind. It's when you can't tell the > > difference between the brake pedal and the gas pedal is when they should > > yank all our tickets----fly or drive ! > > > > Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doyle K. Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net>
Subject: Re: Texas Pietenpols?
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Sterling, I bought a Piet/GN-1/PGN-2 from a person in Ohio. I picked it up and found some problems that I am working on at the moment. I live in Lometa, Texas, which is about 170 miles sw of Abilene. I would like to communicate with you about this and also, if possible, have your dad look at this Piet. It has the long fuselage and is wider. It has the GN-1 wings (I believe) and an upper turtle deck. The middle section is longer than the Piet design and the cabanes slant toward the outside. I have a Subaru engine that came with the plane but they had taken it out and used a Cont. 65. They just stripped it out and now I am trying to figure out exactly how it mounted before. For a novice builder it is really more than I bagained for to get into the air. Thanks for the inquiry. I suppose the net will post my personal email, but if not, it is: dcombs(at)Ltex.net 512/752-9202 Doyle Combs N13708 ----- Original Message ----- From: KRSBtv(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:57 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Texas Pietenpols? Greetings from Central Texas. I recently purchased a Pietenpol from a fellow in Northern Georgia, Mineral Bluffs to be exact. The airplane was signed off by the Atlanta FSDO in June 1998 and shortly after, the builder suffered a heart attack. As a result, this bird (N1195P) has never flown. (Not what I'm worried about that ... been a test pilot before,,,) What I'm trying to determine if there are any other Pietenpol Air Campers in and around the Abilene to San Angelo... Waco to Midland area. My dad (84 years YOUNG, A&P license, had 5 type ratings in jets when he retired, Instructor Pilot W.W.II, Crop Duster after the war ... flown corporate jets all over the world) has found dozens of discrepancies in my newly acquired Pietenpol. He said he would disinherit me unless I fixed all the stuff on his list (not that I would be an idiot to not address these issues...) I'm a previous builder of another Experimental as well. I'd sure like to see some other specimens around my part of the state, if anyone is located in my neck of the woods. Thanks, Sterling Knot-2-Shabby Airport (5TA6) San Antonio Sectional N 31' 56.182' W 99' 53.772' ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: great photos
Date: Jan 08, 2004
Very nice pics. I'm sitting here with the flu, time to dig out Mike Cuy's video. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it can be inspiring. Dick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: what medical ?
Gosh Chris, those were amazing stories. I knew these cases happened but to hear about the ones you cited just floored me. Thanks for the input---I feel exactly the same way on this medical issue and guys who have one little accident and are punished forever. Reminds me of marriage, actually:))) Mike C. where it's 18 F here with flurries ! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike King" <mike(at)mking.us>
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
Date: Jan 09, 2004
-----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of BARNSTMR(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Airfoil stuff There was a Piet in Clifton TX years ago with T-craft wings and a 70 hp Lambert or LeBlond engine. I heard it is in a museum now in south TX somewhere. It is black painted with skull and crossbones and mock german markings. I think it even had mock machine guns on it. I never talked to anyone who flew it tho. Has anyone heard of this airplane? Terry L. Bowden ph 254-715-4773 fax 254-853-3805 Terry, You are right. That PIET was based in Clifton, Texas some years ago. It was sold to the Texas Air Museum located in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas which border Mexico. See the web site: http://www.texasairmuseum.com/index.htm The plane is on static display and flies regularly in air shows as part of an air-to-air combat with a SE 5 to demonstrate the first known "dogfight" to take place. I saw this airplane perform and could not believe how agile it was in tight turns...and at very, very low level. These planes were no more than a couple hundred feet above the crowd and many times barely cleared the brush in several swoops across the field. After reading your post, I called the museum and asked for static and aerial shots of the PIET in action. There is an air show there this weekend. I will post the pictures of the plane when I get them from South Texas. By the way, this is the same museum that rebuilt a World War II German fighter and located the pilot in Germany who was shot down in it during the war. Discovery WINGS did a show on it and featured my late friend John Warren Houston who was the museum director. The German pilot flew to South Texas and was very emotional at the site of his airplane. The museum did not an outstanding job. Visit the above web site to get a better idea of what the museum is doing. For those who live in Texas, it would be worth the flight or drive to the museum to see the exhibits and watch the PIET get a workout in a well done dogfight. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas, Texas --- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Am I missing something here? Were there photos attached to these three list postings on Thursday? Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet Re: Great Photos I checked photoshare and didn't find anything. Some of you were obviously able to view some pics (apparently good ones too). I feel like I'm missing out. Bill Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 Am I missing something here? Were there photos attached to these three list postings on Thursday? Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet Re: Great Photos I checked photoshare and didn't find anything. Some of you were obviously able to view some pics (apparently good ones too). I feel like I'm missing out. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov>
Subject: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Bill, The way I understand it you have to be receiving the list postings in real time to get the attachments, if you get a daily dump from the archives it would not attachments. The pictures are great! Skip -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 Am I missing something here? Were there photos attached to these three list postings on Thursday? Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet Re: Great Photos I checked photoshare and didn't find anything. Some of you were obviously able to view some pics (apparently good ones too). I feel like I'm missing out. Bill Message Bill, The way I understand it you have to be receiving the list postings in real time to get the attachments, if you get a daily dump from the archives it would not attachments. The pictures are great! Skip -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com' Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 Am I missing something here? Were there photos attached to these three list postings on Thursday? Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet Re: Great Photos I checked photoshare and didn't find anything. Some of you were obviously able to view some pics (apparently good ones too). I feel like I'm missing out. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
Mike, Thanks for the update. Sounds like a lot of fun for some lucky snoopy and red barron pilots. I won't be able to make the air show there this weekend. If you go, please take some pictures and post them for us to see. Best regards, Terry L. Bowden ph 254-715-4773 fax 254-853-3805 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: float/short field
Chuck G. and John Dilatush are right on about the Piet's flying limitations and goodness qualities about short field and smooth landings. These are no Champs or Cubs on landing due to all those cross braces, wires, cabane struts windshields, and bodies and heads sticking out. Where you are going to shoot yourself in the foot is building tooooo heavy and trying to approach at too shallow an angle. Oh yes, hot days and high elevations will put even more excitement into landings--but it can be done and done very sweetly once you get used to them. You can't imagine how little roll out you have on landing a Piet into say a 15 mph headwind, no flaps, no power, and on grass. At fly-in's too---you always need to add power to get your butt off the runway or the guy in the 172 behind you will curse you or eat your rudder with his prop. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
From: Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: Taylorcraft wing
Terry and others - The Piet you reference may be 36RN, which is in the Texas Air Museum in Rio Hondo Texas. I may have a photo or two of it in flight. It is black with a Fokker fin and rudder, as I remember (senior moment). I do not know that it had a Taylorcraft wing, but it is the only one I know about in a museum in south Texas. Doc ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
From: Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: Medical?
Chris - Great story about Jack Green and Charlie G! I've been flying for 60 years now (+21,000 hrs) and I was embarrassed a few years ago at a nameless FSDO when I was doing a 135 recurrent flight check. The fed man asked for my pilot paperwork! Well, it was the first time anyone had ever asked for it. I didn't carry it with me, so I told him I would have to go home and get it. He was the right guy at the right time, and he said he was going for a cup of coffee, and he was not sure just how I was going to get the KingAir back home. Somehow, even without papers, the trip back to base was without incident. I made another appointment with Mr. Fed. It sure has helped that I never had any CAA/FAA violations and no accidents. It is always better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission. Doc ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Thanks Skip, I have just subscribed to the realtime listing, in addition to the digest, so I won't miss any future pics. In the meantime, if anyone out there that got those pics wanted to post them to photoshare, I imagine those of us that missed them would appreciate it. Bill (up in Ontario, Canada, where it was -18F (-28C) this AM) ------------------ORIGINAL MESSAGE------------------------------- Subject: RE: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 From: Gadd, Skip (Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov) Date: Fri Jan 09 - 9:03 AM Bill, The way I understand it you have to be receiving the list postings in real time to get the attachments, if you get a daily dump from the archives it would not attachments. The pictures are great! Skip ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Subject: For those of us in the cold
From: John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com>
Brodhead from the ground, 2002, back in the woods at sunup. TakeCare, -john- --------------------------------- John Hofmann Manager, Information Technology The Rees Group, Inc. 7600 Terrace Avenue, Ste. 203 Middleton, WI 53562 Phone: 608-831-3611, ext. 150 Fax: 608-831-5122 Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Subject: Re: For those of us in the cold
From: Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
on 1/9/04 12:15, John Hofmann at jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com wrote: > Brodhead from the ground, 2002, back in the woods at sunup. > I don't know whose Piet that is, waking up the campers at Brodhead, but it has been my monitor's wallpaper for a while now. It is the most inspirational Piet-builder's photo I've seen. Mike Hardaway ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 09, 2004
I originally wrote to Corky in La about doing a study on the Piet airfoil and recommended keeping it quiet until we had something to really say, but there seems to be tremendous interest in this subject and quite a bit of passion too. There are at least two people on this list who are (or have been) with NASA and several Aero Engineers and students studying Aero Engineering. I would like to suggest that those with a technical background get together and set up a test plan to include a section of wing for wind tunnel testing (I have seen the data on BPs wing that is available and there doesn't appear to be any data at the stall where it's needed) From there we all do some of the building and testing to find out just how good an airfoil the edge of BPs shoe really made. I'm not saying everybody should go out and change their wings, just that we ought to know what the current (and alternate) wings are really doing. The accident statistics do seem to be saying that there are some unusual features to flying a Piet. If that's true lets find out what those features are and make sure the new guys thoroughly understand what their new birds are going to do. In the process, there will probably be some new changes that will come out that SOME people will want to make to the aerodynamics of their projects. That's why they call them "Experimental". Any students out there want a really off beat special project for their engineering degree? Any of the other engineers interested in doing some REALLY cheap engineering (trust me, there is NO MONEY in this kind of thing) and lastly I'll bet there are several out there that would like to see a section of the wing they built in a real wind tunnel or would like to try their hand at being a REAL TEST PILOT to test out the real world differences with different airfoils on a Piet. Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Chambers To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Chuck I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone should get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil. It's a unique piece of history, and it's a blessing that we can build it and fly it just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that way. Meanwhile, why shouldn't we develop another airfoil option for those who want a little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list (I forget who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could avoid about half of all accidents by "keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed up". A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both those circumstances (engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations that led to crashes. There's a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. I'll see if I can find it and have them look over Kevin's "FC-10" numbers at www.airminded.net. Maybe we'll get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag. If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be just about everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking to the gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started. Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: one hole in each end of the rudder bar
Date: Jan 09, 2004
From: "Ken Chambers" <kchambers(at)winternals.com>
The plans are a bit ambiguous on this, and I ended up drilling one hole. Now I notice that most of the rudder bar photos I can find show two holes. You guys think there's going to be any problem with the cable going to the front pedals and the cable going back to the tail sharing a single hole? We've tried it with one pin holding two buckles and it doesn't seem to bind. Ken ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
From: Janis Nielsen <nielsen5052(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: what medical
I have been following this group for a year now and feel that I know some of you personally. The medical thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built. Bruce Nielsen about a mile away from Steve E. __________________________________ http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Obtaining data near stall is a big problem. The CFD methods break down, they can be used to explain what happens after you know what the answer is. However they are not of much use in predicting when it will stall. The trick is to know when the airflow unattaches itself from the surface. Wind tunnel methods are not much better as the behavior of an airfoil near stall very sensitive to reynolds number. You would pretty much have to test at full scale and full speed. One trick that the pros use when doing wind tunnel test is they attach a strip to the top surface of the wing to trip the air. That little trick helps a great deal in obtaining repeatable data. It also hints that data without that strip will not be easily repeatable, and thus not reliable. The point is, don't look to either of the two big tools for reliable predictions around stall. If you want to arm chair engineer this one, use XFOIL to run the cases and simply not run or look at any cases beyond the angle at which experience shows most airfoils stall (somewhere between 11 and 14 degrees.) Keep in mind data obtained from different methods is not as consistent as data obtained from the same method. XFOIL has a function that lets you quickly generate any NACA airfoil. Also, keep in mind that 3D results are usually slightly worse than the 2D (infinite wings) sections the NACA reports or XFOIL deals with. Not a big deal as long as you compare apples to apples, but expect to lose 5% when you translate from theorey to real life. Ignore any laminar airfoils; laminar flow simply won't happen on a piet or for that matter most GA airplanes. When using charts, you want to use the 'standard roughness' numbers, yes they are lower than the others but you simply won't get the better results on anything less than an extreamly exact, smooth and polished wing; s o no sense dreaming about them. Also, make sure that you compare pitching moments. The GA(W)-1 that was developed for optimum lift to drag has an extreamly high pitching moment, which when incorporated in a complete design requires more stabilizer, that in turn increases the airplanes drag and thus may not present an optimum solution of maximum lift for the drag after all. If you select an airplane with a greater pitching moment you will most likely discover that you do not have enough horizontal stabilizer area, and in such ways small design changes spiral out of control. After you do all this, I think you will find the BHP airfoil is a pretty good choice for an airplane of the size and that flies at the speeds of a Piet. Kevin www.airminded.net ----- Original Message ----- From: hjarrett Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils I originally wrote to Corky in La about doing a study on the Piet airfoil and recommended keeping it quiet until we had something to really say, but there seems to be tremendous interest in this subject and quite a bit of passion too. There are at least two people on this list who are (or have been) with NASA and several Aero Engineers and students studying Aero Engineering. I would like to suggest that those with a technical background get together and set up a test plan to include a section of wing for wind tunnel testing (I have seen the data on BPs wing that is available and there doesn't appear to be any data at the stall where it's needed) From there we all do some of the building and testing to find out just how good an airfoil the edge of BPs shoe really made. I'm not saying everybody should go out and change their wings, just that we ought to know what the current (and alternate) wings are really doing. The accident statistics do seem to be saying that there are some unusual features to flying a Piet. If that's true lets find out what those features are and make sure the new guys thoroughly understand what their new birds are going to do. In the process, there will probably be some new changes that will come out that SOME people will want to make to the aerodynamics of their projects. That's why they call them "Experimental". Any students out there want a really off beat special project for their engineering degree? Any of the other engineers interested in doing some REALLY cheap engineering (trust me, there is NO MONEY in this kind of thing) and lastly I'll bet there are several out there that would like to see a section of the wing they built in a real wind tunnel or would like to try their hand at being a REAL TEST PILOT to test out the real world differences with different airfoils on a Piet. Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Chambers Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Chuck I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone should get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil. Its a unique piece of history, and its a blessing that we can build it and fly it just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that way. Meanwhile, why shouldnt we develop another airfoil option for those who want a little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list (I forget who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could avoid about half of all accidents by keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed up. A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both those circumstances (engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations that led to crashes. Theres a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. Ill see if I can find it and have them look over Kevins FC-10 numbers at www.airminded.net. Maybe well get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag. If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be just about everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking to the gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started. Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Testing a section at full chord size and actual Reynolds Number is exactly what I had in mind. A Piet wing has a small enough size that one of the university tunnels might be able to hold a section and it would make a GREAT student project. Then too, we might be able to get one of the NASA tunnels to make a run in conjunction with another test if there wasn't significant interference with their schedule. Glenn and Langley both have facilities that might be worked if there was a strong education connection and some good publicity. One of the Langley tunnels is managed by the local university but it is big enough for a WHOLE Piet! The problem with arm chair engineer using something like XFOIL is it lets you size a wing and do some performance work but the problems hit right where the predictive CFD tools break down. The shape of the hook at the top of the lift curve slope is what makes the Piet fly (stall) like it does and CFD doesn't give you that. I also think you would be amazed at how much Natural Laminar Flow happens in nature (and on a Piet). It isn't that it's not there as much as I think we don't really understand it that well (certainly not on wood and cloth wings!). The heavy iron and even the major GA manufactures just don't care about aerodynamics in the area we work in. Sounds like you may be one of the Engineer types that would be right for this part of a project. Do we have others? Mike C? Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Holcomb To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:00 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils Obtaining data near stall is a big problem. The CFD methods break down, they can be used to explain what happens after you know what the answer is. However they are not of much use in predicting when it will stall. The trick is to know when the airflow unattaches itself from the surface. Wind tunnel methods are not much better as the behavior of an airfoil near stall very sensitive to reynolds number. You would pretty much have to test at full scale and full speed. One trick that the pros use when doing wind tunnel test is they attach a strip to the top surface of the wing to trip the air. That little trick helps a great deal in obtaining repeatable data. It also hints that data without that strip will not be easily repeatable, and thus not reliable. The point is, don't look to either of the two big tools for reliable predictions around stall. If you want to arm chair engineer this one, use XFOIL to run the cases and simply not run or look at any cases beyond the angle at which experience shows most airfoils stall (somewhere between 11 and 14 degrees.) Keep in mind data obtained from different methods is not as consistent as data obtained from the same method. XFOIL has a function that lets you quickly generate any NACA airfoil. Also, keep in mind that 3D results are usually slightly worse than the 2D (infinite wings) sections the NACA reports or XFOIL deals with. Not a big deal as long as you compare apples to apples, but expect to lose 5% when you translate from theorey to real life. Ignore any laminar airfoils; laminar flow simply won't happen on a piet or for that matter most GA airplanes. When using charts, you want to use the 'standard roughness' numbers, yes they are lower than the others but you simply won't get the better results on anything le ss than an extreamly exact, smooth and polished wing; so no sense dreaming about them. Also, make sure that you compare pitching moments. The GA(W)-1 that was developed for optimum lift to drag has an extreamly high pitching moment, which when incorporated in a complete design requires more stabilizer, that in turn increases the airplanes drag and thus may not present an optimum solution of maximum lift for the drag after all. If you select an airplane with a greater pitching moment you will most likely discover that you do not have enough horizontal stabilizer area, and in such ways small design changes spiral out of control. After you do all this, I think you will find the BHP airfoil is a pretty good choice for an airplane of the size and that flies at the speeds of a Piet. Kevin www.airminded.net ----- Original Message ----- From: hjarrett To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: 1/9/2004 5:34:49 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils I originally wrote to Corky in La about doing a study on the Piet airfoil and recommended keeping it quiet until we had something to really say, but there seems to be tremendous interest in this subject and quite a bit of passion too. There are at least two people on this list who are (or have been) with NASA and several Aero Engineers and students studying Aero Engineering. I would like to suggest that those with a technical background get together and set up a test plan to include a section of wing for wind tunnel testing (I have seen the data on BPs wing that is available and there doesn't appear to be any data at the stall where it's needed) From there we all do some of the building and testing to find out just how good an airfoil the edge of BPs shoe really made. I'm not saying everybody should go out and change their wings, just that we ought to know what the current (and alternate) wings are really doing. The accident statistics do seem to be saying that there are some unusual features to flying a Piet. If that's true lets find out what those features are and make sure the new guys thoroughly understand what their new birds are going to do. In the process, there will probably be some new changes that will come out that SOME people will want to make to the aerodynamics of their projects. That's why they call them "Experimental". Any students out there want a really off beat special project for their engineering degree? Any of the other engineers interested in doing some REALLY cheap engineering (trust me, there is NO MONEY in this kind of thing) and lastly I'll bet there are several out there that would like to see a section of the wing they built in a real wind tunnel or would like to try their hand at being a REAL TEST PILOT to test out the real world differences with different airfoils on a Piet. Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Chambers To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Chuck I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone should get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil. It's a unique piece of history, and it's a blessing that we can build it and fly it just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that way. Meanwhile, why shouldn't we develop another airfoil option for those who want a little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list (I forget who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could avoid about half of all accidents by "keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed up". A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both those circumstances (engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations that led to crashes. There's a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. I'll see if I can find it and have them look over Kevin's "FC-10" numbers at www.airminded.net. Maybe we'll get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag. If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be just about everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking to the gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started. Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ellie & Jim Sheen" <sheenej(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: what medical
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Janis To get some helpful knowledgeable information, contact the medical advisory department at AOPA. They will give you accurate details. If you are not a member, become a member. You will get more than your moneys worth. They have helped me many times over the years. Presently my cardiac health does not allow me to fly but I am building our Piet just so I will have a plane that fits the sport plane category. It will allow me to stay at thecontrols. Don't give up until you have examined all your options. The building process is good therapy, lots of fun, a rewarding process, and I am learning to have a whole new circle of friends. All of you Piet builders have been and are helpful. Thanks! A great group. Jim Sheen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janis Nielsen" <nielsen5052(at)yahoo.com> To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 6:50 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what medical > > I have been following this group for a year now and > feel that I know some of you personally. The medical > thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start > on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my > medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues > as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to > reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my > Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I > have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets > resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out > if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built. > > Bruce Nielsen > about a mile away from Steve E. > > __________________________________ > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Subject: Re: Airfoils
From: Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated design of ours in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking. We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could have a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast enough that we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the cockpit; then we could go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a stiffer tail that wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could go fast enough that retracting the landing gear would really benefit the top end. Heck, while we're at it, we could figure out how to make a glass lay up for the fuselage, maybe rounding off those aerodynamically troubling square corners. Going fast enough by now that we'll have to file a flight plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have to think about panel-mounted GPS and maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. That means a bigger engine... Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol? The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar. This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the power or raise the nose. I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables, causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, and turns heads everywhere it goes. I will stay with my decision. Mike Hardaway PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doyle K. Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net>
Subject: Re: what medical
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Regarding getting help on a medical. I know one person who contacted their Senator and he sent some inquiries to FAA and some lady from Washington, DC, called and began getting the necessary machinery in motion. You have nothing to lose. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janis Nielsen" <nielsen5052(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what medical > > I have been following this group for a year now and > feel that I know some of you personally. The medical > thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start > on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my > medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues > as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to > reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my > Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I > have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets > resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out > if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built. > > Bruce Nielsen > about a mile away from Steve E. > > __________________________________ > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carbarvo(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Subject: Re: what medical
EAA maintains a list of MDs to which they refer as "Advocates"...Doctors who fly and have a broader understanding of the requirements and passions for flight. It might be that from that list, you could find the kind of help you need....Carl Vought ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:09 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils Mike said: "The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar. This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the power or raise the nose. I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables, causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, and turns heads everywhere it goes. I will stay with my decision." Mike Hardaway PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet. Well said Mike! We are flying a bit of history and can actual experience the joys and problems that the old pilots actually felt in the 1929 and 30's. The Piet was not unique in it's flying characteristics, many of the planes of the time flew the same way. It was considered a "good flying plane" if the planes of that time even flew and were controllable. Flight characteristics that we know in comtemporary planes of today are the product of long experience and government requirements. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Forwarded to the Piet list from Dan Zigo
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Guys, I just got this (what is below) from Dan Zigo who was on the list until his ANG unit was activiated and he went off to win the war. Chris Bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: Shea Zigo Subject: Hello Chris, I came back back in Aug after being gone for 5 months, left again in Oct, back in Dec just in time for Christmas. I am leaving again sometime next week. So far I have been to Saudi, Quatar, Iraq, and now we are off again to support Afganistan! When we first left it was our entire unit and all of our planes and we were gone for the 5 months. Lucky for us now they have scaled back the number of planes needed (less than half) so this has allowed us to rotate in and out of the theater for now. This last time I went should have been my last time to go, however on Monday we found out that we have been extended another 6 months. So that's why I am going again. I was looking at the Flitzer and man is it a good looking bird or what? I have been going back and forth on what I want to build for a long time, single place vs. two place ect. I like em all and wish I could build them all. As for now I can't really do much until I am done with this activation. BTW my wife is pregnant now, I guess that's what happens when you come home after being gone for 5 months. We decided to go for it so when I got back in Agust we started trying, and in Sept. we found she was pregnant. With twins no less and yesterday I we found out they are girls. Well anyway I just wanted to let you know I think of you guys and the list all the time. Thanks for all of the support. When my life gets back to normal I will join you all again. Thanks, Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Subject: Re: one hole in each end of the rudder bar
In a message dated 1/9/04 4:45:43 PM Central Standard Time, kchambers(at)winternals.com writes: << You guys think there's going to be any problem with the cable going to the front pedals and the cable going back to the tail sharing a single hole? >> Ken, I would suggest you just simply make a new rudder bar. It's all there on the sheet marked 'Drawing No. 4 - DUEL CONTROL ASSEMBLY. Chuck G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 09, 2004
I thought that if you double the density of the air in the tunnel, then you could go with half the chord and keep all other parameters the same like speed. This would keep the Reynolds Number the same and would allow for good data that would work in the real world. Is this not what Munk, Diehl, Weick and all the guys at NACA back in the twenties did to make up the charts we use today? Are these tunnels of increased density or is a smaller but high density tunnel more available that would allow for a scaled wing section? I imagine that aspect ratio is very important. It almost sounds easiest to hang Mike C.'s Piet in a full scale tunnel and work up the numbers. I am not an engineer by training but would love to contribute to this project. Working for the airline enables me to get around easy too. Chris Bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: hjarrett To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:12 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils Testing a section at full chord size and actual Reynolds Number is exactly what I had in mind. A Piet wing has a small enough size that one of the university tunnels might be able to hold a section and it would make a GREAT student project. Then too, we might be able to get one of the NASA tunnels to make a run in conjunction with another test if there wasn't significant interference with their schedule. Glenn and Langley both have facilities that might be worked if there was a strong education connection and some good publicity. One of the Langley tunnels is managed by the local university but it is big enough for a WHOLE Piet! The problem with arm chair engineer using something like XFOIL is it lets you size a wing and do some performance work but the problems hit right where the predictive CFD tools break down. The shape of the hook at the top of the lift curve slope is what makes the Piet fly (stall) like it does and CFD doesn't give you that. I also think you would be amazed at how much Natural Laminar Flow happens in nature (and on a Piet). It isn't that it's not there as much as I think we don't really understand it that well (certainly not on wood and cloth wings!). The heavy iron and even the major GA manufactures just don't care about aerodynamics in the area we work in. Sounds like you may be one of the Engineer types that would be right for this part of a project. Do we have others? Mike C? Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Holcomb To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:00 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils Obtaining data near stall is a big problem. The CFD methods break down, they can be used to explain what happens after you know what the answer is. However they are not of much use in predicting when it will stall. The trick is to know when the airflow unattaches itself from the surface. Wind tunnel methods are not much better as the behavior of an airfoil near stall very sensitive to reynolds number. You would pretty much have to test at full scale and full speed. One trick that the pros use when doing wind tunnel test is they attach a strip to the top surface of the wing to trip the air. That little trick helps a great deal in obtaining repeatable data. It also hints that data without that strip will not be easily repeatable, and thus not reliable. The point is, don't look to either of the two big tools for reliable predictions around stall. If you want to arm chair engineer this one, use XFOIL to run the cases and simply not run or look at any cases beyond the angle at which experience shows most airfoils stall (somewhere between 11 and 14 degrees.) Keep in mind data obtained from different methods is not as consistent as data obtained from the same method. XFOIL has a function that lets you quickly generate any NACA airfoil. Also, keep in mind that 3D results are usually slightly worse than the 2D (infinite wings) sections the NACA reports or XFOIL deals with. Not a big deal as long as you compare apples to apples, but expect to lose 5% when you translate from theorey to real life. Ignore any laminar airfoils; laminar flow simply won't happen on a piet or for that matter most GA airplanes. When using charts, you want to use the 'standard roughness' numbers, yes they are lower than the others but you simply won't get the better results on anything le ss than an extreamly exact, smooth and polished wing; so no sense dreaming about them. Also, make sure that you compare pitching moments. The GA(W)-1 that was developed for optimum lift to drag has an extreamly high pitching moment, which when incorporated in a complete design requires more stabilizer, that in turn increases the airplanes drag and thus may not present an optimum solution of maximum lift for the drag after all. If you select an airplane with a greater pitching moment you will most likely discover that you do not have enough horizontal stabilizer area, and in such ways small design changes spiral out of control. After you do all this, I think you will find the BHP airfoil is a pretty good choice for an airplane of the size and that flies at the speeds of a Piet. Kevin www.airminded.net ----- Original Message ----- From: hjarrett To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: 1/9/2004 5:34:49 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils I originally wrote to Corky in La about doing a study on the Piet airfoil and recommended keeping it quiet until we had something to really say, but there seems to be tremendous interest in this subject and quite a bit of passion too. There are at least two people on this list who are (or have been) with NASA and several Aero Engineers and students studying Aero Engineering. I would like to suggest that those with a technical background get together and set up a test plan to include a section of wing for wind tunnel testing (I have seen the data on BPs wing that is available and there doesn't appear to be any data at the stall where it's needed) From there we all do some of the building and testing to find out just how good an airfoil the edge of BPs shoe really made. I'm not saying everybody should go out and change their wings, just that we ought to know what the current (and alternate) wings are really doing. The accident statistics do seem to be saying that there are some unusual features to flying a Piet. If that's true lets find out what those features are and make sure the new guys thoroughly understand what their new birds are going to do. In the process, there will probably be some new changes that will come out that SOME people will want to make to the aerodynamics of their projects. That's why they call them "Experimental". Any students out there want a really off beat special project for their engineering degree? Any of the other engineers interested in doing some REALLY cheap engineering (trust me, there is NO MONEY in this kind of thing) and lastly I'll bet there are several out there that would like to see a section of the wing they built in a real wind tunnel or would like to try their hand at being a REAL TEST PILOT to test out the real world differences with different airfoils on a Piet. Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Chambers To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings Chuck I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone should get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil. It's a unique piece of history, and it's a blessing that we can build it and fly it just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that way. Meanwhile, why shouldn't we develop another airfoil option for those who want a little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list (I forget who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could avoid about half of all accidents by "keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed up". A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both those circumstances (engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations that led to crashes. There's a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. I'll see if I can find it and have them look over Kevin's "FC-10" numbers at www.airminded.net. Maybe we'll get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag. If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be just about everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking to the gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started. Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 09, 2004
tests=FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE Mike Hardaway, you said exactly what needed to be said about the venerable Pietenpol design. Now I'll add my 2 cents worth. Those who build the Pietenpol Aircamper pretty much as it was designed will have built a Time Machine that will take them back to the early days when flying an airplane was more of an art than a science---and, above all, fun. I made a few changes on mine, but nothing that affected the aero- dynamics or the overall appearance. It has been my "time machine" for over 33 years and, of all the airplanes I have owned over the last 50 years, has given me the most satisfaction for pure sport flying. Sure, it is draggy and antiquated in appearance, but it is one of my all-time favorite sport airplanes. The only competition it has, in my experience, is the DeHavilland DH 60 Gypsy Moth which I had the privilege of flying back in 1952. These are rare as tooth decay in a hen and, accordingly, fetch a king's ransom should one ever be for sale. The D.H. has a pretty thin airfoil, too, and lots of them spun in over the years (I have the history of dozens of them in Canada during the 1920's and 30's). The bottom line is that many early designs require careful handling in the air, particularly when heavily loaded. They lose speed easily and quickly, and need a lot of altitude to regain it when there is no power available. But in general they are a blast (literally) to fly! The late Peter Bowers wrote an article on the Pietenpol airplanes and it appeared in a magazine (some time in the 1970's, I think it was), entitled "Pietenpol--The Pasture Pilot's Pride and Joy".The essence of the article was this: If you want to experience flying as it was many years ago with goggles, scarf, etc., the Pietenpol will take you there for a modest amount of money and some effort on your part. But if you must "modernize" it extensively, build or buy something else. Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 09, 2004
Re: Pietenpol-List: AirfoilsI like the Piet for all the same reasons you listed, as is, with no changes. I'm also trained as an aeronautical (OK, aerospace) engineer which is why I want to know "why" it does what it does. If a study showed I could get the better handling and performance by just opening the leading edge diameter 1/4" or adding a Phillips entry or dropping the undercamber 10%, I would probably do it. Would I change the character of the design? NO WAY. I LIKE struts, tight cockpits (within reason) fabric over wood and the sing of flying wires on a warm spring day. Even if I never changed ANYTHING I would still want to know why it does what it does. It's just my nature. No one would EVER be able to force any of us (OK, again, Uncle CAN force us) to make changes to the design, but some of us would like to "tweak" it a little. That's what BP did and I think he would approve of us looking at how well he did it.. Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated design of ours in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking. We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could have a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast enough that we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the cockpit; then we could go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a stiffer tail that wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could go fast enough that retracting the landing gear would really benefit the top end. Heck, while we're at it, we could figure out how to make a glass lay up for the fuselage, maybe rounding off those aerodynamically troubling square corners. Going fast enough by now that we'll have to file a flight plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have to think about panel-mounted GPS and maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. That means a bigger engine... Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol? The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar. This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the power or raise the nose. I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables, causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, and turns heads everywhere it goes. I will stay with my decision. Mike Hardaway PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Subject: Re: Airfoils
In a message dated 1/9/04 8:09:27 PM Central Standard Time, bike.mike(at)verizon.net writes: << All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated design of ours in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking. We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could have a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast enough that we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the cockpit; then we could go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a stiffer tail that wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could go fast enough that retracting the landing gear would really benefit the top end. Heck, while we're at it, we could figure out how to make a glass lay up for the fuselage, maybe rounding off those aerodynamically troubling square corners. Going fast enough by now that we'll have to file a flight plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have to think about panel-mounted GPS and maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. That means a bigger engine... Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol? The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar. This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the power or raise the nose. I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables, causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, and turns heads everywhere it goes. I will stay with my decision. Mike Hardaway PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet. >> Mike, Very well put !! It takes a while to get acquainted with flying your new ship, but once you do, and you know what to expect, her characteristics become engrained in your reflexes, and I promise you - you wouldn't have it any other way !! While you're getting to know 'er, the robust design will allow you to drop 'er in, and cause no damage (although a close inspection would be in order). She's a 'Stick & Rudder' airplane. Her characteristics are not worse than newer aircraft....just different. All of your senses are used - Sight - view over the cowl during takeoff / landing & oh the beautiful landscape, Sound - wind noise & engine sound to indicate your speed, or the ground rumbling under the tires, Feel - seat of the pants, G force in conjunction with the sound of speed and buffet of the wing indicates your angle of attack & which side of your face you feel the wind, so you know which rudder input to use without looking at the ball, or the feel of a brisk temperature indicating a better climb rate and visa versa, Smell - occasional exhaust, barbaques, road kill, spring flowers, Taste - summer air, bugs, and beer after sunset. As you eventually become one with your ship, it will offer you as much or more satisfaction flying 'er, as it has building 'er, and showing 'er off on the ramp !! You just don't get that in very many ships. I would encourage everyone to study and learn everything you can about aerodynamics - you will be a better pilot as a result, but please - Don't Change the Pietenpol Airfoil !!!! Chuck Gantzer NX770CG ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pete Bowers article.....
Date: Jan 09, 2004
I agree with Graham. And here's one magazine article by Pete Bowers about the Pietenpol design...... <http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID181> (If that link doesn't work, try mykitplane.com in the photo gallery section.) Jim Markle The late Peter Bowers wrote an article on the Pietenpol airplanes and it appeared in a magazine (some time in the 1970's, I think it was), entitled "Pietenpol--The Pasture Pilot's Pride and Joy".The essence of the article was this: If you want to experience flying as it was many years ago with goggles, scarf, etc., the Pietenpol will take you there for a modest amount of money and some effort on your part. But if you must "modernize" it extensively, build or buy something else. Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2004
From: Edwin Johnson <elj(at)shreve.net>
Subject: Airfoil stuff
FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO Hello Jack > From: "Textor, Jack" <jack(at)personnelincorporated.com> > > This is all interesting and helpful to learn about the flight > characteristics of the Piet. And I must say a little disconcerting. I > just received my 100 cap strips and hope I have the correct airfoil. > With the help of Doc and others I believe I do. With the landing > characteristics mentioned, even with my tail time I will be sure to have > an experienced Piet pilot test fly and instruct me. Don't let the discussion of airfoils be disconcerting to you. These discussions are basically academic stimulus and generally come down to the 1) purists who don't think anything should be changed in the design and 2) those who feel it can be improved. But this is what makes this group so interesting. (I will express no opinion on this.) However, the Pietenpol wing and plane design show absolutely _no_ bad tendencies, and it is a delight to fly. Any plane will either float or sink rapidly in the landing phase depending on airspeeds and wing design. Ever flown a Pacer, Tri-Pacer, Grumman TR2, or Ercoupe? They fly like a brick when you cut power and reduce airspeed to near stall. Increase the speed on landing and these characteristics diminish. What you have in this discussion is a comparison of a specific type of wing/plane with similar power, construction, and speed with that of the Pietenpol. No, they will not fly the same because of design and shouldn't be expected to do so. Each has its own flying characteristics to which the pilot adapts when flying that particular airplane, making each as safe as the other when flown within its parameters. The wing design and drag from struts, wires, etc. does cause the speed of the Piet to rapidly decay which, in turn, causes the rapid sink. But the plane is remarkably stable and does just what you tell it to do. For example, you can put it in a nose high attitude, power off, to stall it, keep the stick back all the way, and do a 'falling leaf' with only the rudder pedals, with no tendency of the plane to fall violently to one side (assuming the plane is rigged properly ). Since each plane is different, in the landing phase you find the speeds at which you have enough speed to actually 'round out' and then 'flair' (if you like those terms). Engine out landings are easily done if correct speeds are determined for the weight, and should be _practiced_. Using a little power on final can allow you to actually slow the plane to a 'crawl' before touchdown. Combinations of all of the above can produce great landings. And by all means, learn to wheel land the plane well, for as one of the group pointed out, 'the ground becomes a moving object in gusty winds'. haahaa ...Edwin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Edwin Johnson ....... elj(at)shreve.net ~ ~ http://www.shreve.net/~elj ~ ~ ~ ~ "Once you have flown, you will walk the ~ ~ earth with your eyes turned skyward, ~ ~ for there you have been, there you long ~ ~ to return." -- da Vinci ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Seems I hit a real nerve here with some of you guys. Maybe a little history is in order. I am a retired engineer from NASA and was the manager of the AGATE (Advanced General Aviation Transportation Experiments) project. We (AGATE) are the guys that developed all the glass displays (primarily with AvroTec and AVIDYNE), SLPC & FADEC systems (with the Glenn Research Center), the composite manufacture methods used on the LANCAIR and Cirrus as well as the parachute recovery system technologies, databuss systems so all the junk in new planes could talk to each other and more other stuff than I could recount in a message like this. None of that matters. I fly a 1945 Taylorcraft that I have been taking back to absolute original (heck, I even put back the non-sensitive altimeter). I have torn out the entire electrical system (that had been added over the years by prior owners) and am putting back only what came from the factory. I even have the original wind generator working again. The entire instrument panel was pulled and the original design hand hammered from a flat sheet and put back with all original instrument. I'm a true believer in keeping it original, WITHIN REASON. There are a few MINOR changes I am putting in even if they DO violate Mr. Taylors original design. The first is the fabric is a modern synthetic, not cotton. I tried my best but there just isn't any long twill cotton available like what was used originally. I have tested the new stuff (that insatiable curiosity coming through again) and none of it is as good as the ancient scraps I had around from 30 or 40 years ago. I DID use a certified system that used DOPE for a finish and LOVE the process. If you are interested call Jim and Dondie at Poly-Fiber, they are the greatest and cater to the whims of nut cases like us. The other items are metal to metal seat belt buckles (Uncle CAN force some changes), hard points for shoulder belts (that can be hidden when not in use), a 12V jack for charging my hand held radio or GPS (OK I didn't give up ALL the fancy stuff) and I plan to put in one of the new type ELTs that transmit your GPS position in a crash when they come down a bit in price(remember in 41 there was no ELT of ANY kind). Do these changes make me a "violator of the original designers intent"? I doubt it. I haven't clipped the wings, put in a center stick, added an extra 100 HP, full electrical system or glass cockpit. I could have, but I'm with YOU guys. It wouldn't be a Taylorcraft any more. If the Taylorcraft had any really bad (dangerous) characteristics that could be corrected easily without violating what made me love the plane in the first place (like the extra hard points for shoulder the harness) I would put them in. No one is forcing (or even asking) anyone to change anything on their plane. It's beyond me why some of you guys not only don't want to improve your planes (I can understand the pride of having an ORIGINAL) but seem to want to attack those that DO want to look at what makes them fly like they do. If you don't want to change, no one will look down on you. Why the attacks on those that have some intellectual curiosity? Do you think the testing of the Wright props, engine and airframe were some kind of insult to Orville and Wilbur? Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils > > In a message dated 1/9/04 8:09:27 PM Central Standard Time, > bike.mike(at)verizon.net writes: > > << All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated design of > ours in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking. > We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could > have a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast > enough that we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the cockpit; > then we could go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a > stiffer tail that wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could go > fast enough that retracting the landing gear would really benefit the top > end. Heck, while we're at it, we could figure out how to make a glass lay > up for the fuselage, maybe rounding off those aerodynamically troubling > square corners. Going fast enough by now that we'll have to file a flight > plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have to think about panel-mounted GPS and > maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. That > means a bigger engine... > Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol? > > The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 > years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of > it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar. > This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals > to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously > cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT > IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more > forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the > power or raise the nose. > > I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has > open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables, > causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered > airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in > and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower > wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, > and turns heads everywhere it goes. > I will stay with my decision. > > Mike Hardaway > PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet. >> > > Mike, > Very well put !! > It takes a while to get acquainted with flying your new ship, but once > you do, and you know what to expect, her characteristics become engrained in > your reflexes, and I promise you - you wouldn't have it any other way !! While > you're getting to know 'er, the robust design will allow you to drop 'er in, > and cause no damage (although a close inspection would be in order). She's a > 'Stick & Rudder' airplane. Her characteristics are not worse than newer > aircraft....just different. All of your senses are used - Sight - view over the > cowl during takeoff / landing & oh the beautiful landscape, Sound - wind noise & > engine sound to indicate your speed, or the ground rumbling under the tires, > Feel - seat of the pants, G force in conjunction with the sound of speed and > buffet of the wing indicates your angle of attack & which side of your face you > feel the wind, so you know which rudder input to use without looking at the > ball, or the feel of a brisk temperature indicating a better climb rate and visa > versa, Smell - occasional exhaust, barbaques, road kill, spring flowers, Taste > - summer air, bugs, and beer after sunset. As you eventually become one > with your ship, it will offer you as much or more satisfaction flying 'er, as it > has building 'er, and showing 'er off on the ramp !! You just don't get that > in very many ships. > I would encourage everyone to study and learn everything you can about > aerodynamics - you will be a better pilot as a result, but please - Don't Change > the Pietenpol Airfoil !!!! > > Chuck Gantzer > NX770CG > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Subject: Re: what medical
I have been in the same boat for 28 years Bruce. Lost my medical in 75. The Sport Pilot thing should be done by April (hopefully). Piet easily qualifies, that is why I started on mine several months ago. I would keep building. Sounds like you already have enough flight hours for Sport Pilot, may only have to take a written and an FAA checkout. Rick Holland I have been following this group for a year now and feel that I know some of you personally. The medical thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2004
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
--- John Dilatush wrote: > Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:09 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils > > Mike said: > > > "The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. > Those 75 years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you > can use some of it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a > GlassStar. > This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list > appeals to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, > simultaneously cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I > didn't like it, AS IT IS, I would build something else, something > that already has a more forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too > quickly when I pull off the power or raise the nose. > > I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol > Aircamper has open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and > exposed control cables, causing it to have more drag than a > parachute; a thin, highly cambered airfoil that has a questionable > stall; a front seat that is hard to get in and out of; can be built > with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower wrenched out of an > antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, and turns > heads everywhere it goes. > I will stay with my decision." > > Mike Hardaway > PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the > old Piet. > ======================================== > > Well said Mike! > > We are flying a bit of history and can actual experience the joys > and problems that the old pilots actually felt in the 1929 > and 30's. The Piet was not unique in it's flying characteristics, > many of the planes of the time flew the same way. It was considered > a "good flying plane" if the planes of that time even flew and were > controllable. Flight characteristics that we know in comtemporary > planes of today are the product of long experience and government > requirements. > > John > ============================================== > Hi, My motorcycle is a 2000 Enfield 350 Bullet, they build it in India the same way they used to in 1955 in England. Points and condenser, kick starter 1 cylinder long stroke. I like it very much, will never think it will drive like my brothers Yamaha VStar (Harley look alike), but I will not change the way I enjoy it, I give mantainance the old way (the only electronic is the turn signal), When I stop in a light all the drivers look over and smile, is a real Classic, in fact they anounce it as "Driving a Piece of History" Thats the way I like it. Saludos Gary Gower __________________________________ http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoil stuff
Date: Jan 10, 2004
I like this answer. There is NOTHING basically dangerous to be afraid of in the Piet with the exception of trying to fly it like a plane it isn't. I haven't gotten to fly a Piet (anyone have one close to Southeast VA?) yet but Edwin sounds right on target. If (from what I have heard) I tried to land a Piet like my Taylorcraft I'm going to do a carrier type arrival. Likewise a Piet landing in the Taylorcraft will end up as a "low pass" and I would never touch down. They are DIFFERENT planes! I just want to know what the differences are and why. Like Edwin said, "Don't let the discussion of airfoils be disconcerting to you. These discussions are basically academic stimulus". With the proper data (if someone wanted to) you could build a Piet that landed like a Taylorcraft. I wouldn't, but you could. Build your plane with the knowledge that MANY have been flown safely for decades. I WOULD suggest that you get some dual time with someone familiar with how a piet flys in a plane similar in handling. Any one know what commonly available plane lands like a Piet? From the discussions so far, DON'T USE A TAYLORCRAFT! They are NOT alike. Hank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edwin Johnson" <elj(at)shreve.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil stuff > > Hello Jack > > > From: "Textor, Jack" <jack(at)personnelincorporated.com> > > > > This is all interesting and helpful to learn about the flight > > characteristics of the Piet. And I must say a little disconcerting. I > > just received my 100 cap strips and hope I have the correct airfoil. > > With the help of Doc and others I believe I do. With the landing > > characteristics mentioned, even with my tail time I will be sure to have > > an experienced Piet pilot test fly and instruct me. > > Don't let the discussion of airfoils be disconcerting to you. These > discussions are basically academic stimulus and generally come down to the > 1) purists who don't think anything should be changed in the design and 2) > those who feel it can be improved. But this is what makes this group so > interesting. (I will express no opinion on this.) > > However, the Pietenpol wing and plane design show absolutely _no_ bad > tendencies, and it is a delight to fly. Any plane will either float or > sink rapidly in the landing phase depending on airspeeds and wing design. > Ever flown a Pacer, Tri-Pacer, Grumman TR2, or Ercoupe? They fly like a > brick when you cut power and reduce airspeed to near stall. Increase the > speed on landing and these characteristics diminish. > > What you have in this discussion is a comparison of a specific type of > wing/plane with similar power, construction, and speed with that of the > Pietenpol. No, they will not fly the same because of design and shouldn't > be expected to do so. Each has its own flying characteristics to which the > pilot adapts when flying that particular airplane, making each as safe as > the other when flown within its parameters. > > The wing design and drag from struts, wires, etc. does cause the speed of > the Piet to rapidly decay which, in turn, causes the rapid sink. But the > plane is remarkably stable and does just what you tell it to do. For > example, you can put it in a nose high attitude, power off, to stall it, > keep the stick back all the way, and do a 'falling leaf' with only the > rudder pedals, with no tendency of the plane to fall violently to one > side (assuming the plane is rigged properly ). > > Since each plane is different, in the landing phase you find the speeds at > which you have enough speed to actually 'round out' and then 'flair' (if > you like those terms). Engine out landings are easily done if correct > speeds are determined for the weight, and should be _practiced_. Using a > little power on final can allow you to actually slow the plane to a > 'crawl' before touchdown. Combinations of all of the above can produce > great landings. > > And by all means, learn to wheel land the plane well, for as one of the > group pointed out, 'the ground becomes a moving object in gusty winds'. > haahaa > > ...Edwin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~ Edwin Johnson ....... elj(at)shreve.net ~ > ~ http://www.shreve.net/~elj ~ > ~ ~ > ~ "Once you have flown, you will walk the ~ > ~ earth with your eyes turned skyward, ~ > ~ for there you have been, there you long ~ > ~ to return." -- da Vinci ~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Scout for sale....
Date: Jan 10, 2004
I heard a fellow on the EAA Ham Radio net this morning from Cape Girardeau Missouri that has a 65 powered Scout for sale. He's asking $5K with with the engine and $3.5K without. Sounded interesting if you're looking for a Scout. He said there's a picture of it in (I think) in some 2001 issue of Sport Aviation. Don't know him....don't know the plane.....but there is a Scout listed on landings.com in Cape Girardeau (N701F)....might be that one.... Just passin' it along...... :-) Jim Markle ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Weaver" <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: what medical
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Say Hi to Steve E.... BTW, never write anything down on those little medical forms... It's stuff the Feds DON'T need to know.. If you just write down how good you feel and that you have never had anything wrong with you, they just hand you your medical. Now, you are sorta stuck with it but I hope with a little time you are able to manuever around the issue. GOOD LUCK! Weav ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janis Nielsen" <nielsen5052(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what medical > > I have been following this group for a year now and > feel that I know some of you personally. The medical > thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start > on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my > medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues > as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to > reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my > Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I > have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets > resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out > if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built. > > Bruce Nielsen > about a mile away from Steve E. > > __________________________________ > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Subject: Broadhead 2004
Is the Broadhead flyin always the weekend before AirVenture? Was wondering what the 2004 dates are. May be able to make it for the first time this year. Rick Holland ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Great comments Hank. Alex S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils > > Seems I hit a real nerve here with some of you guys. Maybe a little history > is in order. I am a retired engineer from NASA and was the manager of the > AGATE (Advanced General Aviation Transportation Experiments) project. We > (AGATE) are the guys that developed all the glass displays (primarily with > AvroTec and AVIDYNE), SLPC & FADEC systems (with the Glenn Research Center), > the composite manufacture methods used on the LANCAIR and Cirrus as well as > the parachute recovery system technologies, databuss systems so all the junk > in new planes could talk to each other and more other stuff than I could > recount in a message like this. > None of that matters. I fly a 1945 Taylorcraft that I have been taking back > to absolute original (heck, I even put back the non-sensitive altimeter). I > have torn out the entire electrical system (that had been added over the > years by prior owners) and am putting back only what came from the factory. > I even have the original wind generator working again. The entire > instrument panel was pulled and the original design hand hammered from a > flat sheet and put back with all original instrument. I'm a true believer > in keeping it original, WITHIN REASON. > There are a few MINOR changes I am putting in even if they DO violate Mr. > Taylors original design. The first is the fabric is a modern synthetic, not > cotton. I tried my best but there just isn't any long twill cotton > available like what was used originally. I have tested the new stuff (that > insatiable curiosity coming through again) and none of it is as good as the > ancient scraps I had around from 30 or 40 years ago. I DID use a certified > system that used DOPE for a finish and LOVE the process. If you are > interested call Jim and Dondie at Poly-Fiber, they are the greatest and > cater to the whims of nut cases like us. The other items are metal to metal > seat belt buckles (Uncle CAN force some changes), hard points for shoulder > belts (that can be hidden when not in use), a 12V jack for charging my hand > held radio or GPS (OK I didn't give up ALL the fancy stuff) and I plan to > put in one of the new type ELTs that transmit your GPS position in a crash > when they come down a bit in price(remember in 41 there was no ELT of ANY > kind). Do these changes make me a "violator of the original designers > intent"? I doubt it. I haven't clipped the wings, put in a center stick, > added an extra 100 HP, full electrical system or glass cockpit. I could > have, but I'm with YOU guys. It wouldn't be a Taylorcraft any more. If the > Taylorcraft had any really bad (dangerous) characteristics that could be > corrected easily without violating what made me love the plane in the first > place (like the extra hard points for shoulder the harness) I would put them > in. No one is forcing (or even asking) anyone to change anything on their > plane. > It's beyond me why some of you guys not only don't want to improve your > planes (I can understand the pride of having an ORIGINAL) but seem to want > to attack those that DO want to look at what makes them fly like they do. > If you don't want to change, no one will look down on you. Why the attacks > on those that have some intellectual curiosity? Do you think the testing of > the Wright props, engine and airframe were some kind of insult to Orville > and Wilbur? > Hank J > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com> > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:24 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils > > > > > > In a message dated 1/9/04 8:09:27 PM Central Standard Time, > > bike.mike(at)verizon.net writes: > > > > << All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated > design of > > ours in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking. > > We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could > > have a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast > > enough that we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the > cockpit; > > then we could go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a > > stiffer tail that wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could > go > > fast enough that retracting the landing gear would really benefit the top > > end. Heck, while we're at it, we could figure out how to make a glass > lay > > up for the fuselage, maybe rounding off those aerodynamically troubling > > square corners. Going fast enough by now that we'll have to file a > flight > > plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have to think about panel-mounted GPS > and > > maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. > That > > means a bigger engine... > > Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol? > > > > The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 > > years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of > > it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar. > > This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list > appeals > > to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, > simultaneously > > cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS > IT > > IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more > > forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the > > power or raise the nose. > > > > I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has > > open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control > cables, > > causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered > > airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get > in > > and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower > > wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, > > and turns heads everywhere it goes. > > I will stay with my decision. > > > > Mike Hardaway > > PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old > Piet. >> > > > > Mike, > > Very well put !! > > It takes a while to get acquainted with flying your new ship, but once > > you do, and you know what to expect, her characteristics become engrained > in > > your reflexes, and I promise you - you wouldn't have it any other way !! > While > > you're getting to know 'er, the robust design will allow you to drop 'er > in, > > and cause no damage (although a close inspection would be in order). > She's a > > 'Stick & Rudder' airplane. Her characteristics are not worse than newer > > aircraft....just different. All of your senses are used - Sight - view > over the > > cowl during takeoff / landing & oh the beautiful landscape, Sound - wind > noise & > > engine sound to indicate your speed, or the ground rumbling under the > tires, > > Feel - seat of the pants, G force in conjunction with the sound of speed > and > > buffet of the wing indicates your angle of attack & which side of your > face you > > feel the wind, so you know which rudder input to use without looking at > the > > ball, or the feel of a brisk temperature indicating a better climb rate > and visa > > versa, Smell - occasional exhaust, barbaques, road kill, spring flowers, > Taste > > - summer air, bugs, and beer after sunset. As you eventually become one > > with your ship, it will offer you as much or more satisfaction flying 'er, > as it > > has building 'er, and showing 'er off on the ramp !! You just don't get > that > > in very many ships. > > I would encourage everyone to study and learn everything you can about > > aerodynamics - you will be a better pilot as a result, but please - Don't > Change > > the Pietenpol Airfoil !!!! > > > > Chuck Gantzer > > NX770CG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
Date: Jan 10, 2004
With all this talk of airfoils, and of all the stuff I thought I knew, now I see all the stuff I don't know. I thought if I could fly/land a Cub, I could land a Piet. But some of the landings in the Piet are weird, and some are "whew". Up till now I've become most comfortable with the wheel landings. Now is the time where I'm not ashamed to ask for any and all input. Maybe I'm doing something basically wrong. I Pull the power to 1500 rpm (A65) and set the glide for 70 mph all the way down to a wheel landing. Is that too fast? Any slower and I PoGo down the runway. Three point are my weakest, someone give me approach speeds and tips on them. Guess I'm doing the whole thing too fast, but I don't know. Can anyone who wants to, post a normal wheel and three point landing procedure as it goes thru there mind on final? Now that I can't fly,,,I can learn. thanks walt evans NX140DL PS 6 below in the am ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2004
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: what medical
Bruce, Hang in there. Often with drugs such as Prozac, you take them for a couple of years and get weened off of them. Your body compensates and starts making the necessary chemistry itself and your condition is no more. So, even if you can't get a medical for awhile doesn't mean you won't be able to in a year or two. Good luck! John John Ford john(at)indstate.edu 812-237-8542 >>> nielsen5052(at)yahoo.com Friday, January 09, 2004 6:50:00 PM >>> I have been following this group for a year now and feel that I know some of you personally. The medical thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built. Bruce Nielsen about a mile away from Steve E. __________________________________ http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Subject: Re: Airfoils
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Re: Pietenpol-List: AirfoilsAmen, Mike Ted Brousseau Still makin sawdust in FL ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated design of ours in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking. We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could have a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast enough that we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the cockpit; then we could go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a stiffer tail that wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could go fast enough that retracting the landing gear would really benefit the top end. Heck, while we're at it, we could figure out how to make a glass lay up for the fuselage, maybe rounding off those aerodynamically troubling square corners. Going fast enough by now that we'll have to file a flight plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have to think about panel-mounted GPS and maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. That means a bigger engine... Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol? The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar. This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the power or raise the nose. I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables, causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, and turns heads everywhere it goes. I will stay with my decision. Mike Hardaway PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Subject: Landings
In a message dated 1/10/04 9:48:12 AM Central Standard Time, hjarrett(at)hroads.net writes: << Any one know what commonly available plane lands like a Piet? >> I got a couple hours duel in a J3 Cub, before I flew my Piet. I think a J3 Cub is close, because there are so many of them still out there. I'm not saying a Cub flys just like a Piet, but it is a smooth transition from a Cub to a Piet. Chuck G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
Date: Jan 10, 2004
Walt, To do a perfect three pointer, you MUST touch down at minimum speed. This means the stick MUST be at the aft stop as you hit the ground or slightly before you hit the ground. And then the stick STAYS there until you are stopped. You may move it left or right for crosswinds but the stick MUST stay back all the way. That is why the pogo. If you land tailwheel first, which is ok, it will force a nose down rotation with the tailwheel being the pivot point. As the nose abruptly drops as the tailwheel hits, it will instantly change the angle of attack of the wing, increasing it, and forcing a more complete stall. Then your mains will hit and a ton of energy will be stored by the tires and shock cords. If you have the split axle gear, the gear will splay out and this action will dissipate or absorb a lot of energy. If you have the straight axle gear, then there is no splaying out of the wheels, so all the energy will be stored by the shock cord, and then released by the shock cord, which can actually launch your mains back into the air. But if you hold the stick back, she's not gonna fly. I hope this helps. Chris Bobka CFI ----- Original Message ----- From: w b evans To: piet discussion Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 5:53 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input With all this talk of airfoils, and of all the stuff I thought I knew, now I see all the stuff I don't know. I thought if I could fly/land a Cub, I could land a Piet. But some of the landings in the Piet are weird, and some are "whew". Up till now I've become most comfortable with the wheel landings. Now is the time where I'm not ashamed to ask for any and all input. Maybe I'm doing something basically wrong. I Pull the power to 1500 rpm (A65) and set the glide for 70 mph all the way down to a wheel landing. Is that too fast? Any slower and I PoGo down the runway. Three point are my weakest, someone give me approach speeds and tips on them. Guess I'm doing the whole thing too fast, but I don't know. Can anyone who wants to, post a normal wheel and three point landing procedure as it goes thru there mind on final? Now that I can't fly,,,I can learn. thanks walt evans NX140DL PS 6 below in the am ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
In a message dated 1/10/04 5:54:45 PM Central Standard Time, wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes: << Can anyone who wants to, post a normal wheel and three point landing procedure as it goes thru there mind on final? >> Walt, For me, landings are always the most challenging part of the flight. I much prefer landing on grass than hard surface...it's much more forgiving. When I first started flying the Piet, I would drag it in with power on final (maybe I just didn't trust that ol' Model A engine - it quit 2 times on short final), and wheel landings were the way I usually did one. I didn't want to do an approach stall, so I kept the approach speed too high, and did quite a few bouncy PoGo landings, till I learned to stab the stick forward at the split second the mains touched. I now do full stall landings most of the time. I usually keep my downwind in pretty close, in case I loose the engine I'll still make the field, which makes turns to base and final pretty steep. On downwind, when abeam the landing spot, I pull power on the Cont. A65 engine to 1500 rpm, and the nose drops, and I keep the speed from 70 to 60 indicated, turn base keeping the ball in the middle, level the wing very briefly for a last check for runway condition, 30 or more bank to final (which blocks out the view of the runway), and on final I like to be pretty high, so I pull power to just above the idle stop, and put 'er in a slip down to maybe 50 to 80 feet agl, straighten out and maintain a minimum of 50 mph indicated till I make the numbers. Pull power off to the stop which quickly dissipates the speed, because I'm pulling the nose up now for the roundout. 50 to 55 mph on short final seems to maintain enough energy for the roundout and flair. The ground is really close now, maybe a couple of feet. That's the hardest part - keeping the ground about 6 to 8 inches below the tires. Nose is coming up, and forward view is blocked. Perifial vision out the left side shows how far away it is. Speed is rapidly dissipating. Quick glance at the ASI - about 40 mph indicated now. Ground effect is kicking in...Hold it off...ease the stick back, keep the nose straight with the rudder in the direction of flight...hold it off...nose coming up and causing a lot of induced drag...hold it off...controls are very mushy now, but the ailerons are still very effective...hold it off...gentle ground rumble, and short roll out !! YEEE HAAAAWWW !!! Boy that feels good !! Try as I may, my landings are always different. From round out to touchdown is a matter of maybe 5 or 6 seconds. Quite often my tail touches first, but just a split second before the mains. I think sometimes I actually touch down at less than 30 mph, although I've never looked at the ASI to verify it. I think my ASI actually reads a little low anyway. Chuck Gantzer NX770CG ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2004
In a message dated 1/10/04 1:53:21 PM Central Standard Time, At7000ft(at)aol.com writes: << Is the Broadhead flyin always the weekend before AirVenture? Was wondering what the 2004 dates are. May be able to make it for the first time this year. >> Rick, I hope you make it this year. Oshkosh is July 27 - Aug 2, which would make Brodhead on Fri. Sat. Sun. July 23 to July 25. Could someone else verify this date for Brodhead ? Speaking of Brodhead, I'd like to do an info sheet and leave it on the pilot seat of each plane. Something to list a lot of the details of each plane. Not only the normal stuff like owner / e-mail, builder, weight, CG location, short / long fuse, prop / engine. I'd like to get stuff like 'Inches wing tilted back, cabane strut length, covering / paint process, adhesives used, fuel capacity / range, fuel tank material, alterations like fuselage width or wingspan or engine mount length, type of wood in various locations, type and thickness steel in various locations, the date when the first airplane noises were made...you get the idea. If I could put it all on one format and a single sheet paper size, and then just leave it on the seat of each plane, it seems lots of questions could be answered, at times when the owner isn't around, and even more important - spark more questions !! I think we should do a weight and ballance report this year. We need scales for that. The flyer should know exactly how much fuel is onbd., so we could just remove that moment, as opposed to draining all fuel, and be able to compare CG's. I'd also like to see if any flyers would be interested in some type of formation flight, with photo plane and what kind of preperation would be needed. This might be possible if the EAA photo plane could meet us at the 50 mile out marker, on the way to Oshkosh. I also need the name and number and e-mail of every piet builder / flyer that anybody knows. I'd like to contact each and every one, preferebly by e-mail. Waddya think ? I need input on this... Chuck Gantzer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2004
In a message dated 1/11/04 12:32:37 AM Central Standard Time, Rcaprd(at)aol.com writes: << I'd like to do an info sheet and leave it on the pilot seat of each plane. >> Here is what I had in mind - Aircraft Infomation : Type - Short / Long fuse - Empty Weight - lbs. Gross Weight - lbs. Engine - Prop - X Empty CG aft of Lead Edge - " Weight of Primary Pilot - lbs. Max Pax Weight - lbs Inches wing tilted back - " Cabane strut length - " Cowling Material - Covering - Paint Process - Wheels - Tires - Brakes - Tailwheel - Adhesives used: Ribs - Wing - Fuse - Fuel Capacity: Range - hrs. Wing Tank - gal. Material - Cowl Tank - gal. Material - Alterations : Fuselage Width - " Wingspan - ' " Engine Mount Length - " Other - Wood type in various locations: Ribs - Rib Gussets - Spar Size - X Spar Material - Longerons - Longeron Gussets - Other - Steel type in various locations: Cabane Struts - Lift Struts - Landing Gear - Engine Mount Fittings - Fuselage Fittings - Other - Date first airplane noises / / Date of the first flight / / Address - e-mail - web site - builder(s)- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Exellent, Chuck. I am always yelling at the students to "Keep it flying! Don't let it touch! Don't let it touch! Ah, you let it touch...Okay, let's do another..." By the way, chuck's method works for nosewheel airplanes too. I buy lunch if the student drags the tiedown at the tail. Makes for nice landings and you will never bounce and you will never wheelbarrel and break off the nose gear. Ever fly a Cherokee Six? Chris Bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input > > > In a message dated 1/10/04 5:54:45 PM Central Standard Time, > wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes: > > << Can anyone who wants to, post a normal wheel and three point landing > procedure as it goes thru there mind on final? >> > > Walt, > For me, landings are always the most challenging part of the flight. I much > prefer landing on grass than hard surface...it's much more forgiving. When I > first started flying the Piet, I would drag it in with power on final (maybe > I just didn't trust that ol' Model A engine - it quit 2 times on short final), > and wheel landings were the way I usually did one. I didn't want to do an > approach stall, so I kept the approach speed too high, and did quite a few > bouncy PoGo landings, till I learned to stab the stick forward at the split second > the mains touched. I now do full stall landings most of the time. I usually > keep my downwind in pretty close, in case I loose the engine I'll still make > the field, which makes turns to base and final pretty steep. On downwind, when > abeam the landing spot, I pull power on the Cont. A65 engine to 1500 rpm, and > the nose drops, and I keep the speed from 70 to 60 indicated, turn base > keeping the ball in the middle, level the wing very briefly for a last check for > runway condition, 30 or more bank to final (which blocks out the view of the > runway), and on final I like to be pretty high, so I pull power to just above > the idle stop, and put 'er in a slip down to maybe 50 to 80 feet agl, straighten > out and maintain a minimum of 50 mph indicated till I make the numbers. Pull > power off to the stop which quickly dissipates the speed, because I'm pulling > the nose up now for the roundout. 50 to 55 mph on short final seems to > maintain enough energy for the roundout and flair. The ground is really close now, > maybe a couple of feet. That's the hardest part - keeping the ground about 6 > to 8 inches below the tires. Nose is coming up, and forward view is blocked. > Perifial vision out the left side shows how far away it is. Speed is > rapidly dissipating. Quick glance at the ASI - about 40 mph indicated now. Ground > effect is kicking in...Hold it off...ease the stick back, keep the nose > straight with the rudder in the direction of flight...hold it off...nose coming up > and causing a lot of induced drag...hold it off...controls are very mushy now, > but the ailerons are still very effective...hold it off...gentle ground > rumble, and short roll out !! YEEE HAAAAWWW !!! Boy that feels good !! Try as > I may, my landings are always different. From round out to touchdown is a > matter of maybe 5 or 6 seconds. Quite often my tail touches first, but just a > split second before the mains. I think sometimes I actually touch down at less > than 30 mph, although I've never looked at the ASI to verify it. I think my > ASI actually reads a little low anyway. > > Chuck Gantzer > NX770CG > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com>
Subject: airfoils and landings
Date: Jan 11, 2004
If you want to learn (from a book???) all about the mechanics of landing, by all means get "Stick and Rudder" and read it from cover-to cover. You'll be so stoked on taildraggers that you'll want to RUN to the airport and try everything out that you just learned. As far as the airfoils go........... Chill out! The "purists" aren't throwing stones at anyone, but try to understand that most of us build a Piet because we WANT IT LIKE IT IS. We usually don't pick a design and then try to see how to make it different or "better" (Grega), we pick the design because that's what we want. Sure little details creep in, that's just a personality thing, but if you bust into a Lancair group and start telling them that their nosewheel ought to be on the tail based on your vast experience, you'd probably get some static there as well. Do what you want to do and then let us hear the results. We'd be more interested then as has been demonstrated over and over on this (and many other) sites. $.02 Larry ps. has anyone seen the Red Betsy??? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2004
Chuck: Would you fill out this information sheet on your airplane as an example, NOW. As my ship is scheduled to make its first flight in mid or late summer and by the time Broadhead gets here it really will be a little late to help. I think your information sheet is a Very good idea and would help out a lot of builders. If you and or anyone else wants to fill this info sheet out and forward it to me ASAP it would be greatly appreciated. Max Davis Arlington, TX. 75 HP Piet under construction ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wizzard187(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
On this discusion on landing I wonder how going from 6:00 6 wheels to 18 inch motorcycle wheels will affect the land problems? It raises the axels about three inches I think. Ken Conrad in cool Iowa ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
Date: Jan 11, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input ================================ Chris, With everyone concerned about landing a Piet, it is hard to delineate in detail the steps involved because each landing is a little different than the last one. This step by step aproach sometimes leads to a "mechanical pilot" and if something changes or goes wrong, it is difficult for him to react to the situation. "Back in "09" (many many years ago) when I was still instructing, in addition to "Keep it flying" which I used, I would also say that the airplane is like a first date. And then would explain, "Treat it like your first date, firmly but gently!". Helps the student to take charge rather than react. John Salida, Colorado. Where the sun shines but it's still too cold to fly in and open cockpit! ================================ > > Exellent, Chuck. I am always yelling at the students to "Keep it flying! > Don't let it touch! Don't let it touch! Ah, you let it touch...Okay, let's > do another..." > > By the way, chuck's method works for nosewheel airplanes too. I buy lunch > if the student drags the tiedown at the tail. Makes for nice landings and > you will never bounce and you will never wheelbarrel and break off the nose > gear. Ever fly a Cherokee Six? > > Chris Bobka > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com> > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:10 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/10/04 5:54:45 PM Central Standard Time, > > wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes: > > > > << Can anyone who wants to, post a normal wheel and three point landing > > procedure as it goes thru there mind on final? >> > > > > Walt, > > For me, landings are always the most challenging part of the flight. I > much > > prefer landing on grass than hard surface...it's much more forgiving. > When I > > first started flying the Piet, I would drag it in with power on final > (maybe > > I just didn't trust that ol' Model A engine - it quit 2 times on short > final), > > and wheel landings were the way I usually did one. I didn't want to do an > > approach stall, so I kept the approach speed too high, and did quite a few > > bouncy PoGo landings, till I learned to stab the stick forward at the > split second > > the mains touched. I now do full stall landings most of the time. I > usually > > keep my downwind in pretty close, in case I loose the engine I'll still > make > > the field, which makes turns to base and final pretty steep. On downwind, > when > > abeam the landing spot, I pull power on the Cont. A65 engine to 1500 rpm, > and > > the nose drops, and I keep the speed from 70 to 60 indicated, turn base > > keeping the ball in the middle, level the wing very briefly for a last > check for > > runway condition, 30 or more bank to final (which blocks out the view of > the > > runway), and on final I like to be pretty high, so I pull power to just > above > > the idle stop, and put 'er in a slip down to maybe 50 to 80 feet agl, > straighten > > out and maintain a minimum of 50 mph indicated till I make the numbers. > Pull > > power off to the stop which quickly dissipates the speed, because I'm > pulling > > the nose up now for the roundout. 50 to 55 mph on short final seems to > > maintain enough energy for the roundout and flair. The ground is really > close now, > > maybe a couple of feet. That's the hardest part - keeping the ground > about 6 > > to 8 inches below the tires. Nose is coming up, and forward view is > blocked. > > Perifial vision out the left side shows how far away it is. Speed is > > rapidly dissipating. Quick glance at the ASI - about 40 mph indicated > now. Ground > > effect is kicking in...Hold it off...ease the stick back, keep the nose > > straight with the rudder in the direction of flight...hold it off...nose > coming up > > and causing a lot of induced drag...hold it off...controls are very mushy > now, > > but the ailerons are still very effective...hold it off...gentle ground > > rumble, and short roll out !! YEEE HAAAAWWW !!! Boy that feels good !! > Try as > > I may, my landings are always different. From round out to touchdown is a > > matter of maybe 5 or 6 seconds. Quite often my tail touches first, but > just a > > split second before the mains. I think sometimes I actually touch down at > less > > than 30 mph, although I've never looked at the ASI to verify it. I think > my > > ASI actually reads a little low anyway. > > > > Chuck Gantzer > > NX770CG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net>
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Having larger wheels will increase the angle of attack in the three point. This means you are at a slightly higher lift and lower speed. How much depends on how much the angle is increased. If the large wheels put the wing right at stall in three point the smaller wheels would cause you to land tail first or roll out at a higher speed with the wing still lifting. You "could" balloon back into the air, especially if the wheels have more bounce than the big wheels. I got to look at the drawing of the wing structure and one view of the ribs worried me a little. There is a diagonal from the bottom of the front spar to the top leading edge about half way between the very leading edge and the spar. That diagonal would support the leading edge top contour. On the bottom the rib drawing doesn't show anything to support the bottom stick to maintain the lower curve between the bottom of the front spar and the leading edge. There is a curve shown on the drawing but it would be very easy for that stick to go straight (and in fact the cut away SHOWS it straight). Taking away the lower curve would push the leading edge up and decrease the leading edge radius. Neither of these things is good for landing performance or handling. Sharp leading edges (in general) have poor stall characteristics and while raising the leading edge may help raise cruise speed (something the Piet design doesn't list as a real priority) it can really HURT landing performance. Are you guys flying with the lower front part of the airfoil straight or curved? Variance in that part of the leading edge could explain a lot of the different landing handling reports I have been seeing. The airfoil for the Piet doesn't have much good data so I am addressing things pretty much in general here. I have a sneaking feeling that not all Piets have the same airfoil even when built from the same plans. Hank (stirring the waters) J ----- Original Message ----- From: Wizzard187(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input On this discusion on landing I wonder how going from 6:00 6 wheels to 18 inch motorcycle wheels will affect the land problems? It raises the axels about three inches I think. Ken Conrad in cool Iowa ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2004
May want to also add an Alteration category for Fuselage Front Extension. Alterations : Fuselage Width - " Wingspan - ' " Engine Mount Length - " Other - ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
Talk about noseheavy, how about one of those 8 cylinder Cherokees? By the way, chuck's method works for nosewheel airplanes too. I buy lunch if the student drags the tiedown at the tail. Makes for nice landings and you will never bounce and you will never wheelbarrel and break off the nose gear. Ever fly a Cherokee Six? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
<000901c3d864$061d0440$02290005@dilatush>
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Thanks to all who responded. Lots of good input from guys with lots of hours/experience. Kind of got a handle on how I'll change my ways. The wheel landings are easier for me, where I can see everything going on, and this is with approach speeds of 65/70. got to slow things down for the 3 point. My Piet stalls @ 37 IAS so it's pretty sure bet I'm comming over the numbers way too fast. walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:30 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input > ================================ > Chris, > > With everyone concerned about landing a Piet, it is hard to delineate in > detail the steps involved because each landing is a little different than > the last one. This step by step aproach sometimes leads to a "mechanical > pilot" and if something changes or goes wrong, it is difficult for him to > react to the situation. > > "Back in "09" (many many years ago) when I was still instructing, in > addition to "Keep it flying" which I used, I would also say that the > airplane is like a first date. And then would explain, "Treat it like your > first date, firmly but gently!". Helps the student to take charge rather > than react. > > John > Salida, Colorado. Where the sun shines but it's still too cold to fly in > and open cockpit! > ================================ > > > > > > > Exellent, Chuck. I am always yelling at the students to "Keep it flying! > > Don't let it touch! Don't let it touch! Ah, you let it touch...Okay, > let's > > do another..." > > > > By the way, chuck's method works for nosewheel airplanes too. I buy lunch > > if the student drags the tiedown at the tail. Makes for nice landings and > > you will never bounce and you will never wheelbarrel and break off the > nose > > gear. Ever fly a Cherokee Six? > > > > Chris Bobka > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com> > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:10 AM > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/10/04 5:54:45 PM Central Standard Time, > > > wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes: > > > > > > << Can anyone who wants to, post a normal wheel and three point landing > > > procedure as it goes thru there mind on final? >> > > > > > > Walt, > > > For me, landings are always the most challenging part of the flight. I > > much > > > prefer landing on grass than hard surface...it's much more forgiving. > > When I > > > first started flying the Piet, I would drag it in with power on final > > (maybe > > > I just didn't trust that ol' Model A engine - it quit 2 times on short > > final), > > > and wheel landings were the way I usually did one. I didn't want to do > an > > > approach stall, so I kept the approach speed too high, and did quite a > few > > > bouncy PoGo landings, till I learned to stab the stick forward at the > > split second > > > the mains touched. I now do full stall landings most of the time. I > > usually > > > keep my downwind in pretty close, in case I loose the engine I'll still > > make > > > the field, which makes turns to base and final pretty steep. On > downwind, > > when > > > abeam the landing spot, I pull power on the Cont. A65 engine to 1500 > rpm, > > and > > > the nose drops, and I keep the speed from 70 to 60 indicated, turn base > > > keeping the ball in the middle, level the wing very briefly for a last > > check for > > > runway condition, 30 or more bank to final (which blocks out the view > of > > the > > > runway), and on final I like to be pretty high, so I pull power to just > > above > > > the idle stop, and put 'er in a slip down to maybe 50 to 80 feet agl, > > straighten > > > out and maintain a minimum of 50 mph indicated till I make the numbers. > > Pull > > > power off to the stop which quickly dissipates the speed, because I'm > > pulling > > > the nose up now for the roundout. 50 to 55 mph on short final seems to > > > maintain enough energy for the roundout and flair. The ground is really > > close now, > > > maybe a couple of feet. That's the hardest part - keeping the ground > > about 6 > > > to 8 inches below the tires. Nose is coming up, and forward view is > > blocked. > > > Perifial vision out the left side shows how far away it is. Speed is > > > rapidly dissipating. Quick glance at the ASI - about 40 mph indicated > > now. Ground > > > effect is kicking in...Hold it off...ease the stick back, keep the nose > > > straight with the rudder in the direction of flight...hold it off...nose > > coming up > > > and causing a lot of induced drag...hold it off...controls are very > mushy > > now, > > > but the ailerons are still very effective...hold it off...gentle ground > > > rumble, and short roll out !! YEEE HAAAAWWW !!! Boy that feels good > !! > > Try as > > > I may, my landings are always different. From round out to touchdown is > a > > > matter of maybe 5 or 6 seconds. Quite often my tail touches first, but > > just a > > > split second before the mains. I think sometimes I actually touch down > at > > less > > > than 30 mph, although I've never looked at the ASI to verify it. I > think > > my > > > ASI actually reads a little low anyway. > > > > > > Chuck Gantzer > > > NX770CG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Walt, As Larry Williams said in his post, read STICK AND RUDDER by Wolfgang Langewiesche, ISBN: 07-036240-8, about the art of flying. First published in 1944, it remains the best analysis of what is happening when you fly an airplane: old or new, big or small. I first read it back in 1951 when I got my Private Pilot License, and I am convinced that it has kept me out of a lot of trouble. Over the years I have periodically re-read parts of it and continue to marvel at the author's insight. Cheers, Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Infomation Sheet
In a message dated 1/11/04 9:09:31 AM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com writes: << I think your information sheet is a Very good idea and would help out a lot of builders. >> Hey Andy and all, If everyone would fill out this sheet, and either post it to the group, or forward it to me, I'll print them all out, bring them to Brodhead, and have a nice neat sheet for each plane. As Andy says, it would be very helpful to builders and flyers alike. If anyone can think of any additional infomation, please let me know. Here is the info on my plane: N Number - NX770CG Name - Chuck Gantzer Aircraft Infomation : Type - Aircamper Short / Long fuse - Short Empty Weight - 630 lbs. Gross Weight - 1050 lbs. Engine - Continental A65 Prop - Homebuilt 72 X 42 Empty CG aft of Lead Edge - 9.15" Weight of Primary Pilot - 205 - 210 lbs. Max Pax Weight - 175 lbs Inches wing tilted back - 3 1/2" Cabane strut length - 2" Longer than plans Cowling Material - Alum 2024 .025" epoxy primer camloc fasteners fiberglass nose bowl (I made a mold from a J3 Cub) Covering - Stits Method (poly tac & poly brush) - 1.8oz material on the empenage & ailerons / 2.7 oz on the wing and fuselage Paint Process - Silver brushed on Rustoleum oil base enamel 'aluminum' #7715 Red - brushed on Polyurathane oil enamel - Red Devil (chinese red # 1207) Wheels - Goodyear 6.00 - 6 pt# 530659 cap.- 1200 lbs Tires - Titan or Carlisle (from Wicks $30 ea.) turf glide 8.00 - 6 4 ply - max inflation 20 psi I run them at 15 psi Brakes - heel brakes; pedals - homemade; master cyl - Mooney; calipers - Cessna 150; rotors - Beech turned down to 1/4" thick; nylo flo fittings and nylon lines; Matco resevour; 5606 hyd. fluid Tailwheel - plans build tailskid with homebuilt steerable tailwheel with 1/16" cables that go all the way up to the rudder bar; wheel - 3 1/2" changed from one bought at Harbor Freight to one bought from Wicks Bunji Chords - 5/8" X 31" cut length; 23 1/8" to 23 1/4" overall length with loops that are tied with 8 1/2 feet of doubled up waxed nylon thread (17 feet total) from the leather store #1220-01. Tied portion is 1 1/2" to 1 3/4" long. I have drawn a diagram how this is done. Seat Belt Harness - front & rear from AS&S for the Long EZ pt#13-01300 Survival Tools - small fire extinguisher & Leatherman velcroed in cockpit Adhesives used: Ribs - T88 Wing - T88 Fuse - T88 Fuel Capacity: Range - 4 hrs. with lots of reserve Wing Tank - 9.8 gal. Material - fiberglass Cowl Tank - 10.7 gal. Material - fiberglass Alterations : Fuselage Width - per plans, with plenty of room for a roll of toilet paper on each side of my hips !! Wingspan - per plans Engine Mount Length - 8" longer than Hoopman drawn plans, same o.d., with the next thicker wall tubing Fuselage Front Extension - per plans Other - Wood type in various locations: Ribs - 1/4" X 1/2" cedar cap strips Rib Gussets - 1/16" birch Spar Size - 3/4" X 4 3/4" Spar Material - douglas fir Longerons - douglas fir Longeron Gussets - per plans Other - Steel type in various locations: Cabane Struts - 4130 streamline Lift Struts - 4130 oval -1 13/16" X 7/8" .049" wall Landing Gear - per plans Engine Mount Fittings - per plans for Cont. A65 engine - 3 bolts thru each longeron Fuselage Fittings - per plans Firewall - .020 stainless steel with thick fiberglass mat on aft side Other - Date first airplane noises summer Y2K Date recieved Airworthyness Certificate - 1/31/02 Date first flight 3/28/02 Doug Bryant did the first 3 flights with the Model A Address - 626 Pattie, Wichita KS 67211 e-mail - rcaprd(at)aol.com web site - builder(s)- Chuck Gantzer and Doug Bryant ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: Re: For those of us in the cold
From: John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com>
It was Larry Williams who is in this month's Sport Aviation. I woke up about Glad you like it. -john- > > on 1/9/04 12:15, John Hofmann at jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com wrote: > >> Brodhead from the ground, 2002, back in the woods at sunup. >> > I don't know whose Piet that is, waking up the campers at Brodhead, but it > has been my monitor's wallpaper for a while now. It is the most > inspirational Piet-builder's photo I've seen. > Mike Hardaway > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- John Hofmann Manager, Information Technology The Rees Group, Inc. 7600 Terrace Avenue, Ste. 203 Middleton, WI 53562 Phone: 608-831-3611, ext. 150 Fax: 608-831-5122 Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike King" <mike(at)mking.us>
Subject: German Marked PIET in South Texas
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Group, This is the response I received today from the Texas Air Museum regarding its PIETENPOL. The aircraft is currently begin used in dogfights with another vintage airplane to demonstrate what is believed to be the first air to air combat between flying machines at least here in Texas anyway. Web site for the Texas Air Museum: http://www.texasairmuseum.com Last week a member of our discussion group asked about the whereabouts of a PIET that was based in Clifton, Texas. I knew this plane was once in Clifton and eventually made its way to deep South Texas. I was sent pictures of this black German marked airplane but do not know the correct procedure to post it to this group. Once I learn that I will send it for all to see. Thanks. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas, Texas Hello Mike, Nick forwarded me your inquiries about the Texas Air Museum Pietenpol Air Camper. First, to give you some background, I took over as director ( a volunteer position) for the museum when John Houston died in November of 2002. I had the privilege of working with John for several years before his death, but I mainly handled his crop spraying and personal business interests. My knowledge of the museum and its exhibits is rather limited. Nonetheless, here's what I know about the Pietenpol. According to the paperwork I have, N36RN (serial number RN1) was built by Robert H. Northcutt of Monterrey, California. He built the aircraft to resemble a WWI German fighter, using Jenny style fixed gear, fake machine guns, insignia, and paint scheme. The airplane is dubbed "Der Faker Fokker" for obvious reasons. The airworthiness certificate I have was issued on December 20, 1979. The specs and performance stats I have for the aircraft are as follows: wing span- 29', wing cord- 5', length overall- 17' 8", height overall, 6'6", landing gear tread- 56", propeller- 6' 4" diameter, weight empty- 610 lbs., fuel capacity- 10 gallons, climb full load- over 200' first minute, hi speed- 90 mph, landing speed- 40 mph. The engine on N36RN is a 1930 Lambert model R-266 five cylinder radial, serial number 3076-TC-38. It is rated at 90 hp at 2350 rpm and weighs 214 lbs. Over the years around here, I have heard it referred to as "Babe Ruth's engine," implying that this particular engine may have been owned at one time by the baseball legend. That may or may not be a bunch of baloney as far as I know. There seems to be a lot of that produced within aviator circles. As of yet I haven't seen any documentation to back up this claim. In April of 1984, the aircraft was registered to Ted F. Mayo of Nemo, Texas. I have no idea where Nemo is, but I believe it's correct that the Pietenpol came here from Clifton, Texas. I went to the airport there a few years back to look at an Agcat that was for sale there and I ran into a guy who said he was a member of the Texas Air Museum and that he had helped get the Pietenpol to Rio Hondo some years back. A nice fellow; I think his name was Jose something-or-other. He was restoring an L-19 Bird Dog at the time. I am assuming that the museum acquired the Pietenpol because of its appearance as a WWI German mockup. John Houston owned a 7/8 scale SE5a replica (lost in a crash here last month) which was used to battle the Pietenpol during some of the Fly-Ins here at the museum each year. It was an impressive sight, enhanced by the unique drone if the Lambert radial on the Pietenpol. As far as the flight characteristics of the aircraft are concerned, I wouldn't know as I have never flown it. I have been told it is a little squirrelly in the turns and that if landed on pavement, it seems to get faster and faster after touchdown. Judging from a couple of the squirrels I've seen flying the aircraft, it can't be all that bad. That's about all I can think to tell you about our Pietenpol. I am attaching a few of the pictures I have of it. Feel free to pass this information on to people in your group. Please keep in mind my lack of qualified knowledge of the information I've given you. The fellow you spoke to here the other day is Glenn Vance. He is one of the long time volunteers here at the museum. I know he has some pretty good photos of the Pietenpol he intends to scan and email to you if he hasn't done it already. I appreciate you letting your group know about our museum. Please let them know we are in constant need of financial support (of course.) Publicity within aviation circles is a big help. We aren't very well known yet, but there is a really nice collection in the making here. I hope to take the ingredients that John Houston left behind and form them into a tool for educating future generations about aviation history. Stay tuned to the Texas Air Museum website for updates on our progress. If you get the opportunity, come down and take a look for yourself. Sincerely, Lee Labar Museum Director Texas Air Museum of the Rio Grande Valley 1 Mile East FM 106 PO Box 70 Rio Hondo TX 78583-0070 phone (956) 748-2112 fax (956) 748-3500 email: tds2(at)att.net > Mike, > I have passed your email on to the museum's director. Thanks for emailing > this great letter. Let me know if you ever get a reply from the director. > Have a good day. > -Nick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike King > To: nickm(at)7thcode.com > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 3:36 PM > Subject: Pietenpol > > > Good afternoon. A couple of days ago I had the opportunity > > to speak to Vann or Dan (cell phone connection was not very good to > > hear his name) or some gentleman who gave me a little information > > about the black German painted Pietenpol airplane the museum uses > > to re-enact what is believed to be the first dogfight. The Pietenpol is > > used along with another vintage looking airplane to perform a dogfight > > as part of the air show and demonstration...like the one this weekend. > > > Your black Piet has a radial engine and some unique markings. I believed > > the plane was bought from someone in Clifton, Texas..just outside of Waco. > > > I am a member of the Pietenpol discussion group where builders and pilots > > of Pietenpols share their stories and advice. Earlier this week, someone > > in the group asked whatever became of the Piet that was in Clifton. > > > I responded that it was purchased and being used by the museum as part > > of an aerial dogfight. Now there are Piet enthusiasts in the U.S. and around > > the world interested in your plane. I sent them your web site address so > > that may learn more about the museum and encouraged those in Texas > > to fly or drive down for a first hand look. > > > The gentleman I spoke to was going to send me some pictures of the plane > > on static display as well as some aerial shots..maybe from this weekend. > > In addition, some text about this particular airplane. > > > As soon as that information and pictures get to me, I will send them along > > to the group. > > > As a side note, I knew John Warren Houston when he was barely in his 20s > > while he lived with his grandmother in Pearsall, Texas. I lived across the > > street and would hang out with him during those years. He loved crop dusting > > back then and had a passion for flying. He will be missed by many. > > > Thanks again for your help and continued success with the great work your > > museum is providing for Texas Aviation. > > > Sincerely, > > > Mike King > > Dallas, Texas > > > mikek120(at)mindspring.com > > --- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2004
Subject: NX899LW
Hey Larry !! I've been looking forward to this article in Sport Aviation for a long time !! I've read it twice already !! Absolutely beautiful airplane you've got there. You're going to be famous now...just like Mike Cuy !! :) Congrats !! I'll be sending you an 'Info Sheet' direct, to fill in, and get it back to me. Chuck Gantzer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2004
Chuck, That kind of specific info would be helpful to myself, a begining Piet builder. I am also looking forward to my first of many trips to Broadhead this year and meeting some of you on the list and placing a face with an email address. Thanks, Greg Menoche Delaware ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Larry's Tennis Ball Bird
Date: Jan 12, 2004
From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu>
Congrats to Larry on his superb job (again) on his piet. Checkout Sport Aviation this month for a great article by Jack Cox. Well done my friend! Steve E ________________________________ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LAWRENCE WILLIAMS Subject: Pietenpol-List: airfoils and landings If you want to learn (from a book???) all about the mechanics of landing, by all means get "Stick and Rudder" and read it from cover-to cover. You'll be so stoked on taildraggers that you'll want to RUN to the airport and try everything out that you just learned. As far as the airfoils go........... Chill out! The "purists" aren't throwing stones at anyone, but try to understand that most of us build a Piet because we WANT IT LIKE IT IS. We usually don't pick a design and then try to see how to make it different or "better" (Grega), we pick the design because that's what we want. Sure little details creep in, that's just a personality thing, but if you bust into a Lancair group and start telling them that their nosewheel ought to be on the tail based on your vast experience, you'd probably get some static there as well. Do what you want to do and then let us hear the results. We'd be more interested then as has been demonstrated over and over on this (and many other) sites. $.02 Larry ps. has anyone seen the Red Betsy??? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com>
Subject: Larry's Tennis Ball Bird
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Yes, I agree. Great article - great airplane. I stayed at Oshkosh this year in the Flight Line Safety bunkhouse with a friend of mine and Larry's plane was tied down right next to that area. I gawked at it every day (along with many other people). >From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Larry's Tennis Ball Bird >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:00:02 -0700 > >Congrats to Larry on his superb job (again) on his piet. Checkout Sport >Aviation this month for a great article by Jack Cox. > > >Well done my friend! > > >Steve E > > >________________________________ > >From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LAWRENCE >WILLIAMS >Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:11 AM >To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server >Subject: Pietenpol-List: airfoils and landings > > >If you want to learn (from a book???) all about the mechanics of >landing, by all means get "Stick and Rudder" and read it from cover-to >cover. You'll be so stoked on taildraggers that you'll want to RUN to >the airport and try everything out that you just learned. > > >As far as the airfoils go........... Chill out! The "purists" aren't >throwing stones at anyone, but try to understand that most of us build a >Piet because we WANT IT LIKE IT IS. We usually don't pick a design and >then try to see how to make it different or "better" (Grega), we pick >the design because that's what we want. Sure little details creep in, >that's just a personality thing, but if you bust into a Lancair group >and start telling them that their nosewheel ought to be on the tail >based on your vast experience, you'd probably get some static there as >well. Do what you want to do and then let us hear the results. We'd be >more interested then as has been demonstrated over and over on this (and >many other) sites. > > >$.02 > > >Larry > > >ps. has anyone seen the Red Betsy??? > Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software optimizes dial-up to the max! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Infomation Sheet
Chuck, Listed below is the information you suggested we send you. Hope it's of use to the group. N Number- NX41CC Name- Corky Claude M Corbett 625 Pierremont Rd Shreveport, La 71106 318 868 3385 Isablcorky(at)aol.co Test Pilot- Mr Edwin Johnson, Email, elj(at)shreve.net Type- Pietenpol Aircamper Short Fuselage Empty weight- 616 lbs Gross weight- 1075 lbs Engine- Continental A-65 Prop- Hagy Wood 72X42, 8 lbs Empty CG- Datum LE, 12.64 inches W/Pilot, Pass, full fuel,bagg- 19.55 in 32.59% Pilot weight- 190 Max Pax/Bgg- 172 lbs Wind rearward from vertical cabane- 4 inches Cabane length. 2 inches longer than plans Cowling material-Alum 2024 .25 for complete cowling. Covering- 1.8 w/ Poly system Wheels- Cessna/Cleveland hyd throughout Tailwheel- Steerable Scott w/ two leaf flat spring. Wheels- Cleveland 6.00-6 Brakes- Heel w/ Cessna cyls Main gear- split axle w/ Steel springs Seat belts and shoulder harnesses both cockpits. Fuel- forward alum tank 16+ gals Engine mount extended 1 1/2 inches. Wood materials. Fuse and tail feathers sitka spruce. Wing spars and braces douglas fir. Wing ribs southern pine. All gussets mah and birch aero plywood Date of airworthiness certificate 9/2802 Date first flight: 2 Oct 02 Test Pilot for first 25 hrs, Edwin Johnson For flight data and characteristic during test period please contact Mr. Johnson 12 Jan 2004 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: My "Stick and Rudder" is on it's way
Date: Jan 12, 2004
I ordered my copy today. Should be "couch flying" by Thursday. walt evans NX140DL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike King" <mike(at)mking.us>
Subject: PIET Pictures
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Group, Could someone give me step-by-step instructions how to post a few pictures for all to see. I have pictures of a PIET that is now being used by the Texas Air Museum. It is dressed up as a World War I German fighter complete with a dummy machine gun and markings. The plane is used in concert with another vintage plane to re-enact what is believed to be the first dogfight. See their web site for more information: http://www.texasairmuseum.com/ Thanks for your help. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas, Texas --- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2004
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Subject: Buying spruce for AirCamper
SUBJ_BUY Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks (yet) I was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on this: Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no equivalent kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that of an Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to Wicks and they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS prices for the list items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the $804 price is discounted because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2 months. Wicks claims a 1 weeks lead time. I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a catch, problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has anyone else ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before? Thanks Rick Holland ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Rick, May I ask what parts are covered with this kit? Wing and aelerion spars included???? Corky ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Rick, I think the list you saw from AS&S was mine. This is from like 5 years ago. They sent me a quote , and the wood list that it was based on. It was pretty much right on the money. Back then it was $1,100.00/$1,200.00 for all the spruce. (no plywood) I was pleased with the order. I could send you the copys of the wood list and the actual bill of lading. Let me know and I'll send it to you directly. walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: <At7000ft(at)aol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > > Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks (yet) I was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on this: > > Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no equivalent kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that of an Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to Wicks and they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS prices for the list items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the $804 price is discounted because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2 months. Wicks claims a 1 weeks lead time. > > I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a catch, problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has anyone else ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before? > > Thanks > > Rick Holland > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca>
Subject: FW: 6 peteskis
Date: Jan 12, 2004
-----Original Message----- From: Shawn Wolk [mailto:shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca] McGavin; Russ Wasylyk; Robin Doig; Mark LaRochelle; Kevin Antonyshyn; Kenney Family; Ken John McNarry; John Hollosi; jackie wood; Howard Gerber; Glenm Miller; Glen Tait; Glen Konowalchuk; Glen Garbutt; Ed Lins; Earl Wiebe; denny knott; David Malcolm; Dave Johnson; dave malcolm; Darren Lysak; Chuck Sava; Chris Billard; brandonflyingclub; Bob Lockwood Subject: Fw: 6 peteskis Now this is winter flying!! ShawnWolk C-FRAZ ---- ---- ---- ---- > > IMG_4059.JPG > > ---- ---- ---- ---- > > IMG_4064.JPG > > ---- ---- ---- ---- > > IMG_4069.JPG > > ---- ---- ---- ---- > > IMG_4070.JPG > > ---- ---- ---- ---- > > IMG_4071.JPG > > ---- ---- ---- ---- > > IMG_4058.JPG > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Corky See the attached gif file. Seems to include everything but rib capstrip. Rick >May I ask what parts are covered with this kit? Wing and aelerion spars included???? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Hard to believe that the price of spruce has decreased over the last 5 years. Rick Holland I think the list you saw from AS&S was mine. This is from like 5 years ago. They sent me a quote , and the wood list that it was based on. It was pretty much right on the money. Back then it was $1,100.00/$1,200.00 for all the spruce. (no plywood) I was pleased with the order. I could send you the copys of the wood list and the actual bill of lading. Let me know and I'll send it to you directly. walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: <At7000ft(at)aol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > > Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks (yet) I was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on this: > > Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no equivalent kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that of an Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to Wicks and they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS prices for the list items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the $804 price is discounted because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2 months. Wicks claims a 1 weeks lead time. > > I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a catch, problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has anyone else ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: wing & fabic/paint weights
Date: Jan 12, 2004
SSdtIGRvaW5nIHNvbWUgcm91Z2ggVyZCIGNhbGMncyBzbyBJIGNhbiBkZXNpZ24gbXkgZW5naW5l IG1vdW50IGFuZCBhbSB3b25kZXJpbmcgd2hhdCB0aGUgYXZlcmFnZSB3ZWlnaHQgb2YgYSB3aW5n IHBhbmVsIGlzLiAgQSBjb21wbGV0ZWQgd2luZyBtaW51cyBmYWJyaWMuDQoNCkFsc28sICB3aGF0 IGlzIHRoZSBhdmVyYWdlIHdlaWdodCBvZiBhbGwgdGhlIGZhYnJpYyBhbmQgcGFpbnQuDQoNCkkg bmVlZCB0byBmaWd1cmUgb3V0IHdoZXJlIHRoaXMgMjIwbGIgQ29ydmFpciBlbmdpbmUgbmVlZHMg dG8gc2l0Lg0KDQoNCkRKIFZlZ2gNCk43NERWDQpNZXNhLCBBWg0Kd3d3LmltYWdlZHYuY29tL2Fp cmNhbXBlcg0KDQoNCg0KLQ0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Date: Jan 12, 2004
ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGFkZCBhYm91dCAkMTAwIG1vcmUgZm9yIHNvbWUgbW9yZSBzcHJ1Y2Ug eW91ciBnb25uYSBoYXZlIHRvIGJ1eSB0aGF0IHRoZSBBUyZTIGxpc3QgZG9lc24ndCBzaG93LiAg DQoNCkRKIFZlZ2gNCk43NERWDQpNZXNhLCBBWg0Kd3d3LmltYWdlZHYuY29tL2FpcmNhbXBlcg0K DQoNCg0KLQ0KDQogIC0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0gDQogIEZyb206IEF0NzAw MGZ0QGFvbC5jb20gDQogIFRvOiBwaWV0ZW5wb2wtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIA0KICBTZW50 OiBNb25kYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMTIsIDIwMDQgNjowMCBQTQ0KICBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUGlldGVu cG9sLUxpc3Q6IEJ1eWluZyBzcHJ1Y2UgZm9yIEFpckNhbXBlcg0KDQoNCiAgQ29ya3kNCg0KICBT ZWUgdGhlIGF0dGFjaGVkIGdpZiBmaWxlLiBTZWVtcyB0byBpbmNsdWRlIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgYnV0 IHJpYiBjYXBzdHJpcC4NCg0KICBSaWNrDQoNCiAgPk1heSBJIGFzayB3aGF0IHBhcnRzIGFyZSBj b3ZlcmVkIHdpdGggdGhpcyBraXQ/IFdpbmcgYW5kIGFlbGVyaW9uIHNwYXJzIGluY2x1ZGVkPz8/ Pw0KDQoNCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KDQoNCg0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Date: Jan 12, 2004
there is no catch other than the lead time that they say is 1-2 months is more like 3 months. I bought my spruce kit there and the price was great but the wait was horrible. it took almost 4 months for me to get it. Wood quality was excellent to above excellent. DJ Vegh N74DV Mesa, AZ www.imagedv.com/aircamper ----- Original Message ----- From: <At7000ft(at)aol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > > Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks (yet) I was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on this: > > Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no equivalent kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that of an Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to Wicks and they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS prices for the list items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the $804 price is discounted because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2 months. Wicks claims a 1 weeks lead time. > > I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a catch, problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has anyone else ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before? > > Thanks > > Rick Holland > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: wing & fabic/paint weights
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Weight depends on what process you cover it with. Polyfiber (Stit's) should weigh about 45 lbs total, according to their manual. My wings weighed about 40 lbs apeice before covering. Jack Phillips Finished covering, now waiting for the WX to warm up enough to start painting -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DJ Vegh Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing & fabic/paint weights I'm doing some rough W&B calc's so I can design my engine mount and am wondering what the average weight of a wing panel is. A completed wing minus fabric. Also, what is the average weight of all the fabric and paint. I need to figure out where this 220lb Corvair engine needs to sit. DJ Vegh N74DV Mesa, AZ www.imagedv.com/aircamper <http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: FW: 6 peteskis
Date: Jan 12, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> Subject: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis =================================== John, Holy Cow! And I'm sitting here bitching about our weather! John =================================== > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Wolk [mailto:shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca] > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:15 AM > To: Wilf Dux; Wayne Mather; Victor Buckwold; Tracy Sandra > McGavin; Russ Wasylyk; Robin Doig; Mark LaRochelle; Kevin Antonyshyn; > Kenney Family; Ken John McNarry; John Hollosi; jackie wood; > Howard Gerber; Glenm Miller; Glen Tait; Glen Konowalchuk; Glen Garbutt; > Ed Lins; Earl Wiebe; denny knott; David Malcolm; Dave Johnson; dave > malcolm; Darren Lysak; Chuck Sava; Chris Billard; brandonflyingclub; Bob > Lockwood > Subject: Fw: 6 peteskis > > > Now this is winter flying!! > > ShawnWolk > C-FRAZ > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > IMG_4059.JPG > > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > IMG_4064.JPG > > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > IMG_4069.JPG > > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > IMG_4070.JPG > > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > IMG_4071.JPG > > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > > > > > IMG_4058.JPG > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Subject: Re: PIET Pictures
Mike, I would like to see these photos. Depending on which email software you use, the process can vary. The easiest way would be to "forward " the original email you received with the attached pictures. If you have already downloaded them to a file on your computer, 1st start a new email to the piet list. Then use the "attachments" feature (sometimes displayed as a paperclip on your tool bar). Whenever you click on the attach button, then browse to the location where the pictures are saved on your computer. Select them one by one with the Ctrl key held down. Then click on the OK button on the screen or hit Enter on your keyboard. This should complete the attach process. Then just click "send". I hope this works. If not, there are some other ways. One way would be to upload them to the matronics photo posting page. Follow the link at the bottom of this email. Another way would be to post them on www.mykitplane.com. Go to the web address and follow the instructions. Thanks for going to the trouble for the Piet gang. Best wishes. Terry Bowden ph (254) 715-4773 fax (254) 853-3805 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael King" <mike(at)mking.us>
Subject: PIET Pictures
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Terry, I am going to forward the original email to you. It will be two separate emails from two different folks at the museum. By the Jim M. in Plano is going to submit the pictures to the discussion group. Take care buddy. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of BARNSTMR(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PIET Pictures Mike, I would like to see these photos. Depending on which email software you use, the process can vary. The easiest way would be to "forward " the original email you received with the attached pictures. If you have already downloaded them to a file on your computer, 1st start a new email to the piet list. Then use the "attachments" feature (sometimes displayed as a paperclip on your tool bar). Whenever you click on the attach button, then browse to the location where the pictures are saved on your computer. Select them one by one with the Ctrl key held down. Then click on the OK button on the screen or hit Enter on your keyboard. This should complete the attach process. Then just click "send". I hope this works. If not, there are some other ways. One way would be to upload them to the matronics photo posting page. Follow the link at the bottom of this email. Another way would be to post them on www.mykitplane.com. Go to the web address and follow the instructions. Thanks for going to the trouble for the Piet gang. Best wishes. Terry Bowden ph (254) 715-4773 fax (254) 853-3805 --- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: PIET Pictures
Date: Jan 12, 2004
We'll have them posted to mykitplane.com AND the matronics photo share tomorrow. And I agree with Terry, thanks Mike! Jim Markle ----- Original Message ----- From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PIET Pictures Mike, I would like to see these photos. Depending on which email software you use, the process can vary. The easiest way would be to "forward " the original email you received with the attached pictures. If you have already downloaded them to a file on your computer, 1st start a new email to the piet list. Then use the "attachments" feature (sometimes displayed as a paperclip on your tool bar). Whenever you click on the attach button, then browse to the location where the pictures are saved on your computer. Select them one by one with the Ctrl key held down. Then click on the OK button on the screen or hit Enter on your keyboard. This should complete the attach process. Then just click "send". I hope this works. If not, there are some other ways. One way would be to upload them to the matronics photo posting page. Follow the link at the bottom of this email. Another way would be to post them on www.mykitplane.com. Go to the web address and follow the instructions. Thanks for going to the trouble for the Piet gang. Best wishes. Terry Bowden ph (254) 715-4773 fax (254) 853-3805 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Infomation Sheet
In a message dated 1/12/04 10:22:24 AM Central Standard Time, Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes: << Chuck, Listed below is the information you suggested we send you. Hope it's of use to the group. >> Yes, this is what I'm typeing about !! Keep 'em comming !!! I'd like to see everyone that is building or flying to fill out this sheet. Very helpful. Chuck Gantzer ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2004
From: Michael Fisher <mfisher(at)gci.net>
Subject: Ground School
Piet List Friends, Here is my $.02 in support of the advice offered by Larry Williams and Grahm Hansen: Read and understand,"Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewieshe". I have often suggested this as a reading assignment for my primary and advanced students. Those who read the book and discussed it during preflight and postflight sessions did well. Those with short attention spans who needed to be spoon fed from the bowl of knowledge had some problems. I always charge a premium price for dual instruction, but seldom have any complaints. It takes me over two hours to deliver one hour of logable flight instruction. Conducting ground school in a moving airplane is a poor idea. Another common mistake is to introduce landing practice way too early. The student should be very comfortable in slow flight, stalls, power off gliding turns and flying beautiful, symmetrical patterns with low passes right on the runway centerline. Then, and only then, should landings be practiced. Full stop landin gs are much better than touch and go landings. Ground loops and noseovers happen at low speed. You will experience happy takeoffs, secure in your confidence that the ensuing landing is not going to be a white knuckle experience. Happy takeoffs, Mike Fisher ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Ground School
In a message dated 1/12/04 9:53:51 PM Central Standard Time, mfisher(at)gci.net writes: << Piet List Friends, Here is my $.02 in support of the advice offered by Larry Williams and Grahm Hansen: Read and understand,"Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewieshe". >> Ditto on the read. I've read it several times, and still keep it within reach of my lazy boy chair !! He refers to the elevators as the 'flippers'. The word 'elevator' implies that is what makes the plane climb and decend, when in fact it is 'Power' that controls altitude. The 'Flippers' control the speed. Doesn't matter if you're flying a Pietenpol, or the Space Shuttle. Chuck G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carbarvo(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Subject: Piet information list
I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the variations in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub to the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2004
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: NX899LW
Congratulations Larry on this article !!! I'm still waiting for the issue to arrive at my house. It sure would cure these winter Piet-deprivation days. (as I dropped off my stepdaughter to school this morning with her snow skis for skiing after school w/ the club) Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Subject: Re: Piet information list
Good idea Carl, one question though is what to use for a datum to measure from. Since people move their engine forward sometimes 6 -8 inches for CG I don't think that will work. Same thing with the wing leading edge, people move the wing forward and backward too. How about the front Ash floor cross strut? Rick Holland I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the variations in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub to the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: w&b success!
Date: Jan 13, 2004
I did my preliminary weight and balance last night. I do not have wings built but I estimated thier finished weights and arm. I needed to figure this out so I can design my engine mount. I levelled the airframe and placed scales under each wheel with me sitting in the rear hole. I got 140 on each main and 115 on the tail. I then figured in wing weight and other misc. items like avionics/instruments control cables, covering, paint. Using my firewall as the datum I determined that the center of mass of my Corvair would be about 19" in front of the datum. I then figured all the firewall forward items and did the final calculation. Wow! I need my GN-1 to balance at 36" aft of the datum.... my calculations came in at 35.5" Looks like I did my math properly when I stretched my fuse and moved the rear seat. Hopefully my estimations of all items I don't have were close. In any case as long as I can manage about 1" or 2" nose heavy I can always add 5lb to the tail. no biggie. by the way, my estimated empty weight is going to be around 630-660lb. Right where I had hoped. Now I can begin engine mount construction. DJ Vegh www.imagedv.com/aircamper N74DV _ = This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2004
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: w&b success!
DJ--- don't worry, if you fly a year from now you might have put on 5 pounds and won't have to add any weight to the tail !!!! I'll be glad to donate as much weight as you want. PS-- your empty wt. sounds great. You must be going non-electric. Great to hear of your progress. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Subject: Re: w&b success!
DJ: If you can't move the wing and must add weight, don't use dead lead weight. Put together a tool kit, spare tire and or wheel, battery, spare climbing propeller or something remotely useful in case of an emergency. In the old days these things were built into the design. Just a thought, Max ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: w&b success!
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Love that idea! DJ ----- Original Message ----- From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w&b success! DJ: If you can't move the wing and must add weight, don't use dead lead weight. Put together a tool kit, spare tire and or wheel, battery, spare climbing propeller or something remotely useful in case of an emergency. In the old days these things were built into the design. Just a thought, Max = This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Landing Gear Location
Date: Jan 13, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list Pieters, The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined by the CG of the plane. The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field operation. However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for ground looping upon landing. On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs. I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large for Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll be glad to try and send it directly to you. Hope all this helps. John Dilatush NX114D Salida, CO ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Subject: Re: Landing Gear Location
From: Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE on 1/13/04 10:46, John Dilatush at dilatush(at)amigo.net wrote: The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the plane has no brakes. (...) On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs. John, I have to assume that your 9lb tail wheel measurement is with nobody in the driver's seat. Otherwise your vertical CG location is down around the wheels (unlikely), or your 12 degree angle is taken tail down (also unlikely). What's your tail wheel weight at full GW? Mike Hardaway ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Date: Jan 13, 2004
From: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu>
I've been a list-lurker for a while, with only a couple comments before. But I want to get started building--the plans arrived at my doorstep the day after Christmas--and there are some major issues: 1) Wood supply--enough people have flamed A.S. & S. that I'm reluctant to do business with them, and from this list it looks like Wicks, with a great reputation, isn't cheap. I've been told that most of the wood could come from a marine lumber supplier, which might sell milspec sitka spruce, etc. After a quick Google search it looks like there might be a few suppliers like that in the Northeast. Should I check them out? Or is Wicks worth whatever the extra expense might be? 2) I'm a private pilot with about 200 hours, now working on a tailwheel endorsement. Although my instructor says I'm "almost there," it has taken a LOT longer than I expected (over 20 hours), and this in a Citabria which sounds like it's much easier to land/take off than a Piet by all descriptions I have heard. Should low total time and a long time learning to handle a taildragger deter me from building a Pietenpol, or will this seem like a distant problem in a few years when I'm ready to fly it? Also, if anyone knows a Piet owner in the Northeast willing to give rides, I could use an introduction. Thanks for any input, Mark Hodgson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl@buckeye-express.com>
Subject: Re: wing & fabic/paint weights
Date: Jan 13, 2004
DJ,,, I moved my corvair out 2 and a half inches and I'm sure glad I did. Besides my big butt not helping the w&b, it really gave me a little extra room from the firewall. It gets real crowded back there to boot. I know this is repetitious but don't ya just love that corvair engine? Man what a kick,,, your's really looks great. Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: DJ Vegh To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:24 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing & fabic/paint weights I'm doing some rough W&B calc's so I can design my engine mount and am wondering what the average weight of a wing panel is. A completed wing minus fabric. Also, what is the average weight of all the fabric and paint. I need to figure out where this 220lb Corvair engine needs to sit. DJ Vegh N74DV Mesa, AZ www.imagedv.com/aircamper - ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Mark, Where in the NE? walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > > I've been a list-lurker for a while, with only a couple comments before. > But I want to get started building--the plans arrived at my doorstep the > day after Christmas--and there are some major issues: > > 1) Wood supply--enough people have flamed A.S. & S. that I'm > reluctant to do business with them, and from this list it looks like > Wicks, with a great reputation, isn't cheap. I've been told that most > of the wood could come from a marine lumber supplier, which might sell > milspec sitka spruce, etc. After a quick Google search it looks like > there might be a few suppliers like that in the Northeast. Should I > check them out? Or is Wicks worth whatever the extra expense might be? > > 2) I'm a private pilot with about 200 hours, now working on a > tailwheel endorsement. Although my instructor says I'm "almost there," > it has taken a LOT longer than I expected (over 20 hours), and this in a > Citabria which sounds like it's much easier to land/take off than a Piet > by all descriptions I have heard. Should low total time and a long time > learning to handle a taildragger deter me from building a Pietenpol, or > will this seem like a distant problem in a few years when I'm ready to > fly it? > > Also, if anyone knows a Piet owner in the Northeast willing to give > rides, I could use an introduction. > > Thanks for any input, > > Mark Hodgson > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net>
Subject: Re: Piet information list
Date: Jan 13, 2004
OK, I'm going to stick my nose in once more. To be useful you need to know where the contact point of the tire is in relation to the CG in a level attitude. Sorry guys but all the other measurements don't help much from a nose over point of view. The other thing that is needed is the height from the ground to the CG. With those measurements you can calculate the nose over moment and with the tail force and arm you can calculate exactly how much brake you can use verses the airspeed. That is what tells you if you are going to have a "grazer" or a tail dragger. Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list Good idea Carl, one question though is what to use for a datum to measure from. Since people move their engine forward sometimes 6 -8 inches for CG I don't think that will work. Same thing with the wing leading edge, people move the wing forward and backward too. How about the front Ash floor cross strut? Rick Holland I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the variations in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub to the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2004
From: dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Silly question, but what part of the country do you live in? If you are in WA or Ore, you can do way better. My entire airframe cost for wood is under $400.00 Canadian. I should have plenty of leftover yellow cedar if anyone wants some for wing ribs, let me know. A local mill here lets me wander through and hand pick anything I want, so larger sizes can be had too. At7000ft(at)aol.com wrote: > > > Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks (yet) I was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on this: > > Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no equivalent kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that of an Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to Wicks and they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS prices for the list items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the $804 price is discounted because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2 months. Wicks claims a 1 weeks lead time. > > I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a catch, problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has anyone else ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before? > > Thanks > > Rick Holland > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2004
From: dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: FW: 6 peteskis
Great to see other Canucks, although being from Vancouver Island, I don't recognize the funny white stuff!! John McNarry wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Wolk [mailto:shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca] > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:15 AM > To: Wilf Dux; Wayne Mather; Victor Buckwold; Tracy Sandra > McGavin; Russ Wasylyk; Robin Doig; Mark LaRochelle; Kevin Antonyshyn; > Kenney Family; Ken John McNarry; John Hollosi; jackie wood; > Howard Gerber; Glenm Miller; Glen Tait; Glen Konowalchuk; Glen Garbutt; > Ed Lins; Earl Wiebe; denny knott; David Malcolm; Dave Johnson; dave > malcolm; Darren Lysak; Chuck Sava; Chris Billard; brandonflyingclub; Bob > Lockwood > Subject: Fw: 6 peteskis > > Now this is winter flying!! > > ShawnWolk > C-FRAZ > > ---- > ---- > > ---- > ---- > > > > > IMG_4059.JPG > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > ---- > ---- > > > > > IMG_4064.JPG > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > ---- > ---- > > > > > IMG_4069.JPG > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > ---- > ---- > > > > > IMG_4070.JPG > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > ---- > ---- > > > > > IMG_4071.JPG > > > > > > > > ---- > ---- > > ---- > ---- > > > > > IMG_4058.JPG > > > > > > > > > > Name: IMG_4059.jpg > IMG_4059.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) > Encoding: base64 > > Name: IMG_4069.jpg > IMG_4069.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) > Encoding: base64 > > Name: IMG_4071.jpg > IMG_4071.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) > Encoding: base64 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net>
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Date: Jan 13, 2004
MAN! You should go into the kit parts business. Collect up and package all the wood to build a Piet and sell for a huge profit. You would still be beating the pants off the competition. Good deal for us and you. Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > > Silly question, but what part of the country do you live in? If you are > in WA or Ore, you can do way better. My entire airframe cost for wood > is under $400.00 Canadian. I should have plenty of leftover yellow > cedar if anyone wants some for wing ribs, let me know. A local mill > here lets me wander through and hand pick anything I want, so larger > sizes can be had too. > > At7000ft(at)aol.com wrote: > > > > > > Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks (yet) I was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on this: > > > > Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no equivalent kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that of an Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to Wicks and they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS prices for the list items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the $804 price is discounted because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2 months. Wicks claims a 1 weeks lead time. > > > > I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a catch, problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has anyone else ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before? > > > > Thanks > > > > Rick Holland > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Landing Gear Location
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location on 1/13/04 10:46, John Dilatush at dilatush(at)amigo.net wrote: The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the plane has no brakes. (...) On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs. John, I have to assume that your 9lb tail wheel measurement is with nobody in the driver's seat. Otherwise your vertical CG location is down around the wheels (unlikely), or your 12 degree angle is taken tail down (also unlikely). What's your tail wheel weight at full GW? Mike Hardaway Mike, I can't answer your question because I just don't know. I am sending you a copy of my weight and balance and you can see how it is computed using the empty weight as a basis and then plugging in the numbers for varied loadings. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FW: 6 peteskis
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Pieters, None of the pictures came through on my machine. Where may I go to view them? Alex Sloan alexms1(at)bellsouth.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis > > Great to see other Canucks, although being from Vancouver Island, I > don't recognize the funny white stuff!! > > John McNarry wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shawn Wolk [mailto:shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca] > > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:15 AM > > To: Wilf Dux; Wayne Mather; Victor Buckwold; Tracy Sandra > > McGavin; Russ Wasylyk; Robin Doig; Mark LaRochelle; Kevin Antonyshyn; > > Kenney Family; Ken John McNarry; John Hollosi; jackie wood; > > Howard Gerber; Glenm Miller; Glen Tait; Glen Konowalchuk; Glen Garbutt; > > Ed Lins; Earl Wiebe; denny knott; David Malcolm; Dave Johnson; dave > > malcolm; Darren Lysak; Chuck Sava; Chris Billard; brandonflyingclub; Bob > > Lockwood > > Subject: Fw: 6 peteskis > > > > Now this is winter flying!! > > > > ShawnWolk > > C-FRAZ > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > > > > > IMG_4059.JPG > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > > > > > IMG_4064.JPG > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > > > > > IMG_4069.JPG > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > > > > > IMG_4070.JPG > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > > > > > IMG_4071.JPG > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > ---- > > ---- > > > > > > > > IMG_4058.JPG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name: IMG_4059.jpg > > IMG_4059.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) > > Encoding: base64 > > > > Name: IMG_4069.jpg > > IMG_4069.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) > > Encoding: base64 > > > > Name: IMG_4071.jpg > > IMG_4071.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) > > Encoding: base64 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Piet information list
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Hank J. Good information. Can you give the math to go with the measurments? Alex S. ----- Original Message ----- From: hjarrett To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:05 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list OK, I'm going to stick my nose in once more. To be useful you need to know where the contact point of the tire is in relation to the CG in a level attitude. Sorry guys but all the other measurements don't help much from a nose over point of view. The other thing that is needed is the height from the ground to the CG. With those measurements you can calculate the nose over moment and with the tail force and arm you can calculate exactly how much brake you can use verses the airspeed. That is what tells you if you are going to have a "grazer" or a tail dragger. Hank J ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list Good idea Carl, one question though is what to use for a datum to measure from. Since people move their engine forward sometimes 6 -8 inches for CG I don't think that will work. Same thing with the wing leading edge, people move the wing forward and backward too. How about the front Ash floor cross strut? Rick Holland I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the variations in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub to the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Landing Gear Location
Date: Jan 13, 2004
To clarify John's post below, the 16.5 degree angle is with the tail up and the ship level fore and aft using the top longerons at the cockpit for leveling. chris bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: John Dilatush To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list Pieters, The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined by the CG of the plane. The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field operation. However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for ground looping upon landing. On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs. I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large for Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll be glad to try and send it directly to you. Hope all this helps. John Dilatush NX114D Salida, CO ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com>
Subject: Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper
Date: Jan 13, 2004
Wicks will be comparable in price to AS&S and if you send a photocopy of the shapes for the tail they will mill them for you for about $ 1.65 per foot. You don't need much made so it is cheaper to pay them than to buy the router bits to do it yourself. Dennis E. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > > I've been a list-lurker for a while, with only a couple comments before. > But I want to get started building--the plans arrived at my doorstep the > day after Christmas--and there are some major issues: > > 1) Wood supply--enough people have flamed A.S. & S. that I'm > reluctant to do business with them, and from this list it looks like > Wicks, with a great reputation, isn't cheap. I've been told that most > of the wood could come from a marine lumber supplier, which might sell > milspec sitka spruce, etc. After a quick Google search it looks like > there might be a few suppliers like that in the Northeast. Should I > check them out? Or is Wicks worth whatever the extra expense might be? > > 2) I'm a private pilot with about 200 hours, now working on a > tailwheel endorsement. Although my instructor says I'm "almost there," > it has taken a LOT longer than I expected (over 20 hours), and this in a > Citabria which sounds like it's much easier to land/take off than a Piet > by all descriptions I have heard. Should low total time and a long time > learning to handle a taildragger deter me from building a Pietenpol, or > will this seem like a distant problem in a few years when I'm ready to > fly it? > > Also, if anyone knows a Piet owner in the Northeast willing to give > rides, I could use an introduction. > > Thanks for any input, > > Mark Hodgson > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Landing Gear Location
Date: Jan 13, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: Christian Bobka To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:51 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location Thanks Chris! I should have said this as a condition. John To clarify John's post below, the 16.5 degree angle is with the tail up and the ship level fore and aft using the top longerons at the cockpit for leveling. chris bobka ----- Original Message ----- From: John Dilatush To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft(at)aol.com To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list Pieters, The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined by the CG of the plane. The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field operation. However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for ground looping upon landing. On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs. I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large for Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll be

Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dp

Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dp