Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:18 AM - Airfoil stuff (Edwin Johnson)
2. 07:24 AM - Re: Airfoils (hjarrett)
3. 07:25 AM - Re: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer (Gary Gower)
4. 07:29 AM - Re: Re: what medical (At7000ft@aol.com)
5. 07:33 AM - Re: Airfoils (Gary Gower)
6. 07:47 AM - Re: Airfoil stuff (hjarrett)
7. 08:43 AM - Scout for sale.... (Jim Markle)
8. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: what medical (Fred Weaver)
9. 11:52 AM - Broadhead 2004 (At7000ft@aol.com)
10. 12:46 PM - Re: Airfoils (Alex Sloan)
11. 03:53 PM - with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input (w b evans)
12. 06:40 PM - Re: what medical (John Ford)
13. 07:28 PM - Re: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer (Ted Brousseau)
14. 07:30 PM - Re: Airfoils (Ted Brousseau)
15. 08:24 PM - Landings (Rcaprd@aol.com)
16. 09:56 PM - Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input (Christian Bobka)
17. 10:10 PM - Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input (Rcaprd@aol.com)
18. 10:32 PM - Re: Broadhead 2004 (Rcaprd@aol.com)
19. 10:35 PM - Re: Broadhead 2004 (Rcaprd@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Edwin Johnson <elj@shreve.net>
Hello Jack
> From: "Textor, Jack" <jack@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 <grin>).
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@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 ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net>
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@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 1/9/04 8:09:27 PM Central Standard Time,
> bike.mike@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
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Walt,
Here in our airstrip in Chapala we were 52 early in the morning. Yes,
is a little farther south...
Saludos
Gary Gower
Guadalajra, Jalisco, Mexico.
Do not archive.
--- Christian Bobka <bobka@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Walt,
>
> Move to Minnesota. It is in the mid 20's here.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: w b evans
> To: piet discussion
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer
>
>
> Just looked out and I see 0 on the thermometer. Man! that's cold.
> I long for the buggy summer nights , with the katy-dids, after
> comming back from flying the valley.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> do not archive
__________________________________
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| 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.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
--- John Dilatush <dilatush@amigo.net> wrote:
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike
> To: pietenpol-list@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
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airfoil stuff |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net>
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@shreve.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil stuff
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Edwin Johnson <elj@shreve.net>
>
> Hello Jack
>
> > From: "Textor, Jack" <jack@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 <grin>).
>
> 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@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 ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Scout for sale.... |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
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
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: what medical |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" <mytyweav@earthlink.net>
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@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what medical
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Janis Nielsen
<nielsen5052@yahoo.com>
>
> 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
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Great comments Hank.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net>
>
> 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@aol.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 1/9/04 8:09:27 PM Central Standard Time,
> > bike.mike@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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 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
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| 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@indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> nielsen5052@yahoo.com Friday, January 09, 2004 6:50:00 PM >>>
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Janis Nielsen
<nielsen5052@yahoo.com>
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
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer |
Walt,
What are katy-dids? What is a valley?
Ted Brousseau
Naples, FL
Adjusting to the 43 degree cold snap tonight.
----- Original Message -----
From: w b evans
To: piet discussion
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:47 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer
Just looked out and I see 0 on the thermometer. Man! that's cold. I long for
the buggy summer nights , with the katy-dids, after comming back from flying
the valley.
walt evans
NX140DL
do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Re: Pietenpol-List: AirfoilsAmen, Mike
Ted Brousseau
Still makin sawdust in FL
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: pietenpol-list@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.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/10/04 9:48:12 AM Central Standard Time,
hjarrett@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.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input |
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
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: with all this talk of airfoils,,,I need input |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/10/04 5:54:45 PM Central Standard Time,
wbeevans@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
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Broadhead 2004 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/10/04 1:53:21 PM Central Standard Time, At7000ft@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
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Broadhead 2004 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/11/04 12:32:37 AM Central Standard Time, Rcaprd@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)-
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|