---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 04/28/04: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:04 AM - NAS3B carb (Oscar Zuniga) 2. 06:27 AM - tailwheel endorsement (Michael D Cuy) 3. 07:11 AM - Re: Corvair Clinic (Hodgson, Mark O) 4. 08:14 AM - pietenpol engines (Les Schubert) 5. 08:14 AM - Re: Corvair Clinic (del magsam) 6. 01:31 PM - Re: pietenpol engines (Barry Davis) 7. 01:44 PM - Re: pietenpol engines (Jim Markle) 8. 03:02 PM - Re: pietenpol engines (& BRS) (Eric Williams) 9. 03:59 PM - Re: pietenpol engines (& BRS) (DJ Vegh) 10. 04:02 PM - Re: pietenpol engines (& BRS) (hjarrett) 11. 04:45 PM - Re: Corvair Clinic (dave rowe) 12. 06:27 PM - Re: Pietenpol-& BRS) (Fred Weaver) 13. 08:21 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-& BRS) (Bert Conoly) 14. 09:42 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-& BRS) (Rcaprd@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:04:23 AM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: NAS3B carb --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" Chris wrote- >When you take the venturi out of the carb, it will have the size cast into >its outside surface. It will either be a 1-1/4", 1-5/16", or 1-3/8". Mine's the 1-5/16", which is (as I understand it) the next size up from the one that was used on the A65, and supposedly it is for a nominal 90 HP engine. It originally had the 1-1/4" but was changed out in the rebuild. And DJ- yes indeed, the Super Cub is a hoot to fly! I was fortunate to have flown one quite a bit when I lived up in Oregon, and put it into and out of some mightly small patches of dirt and grass. Also put 'er on the top of Table Rock a time or two (not saying exactly where that is ;o) I've never taken off from an aircraft carrier, but I imagine it to be something like the feeling of departing the edge of a sheer drop-off like Table Rock with just barely flying airspeed, and suddenly being at about 3000 MSL. Love that airplane! Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:27:56 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: tailwheel endorsement --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy DJ-- congratulations !!! Mike C. do not archive ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:11:05 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Clinic From: "Hodgson, Mark O" --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" From conversations I've had with those who have some experience with experimentals, it's always framed as a choice between saving your bucks or saving your butt. The local FSDO guy said to go with Continental or some certificated engine, the local EAA chapter president said likewise, and an EAA Tech Counselor agreed, all in terms of reliability. Even Don Pietenpol wasn't as enthusiastic about going Corvair as I had expected he would have been. On the other hand the lowly C-65, which has to be hand-propped for lack of enough power to handle the weight of a starter, battery, etc., seems to cost way more than what you should have to pay for it in a just world. As of now I'll probably go Corvair but with reservations, unless I can find an affordable C-85. Mark Hodgson ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:29 AM PST US From: Les Schubert Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use whatever engine would give you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that was light enough to suit the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane. I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet for the cost of the wood. That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other things for the plane like a BRS. If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a used a converted car engine. The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas turbine (weighs about 55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it should be all in at about 80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!! Les ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:30 AM PST US From: del magsam Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Clinic You forgot to ask the guy who drives one. I had a taylorcraft with the 65, and now a sonex with a vair. I like the vair much better. they are both strong reliable engines, the vair is way smoother. Del "Hodgson, Mark O" wrote: --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" From conversations I've had with those who have some experience with experimentals, it's always framed as a choice between saving your bucks or saving your butt. The local FSDO guy said to go with Continental or some certificated engine, the local EAA chapter president said likewise, and an EAA Tech Counselor agreed, all in terms of reliability. Even Don Pietenpol wasn't as enthusiastic about going Corvair as I had expected he would have been. On the other hand the lowly C-65, which has to be hand-propped for lack of enough power to handle the weight of a starter, battery, etc., seems to cost way more than what you should have to pay for it in a just world. As of now I'll probably go Corvair but with reservations, unless I can find an affordable C-85. Mark Hodgson Del-New Richmond, Wi "farmerdel@rocketmail.com" --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 01:31:18 PM PST US From: "Barry Davis" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Barry Davis" OK, I would like to hear more about this gas turbine. How do I get one? How much does it cost? Can you throttle it? What is is made for or where is it used in normal life? BED ----- Original Message ----- From: "Les Schubert" Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert > > I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use > whatever engine would give > you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that was > light enough to suit > the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane. > I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet > for the cost of the wood. > That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other > things for the plane > like a BRS. > If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a > used a converted car engine. > The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas > turbine (weighs about > 55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it > should be all in at about > 80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!! > Les > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 01:44:03 PM PST US From: "Jim Markle" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim Markle" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Davis" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Barry Davis" > > OK, I would like to hear more about this gas turbine. How do I get one? How > much does it cost? Can you throttle it? What is is made for or where is it > used in normal life? > BED > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Les Schubert" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:23 AM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert > > > > I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use > > whatever engine would give > > you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that > was > > light enough to suit > > the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane. > > I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet > > for the cost of the wood. > > That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other > > things for the plane > > like a BRS. > > If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a > > used a converted car engine. > > The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas > > turbine (weighs about > > 55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it > > should be all in at about > > 80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!! > > Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:02:01 PM PST US From: "Eric Williams" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" Les, I too like the idea of a BRS but am wondering where it would go in a Piet. Ok, let me take a break here and call myself all those bad names before everybody gets on my case for committing the sacrilege of wanting a BRS chute in a homebuilt airplane ... $#*#*$&@), &@@($(#)...$ (@)# )@!! Ok, now that's out of the way. All I really want to know is where would be the best placement for W&B purposes etc. Thanks. Eric (The above name-calling thing was said all in fun by the way. I've just seen people get reeeeeal opinionated on other lists about using BRS chutes, and I'm just curious about the technical side of it at this point.) >From: Les Schubert >Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines >Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:23:53 -0600 > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert > >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use >whatever engine would give >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that was >light enough to suit >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane. >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet >for the cost of the wood. >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other >things for the plane >like a BRS. >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a >used a converted car engine. >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas >turbine (weighs about >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it >should be all in at about >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!! >Les > > http://travel.msn.com ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 03:59:36 PM PST US From: "DJ Vegh" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" I saw a GN-1 with the BRS placed in the wing center section. A little bit of the "tube" stuck out past the top of the wing but it was unobtrusive. You would tie it into the front and rear center section spars and then I would suggest running 1/8" cables from the unit down the sides (or maybe inside of) the cabanes and terminate them at the lower longeron. That way it would take an awfully large load to yank it from the airframe.... sure it may damage the structure but it'll do it's job of saving your hide. I have also considered the BRS. I would do it except it cost about $3000. Alot to pay for something you probably will never use.... I really shouldn't go there though cause I don't wanna jinx myself. :-) The other solution is to do like they do in the Fisher line of aircraft. Put it inside the airframe just aft of the rear seat. Have it pointed out of the top side of the turtledeck. The turtledeck stringer that is "in the way" of the aim of fire of the chute does not get glued to the formers but rather just lays there and is held in place by the covering. The BRS rocket/chute will rip right through the covering. Just be sure the mount that sucker securely and use cables to grab onto other stronger areas of the airframe. Most importantly contact BRS. They will help you with your particular install.... which is better than any advice I have listed above. DJ Vegh N74DV Mesa, AZ www.imagedv.com/aircamper - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Williams" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS) > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" > > Les, > > I too like the idea of a BRS but am wondering where it would go in a Piet. > Ok, let me take a break here and call myself all those bad names before > everybody gets on my case for committing the sacrilege of wanting a BRS > chute in a homebuilt airplane ... > > $#*#*$&@), &@@($(#)...$ (@)# )@!! > > Ok, now that's out of the way. All I really want to know is where would be > the best placement for W&B purposes etc. > > Thanks. > > Eric > > (The above name-calling thing was said all in fun by the way. I've just > seen people get reeeeeal opinionated on other lists about using BRS chutes, > and I'm just curious about the technical side of it at this point.) > > > >From: Les Schubert > >Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines > >Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:23:53 -0600 > > > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert > > > >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use > >whatever engine would give > >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that was > >light enough to suit > >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane. > >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet > >for the cost of the wood. > >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other > >things for the plane > >like a BRS. > >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a > >used a converted car engine. > >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas > >turbine (weighs about > >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it > >should be all in at about > >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!! > >Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://travel.msn.com > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 04:02:51 PM PST US From: "hjarrett" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" The big problem on a Piet isn't where to mount the BRS as much as it's how to connect the cables to the airframe. If everything works right and the BRS fires perfect, but the cable tears out of the wood you are in a real hurtin way. You need hard points that can take the shock and suspend the plane under the chute in a way that you will land safely. That requires the harness to go to the engine mounts up front or the forward cabaines and the aft cabaines or some hard point aft of the seat (if they are strong enough, remember they weren't designed for the loads a chute would apply). Got to keep in mind when the thing fires you don't want the cables to cut your head off either. This brings us back to the actual point. Why would you want a BRS on a Piet? (MAN! None of the guys are going to believe I said that!) I would REALLY have to be in serious trouble to not want to glide in under the wing than a chute. The only case where I would want a chute is if I had a major structural failure (don't know of that ever happening on a Piet) or loss of a surface (hope you build and pre flight better than that!). If there was a specific flight where I thought I would need a BRS I think I would wear a reserve chute and leave the plane. Scary thought but so is a BRS. OK there, you got me to agree that a mod to a Piet was not a good idea. Are the purists happy now? ;-) Hank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Williams" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS) > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" > > Les, > > I too like the idea of a BRS but am wondering where it would go in a Piet. > Ok, let me take a break here and call myself all those bad names before > everybody gets on my case for committing the sacrilege of wanting a BRS > chute in a homebuilt airplane ... > > $#*#*$&@), &@@($(#)...$ (@)# )@!! > > Ok, now that's out of the way. All I really want to know is where would be > the best placement for W&B purposes etc. > > Thanks. > > Eric > > (The above name-calling thing was said all in fun by the way. I've just > seen people get reeeeeal opinionated on other lists about using BRS chutes, > and I'm just curious about the technical side of it at this point.) > > > >From: Les Schubert > >Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines > >Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:23:53 -0600 > > > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert > > > >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use > >whatever engine would give > >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that was > >light enough to suit > >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane. > >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet > >for the cost of the wood. > >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other > >things for the plane > >like a BRS. > >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a > >used a converted car engine. > >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas > >turbine (weighs about > >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it > >should be all in at about > >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!! > >Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://travel.msn.com > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:39 PM PST US From: dave rowe Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Clinic --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe Just for info, the Subaru was designed and built as an aircraft engine. Just because it's liquid cooled, doesn't mean it won't work fine in an aircraft. Sorry to say but "certified engines" are made more unreliable right from the start. How many cars have magnetos? Will an aircraft spark plug last 100,000 miles, guaranteed? What about shock cooling? If you want inexpensive, easy to work on, reliable, starts everytime and is smooth and quiet, the Soob with a reduction drive is hard to beat. Trike builders, hovercrafters and gyrocopter guys have been using the Soob for over 20 years, and they love them. Check out some of the buidler's sites, and websites, these engines are fast becoming the top choice for 60-200Hp. We could have far better, cheaper and more reliable certified engines if it weren't for the millions spent in insurance/liability costs of making even the most minor changes. My 12 cents (Canadian)! "Hodgson, Mark O" wrote: > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" > > >From conversations I've had with those who have some experience with > experimentals, it's always framed as a choice between saving your bucks > or saving your butt. The local FSDO guy said to go with Continental or > some certificated engine, the local EAA chapter president said likewise, > and an EAA Tech Counselor agreed, all in terms of reliability. Even Don > Pietenpol wasn't as enthusiastic about going Corvair as I had expected > he would have been. On the other hand the lowly C-65, which has to be > hand-propped for lack of enough power to handle the weight of a starter, > battery, etc., seems to cost way more than what you should have to pay > for it in a just world. As of now I'll probably go Corvair but with > reservations, unless I can find an affordable C-85. > > Mark Hodgson > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:27:58 PM PST US From: "Fred Weaver" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-& BRS) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" Give me a break...... When properly flying a Piet, you shouldn't be high enough to use a stupid BRS... 40 pounds of excess CRAP. And for pete's sake, Just how many Piet's have had in flight structural failures???? AND how many will be flying into IFR conditions??? AND, AND AND??????????????????? Some people just have way too many thoughts or money and not enough flying experience. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Williams" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS) > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" > > Les, > > I too like the idea of a BRS but am wondering where it would go in a Piet. > Ok, let me take a break here and call myself all those bad names before > everybody gets on my case for committing the sacrilege of wanting a BRS > chute in a homebuilt airplane ... > > $#*#*$&@), &@@($(#)...$ (@)# )@!! > > Ok, now that's out of the way. All I really want to know is where would be > the best placement for W&B purposes etc. > > Thanks. > > Eric > > (The above name-calling thing was said all in fun by the way. I've just > seen people get reeeeeal opinionated on other lists about using BRS chutes, > and I'm just curious about the technical side of it at this point.) > > > >From: Les Schubert > >Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines > >Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:23:53 -0600 > > > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert > > > >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use > >whatever engine would give > >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that was > >light enough to suit > >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane. > >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet > >for the cost of the wood. > >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other > >things for the plane > >like a BRS. > >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a > >used a converted car engine. > >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas > >turbine (weighs about > >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it > >should be all in at about > >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!! > >Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://travel.msn.com > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:07 PM PST US From: "Bert Conoly" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-& BRS) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bert Conoly" Fred, Fred, Fred! C'mon Bro. Go mix yourself a big ole drink and relax. You are way too worked up over this. "Properly flying" a Piet? I guess I need a copy of the official Pietenpol operations manual outlining the way to "properly fly " one. Stupid BRS? I think they are sort of ok especially in those rare occasions in which one's wing's fold up skyward and that initiates that inconvenient anvil-like downward plunge similar to being in pursuit of one Wiley E. Coyote's noggin. 40 pounds? Is that correct. If so they ARE a bit heavy but lets face it, most of us are carrying around 40 extra pounds of fat a**. Structural failure? I think I remember that one actually did occur using one of Mr. Pietenpol's wings. Help me out here Doc Mosher - do you remember this? If I remember the story was that he loaned a one piece wing to somebody and the poor guy did some aerobatics (albeit obviously not "properly"as is most likely presented in the aforementioned manual) and the wing did that nasty folding thing. Some other folks here may remember that story. Since when does getting into trouble go hand in hand with IFR flying? I guess an inadvertent progression into IFR conditions is not recommended but is possible with some of us low time, "inexperienced" pilots- although not a good thing. Obviously an "expert" would not find himself in that predicament - that NEVER happens.... And that "thoughts, money, not enough flying experience" thing. That doesn't even add up. A BRS probably sets ya back a whopping 3 or 4 K. I bet MOST of us here have new or fairly new vehicles, boats, RVs, motorcycles, snowmobiles (although not here in Florida), second or vacation homes, etc. Or better yet they have expensive hobbies - LIKE AIRPLANES! If a person can afford a hobby , THEY can decide if they want to spend a little more an a safety-related accessory. I think that if somebody Wants to use a BRS and is willing to BUY ONE AND SUFFER THE weight PENALTY. GO FOR IT! Les, I'm with you. If you like it and want to use it - go for it. I hope you never need it. But if YOU feel better with it, do it. I see it as insurance. You buy it, hope you never need it, but when you do, you the smartest dude on the block. E-mail me off-list if you find out more info that looks interesting. BC Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Weaver" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-& BRS) > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" > > Give me a break...... When properly flying a Piet, you shouldn't be high > enough to use a stupid BRS... 40 pounds of excess CRAP. And for pete's > sake, Just how many Piet's have had in flight structural failures???? AND > how many will be flying into IFR conditions??? > AND, AND AND??????????????????? > Some people just have way too many thoughts or money and not enough flying > experience. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Williams" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 3:01 PM > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS) > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" > > > > > Les, > > > > I too like the idea of a BRS but am wondering where it would go in a Piet. > > Ok, let me take a break here and call myself all those bad names before > > everybody gets on my case for committing the sacrilege of wanting a BRS > > chute in a homebuilt airplane ... > > > > $#*#*$&@), &@@($(#)...$ (@)# )@!! > > > > Ok, now that's out of the way. All I really want to know is where would > be > > the best placement for W&B purposes etc. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Eric > > > > (The above name-calling thing was said all in fun by the way. I've just > > seen people get reeeeeal opinionated on other lists about using BRS > chutes, > > and I'm just curious about the technical side of it at this point.) > > > > > > >From: Les Schubert > > >Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines > > >Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:23:53 -0600 > > > > > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert > > > > > >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use > > >whatever engine would give > > >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that > was > > >light enough to suit > > >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane. > > >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet > > >for the cost of the wood. > > >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other > > >things for the plane > > >like a BRS. > > >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a > > >used a converted car engine. > > >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas > > >turbine (weighs about > > >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it > > >should be all in at about > > >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!! > > >Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > http://travel.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:06 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-& BRS) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com OK, I'm going to weigh in my opinion on this BRS. In effect, I agree with Fred, but I'll be a little less flamboyant. I don't need one, I don't want one, and would never suggest anyone building a Pietenpol to incorporate one. BRS is a crashworthy device. It seems to me, that 'Grounders' (folks who stay on the ground) always wish to have crashworthyness devices incorporated into aircraft, because a crash is what they fear. Flyers will always opt for airworthyness. I've done extensive research on Pietenpol accidents, and have not yet found a structural failure caused by normal operation. If you build it to the plans, do a thorough pre-flight, stay within the envelope, the Pietenpol design is NOT going to come apart. Scud running is probably how a Pietenpol pilot will get into trouble. If you fly into IMC without instruments, there is a slim chance that you will survive...you are out of the envelope. An engine failure simply means it's time to land...a Pietenpol lands slow enough to put it in a very small area, and walk away. Just keep the nose down, and stay away from roads...too many spider webs around (electric / telephone wires). Here are a couple of Quotes: "If an airplane is still in one piece, don't cheat on it; ride the bastard down." (Ernest K. Gann, author & aviator) "If you're faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash as possible." (Bob Hoover - renowned aerobatic and test pilot) "Always keep an 'out' in your hip pocket." - Bevo Howard "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." ~~ Albert Einstein ~~ Chuck Gantzer NX770CG