Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:15 AM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (Phillips, Jack)
2. 07:21 AM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (Greg Bacon)
3. 07:29 AM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (Steve Eldredge)
4. 07:30 AM - Re: leading edge cover (Hodgson, Mark O)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (DJ Vegh)
6. 09:35 AM - Re: leading edge cover (Les Schubert)
7. 11:49 AM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (Mark Blackwell)
8. 01:15 PM - Aluminum spars (Bernard Lefebvre)
9. 04:08 PM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (Galen Hutcheson)
10. 04:40 PM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (Gary Gower)
11. 07:11 PM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (Rcaprd@aol.com)
12. 07:13 PM - BRS for Pietenpol/ regarding elevator control failure (Graham Hansen)
13. 07:21 PM - Re: leading edge cover (Rcaprd@aol.com)
14. 07:23 PM - Re: Aluminum spars (Rcaprd@aol.com)
15. 11:04 PM - Re: BRS for Pietenpol (DJ Vegh)
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 |
|
| Subject: | BRS for Pietenpol |
I also looked at this decision when I was starting to build my Piet.
The deciding factor for me (apart from spending $3,000 for something I
hope to never use) was adding 30 to 40 lbs to the empty weight of the
airplane. I worked hard to save OUNCES from the structure, knowing that
every pound counts. If I was going to add 30 lbs to the airframe, it
was going to be in something that I could use more frequently (and with
greater importance for safety) , like a radio and transponder. On my
recent forced landing, I used the radio to let the plane I had been
flying formation with know that I was going down. A BRS would have done
me no good whatsoever - the damage the off-airport landing caused was
certainly less than it would have been had I come down under a
parachute.
Yes, there are situations where a BRS might be the best way to save your
life. A personal parachute is not a very good option for a Pietenpol -
I tried to wear one for my first flight but couldn't get in (or out) of
the cockpit with one on. It would be almost impossible for a passenger
in the front cockpit to egress the airplane with a 'chute on. Besides,
most Pietenpol flights are made at an altitude where a parachute
probably would not be able to fully open before impact (I'm still
talking about a backpack or seatpack 'chute - the BRS with its rocket
deployment can open much faster). But what is the risk of such a
situation occurring, and what other ways exist to mitigate that risk?
Basically, a decision like this gets down to risk analysis. I work in
product development for a medical device company, and we constantly use
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) tools to identify and mitigate
the risk of failure with our devices. In such an analysis, a failure
mode is identified ("Engine falls off in flight"), and then every
possible scenario that could cause such a failure is envisioned ("prop
blade breaks, causing imbalance", "engine mount breaks"). The
probability and severity of such a failure are assessed, along with the
chance of detection prior to failure. Each of these are given a number
rating, on a 0 to 5 scale, with 0 being "no problem" and 5 being
"catastrophe", and the probability, severity and detection ratings are
multiplied together to give an overall rating. Then you concentrate on
figuring out ways to mitigate the ones with high ratings. For example,
in the situation given below, to prevent the engine falling off due to
prop blade breakage, a good pre-flight inspection should turn up any
cracks. Pull on the blades and see if they deflect unusually. Thump
them to see if they sound the same, etc.
Flying ANY airplane is an exercise in risk management. I find it
interesting that the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 (the only production aircraft
with BRS parachutes) have a none too good safety record. A number of
people have died in Cirrus airplanes, BRS or not. Probably more than
have died in Pietenpols. Obviously, the safest airplane is one that has
so much safety equipment on board that it is too heavy to get off the
ground. According to the NTSB records, the Pietenpol has a pretty good
safety record. It is sort of like a J-3 Cub - it is so safe it can just
barely kill you.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
Brian
I looked long and hard at this decision. BRS has a design worked out
that has been used so if you contact them they can help you with quite a
slick solution. The unit is mounted in the centre section of the wing so
a centre section fuel tank can not be used and a cowl tank will probably
be your choice. I ultimately did NOT buy one only because the freight
companies decided to retire on my shipment. The problem is related to
the "rocket" that launches it is considered hazardous goods. I live in
Canada and had no problem getting the import permits. The freight
companies wanted half as much as the system cost to haul it. So I made a
cost benefit/decision and didn't go with it. Hopefully I will not regret
it. The case for it is of course as ; 1. A broken propeller in flight
and the engine parts company with the plane moving the C of G so far
back the plane is un flyable, 2. Engine failure in a circumstance where
a dead stick landing is not likely survivable. Both these circumstances
are rare but people die every year from them. Structural failure of the
plane I would place as a distant 3 rd risk and I personally feel that is
a risk that I can live with but the first 2 are more probable but
remote. Obviously good construction, and maintenance can improve your
luck in this regard.
Now I am sure some will ridicule the idea again as they did when I
inquired about it because; 1. Bernie Pietenpol didn't use one,
2, Good pilots don't need these kind of things. Then again I think you
will notice that there are so seat belt attachment points called out on
the plans either.
So what I am saying is; make the decision that makes you and your wife
comfortable, it is your neck, not somebody else's on the forum
Les
At 04:57 AM 03/02/2005 +0000, you wrote:
Getting started with a Pietenpol project, I have lots of questions.
Other light aircraft, and ultralight communities I have been involved
with used BRS chutes on the planes. In fact most ultralights seem to
have them now days. Has anyone ever installed one on a Piet? I'm sure
it would take away from the nostalgic look, and I don't know if the
airframe could take the stress of a chute deployment. If someone has
used a chute, where was it attached? Since the plane has been around and
flying for 75 years, needless to say it's an airworthy design. Has there
been any documentation of structural failures or incidents? My wife has
concerns about a plane being built out of wood and fabric. She didn't
realize that until the mid 1900's most planes were wood and fabric. I
have to resolve her concerns before I can dip into the "kitty" for some
plane money. I am sure you all have been there once or twice. Thanks to
all those who responded to my first posting. I received lots of valuable
info.
Brian
Clinton, UT
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: BRS for Pietenpol |
<020320050457.2512.4201AF34000E9D77000009D022069997350A02070B9D0E069F0D@comcast.net>
Brian,
I was told by an experienced and knowledgeable Piet builder that nobody has ever
died in a Piet that crashed due to structural failure. He was emphasizing the
fact that the plane is very well built with a large design safety factor.
That's an awesome record for a design with over 70 years of history. This may
relieve your wife's concerns about flying in a structure built of wood and fabric.
Here's another interesting testament to wooden aircraft. The all wood
Sterman biplane is rated at plus and minus 9 g's. Hope this helps.
Greg Bacon
Central Missouri
----- Original Message -----
From: bpjardine@comcast.net
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 10:57 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRS for Pietenpol
Getting started with a Pietenpol project, I have lots of questions. Other light
aircraft, and ultralight communities I have been involved with used BRS chutes
on the planes. In fact most ultralights seem to have them now days. Has anyone
ever installed one on a Piet? I'm sure it would take away from the nostalgic
look, and I don't know if the airframe could take the stress of a chute deployment.
If someone has used a chute, where was it attached? Since the plane
has been around and flying for 75 years, needless to say it's an airworthy design.
Has there been any documentation of structural failures or incidents?
My wife has concerns about a plane being built out of wood and fabric. She didn't
realize that until the mid 1900's most planes were wood and fabric. I have
to resolve her concerns before I can dip into the "kitty" for some plane money.
I am sure you all have been there once or twice. Thanks to all those who responded
to my first posting. I received lots of valuable info.
Brian
Clinton, UT
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: | BRS for Pietenpol |
Brian,
Are you the same fellow that hangared at heber valley in John L. hanger
with a Stinson?
stevee
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bpjardine@comcast.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRS for Pietenpol
Getting started with a Pietenpol project, I have lots of questions.
Other light aircraft, and ultralight communities I have been involved
with used BRS chutes on the planes. In fact most ultralights seem to
have them now days. Has anyone ever installed one on a Piet? I'm sure
it would take away from the nostalgic look, and I don't know if the
airframe could take the stress of a chute deployment. If someone has
used a chute, where was it attached? Since the plane has been around and
flying for 75 years, needless to say it's an airworthy design. Has there
been any documentation of structural failures or incidents? My wife has
concerns about a plane being built out of wood and fabric. She didn't
realize that until the mid 1900's most planes were wood and fabric. I
have to resolve her concerns before I can dip into the "kitty" for some
plane money. I am sure you all have been there once or twice. Thanks to
all those who responded to my first posting. I received lots of valuable
info.
Brian
Clinton, UT
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: leading edge cover |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson@bu.edu>
Check out:
http://www.boulterplywood.com/
Which claims to have Birch "aircraft grade" (they mean for model
airplanes, but doubt if this makes a difference for the leading edge),
1/16" 50"X50" sheets. I'm planning to use that for my leading edge
covers years from now when I get to that point, assuming the company is
still in business (has been for a long, long time).
Mark Hodgson
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: BRS for Pietenpol |
while I have heard the same about no Piets going down due to structural failure,
I do know of one case right here at my home field (Falcon Field - FFZ) where
back in the 70's a Piet went down due to the elevator control system failing.
The plane went into a nose dive on downwind and killed the pilot..... might
as well have been a structural failure because at the point the control system
failed it was all over except the screaming. A BRS woulda been nice (bot
not yet in use in the 70's)
I too have often thought about a BRS. I opted to not use one and just make sure
that my plane is as safe as I can possibly make it.... but I sometimes still
wonder if I shoulda put one in.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Bacon
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BRS for Pietenpol
Brian,
I was told by an experienced and knowledgeable Piet builder that nobody has ever
died in a Piet that crashed due to structural failure. He was emphasizing
the fact that the plane is very well built with a large design safety factor.
That's an awesome record for a design with over 70 years of history. This may
relieve your wife's concerns about flying in a structure built of wood and
fabric. Here's another interesting testament to wooden aircraft. The all wood
Sterman biplane is rated at plus and minus 9 g's. Hope this helps.
Greg Bacon
Central Missouri
----- Original Message -----
From: bpjardine@comcast.net
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 10:57 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRS for Pietenpol
Getting started with a Pietenpol project, I have lots of questions. Other light
aircraft, and ultralight communities I have been involved with used BRS chutes
on the planes. In fact most ultralights seem to have them now days. Has
anyone ever installed one on a Piet? I'm sure it would take away from the nostalgic
look, and I don't know if the airframe could take the stress of a chute
deployment. If someone has used a chute, where was it attached? Since the plane
has been around and flying for 75 years, needless to say it's an airworthy
design. Has there been any documentation of structural failures or incidents?
My wife has concerns about a plane being built out of wood and fabric. She didn't
realize that until the mid 1900's most planes were wood and fabric. I have
to resolve her concerns before I can dip into the "kitty" for some plane money.
I am sure you all have been there once or twice. Thanks to all those who
responded to my first posting. I received lots of valuable info.
Brian
Clinton, UT
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: leading edge cover |
I was able to buy "aircraft grade" 1/16" thick plywood in the 50"x50"
sheets from stock at a local specialty building products company in western
Canada called Windsor Plywood. It was in stock, I didn't ask what it was
usually used for but I would assume for its bending properties. I also
bought some clear straight fine grained fir to use in selected areas of
construction (trailing edge, leading edge. As I was building it as a single
seater due to my height I decided to tolerate the slight weight increase. I
also added a radio, mode C transponder, alternator and battery and still
came in at 650# with oil. I would assume that most better building supply
stores (not Home Depot) could get it if they don't have it, at least in a
bigger city
At 10:27 AM 03/02/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson@bu.edu>
>
>Check out:
>
>http://www.boulterplywood.com/
>
>Which claims to have Birch "aircraft grade" (they mean for model
>airplanes, but doubt if this makes a difference for the leading edge),
>1/16" 50"X50" sheets. I'm planning to use that for my leading edge
>covers years from now when I get to that point, assuming the company is
>still in business (has been for a long, long time).
>
>Mark Hodgson
>
>
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: | Re: BRS for Pietenpol |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <aerialphotos@dp.net>
There are a lot of things you can do to maybe ease your wife's
concerns. Some may take some time though so be patient.
First a BRS has some real advantages. The most likely advantage is a
mid air. They do happen and it may be one of the biggest causes of an
unflyable airplane. Number two on the list of reasons to have one is a
stall spin on base to final. Its the only thing that can get you out of
that situation with a chance to still be breathing. Far better to
prevent that from happening in the first place but everyone that has
been involved in one has figured it wouldn't happen to them.
You should know that the airplanes on which it was certified and
installed usually have a VERY high insurance rate. Often they are
popped too quick and when the handle is pulled on many of these
airplanes, the pilots handbook is quite clear in that it totals the
airplane. You are ok, but it never was designed to get you an undamaged
airplane at the end of it.
The downside is the cost, weight and resourse allocation. Would you be
reducing risk even more by spending available funds on something that
might have a greater impact on safety? If money is no object, you don't
have to worry about that, but then again if money is no object who would
still be building a peit? Many would I am sure (no flames here) but one
of the biggest advantages to the Piet has to be the fun per dollar ration.
Other suggestions to help out. Take her to an airport that has a number
of older airplanes. Ask the owners to show off their pride and joy to
her and let her sit in one, touch the fabric, see that what you intend
to do isn't so rare. Education is the key.
Second get her involved. Let her see you are not doing something
stupid. Let her see first hand your attitudes toward safety, your
attention to detail and your dedication to learning to make this as safe
as practical. Just like any pilot, you can not just talk to safety
talk. You have to let her see you walk the walk as well and in time she
will likely relax.
Mark
bpjardine@comcast.net wrote:
> Getting started with a Pietenpol project, I have lots of
> questions. Other light aircraft, and ultralight communities I have
> been involved with used BRS chutes on the planes. In fact most
> ultralights seem to have them now days. Has anyone ever installed one
> on a Piet? I'm sure it would take away from the nostalgic look, and I
> don't know if the airframe could take the stress of a chute
> deployment. If someone has used a chute, where was it attached? Since
> the plane has been around and flying for 75 years, needless to say
> it's an airworthy design. Has there been any documentation of
> structural failures or incidents? My wife has concerns about a plane
> being built out of wood and fabric. She didn't realize that until the
> mid 1900's most planes were wood and fabric. I have to resolve her
> concerns before I can dip into the "kitty" for some plane money. I am
> sure you all have been there once or twice. Thanks to all those who
> responded to my first posting. I received lots of valuable info.
> Brian
> Clinton, UT
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 |
|
I'm just about ready ready to start on my wings (3 piece wing) for my piet. All
my ribs are done (wood). I'm thinking about using possible aluminum spars.Is
there anyone who has been building and now flying with such a set up?
Thanks for the input.
Bernie P. Lefebvre
Val d'Or, Quebec
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=pOEVuwQEmyltYfKe0u5n8ieqb69TBWYFHAqVzfwDhrW4B6cQF3YkQUQwtiIfK6RRm7TDHZo70PYZM2+aNvQ/7oa5u33OJLQkdFv6wXudiN8FXIAXqlfBXOwWJMCcpfpzOPHNuC9ONqrFepPiF+pSh2pB08LcEnAV8EUi67pliBo=
;
| Subject: | Re: BRS for Pietenpol |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts@yahoo.com>
-Brian,
If I may add my two cents (?) worth here as you have
posted a very good question. I have no personal
experience with the BRS, but I have had a lot of
experience with parachutes both in the military and
having owned and worn emergency chuts during years of
acro. All parachutes can malfunction especially when
the falling body is not stabilized before deploying
the chute. If an airplane has a major airframe
failure (ie. lose a wing), the plane will most likely
spin or rotate or even tumble due to the much altered
aerodynamics. Perhaps the BRS is designed to avoid
complications from this scenerio. I know they have
been used successfully on light aircraft, but this
thing always concerned me. The Pietenpol is a very
well designed small aircraft. It is well over built
(if built correctly) and I can't think of any mishap
(except for a mid-air or throwing a prop blade) that
would cause a major failure. If the plane is built
right and inspected frequently, it should be very safe
to fly without much concern. The airplane does have a
wonderful track record (much better than many factory
built planes) and the fact that it is built out of
wood should only increase your feelings of security.
Wooden aircraft that are well built and maintained are
far more durable aircraft than metal or composit
aircraft. I have owned three antique airplanes (all
three were much older than their pilot) and all three
were just as sound now as they were when built. Most
acro aircraft are built with wooden wings (both spars
as well as the ribs) because they are much stronger
and lighter than all other materials and do not suffer
from fatigue like the others.
One other point I would like to make is; you take a
good sound airplane and a good experienced pilot who
inspects his plane frequently, your risk of having a
fatal accident on the highway far exceeds your risk of
having a fatal accident flying.
To make a long story short ( :) ), please reasure your
wife that there are some wooden aircraft still flying
after 80 years and all have survived most of their
pilots.
Best wishes,
Doc
>
> > Getting started with a Pietenpol project, I have
> lots of
> > questions. Other light aircraft, and ultralight
> communities I have
> > been involved with used BRS chutes on the planes.
>
> > Brian
> > Clinton, UT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=GPCpifywmig6rtUnj+DGQu6slG9KyqjsFIPV9xq77m4XeUrfZu7VSjntZEAW7P3oL18ZWog5hURNwwky4ETqX4trtzl2CFi4bjWXA5TpJRuojOOn+TVq15LwPzLTgwpxV+lWXZW6EepiILHJjz/CPo3py9ET0Trkw3BDK1mBfJI=
;
| Subject: | Re: BRS for Pietenpol |
Hello DJ,
For what your message gives the idea, the problem was not about the design, was
about the quality of the builders welding ability (and probably preflight and/or
yearly inspection (sp?))
I have studied and bought countless of airplane plans and one thing I will positive
believe is that the Piet is the most well built (maybe the word "overbuilt"
will fit better here) I have put my eyes in...
This is why, and also this great friends/family in this list, I am still here.
Yes, I havent built one yet, but once I finish my 8th airplane I will do my
best to beguin one, I am 52 years old, so probably I have time left to built
at least 2 or 3 more projects, with God's permision, of course.
Since the last time I flew my Hang Glider weekly, (about 12 years ago) and started
in Ultralights, I havent used a chute since. Hope I will never need it
(knock wood).
I will rather invest that money in gasoline for emergency landing procedures practice
(deadstick spot landing), and fully learn the stall behavoir, than in
a chute.
Probably I am completly wrong, so please dont follow my advise :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower.
DJ Vegh <djv@imagedv.com> wrote:
while I have heard the same about no Piets going down due to structural failure,
I do know of one case right here at my home field (Falcon Field - FFZ) where
back in the 70's a Piet went down due to the elevator control system failing.
The plane went into a nose dive on downwind and killed the pilot..... might
as well have been a structural failure because at the point the control system
failed it was all over except the screaming. A BRS woulda been nice (bot
not yet in use in the 70's)
I too have often thought about a BRS. I opted to not use one and just make sure
that my plane is as safe as I can possibly make it.... but I sometimes still
wonder if I shoulda put one in.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Bacon
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BRS for Pietenpol
Brian,
I was told by an experienced and knowledgeable Piet builder that nobody has ever
died in a Piet that crashed due to structural failure. He was emphasizing the
fact that the plane is very well built with a large design safety factor.
That's an awesome record for a design with over 70 years of history. This may
relieve your wife's concerns about flying in a structure built of wood and fabric.
Here's another interesting testament to wooden aircraft. The all wood
Sterman biplane is rated at plus and minus 9 g's. Hope this helps.
Greg Bacon
Central Missouri
----- Original Message -----
From: bpjardine@comcast.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRS for Pietenpol
Getting started with a Pietenpol project, I have lots of questions. Other light
aircraft, and ultralight communities I have been involved with used BRS chutes
on the planes. In fact most ultralights seem to have them now days. Has anyone
ever installed one on a Piet? I'm sure it would take away from the nostalgic
look, and I don't know if the airframe could take the stress of a chute deployment.
If someone has used a chute, where was it attached? Since the plane
has been around and flying for 75 years, needless to say it's an airworthy design.
Has there been any documentation of structural failures or incidents? My
wife has concerns about a plane being built out of wood and fabric. She didn't
realize that until the mid 1900's most planes were wood and fabric. I have to
resolve her concerns before I can dip into the "kitty" for some plane money.
I am sure you all have been there once or twice. Thanks to all those who responded
to my first posting. I received lots of valuabl
e info.
Brian
Clinton, UT
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: | Re: BRS for Pietenpol |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 2/3/05 10:25:31 AM Central Standard Time, djv@imagedv.com
writes:
<< while I have heard the same about no Piets going down due to structural
failure, I do know of one case right here at my home field (Falcon Field - FFZ)
where back in the 70's a Piet went down due to the elevator control system
failing. The plane went into a nose dive on downwind and killed the pilot.....
might as well have been a structural failure because at the point the control
system failed it was all over except the screaming. A BRS woulda been nice
(bot not yet in use in the 70's) >>
DJ,
I looked up this incident that you referred to, in the data base that I
have stored in my computer. I have done an extensive search of all accidents
of Pietenpols from 1966 to the present.
Now, referr to the last line in the report. The Pietenpol aircraft
design Does NOT have a push pull rod in the control system, therefore this plane
was NOT built to the plans.
AMTRPL AIRCAMPER NNUM: 3586 LOCATION: MESA, AZ
DATE: 07/08/79 ACFT HRS: 450
YEAR OF MFG: 0 FATALS: 1 INJURIES:0
WX AND WIND: UNKNOWN DAY CLER G10 0 0/
ENGINE:
PILOT: TOTAL HRS.: 465 HRS IN MODEL: 125 LAST 90 DAYS: 30
CAUSES: ELEVATOR CONTROL SYSTEM
TYPE EVENT: UNCONTROLLED COLL WITH GRND DMG: DEMOLISHED
PHASE OF FLIGHT: IN TRAFFIC PATTERN-CIRCLING
CATEGORY: INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE
TYPE AIRCRAFT: MONOPLANE-HIGH/PARASOL WING
REMARKS: ELEVATOR PUSH-PULL ROD FAILED DUE TO METAL FATIGUE.
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: | BRS for Pietenpol/ regarding elevator control failure |
To D.J. Vegh:
Do you know the location of the failure in the Pietenpol elevator control system
at Falcon Field? I"m sure we Pietenpol jockeys would like to know any details.
When I built my Pietenpol in 1970, I foolishly used aluminum pulleys in the forward
elevator cable circuit. After 159 hours, I discovered the forward "up" elevator
cable had frayed and I replaced it. Then, after 278 hours, the forward
"down" cable frayed. The failures were at the twin pulleys on the torque tube
just under the front of the rear seat. Probably dust combined with the aluminum
pulleys caused excessive cable wear at this point.
I then replaced both cables and substituted micarta pulleys for the aluminum ones.
The airplane now has 741 hours on it and no further cable problems have surfaced.
Needless to say, I keep a close watch on them. It is easy to check them
by feeling the cable as it runs through your fingers when the stick is moved
back and forth and this is a part of my pre-flight inspection. Should you snag
a finger with a broken wire, it is much better than losing elevator control
in flight! (But if one uses a piece of cloth instead of one's pinky for this procedure,
it will catch on a broken wire alerting you that there is a problem,
and the finger will be spared.)
My Pietenpol, like many of them, has no elevator trim for backup. And it has always
tended to be a bit nose-heavy in the air, solo or dual. An elevator control
failure is something I would rather not think about.
Even with a BRS, one must build and fly carefully, and practise diligent maintenance
because the BRS may not be able to save you in some circumstances. The words
of Major Hereward deHavilland (brother of Sir Geoffrey) come to mind:
"The only way for a flying man to keep alive [is] to be apprehensive." (Quoted
from THE LONELY SEA AND THE SKY by Sir Francis Chichester, 1964.)
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
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: leading edge cover |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
Ralph,
Your life is at stake here. Use 1/16" plywood for the top of the leading
edge cover.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Wichita KS
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum spars |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
Bernie,
Like I said in my last post - Your life is at stake here...use the wood
spars, and carry on with the construction of a Very Fine design.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Wichita KS
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: BRS for Pietenpol |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
may have been a GN-1 then. GN-1's have a push-pull rod connected to a
walking beam.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BRS for Pietenpol
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 2/3/05 10:25:31 AM Central Standard Time,
> djv@imagedv.com
> writes:
>
> << while I have heard the same about no Piets going down due to structural
> failure, I do know of one case right here at my home field (Falcon Field -
> FFZ)
> where back in the 70's a Piet went down due to the elevator control system
> failing. The plane went into a nose dive on downwind and killed the
> pilot.....
> might as well have been a structural failure because at the point the
> control
> system failed it was all over except the screaming. A BRS woulda been
> nice
> (bot not yet in use in the 70's) >>
>
> DJ,
> I looked up this incident that you referred to, in the data base that I
> have stored in my computer. I have done an extensive search of all
> accidents
> of Pietenpols from 1966 to the present.
> Now, referr to the last line in the report. The Pietenpol aircraft
> design Does NOT have a push pull rod in the control system, therefore
> this plane
> was NOT built to the plans.
>
>
> AMTRPL AIRCAMPER NNUM: 3586 LOCATION: MESA, AZ
> DATE: 07/08/79 ACFT HRS: 450
> YEAR OF MFG: 0 FATALS: 1 INJURIES:0
> WX AND WIND: UNKNOWN DAY CLER G10 0 0/
> ENGINE:
> PILOT: TOTAL HRS.: 465 HRS IN MODEL: 125 LAST 90 DAYS: 30
> CAUSES: ELEVATOR CONTROL SYSTEM
> TYPE EVENT: UNCONTROLLED COLL WITH GRND DMG: DEMOLISHED
> PHASE OF FLIGHT: IN TRAFFIC PATTERN-CIRCLING
> CATEGORY: INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE
> TYPE AIRCRAFT: MONOPLANE-HIGH/PARASOL WING
> REMARKS: ELEVATOR PUSH-PULL ROD FAILED DUE TO METAL FATIGUE.
>
>
>
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! --
|