---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 06/21/06: 43 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:02 AM - Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! () 2. 04:08 AM - Re: ah goodie ! (Jack T. Textor) 3. 04:14 AM - 2006 Brodhead Roll Call (tbyh@aol.com) 4. 04:51 AM - Re: Brodhead (amsafetyc@aol.com) 5. 05:08 AM - Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! (Phillips, Jack) 6. 06:17 AM - Gap Seals/Prop (Mike King) 7. 06:41 AM - Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! (TomTravis@aol.com) 8. 06:41 AM - Fred "The Hulk" Beseler & Chuckie Gantzer (Michael D Cuy) 9. 06:49 AM - Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! (Glenn Thomas) 10. 07:08 AM - Re: Brodhead (Jim Markle) 11. 07:10 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy) 12. 07:30 AM - Brodhead Buzz (Bill Church) 13. 07:54 AM - Re: Brodhead Buzz (Steve Eldredge) 14. 08:18 AM - Re: Aeromart (Wizzard187@aol.com) 15. 09:24 AM - Re: Gap Seals/Prop (Gordon Bowen) 16. 10:59 AM - Re: Gap Seals/Prop (Barry Davis) 17. 11:37 AM - GN-1 vs. Piet gaps (Michael D Cuy) 18. 11:51 AM - Bill of materials (amsafetyc@aol.com) 19. 11:55 AM - Re: Bill of materials (RAMPEYBOY@aol.com) 20. 12:04 PM - Re: Bill of materials (Phillips, Jack) 21. 12:16 PM - Re: Bill of materials (amsafetyc@aol.com) 22. 12:18 PM - Re: Bill of materials (Michael D Cuy) 23. 12:19 PM - Re: Bill of materials (amsafetyc@aol.com) 24. 12:28 PM - saving time (Michael D Cuy) 25. 12:31 PM - (Michael D Cuy) 26. 12:49 PM - Re: saving time (amsafetyc@aol.com) 27. 12:57 PM - Re: (Phillips, Jack) 28. 01:00 PM - Re: saving time (Phillips, Jack) 29. 01:15 PM - Airplane assemblers (HelsperSew@aol.com) 30. 01:28 PM - Re: Airplane assemblers (Phillips, Jack) 31. 01:58 PM - Assemblers (HelsperSew@aol.com) 32. 02:34 PM - Re: Brodhead (Rcaprd@aol.com) 33. 03:36 PM - Re: Brodhead oops (Rcaprd@aol.com) 34. 03:49 PM - Re: Bill of materials (Peter W Johnson) 35. 04:27 PM - Re: (walt evans) 36. 04:54 PM - Re: role call ? (Michael Conkling) 37. 06:02 PM - Re: saving time (Isablcorky@aol.com) 38. 06:11 PM - Re: Brodhead (KMHeide) 39. 07:57 PM - a comment on brakes (Oscar Zuniga) 40. 08:03 PM - Re: a comment on brakes (Isablcorky@aol.com) 41. 08:04 PM - Re: Brodhead Buzz (Dog67@aol.com) 42. 09:27 PM - Re: Gap Seals/Prop (Gordon Bowen) 43. 11:32 PM - Re: Gap Seals/Prop (Mike King) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:02:06 AM PST US From: Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Thanks for all that info guys,really appreciate it.It will help a lot. Do not archive -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clif Dawson Sent: June 21, 2006 1:09 AM Markle...Javier ! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson Have fun wading through this stuff Harvey. :-) http://www.b4.ca/raa_85/download/border.pdf http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/020607_5131.html http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/security/waivers/ Cliff > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: > > I may be able to make it there in the future but not this year.Where is > Brodhead;coordinance for GPS please and map reference,thanks.I feel like > I know half you guys but I'd like some day to put a face to the name.I > think the idea is to land at the closest airfield and report your > arrival in the States if your coming from Canada and if I'm not mistaken > you have to stay in the plane until cleared by officials.Plus having to > have all the correct paapers. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:08:10 AM PST US From: "Jack T. Textor" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ah goodie ! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack T. Textor" Chuck, please put my name on a build video, ride too! Thanks, Jack Textor Driving from Des Moines Yes, of course I'll be there. I'll have a handful of my DVD video's with me, and maybe even some of the 'Building NX770CG' video. This is the fourth summer in a row to Brodhead for me. I'm probably going to arrive on Thursday, and from Brodhead (Saturday or Sunday) I'm heading west to South Dakota to the Badlands, Mount Rushmore, Chief Crazy Horse, Sturges and Wall Drug. I'm trying to persuade Sterling B. to accompany me on this leg, in his spam can. I'm going to try something new this year for my passengers. I now have a working intercom, and I'm going to install the controls in the front pit. This will give folks some hands on experience with how she handles. Anyone wanna give 'er a try ??? Ya just gotta promise you won't kill me... Chuck Gantzer Wichita, KS NX770CG http://nx770cg.com/ ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:14:44 AM PST US From: tbyh@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: 2006 Brodhead Roll Call --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: tbyh@aol.com I'll be there again this year. The dates are July 21-23, correct? Have got my fuselage complete, all tail pieces built -- just need to install Vi Kapler's hinges. The wing ribs are complete (Okay, I cheated -- ribs by the late Charlie Rubeck. Sure will miss visiting with Charlie this year) and am now working on the landing gear. Looking forward to it -- only 30 days to go! Fred "The Big Muffin" Beseler La Crosse, WI ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:51:37 AM PST US From: amsafetyc@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com How far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on how to combine business with passion and really need to see examples and continue the prebuild research. Thanks John -----Original Message----- Sent: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Tim Willis The Brodhead dates are Fri Jul 21-- Sun Jul 23. I plan to drive up and get there as early as possible on Friday. I will have a car for errands, supplies, beer runs, etc. I will be camping there on Friday night, but will likely move to a motel in Rockford on Saturday, for I am meeting an old friend from Chicago who says his 75-yr.-old back doesn't do air matresses any longer. That's my plan for now. Chuck Gantzer told me he was likely going up Thursday to get settled in. Oscar has told me he cannot go this year. Corky, are you thinking of going? I'll have the scotch this time. I look forward to meeting you all. Tim . Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: * ================================================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ================================================= Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-06-19.html Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-06-19.txt =============================================== EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive =============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 06/19/06: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:59 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack) 2. 06:07 AM - GN-1 Gap Seals (Mike King) 3. 08:02 AM - Re: Engine selection (Bill Church) 4. 09:36 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy) 5. 09:56 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack) 6. 10:52 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy) 7. 11:08 AM - Re: Engine selection (Steve Eldredge) 8. 11:57 AM - Engine selection (HelsperSew@aol.com) 9. 01:23 PM - Re: Engine selection (KMHeide) 10. 06:58 PM - Re: Engine selection (Dick Navratil) 11. 07:07 PM - radial eng chopper (Dick Navratil) 12. 07:16 PM - Re: Covering (Peter W Johnson) 13. 08:14 PM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:59:13 AM PST US --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a downdraft. Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated. If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area. One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before. Jack Phillips NX899JP Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM Ken Heide, Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND. For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts. Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts. When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry. However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding too much weight, of course). In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.) If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup. As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modest power. Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN _________________________________________________ or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:07:26 AM PST US BlankSay guys, I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to pla ns. That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all this talk about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planes were built. I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gap seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slight ly nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wings and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer months. As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b25ada24a7f9f2360c3efe68e69728914bc3920.gif ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:02:08 AM PST US --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" In Graham's words: "If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.". On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th Annual Pietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with Brian Kenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HP Continental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. But he emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down as much as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so it is possible to build lighter if we really make the effort. As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately a strong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). But there were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures of and talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has been flying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it to school regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me he has about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the original covering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, and Dacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their second Piet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacron covering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as a teenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then got resurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim said it was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took great care to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleased with the results. I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download for about a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share. Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which is only five weeks away). Bill C. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 09:36:38 AM PST US --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot. Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated. Thank You Gene Pietenpol N502R ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" > > > As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. > For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or > VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of > sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a > downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on > the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' > ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a > downdraft. > > > Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated. > > > If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area. > > > One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before. > > > Jack Phillips > > NX899JP > > Raleigh, NC > > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM > > > Ken Heide, > > > Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND. > > > For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts. > > > Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts. > > > When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry. > > > However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course). > > > In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.) > > > If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup. > > > As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power. > > > Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN > > > _________________________________________________ > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the > > Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:56:46 AM PST US --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" Gene, Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL) originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson. On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and === message truncated == --------------------------------- Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:08:02 AM PST US From: "Phillips, Jack" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" Good looking Pietenpol, Gene. You're gonna love it! Jack Phillips NX899JP -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene & Tammy Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:38 PM Markle...Javier ! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" You guys are great! Just what I needed! Between your comments and Jack Phillips sending photos of his last trip, I can't stand it any more and have left a message with the seller to see if I can pick the plane up a few days earlier. If anyone is interested in seeing the plane you can go to Barnstormers.com and see it under experimental, "Pietenpol". I won't be able to make the fly-in but sure hope some of you will take lots of photo's. If the owner can and the weather holds, I will move the fly date from the 27th to the 22nd. I'll keep ya posted. Gene N502R ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:34 AM ! > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" > > > Not me. I've decided to sell my Pietenpol (too slow, too noisy, too > drafty, no fun) and buy a REAL airplane - a Cessna 172. Then I will > feel safe, flying only from controlled fields and always under an > instrument flight plan so I don't have to worry about some foolish pilot > in an aircraft without radios running into me. > > NOT > > Unfortunately, I can't make it to Brodhead (or the other Wisconsin > fly-in) this year. I am having a blast flying the Pietenpol, though. > Just got married and about to leave on a honeymoon, and can't afford to > do that and get to Wisconsin. I did suggest a honeymoon sleeping under > the stars in Wisconsin, but that didn't set too well. > > Since my new bride has agreed to start building an RV-10 with me as soon > as we get back, I can't complain too much. She has also agreed that we > must always keep the Pietenpol for fun flying, no matter what kind of > fast spam can we have for travelling. Now all I've got to do is figure > out how to convince her that we need to keep the Pietenpol, the RV-4 and > the RV-10. I'm afraid the RV-4 will have to go, so we can afford to > finish the RV-10. I'll miss the aerobatics in the -4. > > Jack Phillips > NX899JP > Raleigh, NC > > -----Original Message----- > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael > D Cuy > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:12 AM > ! > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy > > > > Okay you sugar muffins---you guys sure have been boring lately. Let's > get > the lead out and get > fired up some, huh ? (okay, I'm boring too.....and fat, but that > doesn't > stop me from shaking you up > once in a while) > > Who the heck is getting their sorry asses to Brodhead ??? I don't care > by > car, boat, or plane--who is > going to be there ? > > Mike C. in Ohio > > > _________________________________________________ > > > _________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:17:19 AM PST US From: "Mike King" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gap Seals/Prop BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built without them, I would like your recommendations. I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans. That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all this talk about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planes were built. I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gap seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slight ly nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wings and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer months. As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b25ada24a7f9f2360c3efe68e69728914bc3920.gif ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:38 AM PST US From: TomTravis@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: TomTravis@aol.com I need some motivation to get this Piet project back on the front burner so I'm going to try to make it to Broadhead this year. I'm trying to talk my bride into a driving vacation that would include Broadhead and Oshkosh. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:40 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fred "The Hulk" Beseler & Chuckie Gantzer --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy Man, Old Iron Butt himself, gotta give a big credit to Chuck Gantzer for making it from Kansas for the fourth year in a row in his Smoker Special Air Camper. Way to go, Chuck. I am going to be a woose and drive up in comfortable air conditioning--and will love every mile of it. (it was downright scary flying home last year) Got to meet many of you fine folks last year at Brodhead and Fred Beseler was one. Fred looks like he could put you up against a wall as a bouncer in a club, but is a friendly and enthusiastic Piet builder. By the way Fred--I cheated too in buying a set of Charlie Ruebeck ribs. Charlie did some very, very nice work. I heard from someone that though Charlie built many sets over the years that mine were the first (that he had heard of) to fly in 1998. Not sure how true that is but no better tribute than for you and others to get more sets of those Ruebeck ribs in the air ! Mike C. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:15 AM PST US From: "Glenn Thomas" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Glenn Thomas" Also planning on making the trip in from CT with tent and camera in tow. -------- Glenn Thomas N????? http://www.flyingwood.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=42044#42044 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:08:03 AM PST US From: "Jim Markle" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jim Markle" According to my map it's about 37 miles..... Jim Markle Pryor, OK 214.505.6101 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:50 AM > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com > > How far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on > how to combine business with passion and really need to see examples and > continue the prebuild research. > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:10:57 AM PST US From: "Gene & Tammy" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" Jack, Again thanks for the info and advise. I'm headed out the door with ear plugs and goggles. The owner will meet me on thursday the 22nd and I will spend the day getting use to the plane and then weather permitting I will leave on Friday. To say I'm excited is an understatement! Gene ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 1:25 PM > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" > > > I find goggles and earplugs (or headset) a necessity for just about any > flight in a Pietenpol. If you can possibly find one, a handheld GPS > sure makes navigation easier. I also find that unfolding a sectional > chart is difficult at best. I prefer to go to the aeroplanner site > (found on the EAA webpage) and I print off a basic triptik which gives > me up to date sectional information a page at a time that will fit on my > kneeboard. Makes navigation SO much easier. I used those for all 2,047 > miles of my trip last summer. > > Didn't know there was a Pietenpol at Humboldt. Years ago there was a > GN-1 at Jackson built by a fellow named Mike Lucky. I flew it while it > was still flying off restrictions - nice flying plane and one reason I > wanted to build my own Pietenpol. > > I'm familiar with Camden. Used to go to Boy Scout camp near there. I > had my first forced landing (in a J-3 Cub) just north of I-40, west of > the rest areas near Camden. > > Do Not Archive > > Jack Phillips > > -----Original Message----- > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene & > Tammy > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 1:51 PM > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" > > > Jack, > Thank you for your reply. All good info. I have a stop planned for > MDQ. I > live East of Jackson in Camden (I 40 to North on 641 at exit 126.) I'm > flying the plane from Thomasville, Ga. and will be headed up across > Alabama > to Tennessee. Should be leaving monday the 26th if the weather permits. > I'd be very interested in meeting with a builder near me so hopefully if > > there is one he will contact me on this list. I do know of a Pietenpol > in > Humboldt and will be checking it out. > Any more advice for the trip? Have you found googles necessary on long > trips? I do wish the cockpit was a bit larger so I could stash charts > and > such. > Gene > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:50 AM > > >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" >> >> >> Gene, >> >> Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL) >> originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after >> attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a >> Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson. >> >> On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and >> found it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison > County >> Executive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it very >> friendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also > landed >> at Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going no >> further north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains and >> shouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800' >> >> Jack Phillips >> NX899JP >> >> -----Original Message----- >> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene & >> Tammy >> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PM >> >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" >> >> >> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm >> just in >> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida >> line to >> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some >> idea >> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip >> but >> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It >> will >> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. > I'm >> not >> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot. >> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated. >> Thank You >> Gene >> Pietenpol N502R >> >> >> _________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _________________________________________________ > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:30:48 AM PST US From: "Bill Church" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Buzz --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" With all the chatter about Brodhead approaching, I remembered a short movie I put together from some footage that I shot in 2004, and I thought maybe others might like to see it, so I sent it through to photoshare. I'm not sure if it will go through, as it is a fairly big file (6MB). But if it does, it should be available in a couple of days (according to the photoshare rules). Bill C. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:54:52 AM PST US From: "Steve Eldredge" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Buzz --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Eldredge" Steve E here, Not planning to attend from Utah, but wish I was. I last attended in 2000 when I drove. Flew in my piet in 1999. Great time. Wish I could be there making smoke and eating a brat or two. My Stinson is almost done. Just have interior, glass, and cowling left, then wings and tail go on. I've put 20 or so hours on in a Stinson lately and hadn't flown the piet for 6 months. Last night I flew into the sunset and boy it was a great night for open cockpit piet flying. You can hear the trains and smell the fields. Steve e -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:33 AM --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" With all the chatter about Brodhead approaching, I remembered a short movie I put together from some footage that I shot in 2004, and I thought maybe others might like to see it, so I sent it through to photoshare. I'm not sure if it will go through, as it is a fairly big file (6MB). But if it does, it should be available in a couple of days (according to the photoshare rules). Bill C. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:18:02 AM PST US From: Wizzard187@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aeromart --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Wizzard187@aol.com I think that aeromart is not open on Monday or atleast that was how it was last year. They take in on Monday but start selling on Tues. I may be wrong but worth checking. Ken in wet Iowa ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:24:29 AM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gap Seals/Prop --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" Mike, Almost all the taildraggers here on the field at Homer AK, are equipped with vortex generators on the underside of their horizonal stabs. Plus the normal ones on the wings. The guys who own these SuperCubs etc. tell me it makes a world of difference in the sensation of flying "uphill" all the time. I intend to put VG's on N-1033B when I get back down to FL. Maybe someone out there in Piete land has tried this too. Pipe-up if you have. Sorry about not being able to make it to Broadhead, but you all will be glad to know that the salmon are running just fine. Gordon Bowen ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:14 AM BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built without them, I would like your recommendations. I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans. That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all this talk about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planes were built. I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gap seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slightly nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wings and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer months. As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:59:04 AM PST US From: "Barry Davis" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gap Seals/Prop --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Barry Davis" I would be very interested in your experimentation on vortex generators. I hope you keep the group informed on your progress and results. Barry ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:22 PM > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" > > > Mike, > Almost all the taildraggers here on the field at Homer AK, are equipped > with vortex generators on the underside of their horizonal stabs. Plus > the normal ones on the wings. The guys who own these SuperCubs etc. tell > me it makes a world of difference in the sensation of flying "uphill" all > the time. I intend to put VG's on N-1033B when I get back down to FL. > Maybe someone out there in Piete land has tried this too. Pipe-up if you > have. Sorry about not being able to make it to Broadhead, but you all will > be glad to know that the salmon are running just fine. > Gordon Bowen > > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:14 AM > > > BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while > building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built > without them, I would like your recommendations. > > I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans. > That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all > this talk > about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations > from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their > planes > were built. > > I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gap > seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies > slightly > nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid > changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even > more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the > plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wings > and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer > months. > > As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly > appreciated. > > Thanks. > > > Mike King > GN-1 > 77MK > Dallas > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:48 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 vs. Piet gaps --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye bolts to attach control surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol design. Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the tailfeathers are nothing to fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story. Mike C. ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:24 AM PST US From: amsafetyc@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bill of materials --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com Again, and not to beat a dead horse as far as the research part of this project but I need to ask. Does anyone have a good bill of materials that they would be willing to share? Something I can uses to do my cost estimates with, and locate vendors. It doesn't matter about the format, just something that will tell me how much of each size and type material I need in wood and metal, now especially the metal part as I may be close to the metal acquisition phase as soon as tomorrow afternoon. I realize its rather short notice, but I figured with the collective wisdom of the group and the opportunity presenting itself to get metal in the next day or two I would at least ask. Any basic listing would be helpful, naturally the more detail the better. If ya got anything that's close you are willing to share it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks John -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0400 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye bolts to attach control surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol design. Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the tailfeathers are nothing to fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 11:55:22 AM PST US From: RAMPEYBOY@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bill of materials --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: RAMPEYBOY@aol.com I'd be interested in a bill of materials also. I haven't bought plans. I guess the bill of materials is included with plans, or not? ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:38 PM PST US From: "Phillips, Jack" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bill of materials --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" You don't need to beat this particular horse - it's been beat to death many times before. There is no definitive list because every Pietenpol is different. For example, mine uses wire wheels and a straight axle, so if you're building an "Improved" Pietenpol with the split axle gear, mine wouldn't help you. Likewise, my 25" wide fuselage would have you order too much plywood if you are building yours to the plans, but used my list of materials. Of course, it is possible that you are building yours exactly to the plans with no modifications, and there just might be another Pietenpol out there built exactly to the plans, but I doubt it. I've never seen any two Pietenpols that were even close to being identical. Mike Cuy's and mine are pretty close - both have A65 Continentals and wire wheels with straight axles, and piano hinges on the ailerons, but then his is a short fuselage, mine is a long, mine is 1" wider than plans, his has mechanical brakes, mine are hydraulic, his uses curved windscreens, mine are 3-pane flat - the list of differences goes on and on. One of the joys of building a Pietenpol is that you get to do every single step of the creative process, and have to think. Pity the kitbuilder - someone else got to do all the thinking and he is not allowed to think. He is not a builder, but merely an assembler. Jack Phillips Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of amsafetyc@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:51 PM --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com Again, and not to beat a dead horse as far as the research part of this project but I need to ask. Does anyone have a good bill of materials that they would be willing to share? Something I can uses to do my cost estimates with, and locate vendors. It doesn't matter about the format, just something that will tell me how much of each size and type material I need in wood and metal, now especially the metal part as I may be close to the metal acquisition phase as soon as tomorrow afternoon. I realize its rather short notice, but I figured with the collective wisdom of the group and the opportunity presenting itself to get metal in the next day or two I would at least ask. Any basic listing would be helpful, naturally the more detail the better. If ya got anything that's close you are willing to share it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks John -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0400 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye bolts to attach control surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol design. Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the tailfeathers are nothing to fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 12:16:34 PM PST US From: amsafetyc@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bill of materials --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com Jack thanks for your reply, actually I intend to go wider and 25" does sound attractive, I am not a small guy and intended on down loading info from the archives about stretch and widen, so we may be close pretty close. I am trying to not reinvent the wheel or the peit for that matter, but moreover extract the current wisdom for my own speed and design purposes. Which is the reason I am looking for in the bill of materials. It will save a great deal of time rather than studying the drawings and listing each piece to come up with the gross numbers. The metal opportunity is at hand and I would like to take full advantage of the opportunity as it available. I typically like to get the research done and design a plan of attack prior to beginning any project, especially one this complex. Thanks John -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:03:17 -0400 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" You don't need to beat this particular horse - it's been beat to death many times before. There is no definitive list because every Pietenpol is different. For example, mine uses wire wheels and a straight axle, so if you're building an "Improved" Pietenpol with the split axle gear, mine wouldn't help you. Likewise, my 25" wide fuselage would have you order too much plywood if you are building yours to the plans, but used my list of materials. Of course, it is possible that you are building yours exactly to the plans with no modifications, and there just might be another Pietenpol out there built exactly to the plans, but I doubt it. I've never seen any two Pietenpols that were even close to being identical. Mike Cuy's and mine are pretty close - both have A65 Continentals and wire wheels with straight axles, and piano hinges on the ailerons, but then his is a short fuselage, mine is a long, mine is 1" wider than plans, his has mechanical brakes, mine are hydraulic, his uses curved windscreens, mine are 3-pane flat - the list of differences goes on and on. One of the joys of building a Pietenpol is that you get to do every single step of the creative process, and have to think. Pity the kitbuilder - someone else got to do all the thinking and he is not allowed to think. He is not a builder, but merely an assembler. Jack Phillips Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of amsafetyc@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:51 PM --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com Again, and not to beat a dead horse as far as the research part of this project but I need to ask. Does anyone have a good bill of materials that they would be willing to share? Something I can uses to do my cost estimates with, and locate vendors. It doesn't matter about the format, just something that will tell me how much of each size and type material I need in wood and metal, now especially the metal part as I may be close to the metal acquisition phase as soon as tomorrow afternoon. I realize its rather short notice, but I figured with the collective wisdom of the group and the opportunity presenting itself to get metal in the next day or two I would at least ask. Any basic listing would be helpful, naturally the more detail the better. If ya got anything that's close you are willing to share it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks John -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0400 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye bolts to attach control surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol design. Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the tailfeathers are nothing to fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 12:18:48 PM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bill of materials --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy Jack's post is very realistic in regards to compiling a bill of materials for a Pietenpol or GN-1. When ordering my wood I simply got out the plans, went over them slowly and noted the size and lengths I would need for each component of my plane, for example the wing type (3 pce) and called Wicks and ordered it. They brought my wood load to Oshkosh where I picked it up from their truck and trucked it home atop our vehicle to save trucking costs. Steel is another matter--wether you buy strips or bulk sheets and have it sheared. Most of the fittings are either .060" or .090" 4130 with a few odd thicknesses here and there and a smattering of tubing sizes. An acquaintance once owned an AN hardware business and wanted to put together a hardware kit for a Piet and it really is an act of futility as we all build slightly different, use different ideas, gear types, wing configurations, engine types, cable sizes for brace cables, big or small, and big or small turn buckles. If this was an RV kit I could see a very nice hardware kit coming along, but this whole thing is scratch thought out and built. Mike C. ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 12:19:02 PM PST US From: amsafetyc@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bill of materials --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com Nope, no bill of materials, just a cost sheet of what it cost Bernie to buy the parts on the list when he built his. No real listing of specs and quantities of each material that one could without study of the prints. At least none that I was able to comprehend. John -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:54:48 EDT --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: RAMPEYBOY@aol.com I'd be interested in a bill of materials also. I haven't bought plans. I guess the bill of materials is included with plans, or not? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 12:28:52 PM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: saving time --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy John-- if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA for about $75. These will save you time so you order the right hardware, right steel (steel has a grain direction and can't be bent across the grain.....I didn't know that when I started building) the right wood, the right stuff that will save you tons of time by not having to re-do your mistakes. Those books paid for themselves over and over again in TIME and money saved on my project. It is great to plan, to go to Brodhead, to take notes, photos, measurements, ask questions, review the archives---but this plane takes as much time to think about as it does to build. I have tons of notes, scratch pad ideas, things I would modify, change, change again, read about how to do and the actual doing took far less time than the planning so planning is good, for sure but listing materials for the plane is about one of your shorter tasks in a 3-8 year project. Mike C. ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 12:31:22 PM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy correction---steel should be bent perpendicular to the grain (printing on the steel sheet) Funny thing about the Piet is that you just don't place one order for materials. You will be on a first name basis with the people at Wicks, your hardware source, your fabric and finishing source, and your UPS man or woman in short order while building a scratch-built plane. Mike C. ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 12:49:46 PM PST US From: amsafetyc@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: saving time --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com Now that I have the full set of drawing and supplements that's the next thing on my list as far as publications to guide me through the process. "if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA for about $75". That to me was a great part of the advise cycle I have already noted and intend on ordering within the next 2 weeks, along with joining the local chapter of the EAA. I am new to this process and all ears when it comes to information, research, tips and tricks. Thanks again John -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:27:59 -0400 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy John-- if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA for about $75. These will save you time so you order the right hardware, right steel (steel has a grain direction and can't be bent across the grain.....I didn't know that when I started building) the right wood, the right stuff that will save you tons of time by not having to re-do your mistakes. Those books paid for themselves over and over again in TIME and money saved on my project. It is great to plan, to go to Brodhead, to take notes, photos, measurements, ask questions, review the archives---but this plane takes as much time to think about as it does to build. I have tons of notes, scratch pad ideas, things I would modify, change, change again, read about how to do and the actual doing took far less time than the planning so planning is good, for sure but listing materials for the plane is about one of your shorter tasks in a 3-8 year project. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 12:57:46 PM PST US From: "Phillips, Jack" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" Good point about being on a first name basis with the UPS man. I brought him down to my basement one day to show him the Piet under construction. After that he never left a package out in the rain again, but brought them up to the front porch. Another reason no list of materials exists is because most builders piecemeal it out, buying the stuff for the wings, then the fuselage, then the tail, etc, rather than all at once. I have no idea what parts I bought for mine. I've got all the invoices, and I know it tiotalled a little over $7000 (not counting the engine), but it would take me a week to compile a single list from it. If you are having it shipped, it is an advantage to order all the big stuff (spars, longerons, sheets of plywood) that has to go by truck rather than UPS all at the same time to save on shipping. It costs about $100 to ship by truck, whether it is just one spar or enough lumber to buidl three airplanes. Jack Phillips About to put my brain in neutral and order a Kit, so I can become an airplane assembler instead of a builder. -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael D Cuy Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:31 PM --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy correction---steel should be bent perpendicular to the grain (printing on the steel sheet) Funny thing about the Piet is that you just don't place one order for materials. You will be on a first name basis with the people at Wicks, your hardware source, your fabric and finishing source, and your UPS man or woman in short order while building a scratch-built plane. Mike C. _________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 01:00:39 PM PST US From: "Phillips, Jack" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: saving time --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" Buy a copy of AC 43.13B "Acceptable methods - Aircraft Inspection and Repair", too. I also found the EAA's book on aircraft welding to be useful, but you probably know more about welding than I did when I started building (my dog did). Jack Phillips Pietenpol Builder RV Assembler (soon) -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of amsafetyc@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:49 PM --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com Now that I have the full set of drawing and supplements that's the next thing on my list as far as publications to guide me through the process. "if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA for about $75". That to me was a great part of the advise cycle I have already noted and intend on ordering within the next 2 weeks, along with joining the local chapter of the EAA. I am new to this process and all ears when it comes to information, research, tips and tricks. Thanks again John -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:27:59 -0400 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy John-- if you want to save time, but the book set by Tony Bingelis thru EAA for about $75. These will save you time so you order the right hardware, right steel (steel has a grain direction and can't be bent across the grain.....I didn't know that when I started building) the right wood, the right stuff that will save you tons of time by not having to re-do your mistakes. Those books paid for themselves over and over again in TIME and money saved on my project. It is great to plan, to go to Brodhead, to take notes, photos, measurements, ask questions, review the archives---but this plane takes as much time to think about as it does to build. I have tons of notes, scratch pad ideas, things I would modify, change, change again, read about how to do and the actual doing took far less time than the planning so planning is good, for sure but listing materials for the plane is about one of your shorter tasks in a 3-8 year project. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 01:15:11 PM PST US From: HelsperSew@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airplane assemblers --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: HelsperSew@aol.com I couldn't imagine myself just "putting part "A" in slot "B". It would bore me to death. I need to exercise my brain, laying awake at night drawing imaginary parts in my mind's eye. That is the beauty and fun of the Piet. Bernard actually did us a huge favor when he left a lot of stuff out of the plans (even though I have been cussing him of late after I scrapped my second set of straight axle landing gear struts and fittings). Dan Helsper ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 01:28:48 PM PST US From: "Phillips, Jack" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane assemblers --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" I agree Dan, Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) my new bride loves to fly, as long as we're going somewhere. She doesn't care at all to just go "up", like I enjoy with the Pietenpol. If I say, "let's fly the RV-4 to..." she's out the door and climbing in the cockpit before I can even finish the sentence. I've taken her up in the Piet once and she couldn't believe how long it took to get to the end of the runway after takeoff. It couldn't have been much over a minute (6500' runway). She's used to getting wherever she wants to go at 170 knots, but she finds the RV-4 too cramped for comfortable travel. Hence my decision to build (excuse me, "assemble") an RV-10. Maybe I'll modify it and make the world's first taildragger RV-10, just so it's not exactly like 1,000 other airplanes. Don't get me wrong, she loves the Pietenpol and thinks it's a cool plane, as long as she doesn't have to sit in it very long. At least she likes to fly, which is more than I can say for wife #1 or wife #2. And she understands my need to fly a plane with no starter, no forward visibility and open cockpits. Jack Phillips -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of HelsperSew@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:14 PM --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: HelsperSew@aol.com I couldn't imagine myself just "putting part "A" in slot "B". It would bore me to death. I need to exercise my brain, laying awake at night drawing imaginary parts in my mind's eye. That is the beauty and fun of the Piet. Bernard actually did us a huge favor when he left a lot of stuff out of the plans (even though I have been cussing him of late after I scrapped my second set of straight axle landing gear struts and fittings). Dan Helsper _________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 01:58:21 PM PST US From: HelsperSew@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Assemblers --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: HelsperSew@aol.com Jack, Alright I guess I can forgive you this time, after your explanation. I also have another "going some place" airplane. My wife (#1) is not into this Pietenpol thing unfortunately. You better hang on tight to #3. Tell your wife if she ever decides to dump you to look me up. Dan H ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 02:34:48 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com In a message dated 6/21/2006 9:09:16 AM Central Standard Time, jim_markle@mindspring.com writes: According to my map it's about 37 miles..... Which means that if I were 148 miles high, it would be within gliding distance of a Pietenpol. That's considering a 4 to 1 glide ratio. Chuck G. NX770CG ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 03:36:10 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead oops --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com In a message dated 6/21/2006 4:36:04 PM Central Standard Time, Rcaprd@aol.com writes: Which means that if I were 148 miles high, it would be within gliding distance of a Pietenpol. That's considering a 4 to 1 glide ratio. Oops !! Got that backwards !! If I were 9 1/4 miles high, Brodhead would be gliding distance from Rockford. 4 to 1 glide ratio. Chuck G. ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 03:49:25 PM PST US From: "Peter W Johnson" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bill of materials --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Peter W Johnson" John, I have a list of the material I used for my Piet at http://www.cpc-world.com. Check under Services & Suppliers > Material Lists. As noted in previous emails on this thread, this is what I used for my Piet, yours may be different. It should however give you a good guide for costing etc. Cheers Peter Wonthaggi, Australia http://www.cpc-world.com -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of amsafetyc@aol.com Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2006 4:51 AM --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com Again, and not to beat a dead horse as far as the research part of this project but I need to ask. Does anyone have a good bill of materials that they would be willing to share? Something I can uses to do my cost estimates with, and locate vendors. It doesn't matter about the format, just something that will tell me how much of each size and type material I need in wood and metal, now especially the metal part as I may be close to the metal acquisition phase as soon as tomorrow afternoon. I realize its rather short notice, but I figured with the collective wisdom of the group and the opportunity presenting itself to get metal in the next day or two I would at least ask. Any basic listing would be helpful, naturally the more detail the better. If ya got anything that's close you are willing to share it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks John -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0400 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy A note of observation here is that the GN-1 design uses opposing eye bolts to attach control surfaces and the gaps are quite large compared with the Pietenpol design. Both designs need some sort of aileron seals but the Piet gaps in the tailfeathers are nothing to fuss about.....the GN-1 is another story. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________ -- No virus found in this incoming message. -- ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 04:27:36 PM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" Mike, Funny, you must have the same gene for humor as me (or vice versa) You seam to pick up on the same stuff. I was on a first name basis with the UPS driver, who would come down to the basement whenever I didn't answer the door. He followed my project to about 2/3 done. Now the next guy took over, and a couple years later is still around. walt evans NX140DL "Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you" Ben Franklin ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:30 PM >> > Funny thing about the Piet is that you just don't place one order for > materials. You will be on a first name > > basis with the people at Wicks, your hardware source, your fabric and > finishing source, and your UPS man or woman in short > > order while building a scratch-built plane. > > Mike C. > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 04:54:59 PM PST US From: "Michael Conkling" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: role call ? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Michael Conkling" The "luck of the draw"!! ;-) Brodhead is the same weekend as our community Rodeo (4 nights where the whole town working as "slave labor"!!) & my "On-call" weekend for work. I won't be up that way this year -- but will be dreaming of it!! (maybe if I camp out in the yard & play Chuck & Mike 's videos I'll feel better!! ;-) Hey Chuck G.! -- save me a copy of the "Building" DVD -- it will be for another flight exhibit! (the "Flying" DVD has my Boss starting a Wag Aero Cub !) Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 06:02:10 PM PST US From: Isablcorky@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: saving time --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com Have the set (4) of Bengelis books and will probably never open any again. $40 plus UPS if anyone is interested. Corky ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:42 PM PST US From: KMHeide Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: KMHeide Travel distance to Janesville is about 30 minutes and then another 20 minutes to Rockford. amsafetyc@aol.com wrote: --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: amsafetyc@aol.com How far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on how to combine business with passion and really need to see examples and continue the prebuild research. Thanks John -----Original Message----- Sent: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Tim Willis The Brodhead dates are Fri Jul 21-- Sun Jul 23. I plan to drive up and get there as early as possible on Friday. I will have a car for errands, supplies, beer runs, etc. I will be camping there on Friday night, but will likely move to a motel in Rockford on Saturday, for I am meeting an old friend from Chicago who says his 75-yr.-old back doesn't do air matresses any longer. That's my plan for now. Chuck Gantzer told me he was likely going up Thursday to get settled in. Oscar has told me he cannot go this year. Corky, are you thinking of going? I'll have the scotch this time. I look forward to meeting you all. Tim . Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: * ================================================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ================================================= Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-06-19.html Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-06-19.txt =============================================== EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive =============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 06/19/06: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:59 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack) 2. 06:07 AM - GN-1 Gap Seals (Mike King) 3. 08:02 AM - Re: Engine selection (Bill Church) 4. 09:36 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy) 5. 09:56 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack) 6. 10:52 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy) 7. 11:08 AM - Re: Engine selection (Steve Eldredge) 8. 11:57 AM - Engine selection (HelsperSew@aol.com) 9. 01:23 PM - Re: Engine selection (KMHeide) 10. 06:58 PM - Re: Engine selection (Dick Navratil) 11. 07:07 PM - radial eng chopper (Dick Navratil) 12. 07:16 PM - Re: Covering (Peter W Johnson) 13. 08:14 PM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:59:13 AM PST US --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a downdraft. Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated. If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area. One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before. Jack Phillips NX899JP Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM Ken Heide, Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND. For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts. Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts. When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry. However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding too much weight, of course). In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.) If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup. As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modest power. Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN _________________________________________________ or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:07:26 AM PST US BlankSay guys, I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to pla ns. That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all this talk about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planes were built. I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gap seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slight ly nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wings and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer months. As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b25ada24a7f9f2360c3efe68e69728914bc3920.gif ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:02:08 AM PST US --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church" In Graham's words: "If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.". On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th Annual Pietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with Brian Kenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HP Continental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. But he emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down as much as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so it is possible to build lighter if we really make the effort. As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately a strong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). But there were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures of and talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has been flying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it to school regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me he has about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the original covering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, and Dacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their second Piet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacron covering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as a teenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then got resurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim said it was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took great care to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleased with the results. I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download for about a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share. Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which is only five weeks away). Bill C. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 09:36:38 AM PST US --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot. Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated. Thank You Gene Pietenpol N502R ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" > > > As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. > For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or > VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of > sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a > downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on > the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' > ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a > downdraft. > > > Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated. > > > If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area. > > > One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before. > > > Jack Phillips > > NX899JP > > Raleigh, NC > > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM > > > Ken Heide, > > > Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND. > > > For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts. > > > Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts. > > > When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry. > > > However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course). > > > In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.) > > > If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup. > > > As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power. > > > Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN > > > _________________________________________________ > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the > > Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:56:46 AM PST US --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" Gene, Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL) originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson. On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and === message truncated == --------------------------------- Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. === message truncated == --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1/min. ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:45 PM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: a comment on brakes --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" Just thinking out loud here as I clean up and overhaul the brakes on 41CC. They are labeled Cessna brakes and even if they are off of the smallest modern Cessna airplane, the C150, they should be more than anyone would ever need on a Piet. The C150 has a max gross of 1600 lbs. and an empty weight of nearly more than the Piet's max gross, not to mention 100HP as standard. Should be more than adequate for holding an A65 on runup or on a full power short-field takeoff, and certainly for landing duty. Good choice, Corky. All I'm doing is cleaning, stripping paint and repainting, replacing O-rings on the wheel cylinder pistons, and replacing the aluminum brake lines with Nylaflow tubing. The aluminum kinked when the gear folded up. Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com website at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 08:03:03 PM PST US From: Isablcorky@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: a comment on brakes --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com While you are at it change the 0 rings in the cylinders. ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:34 PM PST US From: Dog67@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Buzz --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Dog67@aol.com Steve - I have an empty seat in a glastar, if you want a ride to Brodhead. Just have to leave earlier that week :) Cheers jon apfelbaum ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:24 PM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gap Seals/Prop --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" Barry, Just today put on Hall VG's from Spruce, cheapest of the various suppliers, on my Osprey. For $186 got roll of 3M electricians tape, bottle of Pliobond rubber adhesive and 46 slightly curved VG's plus 16 flat VG's (for underside tail feathers). I ended up just using the Vg's and my own polyurethane/silicone adhesive. Anyway, kinda expensive but they wind tunnelled these and give a good explanation of where to put them. I need to put them for sure on the Osprey because of the funny flight characteristics of this homebuilt and it's loss of tailfeather effectiveness with loss of power. I have a o-235 on the Piete and am kinda big (6'4"/260 lbs) for a Piete. Moved the engine out front with longer motor mount, battery forward too, for CG reasons. Think the Vg's will help the tail don't know about the stall etc. Due to the cost, think I'll make my own trial VG's for the Piete out of plastic L extrusions first, then maybe a $186 set of al from Hall. The Vg manufacturers don't do much with homebuilts regarding testing effectiveness with wind tunnelling, except Longezes and RV's. Googling "vortex generators", provide lots of info about using these on storebought planes. But the guys here in Homer swear by them on their Supercubs, etc. We'll see if the price was worth it. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:56 AM > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Barry Davis" > > I would be very interested in your experimentation on vortex generators. I > hope you keep the group informed on your progress and results. > Barry > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:22 PM > > >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" >> >> >> Mike, >> Almost all the taildraggers here on the field at Homer AK, are equipped >> with vortex generators on the underside of their horizonal stabs. Plus >> the normal ones on the wings. The guys who own these SuperCubs etc. tell >> me it makes a world of difference in the sensation of flying "uphill" all >> the time. I intend to put VG's on N-1033B when I get back down to FL. >> Maybe someone out there in Piete land has tried this too. Pipe-up if you >> have. Sorry about not being able to make it to Broadhead, but you all >> will be glad to know that the salmon are running just fine. >> Gordon Bowen >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:14 AM >> >> >> BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while >> building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built >> without them, I would like your recommendations. >> >> I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans. >> That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all >> this talk >> about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations >> from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their >> planes >> were built. >> >> I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing >> gap >> seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies >> slightly >> nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid >> changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even >> more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the >> plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the >> wings >> and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer >> months. >> >> As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly >> appreciated. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> Mike King >> GN-1 >> 77MK >> Dallas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List >> http://wiki.matronics.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:35 PM PST US From: "Mike King" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gap Seals/Prop --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike King" Gordon, Thanks for the thought. I don't know that much about vortex generators and would like to see a few pictures of your planes in Homer, AK using them. I know people say Piets and GN-1s fly like Cubs, but that is so far from the truth. I did my tailwheel checkout in a Cub before I flew my GN-1. When I flew my plane, it did NOT fly like a Cub......no glide ratio, float, etc...... When you pull the throttle, back it is going straight down. Now, I am thinking about a combination of vortex generators and/or gap seals. Thanks Gordon for the input. Best regards, Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Bowen To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gap Seals/Prop --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" Mike, Almost all the taildraggers here on the field at Homer AK, are equipped with vortex generators on the underside of their horizonal stabs. Plus the normal ones on the wings. The guys who own these SuperCubs etc. tell me it makes a world of difference in the sensation of flying "uphill" all the time. I intend to put VG's on N-1033B when I get back down to FL. Maybe someone out there in Piete land has tried this too. Pipe-up if you have. Sorry about not being able to make it to Broadhead, but you all will be glad to know that the salmon are running just fine. Gordon Bowen ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:14 AM BlankI know we have talked about gap seals in the past, generally while building our planes, but for those who have planes that were built without them, I would like your recommendations. I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans. That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all this talk about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planes were built. I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gap seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slightly nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wings and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer months. As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas