Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:40 AM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Gene Rambo)
2. 05:49 AM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Ryan Mueller)
3. 06:09 AM - Seat back ply...structural? (Michael Perez)
4. 06:23 AM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Jim Markle)
5. 06:26 AM - Re: Fuselage building for Continental engine (Ryan Mueller)
6. 06:40 AM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Ryan Mueller)
7. 06:49 AM - Re: Seat back ply...structural? (gcardinal)
8. 07:49 AM - MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (Ryan Mueller)
9. 08:25 AM - Windshields (Oscar Zuniga)
10. 08:28 AM - Windshields (Oscar Zuniga)
11. 09:40 AM - Re: Seat back ply...structural? (Michael Perez)
12. 10:33 AM - Re: [piet] Re: Off topic, but interesting (Mike Whaley)
13. 10:33 AM - Re: [piet] Re: Off topic, but interesting (Mike Whaley)
14. 11:13 AM - Re: Piet builders' workshop (Jeff Boatright)
15. 11:23 AM - Re: Re: Sport Aviation (Jeff Boatright)
16. 11:23 AM - EAA AirVenture Snub (Tim Willis)
17. 11:31 AM - Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (Jack Phillips)
18. 02:52 PM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG NGB)
19. 03:25 PM - Re: [piet] Re: Off topic, but interesting (Mike Tunnicliffe)
20. 03:41 PM - Re: Fuselage building for Continental engine (Mike Tunnicliffe)
21. 04:14 PM - Re: Fuselage building for Continental engine (Robert Ray)
22. 04:16 PM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Robert Ray)
23. 04:26 PM - Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (K5YAC)
24. 04:50 PM - Re: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (Ryan Mueller)
25. 05:16 PM - Re: totally non-Pietenpol related (Robert Ray)
26. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (helspersew@aol.com)
27. 05:51 PM - yep--it's a little bit dated--Mike Cuy's DVD is still available (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
28. 06:04 PM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Owen Davies)
29. 06:27 PM - Re: Seat back ply...structural? (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
30. 06:58 PM - Re: yep--it's a little bit dated--Mike Cuy's DVD is still available (Ryan Mueller)
31. 07:04 PM - Re: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (Ryan Mueller)
32. 07:11 PM - Re: Seat back ply...structural? (Robert Ray)
33. 07:20 PM - Re: Seat back ply...structural? (Ryan Mueller)
34. 07:35 PM - Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (Jerry Dotson)
35. 07:52 PM - Re: yep--it's a little bit dated--Mike Cuy's DVD is still avai (K5YAC)
36. 08:09 PM - Re: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (Ryan Mueller)
37. 08:09 PM - Re: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics (Ryan Mueller)
38. 08:20 PM - Re: Builders in New Jersey (Robert Ray)
39. 08:22 PM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Gene Rambo)
40. 08:39 PM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Ryan Mueller)
41. 08:47 PM - Re: Off topic, but interesting (Ryan Mueller)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
A friend of mine was one of, if not the chief designer of the Piper
Enforcer, and as I recall it was not based on a Mustang, although it
looked somewhat like one. I believe it was quite a bit smaller. He was
showing me design drawings almost from the start.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Whaley<mailto:MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
<MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com<mailto:MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>>
In an article published yesterday (9/11/09) about the new USAF
light-attack
aircraft competition (primarily concerning Boeing's OV-10X updated
Bronco)
it was mentioned that the PA-48 Enforcer was actually being entered
for
consideration! Hard to imagine the Air Force going for a WW2 fighter
design... my money's on the OV-10X, although I'm admittedly quite
biased
there :)
Maybe we could come up with a Combat Pietenpol for this... it's gotta
be
stealthy already, being made of wood and all... and it's definitely
"proven
technology". Might need a few more hardpoints, though...
Mike Whaley
MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com<mailto:MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "shad bell"
<aviatorbell@yahoo.com<mailto:aviatorbell@yahoo.com>>
To:
<pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:27 AM
Subject: [piet] Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
Guys, did you know Piper built a modified version of the P-51 mustang?
It
was designed for a counter insurgency program called COIN in 1970. It
had a
big turboprop longer wings etc etc. Never was bought by the air force
so it
is still designated the PA 48 Enforcer. 4 were built and one just
happens to
be at Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton. Google it for some
photos, and more info, a really neat piece of "I bet ya didn't know"
information.
Sorry to be off topic, But I learned that after watching Waldo pepper
at our
EAA meeting the other night.
Shad
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
Your friend must be thinking of some other aircraft. That, or the folks at
Dayton (and many other sources) are incorrect:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614
Insofar as it being smaller, not so much. Here's a P-51Ds basic
measurements:
Length: 32.25'
Wingspan: 37.04'
Height: 13.67'
And the P-48:
Length: 34.17'
Wingspan: 41.33'
Height: 13.08'
As you can see, the P-48 is not quite 2" longer and has a wingspan that's a
hair over 4' longer (per the tip tanks, I would think). As far being 1/2"
shorter, I can't account for that. Since it is based on a P-51 it's an old
airframe...as we age we're supposed to become a little bit shorter; maybe
that's it. :P
The Enforcer itself was not a clean sheet design by Piper. It was a product
of the people at Cavalier Aircraft, the Mustang conversion people. It was an
evolution of their Mustang II, an extensively modified P-51 that was
exported to various countries for use in counter-insurgency/CAS roles. They
called it the Turbo Mustang III, with the major mod to it being the
installation of a Rolls Royce Dart turboprop. They never got anywhere trying
to sell it to the military, so they sold the design to Piper. Piper
reengined the design with a Lycoming T-55 and named it the P-48 Enforcer.
I would be very surprised if the P-48 were to receive even remote
consideration in the USAF competition. Maybe they are only looking at
drawings and specs at this point, and not actual aircraft; there are no
flying P-48s. How Piper would produce one in this economy is a bit
mind-boggling. They may have production equipment and drawings for all of
the conversion parts that Cavalier designed, but they shouldn't have any
tooling to produce a basic airframe with. Cavalier never produced airframes;
they were scarfing up surplus Mustangs in the 60s, and building all of their
various models of aircraft off of the basic Mustang airframe. It was
obviously modified, extensively with some models, but it was the starting
point. Don't get me wrong, if Piper wants to engineer tooling and equipment
to start producing brand new P-51 Mustang airframes you won't find me
complaining....just sounds a little ridiculous to me. :P
Have a good morning everyone!
Ryan
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
> A friend of mine was one of, if not the chief designer of the Piper
> Enforcer, and as I recall it was not based on a Mustang, although it looked
> somewhat like one. I believe it was quite a bit smaller. He was showing me
> design drawings almost from the start.
>
> Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mike Whaley <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:40 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>
>
> In an article published yesterday (9/11/09) about the new USAF light-attack
> aircraft competition (primarily concerning Boeing's OV-10X updated Bronco)
> it was mentioned that the PA-48 Enforcer was actually being entered for
> consideration! Hard to imagine the Air Force going for a WW2 fighter
> design... my money's on the OV-10X, although I'm admittedly quite biased
> there :)
>
> Maybe we could come up with a Combat Pietenpol for this... it's gotta be
> stealthy already, being made of wood and all... and it's definitely "proven
> technology". Might need a few more hardpoints, though...
>
> Mike Whaley
> MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "shad bell" <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:27 AM
> Subject: [piet] Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>
>
> Guys, did you know Piper built a modified version of the P-51 mustang? It
> was designed for a counter insurgency program called COIN in 1970. It had a
> big turboprop longer wings etc etc. Never was bought by the air force so it
> is still designated the PA 48 Enforcer. 4 were built and one just happens
> to
> be at Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton. Google it for some
> photos, and more info, a really neat piece of "I bet ya didn't know"
> information.
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Seat back ply...structural? |
All right crew, here is another one for ya...seat back plywood...are these
pieces of plywood a required structural part of the fuselage, or in theory,
would it be OK to remove them all together?- I am thinking more along th
e lines of a frame and some fabric as opposed to a solid piece of wood. Sti
ll in the planning stage, so I need to know if the solid plywood NEEDS to b
e there.
-
Thanks in advance.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
Hardpoints for a Piet? Some of the initial design is already done.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Whaley <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
>Sent: Sep 12, 2009 10:40 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>
............
>
>Maybe we could come up with a Combat Pietenpol for this... it's gotta be
>stealthy already, being made of wood and all... and it's definitely "proven
>technology". Might need a few more hardpoints, though...
>
>Mike Whaley
>MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage building for Continental engine |
You keep referring to your epoxy, the epoxy you are using, etc....are you
using T-88? Just curious,
Ryan
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Robert Ray <rray032003@gmail.com> wrote:
> No I'm very concerned about the heat resistance of my epoxy <snip>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
Another fine design leaked out of the infamous Zuniga 'Flying
Squirrelworks', it would appear....
do not archive
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Jim Markle <jim_markle@mindspring.com>wrote:
> Hardpoints for a Piet? Some of the initial design is already done.....
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat back ply...structural? |
Yes, the plywood seatbacks need to be in place. They prevent the
fuselage from racking laterally.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Perez
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 8:08 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
All right crew, here is another one for ya...seat back
plywood...are these pieces of plywood a required structural part of the
fuselage, or in theory, would it be OK to remove them all together? I
am thinking more along the lines of a frame and some fabric as opposed
to a solid piece of wood. Still in the planning stage, so I need to know
if the solid plywood NEEDS to be there.
Thanks in advance.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
The other really cool event to take place at Brodhead is the yearly
Grassroots MAAC (Midwest Antique Airplane Club) fly-in. My first time at
Brodhead a number of years ago was for the MAAC fly-in, only after that did
I find out about the Piet fly-in.
We spent Saturday at the airfield. It was a beautiful day with all kinds of
great antique/classic aircraft. I put up a few of the pics we took on
Flickr....you can find them here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmueller23/sets/72157622355867566/
Ryan
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Raymond;
One idea you might try if you like the look of the
3-piece windshield but don't want to go to all the
trouble. I have not done this but have heard it
can be done.
Take a piece of Lexan and cold-bend it at the corners
where the 3-piece windshield would normally have a
joint. Shaping a single piece of Lexan should be
easier than fitting three pieces together and you
should be able to make a template by starting out
with a piece of cardboard or stiff posterboard to
get the contours at the bottom to follow the curves
of the boot cowlings. Cut out your polycarbonate
sheet to match the template and then put it in a
brake and bend it.
Once it's all shaped the way you want it, you can
even make it look like a 3-piece by attaching bent
pieces of aluminum at the edges and joints with rivets
or screws.
Again, I have not cold-bent polycarbonate myself but
I understand that it can be done. Also be aware that
polycarbonate is not friendly with some fuels and
it may cloud or craze if you get avgas on it.
As far as the height of the windshield, don't skimp
on it. Sitting straight up in the seat your eyes
should be looking over the top edge but if you need
to hunker down a bit, make sure you can get your face
down out of the wind without hunching over. The
windshields on 41CC are about right in my opinion;
you can sort of get an idea of the height of mine
relative to the underside of the centersection here:
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/repairs/P7090010.JPG
I even thought that a fake 4-piece could be made but
now you're talking much more work.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Raymond; there are plenty of other pix of the
windshields on the westcoast piet site, but as
another example of just about the right height,
here's Steve/Andrew Eldredge's Piet with people
sitting in both cockpits so you get an idea of
the geometry:
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/SteveE.jpg
I believe DJ may have extended the cabanes just
a bit taller than stock on your airplane, so
"your mileage may vary" ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat back ply...structural? |
Copy Greg, just wanted to be sure.
--- On Sun, 9/13/09, gcardinal <gcardinal@comcast.net> wrote:
From: gcardinal <gcardinal@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Yes, the plywood seatbacks need to be in place. They prevent the fuselage f
rom racking laterally.
-
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Perez
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 8:08 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
All right crew, here is another one for ya...seat back plywood...are these
pieces of plywood a required structural part of the fuselage, or in theory,
would it be OK to remove them all together?- I am thinking more along th
e lines of a frame and some fabric as opposed to a solid piece of wood. Sti
ll in the planning stage, so I need to know if the solid plywood NEEDS to b
e there.
-
Thanks in advance.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
Piper's been advertising heavily for engineers and production folks lately,
ostensibly for the PiperJet... but who knows. If Mr. Beck could build a
homebuilt P-51, I'm sure that a major aircraft company could reproduce one
given the right financial incentive. Although, I agree the Air Force will
never, ever go for it... there's a bit of a "status" issue with overseas
military sales as well, most nations who would need such a plane also have a
(purely political) need to be seen as "advanced" and would rather buy 5
modern fighters to brag about to their people and surrounding countries,
than 100 Korean-era types that would actually better meet their true needs
and budget.
Of course (how's this for keeping it relevant) we Pieters have none of that.
We know that a couple of Pietenpols can easily out-match any modern fighter
in the world. They can't see the stealthy natural-composite airframe well on
radar, and better, it's visually unintrusive and therefore can sneak into
enemy territory without raising any suspicion from ground-based observers.
Once in the target area, we can drop incredible amounts of ordinance near
the target... advanced versions with an experienced pilot can, as you know,
reliably place up to 40 pounds of watermelons per mission, and you can count
on them falling within 500 feet of the target with over 75% reliability. The
trade-off being that you just need a very slightly longer lead time for
repositioning your strike force to the general area of the target (it rarely
takes more than 12 weeks to get to any combat zome on earth, so it's not too
big of a deal.) The F-22, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and Graf Zeppelin admittedly
do have slight speed advantages... but even counting the extra time to get
there, the Mighty Combat Piet can get fruit on target for orders of
magnitude fewer dollars and personnel. When you factor in the rest of the
logistics of each aircraft system, the real limiting factors aren't the
military suppply-chain bureaucracy but whether FedEx or UPS has the cheaper
shipping, and for major repairs, the distance to the nearest maintenance
outlet (such as Home Depot).
How could they NOT pick the Piet for this? If they don't, they're NUTS!
Mike Whaley
MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Mueller" <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 8:49 AM
Subject: [piet] Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
> Your friend must be thinking of some other aircraft. That, or the folks at
> Dayton (and many other sources) are incorrect:
>
> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614
>
> Insofar as it being smaller, not so much. Here's a P-51Ds basic
> measurements:
>
> Length: 32.25'
> Wingspan: 37.04'
> Height: 13.67'
>
> And the P-48:
>
> Length: 34.17'
> Wingspan: 41.33'
> Height: 13.08'
>
> As you can see, the P-48 is not quite 2" longer and has a wingspan that's
a
> hair over 4' longer (per the tip tanks, I would think). As far being 1/2"
> shorter, I can't account for that. Since it is based on a P-51 it's an old
> airframe...as we age we're supposed to become a little bit shorter; maybe
> that's it. :P
>
> The Enforcer itself was not a clean sheet design by Piper. It was a
product
> of the people at Cavalier Aircraft, the Mustang conversion people. It was
an
> evolution of their Mustang II, an extensively modified P-51 that was
> exported to various countries for use in counter-insurgency/CAS roles.
They
> called it the Turbo Mustang III, with the major mod to it being the
> installation of a Rolls Royce Dart turboprop. They never got anywhere
trying
> to sell it to the military, so they sold the design to Piper. Piper
> reengined the design with a Lycoming T-55 and named it the P-48 Enforcer.
>
> I would be very surprised if the P-48 were to receive even remote
> consideration in the USAF competition. Maybe they are only looking at
> drawings and specs at this point, and not actual aircraft; there are no
> flying P-48s. How Piper would produce one in this economy is a bit
> mind-boggling. They may have production equipment and drawings for all of
> the conversion parts that Cavalier designed, but they shouldn't have any
> tooling to produce a basic airframe with. Cavalier never produced
airframes;
> they were scarfing up surplus Mustangs in the 60s, and building all of
their
> various models of aircraft off of the basic Mustang airframe. It was
> obviously modified, extensively with some models, but it was the starting
> point. Don't get me wrong, if Piper wants to engineer tooling and
equipment
> to start producing brand new P-51 Mustang airframes you won't find me
> complaining....just sounds a little ridiculous to me. :P
>
> Have a good morning everyone!
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > A friend of mine was one of, if not the chief designer of the Piper
> > Enforcer, and as I recall it was not based on a Mustang, although it
looked
> > somewhat like one. I believe it was quite a bit smaller. He was
showing me
> > design drawings almost from the start.
> >
> > Gene
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Mike Whaley <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
> > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:40 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
> >
<MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
> >
> > In an article published yesterday (9/11/09) about the new USAF
light-attack
> > aircraft competition (primarily concerning Boeing's OV-10X updated
Bronco)
> > it was mentioned that the PA-48 Enforcer was actually being entered for
> > consideration! Hard to imagine the Air Force going for a WW2 fighter
> > design... my money's on the OV-10X, although I'm admittedly quite biased
> > there :)
> >
> > Maybe we could come up with a Combat Pietenpol for this... it's gotta be
> > stealthy already, being made of wood and all... and it's definitely
"proven
> > technology". Might need a few more hardpoints, though...
> >
> > Mike Whaley
> > MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "shad bell" <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:27 AM
> > Subject: [piet] Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Guys, did you know Piper built a modified version of the P-51 mustang?
It
> > was designed for a counter insurgency program called COIN in 1970. It
had a
> > big turboprop longer wings etc etc. Never was bought by the air force so
it
> > is still designated the PA 48 Enforcer. 4 were built and one just
happens
> > to
> > be at Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton. Google it for some
> > photos, and more info, a really neat piece of "I bet ya didn't know"
> > information.
> >
> >
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
> my daytime job is restoring one, the DH 98 Mosquito fighter / bomber.
> Regards Mike T.
Geeez, THEY pay YOU for that? Some guys just have all the luck.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Piet builders' workshop |
I will try to fly to any Piet get together. Sign me up, whether it's
"Remember the Alamo!", "Georgia on my mind", "Surf's up, dude!", or
even "On Wisconsin!" (or should that last one be "Uff da, brats are
on, dude!".
>
>Now if we can just get some of those northern piets to come south to
>georgia or texas we could have some great fun. I have been to C37 3
>times and it is great and they do a wonderful job. I suggest
>Carrolton, Ga. because the have a great facility. That is where the
>Big Piet buillders are . I am just south of there in Lagrange, and
>besides me there are two others building. How about it pieters? Any
>other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. PS I am getting
>tired of trying to read some of the listings. Is that what they call
>texting? Or do some of the listers are just trying to be funny? I
>don't understand half of it since I am kind of slow. Cheers,
>Gardiner Mason. "GEORGIA ON MY MIND"
>
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport Aviation |
Jack,
That was a great letter. I hope they do discuss it a EAA HQ. I'm a
trustee in a big research organization and am lucky enough to help
run a few other things. The type of letter you wrote is what ends up
getting discussed A LOT in our organizations because you make it so
clear that you walk the walk and don't just talk the talk. You had a
legitimate beef and you presented in exactly that way. No whining, no
bragging, and no threats. You identified the problem, in detail,
noted your expectations, and made suggestions. That's probably one of
the most effective letters I've seen in a long time. Good job and
thanks from someone who agrees with you 100% on this.
Jeff
>
>After that mixup in the Homebuilt Review, I wrote the following letter to
>Tom Poberezny:
>
>Tom Poberezny
>President, Experimental Aircraft Association
>P.O. Box 3086
>Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086
> August 3rd,
>2009
>Dear Mr. Poberezny,
>
>I am writing this letter out of concern for the Experimental Aircraft
>Association. Last year, EAA went to some lengths to survey the membership
>to find out how the members feel about the direction the organization is
>heading. The improvements to the Airventure grounds at Oshkosh that
>resulted from that survey were well thought-out and much appreciated. I
>understand that one of the results of the survey was that EAA should try to
>get back to its roots in homebuilding aircraft. I applauded this news, as
>I'm sure did a majority of the membership.
>
>I'm concerned because I don't see the organization following through with
>its promises. Even though the EAA has said it would put more emphasis on
>homebuilding, Homebuilts and homebuilders still seem to be taking a back
>seat to high-dollar corporate sponsors.
>
>Last week I flew my Pietenpol Air Camper 700 miles from North Carolina to
>Oshkosh. The trip took me 3 days (one entire day trying to get over the
>mountains in Virginia). The primary reason I flew the Pietenpol up was that
>I had been invited by Joe Norris to fly my plane in the Homebuilt Review.
>On Wednesday I attended the flyby briefing, then taxied down to the end of
>36L with 18 other homebuilts to have our 12 minutes (of the nearly two hour
>pre-airshow festivities) of Homebuilt Review. However, once down at the end
>of the runway, we were told that only 10 of the 19 could fly - the Homebuilt
>Review was being cut short. There were three Pietenpols there, to celebrate
>the 80th anniversary of the type. We had to flip a coin and the odd man out
>(which was me) did not get to fly.
>
>I was very disappointed, but then became disgusted when I saw what was
>flying after the Homebuilt Review, that presumably caused our flight time to
>be cut short - the ill-timed market entry of the Piper Jet. It is unclear
>to me what that has to do with experimental aircraft. Once again, EAA has
>demonstrated that what matters most is money. Homebuilders (particularly
>plans-builders) don't generate much in the way of sponsorship dollars, so we
>get scant attention at what used to be OUR convention.
>
>I understand that you have expressed interest in stepping down as President
>of the organization, but will retain your position as Chairman of the Board.
>I think that you have done a tremendous amount of good in your tenure,
>expanding the association to encompass virtually all of sport aviation. I
>am particularly thankful for the development of the Young Eagles program.
>However I would like to suggest that one of the requirements for your
>successor should be that he/she had actually built an experimental aircraft,
>preferably from plans (having built the Pietenpol from plans and currently
>building an RV-10 kit, I can say that the plans-building experience is much
>richer). I think this much is owed to the organization, since it is still
>the EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft Association.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Jack Phillips
>EAA 81225 (Tech Counselor for Chapter 1114, Young Eagle Horizon Award 2003)
>Pietenpol NX899JP (winner of Outstanding Workmanship Award at AirVenture
>2005)
>
>cc: Adam Smith, Joe Norris, Mary Jones
>
>
>To my great surprise, I received an email from Tom (I had mailed the letter,
>without my email address, so he had to do some searching to find it):
>
>Jack,
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful letter of August 3rd concerning EAA, its future,
>and your attendance at AirVenture Oshkosh. I appreciate your candid
>comments and your thoughts concerning the next president of the
>organization. Your comments concerning my efforts are appreciated, and at
>the same time I'd like to recognize the fact that we need to continue to do
>better. My response if also share with Mary Jones, Adam Smith, and Joe
>Norris. Your letter will be discussed at one of our upcoming meetings.
>Please know that your thoughts are important.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom
>
>
>Tom Poberezny, EAA #40000
>Chairman of the Board & President
>EAA-The Spirit of Aviation
>Phone: 920.426.4810
>Fax: 920.426.4878
>
>www.eaa.org
>
> See you at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh-July 26-August 1, 2010
>
>Maybe now that we have a real Pietenpol Builder in the form of Barry Davis
>on the EAA Board of Directors, we can make this idea stick. I do think it
>is somewhat ridiculous that the President of the Experimental Aircraft
>Association has never built an airplane - not even an RV.
>
>Jack Phillips
>NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
>Raleigh, NC
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church
>Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 12:49 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Sport Aviation
>
>
>Seems like somebody's forgotten what the letters in the name stand for. The
>"E" in EAA does not stand for Expensive, or Executive, but rather, it stands
>for EXPERIMENTAL. By definition, that means that it is NOT certified,
>factory-built (although, maybe in the case of the new "skycrasher" there is
>a factory-built plane that does seem to be experimental). The focus
>definitely seems to be on factory-built planes more than on homebuilts, and
>that doesn't seem right, given the name and mandate of the organization. I
>realize that the vast majority of aviation enthusiasts out there likely have
>no interest in or desire to build (or assemble) their own plane, and would
>much rather buy (or just look at) something shiny and "off the shelf" - and
>as a business, the EAA needs to cater to their customers, but honestly, the
>virtual sea of 172s and Bonanzas and whatever else was parked up at the
>North end just puts me to sleep. Having said that, this year was my first
>visit to Oshkosh, an!
> d I did enjoy myself. There was a lot of stuff there that was NOT connected
>to homebuilts that I DID find interesting and entertaining, and I did not
>manage to see everything I wanted to in the three days I was there, so it
>ain't all bad, that's for sure. It is definitely the only place in the world
>where you would get to see all that they have to offer - incredible daily
>airshows, free hands-on workshops, hundreds of Vintage and Warbird aircraft,
>in addition to the Homebuilts, and the unique and rare planes that Oshkosh
>can bring (Airbus 380, White Knight 2, Lancaster bomber... to name a few).
>Airventure is a massive undertaking, and they do a fantastic job of
>co-ordinating the throngs of people and planes that converge on one small
>place for only one week of the year.
>It just seems that the very reason for EAA's existance has gotten lost in
>the shuffle. It's supposed to be about experimental aviation. I'm going to
>play the role of an optimist, and assume that the reason there wasn't an
>article about the Pietenpol anniversary in the latest issue was because
>they're working on a special tribute for an upcoming issue, and they needed
>a bit more time to give it the attention it deserves.
>
>Bill C.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262592#262592
>
>
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EAA AirVenture Snub |
Jack Phillips, your letter to the EAA is excellent in all respects. Moreover,
you have captured not only your own frustration, but the frustration of many EAAers,
and esp. us Pieters. Thanks.
Tim in central TX
do not archive
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
Great pics, Ryan - thanks for sharing. One of these days I'll manage to get
to Brodhead for Grassroots.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics
The other really cool event to take place at Brodhead is the yearly
Grassroots MAAC (Midwest Antique Airplane Club) fly-in. My first time at
Brodhead a number of years ago was for the MAAC fly-in, only after that did
I find out about the Piet fly-in.
We spent Saturday at the airfield. It was a beautiful day with all kinds of
great antique/classic aircraft. I put up a few of the pics we took on
Flickr....you can find them here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmueller23/sets/72157622355867566/
Ryan
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
the Bell XP-77 is one of my favorites that might make a great WW II homebuilt replica.
Small, Wood, It only had a 500 HP motor and looks cool.
Blue Skies,
Steve Dortch
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
It's a tough job but someone has to do it, seriously I consider myself
lucky, check out www.mosquitorestoration.com
Regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: [piet] Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>
>> my daytime job is restoring one, the DH 98 Mosquito fighter / bomber.
>> Regards Mike T.
>
> Geeez, THEY pay YOU for that? Some guys just have all the luck.
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage building for Continental engine |
Hi Russel, rescorcinol adhesives are much more heat tolerant than epoxy
and could be used in the firewall area, however the engine mounts bolt
through the fuse longerons and I think if the heat were sufficiently
high and for long enough to seriously weaken the epoxy bond you would
find the cockpit untenable.
regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Ray
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage building for Continental engine
No I'm very concerned about the heat resistance of my epoxy and the
temperature that it burns, it is a thermal plastic
and when it catches it burns like gasoline so as I said before I am
very critical of the epoxy in the areas of the firewall
and with good reason. I have tested it in the oven and there is a
reason also that most fiberglass airplanes are painted
white, there is a reason that epoxy must be reinforced with screws in
construction in areas such as attics where there
is high heat. T-88 probably has the best heat resistance but then
again if there is a high quality glue that has better
heat resistance in the area of the fire wall then I will use it on my
plane.
Russell
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com>
wrote:
Excellent points from Ryan. When in doubt, refer to the plans.
On another point...
I think that if you are in a wooden, fabric covered airplane that
catches fire, the least of your worries is going to be "I sure hope my
epoxy stands up to this heat".
BC
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage building for Continental engine |
Raka epoxy, everywhere except the firewall.
It'a a marine epoxy for building boats similar to west system's, it's two to
one mix and the slow
is very slow will let you presoak your wood, I mix silica in some joints
some
get ground fiberglass and silica, depends on how much gap fill, I have built
campers
boats and trailers out of it and I already had the epoxy on had and that is
what I will use.
It however begins to creep at 160 to 170 degrees.
Russell
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
> You keep referring to your epoxy, the epoxy you are using, etc....are you
> using T-88? Just curious,
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Robert Ray <rray032003@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No I'm very concerned about the heat resistance of my epoxy <snip>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
The Russian built fighters weren't bad, they were not up to the Folkwolf or
p-51 but they were not bad,
also the Germans wanted a wooden fighter to take on the Mosquito but the
Britished bombed there glue factory.
Regards russell
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Mike Tunnicliffe <zk-owl@clear.net.nz>wrote:
> Hi, the British actually did, and it was one of the most successfull
> designs of the war, my daytime job is restoring one, the DH 98 Mosquito
> fighter / bomber.
> Regards Mike T.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Robert Ray <rray032003@gmail.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2009 4:33 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>
> Another interesting fact is that the US had plans to build wooden fighters
> in WW-2 in the event of invasion and our steel and aluminum supplies
> were cut off we could still get a plane in the air.
>
> Russell
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Mike Whaley <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>wrote:
>
>> MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
>>
>> In an article published yesterday (9/11/09) about the new USAF
>> light-attack
>> aircraft competition (primarily concerning Boeing's OV-10X updated Bronco)
>> it was mentioned that the PA-48 Enforcer was actually being entered for
>> consideration! Hard to imagine the Air Force going for a WW2 fighter
>> design... my money's on the OV-10X, although I'm admittedly quite biased
>> there :)
>>
>> Maybe we could come up with a Combat Pietenpol for this... it's gotta be
>> stealthy already, being made of wood and all... and it's definitely
>> "proven
>> technology". Might need a few more hardpoints, though...
>>
>> Mike Whaley
>> MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "shad bell" <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
>> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:27 AM
>> Subject: [piet] Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Guys, did you know Piper built a modified version of the P-51 mustang? It
>> was designed for a counter insurgency program called COIN in 1970. It had
>> a
>> big turboprop longer wings etc etc. Never was bought by the air force so
>> it
>> is still designated the PA 48 Enforcer. 4 were built and one just happens
>> to
>> be at Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton. Google it for some
>> photos, and more info, a really neat piece of "I bet ya didn't know"
>> information.
>>
>> Sorry to be off topic, But I learned that after watching Waldo pepper at
>> our
>> EAA meeting the other night.
>>
>> st Un/Subscription,
>> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ====
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
Neato pics! Thanks for sharing.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262836#262836
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
Jack and Mark,
You are welcome! Only a couple Piets this year. Rob Bach had his Piet, which
I believe he was delivering to the new owner, a tall, lanky older gentleman.
Sad that Rob sold it, but then if I recall Rob is building a small Piet air
force up in Burlington...more $ for new Piets. Kurt Shipman had his Piet
there, as he said he would. Looks just as nice, but now sports a snap on
front cockpit cover. I still cannot manage to meet the man at a fly-in. Two
Grassroots and a Piet fly-in I have photographed his airplane, and still
cannot manage to speak to him. :P
We talked to John for a bit around lunchtime, but unfortunately he had
official business to get back to (that happens when you are one of the
muckety mucks), so we didn't get to visit too long. Mike C, John says hi!.
:P
We found Doc Mosher towards early evening at the pavilion, and spent at
least 45 minutes listening to some of his always interesting stories. That
was a highlight of our time there. I did notice something; we walked past
Bill Knight's hangar, and it happened to be open. There was only one
aircraft in there (I think a Taylorcraft). The 'Last Original' was not
there, and I never saw it all day long so I don't think it was out flying.
Has anybody heard anything of it lately? Down for maintenance/restoration,
or did Bill sell it? I would have talked to Bill, but we didn't run into
him.
All in all it was an absolutely beautiful day at a special airport. Good
people, neat airplanes....it makes ya wonder how anyone could not love this.
Thankfully we know a few people who do....
Have a good night everyone,
Ryan
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:26 PM, K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Neato pics! Thanks for sharing.
>
> --------
> Mark - working on wings
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: totally non-Pietenpol related |
Yes that Piegeon could carry severaL
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com>wrote:
> Forget about 3G and 4G.
> Maybe what you need is 1P.
>
> check this out:
>
>
> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94606-Carrier-Pigeon-Beats-Internet-in-South-Africa
>
> Sometimes the old-fashioned things are better than the new stuff - which
> actually makes this Pietenpol related, in a roundabout sort of way.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> <http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94606-Carrier-Pigeon-Beats-Internet-in-South-Africa>
>
>
> **
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
I was working in my hangar this morning early, when I heard a very unusual sound
in the sky (living here at Poplar Grove, you only come out to look if it sounds
unusual). When I looked up, I saw, at about 300 feet, the?fully restored Pitcairn
Autogyro that had just left the MAAC Brodhead fly-in. Sloooow airspeed,
rotor going so slow you could swear you could track it with your eyes.... WAP
WAP WAP like something you have never heard. What a treat!! It may be the only
time I ever see such a thing. Then the next thing you know, a Lockheed 10 doing
a high-speed passs about 6 feet above the runway!!!???? ?"Is this heaven?......................no,
it's Poplar Grove".
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 13, 2009 6:49 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics
Jack and Mark,
You are welcome! Only a couple Piets this year. Rob Bach had his Piet, which I
believe he was delivering to the new owner, a tall, lanky older gentleman. Sad
that Rob sold it, but then if I recall Rob is building a small Piet air force
up in Burlington...more $ for new Piets. Kurt Shipman had his Piet there, as
he said he would. Looks just as nice, but now sports a snap on front cockpit cover.
I still cannot manage to meet the man at a fly-in. Two Grassroots and a
Piet fly-in I have photographed his airplane, and still cannot manage to speak
to him. :P
We talked to John for a bit around lunchtime, but unfortunately he had official
business to get back to (that happens when you are one of the muckety mucks),
so we didn't get to visit too long. Mike C, John says hi!. :P
We found Doc Mosher towards early evening at the pavilion, and spent at least 45
minutes listening to some of his always interesting stories. That was a highlight
of our time there. I did notice something; we walked past Bill Knight's
hangar, and it happened to be open. There was only one aircraft in there (I think
a Taylorcraft). The 'Last Original' was not there, and I never saw it all
day long so I don't think it was out flying. Has anybody heard anything of it
lately? Down for maintenance/restoration, or did Bill sell it? I would have talked
to Bill, but we didn't run into him.
All in all it was an absolutely beautiful day at a special airport. Good people,
neat airplanes....it makes ya wonder how anyone could not love this. Thankfully
we know a few people who do....
Have a good night everyone,
Ryan
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:26 PM, K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net> wrote:
Neato pics! ?Thanks for sharing.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | yep--it's a little bit dated--Mike Cuy's DVD is still |
available
But my video (now actually on DVD !) is available for $25 which includes Priority
Mail Shipping the NEXT DAY after I get
your check or money order--- I trust you idfidels--- I don't even wait for the
checks to bounce......
Michael Cuy
298 Runn Street
Berea, OH
44017
2.5 housr of me building, flying, telling old wives tales, some views of old Brodhead
fly-in's my 1st flight, wings, other
Pietenpols, GN-1's (gasp) and more. It won't tell you how to glue a toothpick
to a spar but if you want I'll make a video about that.
The video is a mix of building tips, fun flying scenes, other Pietenpols and how
other people did certain things and things I learned NOT to do
or things that might save you a bit of time an money. The DVD I sell IS DATED....but
most of the info you'll need that is Corvair or Piet
specific is readily available on the web. If you're too stupid to Google that
info, don't send me any money.
Mike C.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG NGB wrote:
> the Bell XP-77 is one of my favorites that might make a great WW II homebuilt
replica. Small, Wood, It only had a 500 HP motor and looks cool.
I thought about that project once, too, and it still appeals to me. (Not
that I'll get to fly one as an LSA!) But I understand that the prototype
went in owing to aerodynamic problems. Do you have any details?
Owen
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Seat back ply...structural? |
Mike--- do NOT REMOVE THE plywood that the seat makes up--- this is a former in
the fuselage ! Keeps things square-- just like a rubber band model
airplane when the torque from the rubber band wants to twist the daylights out
of the fuselage---keep the plywood.
Okay-- you have all of my photos. You've seen my airplane. I have a fold-down
seat BUT I FRAMED IN THE SEAT with poplar all the way around very
heavily to keep that reinforcement going and you should too. Don't mess with
something so viably structural (tho I did !) and keep the integrity
going back to the tail.
The last thing you want is for your tail to twist off at the back side of your
butt in flight when you hit some severe CAT ! (Clear air turbulence)
Don't be so worried about saving weight like this as to jepordize your safety man
!!!!!!
Build to the plans-- modify to suit but don't be doing things so radical such as
leaving out the back seat former !
Mike C.
PS-- even with what I did I STILL came out at 632 pounds empty weight-- which is
considered pretty light for a 3-pce wing Piet. Don't skimp on your life to
save 1.2 pounds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: yep--it's a little bit dated--Mike Cuy's DVD is still |
available
Dated it is....good old VHS quality in the era of hi-def. And the guy that
narrates it? Well...David McCullough he is not. But thankfully he built a
beautiful airplane, and he shares plenty of knowledge in his movie.
If you don't have Mike's DVD...well, as my DI's used to say: 'You are
wrong!'
Ryan
P.S.: Mike is actually one of the most quality people you could ever hope to
have in your life. Why haven't you sent him a check yet?
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace
Corporation] <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov> wrote:
> Aerospace Corporation]" <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
>
>
> But my video (now actually on DVD !) is available for $25 which includes
> Priority Mail Shipping the NEXT DAY after I get
> your check or money order--- I trust you idfidels--- I don't even wait for
> the checks to bounce......
>
> Michael Cuy
> 298 Runn Street
> Berea, OH
> 44017
>
>
> 2.5 housr of me building, flying, telling old wives tales, some views of
> old Brodhead fly-in's my 1st flight, wings, other
> Pietenpols, GN-1's (gasp) and more. It won't tell you how to glue a
> toothpick to a spar but if you want I'll make a video about that.
>
> The video is a mix of building tips, fun flying scenes, other Pietenpols
> and how other people did certain things and things I learned NOT to do
> or things that might save you a bit of time an money. The DVD I sell IS
> DATED....but most of the info you'll need that is Corvair or Piet
> specific is readily available on the web. If you're too stupid to Google
> that info, don't send me any money.
>
>
> Mike C.
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
Dan does bear the unfortunate burden of living at Poplar Grove Airport. Here
is a small taste of what he saw on Sunday morning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTMs397HWMA
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:26 PM, <helspersew@aol.com> wrote:
> I was working in my hangar this morning early, when I heard a *very*unusual sound
in the sky (living here at Poplar Grove, you only come out to
> look if it sounds unusual). When I looked up, I saw, at about 300 feet,
> the fully restored Pitcairn Autogyro that had just left the MAAC Brodhead
> fly-in. Sloooow airspeed, rotor going so slow you could swear you could
> track it with your eyes.... WAP WAP WAP like something you have never heard.
> What a treat!! It may be the only time I ever see such a thing. Then the
> next thing you know, a Lockheed 10 doing a high-speed passs about 6 feet
> above the runway!!! "Is this heaven?......................no, it's
> Poplar Grove".
>
> Dan Helsper
> Poplar Grove, IL.
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat back ply...structural? |
*My vote is no don't do it, as Mr. Pietenpol would say you'll have the wings
hanging*
*down like a sow's ear!*
*The seat back adds strength with out extra weight, holds the fuse square *
*and the front seat is the attach point for the rear strut which also has a
support*
*wire running to the front strut. The front seat is attached to the ash
members*
*it seems to me to change this you would have to totally redesign. *
**
**
*Russell*
**
**
**
**
**
**
*Monocoque*, from Greek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language> for
single (*mono*) and French for shell (*coque*), is a construction technique
that supports structural load by using an object's external skin as opposed
to using an internal frame or truss
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss>that is then covered with a
non-load-bearing skin. Monocoque construction
was first widely used in aircraft <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft> in
the 1930s. *Structural skin* or *stressed skin* are other terms for the same
concept.
*Unibody*, or *unitary construction*, is a related construction technique
for automobiles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile> in which the body
is integrated into a single unit with the
chassis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chassis>rather than having a
separate
body-on-frame <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body-on-frame>. The welded "Unit
Body" is the predominant automobile construction technology today.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> All right crew, here is another one for ya...seat back plywood...are
> these pieces of plywood a required structural part of the fuselage, or in
> theory, would it be OK to remove them all together? I am thinking more
> along the lines of a frame and some fabric as opposed to a solid piece of
> wood. Still in the planning stage, so I need to know if the solid plywood
> NEEDS to be there.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat back ply...structural? |
Unfortunately, Russ, a Pietenpol is neither monocoque or unibody.....
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Robert Ray <rray032003@gmail.com> wrote:
> *My vote is no don't do it, as Mr. Pietenpol would say you'll have the
> wings hanging*
> *down like a sow's ear!*
> *The seat back adds strength with out extra weight, holds the fuse square
> *
> *and the front seat is the attach point for the rear strut which also has
> a support*
> *wire running to the front strut. The front seat is attached to the ash
> members*
> *it seems to me to change this you would have to totally redesign. *
> **
> **
> *Russell*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *Monocoque*, from Greek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language> for
> single (*mono*) and French for shell (*coque*), is a construction
> technique that supports structural load by using an object's external skin
> as opposed to using an internal frame or truss<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss>that is then covered with a non-load-bearing skin. Monocoque construction
> was first widely used in aircraft <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft>in the 1930s.
> *Structural skin* or *stressed skin* are other terms for the same concept.
>
> *Unibody*, or *unitary construction*, is a related construction technique
> for automobiles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile> in which the
> body is integrated into a single unit with the chassis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chassis>rather than having a separate
> body-on-frame <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body-on-frame>. The welded
> "Unit Body" is the predominant automobile construction technology today.
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
Ryan,
Very nice pictures. The yellow Howard.... did the "N" number on it happen to end
with"VF". That is a very distinctive color scheme. I had a friend that had a
Howard, a D-17 Beech, a Stinson SR-9C and a Luscombe T-8F all painted alike.
The attached picture is old taken at my place. That little boy in the picture is
my son and he is 45. I have lost contact with the guy.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
Ribs all done
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262870#262870
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/vernon_d_17_163.jpg
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: yep--it's a little bit dated--Mike Cuy's DVD is still |
avai
You can receive a slight discount if you mention Jim Markle when you order. Or,
you can request a copy from Markle directly for the cost of postage.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262877#262877
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
Jerry,
It did not end in VF, unfortunately. I zoomed in on one of my hi-res
originals, and that yellow Howard is registered to: Jerry Lugten. He is from
Michigan, and his Howard N-number is 66294.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Jerry Dotson <jdotson@erec.net> wrote:
>
> Ryan,
> Very nice pictures. The yellow Howard.... did the "N" number on it happen
> to end with"VF". That is a very distinctive color scheme. I had a friend
> that had a Howard, a D-17 Beech, a Stinson SR-9C and a Luscombe T-8F all
> painted alike.
> The attached picture is old taken at my place. That little boy in the
> picture is my son and he is 45. I have lost contact with the guy.
>
> --------
> Jerry Dotson
> 59 Daniel Johnson Rd
> Baker, FL 32531
>
> Started building NX510JD July, 2009
> Ribs all done
> using Lycoming O-235
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics |
Actually, the N number of that Staggerwing is now attached to an FG1D
Corsair......a story in and of itself!
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Jerry Dotson <jdotson@erec.net> wrote:
>
> Ryan,
> Very nice pictures. The yellow Howard.... did the "N" number on it happen
> to end with"VF". That is a very distinctive color scheme. I had a friend
> that had a Howard, a D-17 Beech, a Stinson SR-9C and a Luscombe T-8F all
> painted alike.
> The attached picture is old taken at my place. That little boy in the
> picture is my son and he is 45. I have lost contact with the guy.
>
> --------
> Jerry Dotson
> 59 Daniel Johnson Rd
> Baker, FL 32531
>
> Started building NX510JD July, 2009
> Ribs all done
> using Lycoming O-235
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262870#262870
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/vernon_d_17_163.jpg
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Builders in New Jersey |
I used to live just North Of Lebanon and fly out of Farmers Pride airport.
Flew a Champ 7AC out of there many times, My favorite trip was find the
river
turn north to Selins Grove, land, walk over to the dinner eat and fly home.
The Airport was in Fredericksburg, I also used to fly to a small airport in
Lancaster County the only thing I remember was the small biplane homebuilt,
aerobatic, can't remember the name of te plane but it's tiny that was
setting there on the runway.
Russell
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM, <AMsafetyC@aol.com> wrote:
> I am in Lancaster county PA which is 2 hours and 10 from the center of NJ
> 5 miles north of LNS if you're interested
>
> John
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
It was in the 1970's that I was seeing the drawings with my friend. I
don't believe that anyone has suggested that Piper is trying anything
like this today. Maybe I am thinking about sa different aircraft, or
maybe he was working on the aircraft as you describe.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller<mailto:rmueller23@gmail.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
Your friend must be thinking of some other aircraft. That, or the
folks at Dayton (and many other sources) are incorrect:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614<http:/
/www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614>
Insofar as it being smaller, not so much. Here's a P-51Ds basic
measurements:
Length: 32.25'
Wingspan: 37.04'
Height: 13.67'
And the P-48:
Length: 34.17'
Wingspan: 41.33'
Height: 13.08'
As you can see, the P-48 is not quite 2" longer and has a wingspan
that's a hair over 4' longer (per the tip tanks, I would think). As far
being 1/2" shorter, I can't account for that. Since it is based on a
P-51 it's an old airframe...as we age we're supposed to become a little
bit shorter; maybe that's it. :P
The Enforcer itself was not a clean sheet design by Piper. It was a
product of the people at Cavalier Aircraft, the Mustang conversion
people. It was an evolution of their Mustang II, an extensively modified
P-51 that was exported to various countries for use in
counter-insurgency/CAS roles. They called it the Turbo Mustang III, with
the major mod to it being the installation of a Rolls Royce Dart
turboprop. They never got anywhere trying to sell it to the military, so
they sold the design to Piper. Piper reengined the design with a
Lycoming T-55 and named it the P-48 Enforcer.
I would be very surprised if the P-48 were to receive even remote
consideration in the USAF competition. Maybe they are only looking at
drawings and specs at this point, and not actual aircraft; there are no
flying P-48s. How Piper would produce one in this economy is a bit
mind-boggling. They may have production equipment and drawings for all
of the conversion parts that Cavalier designed, but they shouldn't have
any tooling to produce a basic airframe with. Cavalier never produced
airframes; they were scarfing up surplus Mustangs in the 60s, and
building all of their various models of aircraft off of the basic
Mustang airframe. It was obviously modified, extensively with some
models, but it was the starting point. Don't get me wrong, if Piper
wants to engineer tooling and equipment to start producing brand new
P-51 Mustang airframes you won't find me complaining....just sounds a
little ridiculous to me. :P
Have a good morning everyone!
Ryan
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Gene Rambo
<generambo@msn.com<mailto:generambo@msn.com>> wrote:
A friend of mine was one of, if not the chief designer of the Piper
Enforcer, and as I recall it was not based on a Mustang, although it
looked somewhat like one. I believe it was quite a bit smaller. He was
showing me design drawings almost from the start.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Whaley<mailto:MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
To:
pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
<MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com<mailto:MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>>
In an article published yesterday (9/11/09) about the new USAF
light-attack
aircraft competition (primarily concerning Boeing's OV-10X updated
Bronco)
it was mentioned that the PA-48 Enforcer was actually being
entered for
consideration! Hard to imagine the Air Force going for a WW2
fighter
design... my money's on the OV-10X, although I'm admittedly quite
biased
there :)
Maybe we could come up with a Combat Pietenpol for this... it's
gotta be
stealthy already, being made of wood and all... and it's
definitely "proven
technology". Might need a few more hardpoints, though...
Mike Whaley
MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com<mailto:MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "shad bell"
<aviatorbell@yahoo.com<mailto:aviatorbell@yahoo.com>>
To:
<pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:27 AM
Subject: [piet] Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
Guys, did you know Piper built a modified version of the P-51
mustang? It
was designed for a counter insurgency program called COIN in 1970.
It had a
big turboprop longer wings etc etc. Never was bought by the air
force so it
is still designated the PA 48 Enforcer. 4 were built and one just
happens to
be at Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton. Google it for
some
photos, and more info, a really neat piece of "I bet ya didn't
know"
information.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
Interesting story, either way. It was suggested that Piper is trying
something like that today, per the article Mike W mentioned where it said
exactly that.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
> It was in the 1970's that I was seeing the drawings with my friend. I
> don't believe that anyone has suggested that Piper is trying anything like
> this today. Maybe I am thinking about sa different aircraft, or maybe he
> was working on the aircraft as you describe.
>
> Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2009 8:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>
> Your friend must be thinking of some other aircraft. That, or the folks at
> Dayton (and many other sources) are incorrect:
>
> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614
>
> Insofar as it being smaller, not so much. Here's a P-51Ds basic
> measurements:
>
> Length: 32.25'
> Wingspan: 37.04'
> Height: 13.67'
>
> And the P-48:
>
> Length: 34.17'
> Wingspan: 41.33'
> Height: 13.08'
>
> As you can see, the P-48 is not quite 2" longer and has a wingspan that's a
> hair over 4' longer (per the tip tanks, I would think). As far being 1/2"
> shorter, I can't account for that. Since it is based on a P-51 it's an old
> airframe...as we age we're supposed to become a little bit shorter; maybe
> that's it. :P
>
> The Enforcer itself was not a clean sheet design by Piper. It was a product
> of the people at Cavalier Aircraft, the Mustang conversion people. It was an
> evolution of their Mustang II, an extensively modified P-51 that was
> exported to various countries for use in counter-insurgency/CAS roles. They
> called it the Turbo Mustang III, with the major mod to it being the
> installation of a Rolls Royce Dart turboprop. They never got anywhere trying
> to sell it to the military, so they sold the design to Piper. Piper
> reengined the design with a Lycoming T-55 and named it the P-48 Enforcer.
>
> I would be very surprised if the P-48 were to receive even remote
> consideration in the USAF competition. Maybe they are only looking at
> drawings and specs at this point, and not actual aircraft; there are no
> flying P-48s. How Piper would produce one in this economy is a bit
> mind-boggling. They may have production equipment and drawings for all of
> the conversion parts that Cavalier designed, but they shouldn't have any
> tooling to produce a basic airframe with. Cavalier never produced airframes;
> they were scarfing up surplus Mustangs in the 60s, and building all of their
> various models of aircraft off of the basic Mustang airframe. It was
> obviously modified, extensively with some models, but it was the starting
> point. Don't get me wrong, if Piper wants to engineer tooling and equipment
> to start producing brand new P-51 Mustang airframes you won't find me
> complaining....just sounds a little ridiculous to me. :P
>
> Have a good morning everyone!
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> A friend of mine was one of, if not the chief designer of the Piper
>> Enforcer, and as I recall it was not based on a Mustang, although it looked
>> somewhat like one. I believe it was quite a bit smaller. He was showing me
>> design drawings almost from the start.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Mike Whaley <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
>> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:40 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>>
>> MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
>>
>> In an article published yesterday (9/11/09) about the new USAF
>> light-attack
>> aircraft competition (primarily concerning Boeing's OV-10X updated Bronco)
>> it was mentioned that the PA-48 Enforcer was actually being entered for
>> consideration! Hard to imagine the Air Force going for a WW2 fighter
>> design... my money's on the OV-10X, although I'm admittedly quite biased
>> there :)
>>
>> Maybe we could come up with a Combat Pietenpol for this... it's gotta be
>> stealthy already, being made of wood and all... and it's definitely
>> "proven
>> technology". Might need a few more hardpoints, though...
>>
>> Mike Whaley
>> MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "shad bell" <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
>> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:27 AM
>> Subject: [piet] Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Guys, did you know Piper built a modified version of the P-51 mustang? It
>> was designed for a counter insurgency program called COIN in 1970. It had
>> a
>> big turboprop longer wings etc etc. Never was bought by the air force so
>> it
>> is still designated the PA 48 Enforcer. 4 were built and one just happens
>> to
>> be at Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton. Google it for some
>> photos, and more info, a really neat piece of "I bet ya didn't know"
>> information.
>>
>> *
>
> title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off topic, but interesting |
And the '70s were so long ago. Understandably hard to recall many things...
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting story, either way. It was suggested that Piper is trying
> something like that today, per the article Mike W mentioned where it said
> exactly that.
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|