---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 09/13/09: 41 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:40:55 AM PST US From: "Gene Rambo" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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" > To: > 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.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:49:37 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 > *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" > To: > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:09:36 AM PST US From: Michael Perez 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. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:23:39 AM PST US From: Jim Markle Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting Hardpoints for a Piet? Some of the initial design is already done..... -----Original Message----- >From: Mike Whaley >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:47 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage building for Continental engine From: Ryan Mueller 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 wrote: > No I'm very concerned about the heat resistance of my epoxy > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:40:52 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting From: Ryan Mueller 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 wrote: > Hardpoints for a Piet? Some of the initial design is already done..... > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:34 AM PST US From: "gcardinal" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:57 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics From: Ryan Mueller 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:25:43 AM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: Windshields 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:28:19 AM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: Windshields 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:40:23 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural? Copy Greg, just wanted to be sure. --- On Sun, 9/13/09, gcardinal wrote: From: gcardinal 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:33:51 AM PST US From: "Mike Whaley" Subject: Re: [piet] Re: Pietenpol-List: 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" 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 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 > > *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" > > To: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:33:52 AM PST US From: "Mike Whaley" 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 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:13:31 AM PST US From: Jeff Boatright Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:23:08 AM PST US From: Jeff Boatright Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:23:37 AM PST US From: Tim Willis Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:31:04 AM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:52:56 PM PST US From: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG NGB" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:25:36 PM PST US From: "Mike Tunnicliffe" Subject: Re: [piet] Re: Pietenpol-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:41:56 PM PST US From: "Mike Tunnicliffe" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:14:47 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage building for Continental engine From: Robert Ray 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 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 wrote: > >> No I'm very concerned about the heat resistance of my epoxy >> > * > > * > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 04:16:20 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting From: Robert Ray 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 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 > *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 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" >> To: >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:26:13 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics From: "K5YAC" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:50:16 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics From: Ryan Mueller 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 wrote: > > Neato pics! Thanks for sharing. > > -------- > Mark - working on wings > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 05:16:12 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: totally non-Pietenpol related From: Robert Ray Yes that Piegeon could carry severaL On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Bill Church 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. > > > > > > ** > > * > > * > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 05:27:02 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics From: helspersew@aol.com 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 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 wrote: Neato pics! ?Thanks for sharing. -------- Mark - working on wings ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 05:51:25 PM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:27 PM PST US From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:27:08 PM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:58:02 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: yep--it's a little bit dated--Mike Cuy's DVD is still available From: Ryan Mueller 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] wrote: > Aerospace Corporation]" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:04:54 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics From: Ryan Mueller 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:20 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural? From: Robert Ray *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 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 that is then covered with a non-load-bearing skin. Monocoque construction was first widely used in 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 in which the body is integrated into a single unit with the chassisrather than having a separate 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:20:57 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural? From: Ryan Mueller Unfortunately, Russ, a Pietenpol is neither monocoque or unibody..... On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Robert Ray 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 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 trussthat is then covered with a non-load-bearing skin. Monocoque construction > was first widely used in 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 in which the > body is integrated into a single unit with the chassisrather than having a separate > body-on-frame . The welded > "Unit Body" is the predominant automobile construction technology today. > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:46 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics From: "Jerry Dotson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:52:38 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: yep--it's a little bit dated--Mike Cuy's DVD is still avai From: "K5YAC" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:01 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:02 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: MAAC Grassroots '09 fly-in pics From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:20:42 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Builders in New Jersey From: Robert Ray 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:22:04 PM PST US From: "Gene Rambo" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 > 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 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" > To: > 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.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:09 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 > *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 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 >> *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" >> To: >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:39 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting From: Ryan Mueller And the '70s were so long ago. Understandably hard to recall many things... On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Ryan Mueller 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.