Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:33 AM - Piet info (womenfly2)
2. 06:52 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Gary Boothe)
3. 07:31 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Dan Yocum)
4. 07:33 AM - Re: Got a new camera (RAMPEYBOY@aol.com)
5. 07:42 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Dan Yocum)
6. 08:19 AM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
7. 08:21 AM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
8. 08:54 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Jeff Boatright)
9. 08:54 AM - Re: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error (Dave Abramson)
10. 08:54 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Jeff Boatright)
11. 08:54 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Jeff Boatright)
12. 08:55 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Jeff Boatright)
13. 08:57 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Dan Yocum)
14. 09:03 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Dan Yocum)
15. 10:08 AM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
16. 10:21 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Gene & Tammy)
17. 10:49 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Gene & Tammy)
18. 10:53 AM - Re: Got a new camera (Scott Knowlton)
19. 12:16 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Jeff Boatright)
20. 12:19 PM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
21. 12:21 PM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
22. 12:21 PM - New organization (Robert Butsch)
23. 01:01 PM - Re: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error (David Paule)
24. 01:01 PM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
25. 01:01 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Jack Phillips)
26. 01:01 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Ryan Mueller)
27. 01:57 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Jeff Boatright)
28. 02:21 PM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
29. 03:48 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Gary Boothe)
30. 04:14 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Jeff Boatright)
31. 04:22 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Michael Perez)
32. 04:23 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Gary Boothe)
33. 05:03 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Jeff Boatright)
34. 05:03 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Ryan Mueller)
35. 05:21 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Dan Yocum)
36. 05:53 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Gene & Tammy)
37. 06:02 PM - Re: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error (John Recine)
38. 06:02 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Jack Phillips)
39. 06:15 PM - Re: New organization (John Recine)
40. 06:21 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Scott Knowlton)
41. 06:39 PM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
42. 06:40 PM - Re: Got a new camera (H RULE)
43. 06:52 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Peter W Johnson)
44. 07:20 PM - Re: New organization (Gary Boothe)
45. 07:50 PM - Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error (dwilson)
46. 07:55 PM - Re: Got a new camera (Pieti Lowell)
47. 09:39 PM - Re: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error (Ryan Mueller)
48. 09:58 PM - Re: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error (Jim Markle)
49. 09:59 PM - Re: Re: Got a new camera (Jim Markle)
50. 10:04 PM - Re: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error (Robert Ray)
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 |
|
Hi Everyone,
GeoCite closed down and so did my web site. I am working on a new one which will
have 3D drawings/plans for download. If anyone needs to reach me for plan info,
I am at keriannprice@hotmail.com. Drop me a line.
Thanks for all the support.
Keep the dream.
Keri-Ann
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272064#272064
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: | Got a new camera |
Were those geese laughing at you in the last shot?
Your landings look great from the camera angle!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down.)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel
landings at 2GA9 this weekend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0
A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
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: | Re: Got a new camera |
Jeff,
I take it you fixed your mixture problem - what did it turn out to be?
Dan
Jeff Boatright wrote:
>
> I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel
> landings at 2GA9 this weekend:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0
>
> A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Got a new camera |
excellent videos! I love seeing you come in between the house and trees!
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: Got a new camera |
Oh, and the girls just hopped up on my lap and watched your videos (I
work from home on Tuesdays...). They thought your landings were just
fine.
;-)
Cheers,
Dan
Jeff Boatright wrote:
>
> I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel
> landings at 2GA9 this weekend:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0
>
> A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Got a new camera |
I can't see anything wrong with those landings.I wish mine were as good as
those!=0Ado not archive=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFr
om: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
=0ASent: Mon, November 9, 2009 10:35:01 PM=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: Got a
tri@emory.edu>=0A=0AI- got a new camera and we had some fun filming my sq
uirrely wheel landings at 2GA9 this weekend:=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=mcinXNmvXX0=0A=0AA good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the f
irst time that evening:=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0
============
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: Got a new camera |
After looking at the video again I see that your take offs are somewhat ste
ep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other end of the field but
you could do that with a much more conservative take off than what you are
doing.I have been guilty in the past of doing this with my GN-1 Aircamper a
nd the old guys at the field just shake their heads and say no,no,no.What w
ould happen if you had an engine failure?There is a possiblility of a wing
over and a steep dive or a stall which you will not have the altitude to re
cover from.Just passing some friendly advice along from the old guys.If the
engine does quit then you can pick out a spot forward of you to put her do
wn.Even if it wrecks the plane somewhat ,at least you'll be alive to rebuil
d it.I'm not going to say do not-archive this because it is very importan
t.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Jeff Boatright <j
boatri@emory.edu>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, November
9, 2009 10:35:01 PM=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0A--> Pi
etenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>=0A=0AI
- got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel landing
s at 2GA9 this weekend:=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0
=0A=0AA good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that even
ing:=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0=0A-- =0AJeff Boatrig
=========================0A
====
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: | Re: Got a new camera |
Thanks; you're kind and gracious. But let's just say that the camera
hides a lot. I have to guard against self-induced oscillations. Once
oscillation starts, it's easy to get behind the airplane. If you look
for it, you can see it on a couple of landings. But hey, that's why
I'm practicing.
>I can't see anything wrong with those landings.I wish mine were as
>good as those!
>do not archive
>
>
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error |
My take is that the Plywood is under the fitting...
This protects the spar from being deformed by the fittings when tightened.
Also, spreads the load to the spar.
Cheers,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 9:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans
Error
Chris,
Funny that this hasn't been noticed before (at least I don't recall it being
discussed). At first glance I thought that maybe the plywood plates were
just mounted alongside the strut fittings, even though it didn't seem to
make sense. The cross-section detail thru the spar down at the bottom of the
drawing shows the fitting directly against the 1" thick spar, so it would
appear that the plywood would not be under the fitting. But that doesn't
seem to make sense, because a plywood reinforcement like that would likely
be there to help spread out the concentrated load that the fitting would put
on the spar. And then I noticed the assembly sketch in the upper right
quadrant of the drawing, which fairly clearly shows the fitting ON TOP of
the plywood (see attached clip). This just makes more sense in terms of
building practice, so my conclusion would be that the 1" dimension was an
oversight, and should have been 1 1/4" to incorporate the two plywood
plates.
Probably since most builders today (I think) use the solid 3/4" spar, as
opposed to the routed 1" spar, the "error" is not an issue, since 3/4" +
1/8" + 1/8" = 1", so it would work fine with the solid 3/4" spar.
Having said all that, it would probably work either way, but the preferred
method would be with the plywood under the fitting.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271571#271571
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/strut_detail_114.jpg
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Got a new camera |
Yeah, one of these days I'll get good enough with the control stick
and video camera enough to film what's going on the other side of
those second story windows. Would it be wrong of me to support my
flying addiction through blackmail? >:-}
>excellent videos! I love seeing you come in between the house and trees!
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
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: Got a new camera |
Ah the optimism and naivety of youth... <:-|
>
>Oh, and the girls just hopped up on my lap and watched your videos
>(I work from home on Tuesdays...). They thought your landings were
>just fine.
>
>;-)
>
>Cheers,
>Dan
>
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: Got a new camera |
Well, we never did figure it out. As covered in the archives, we
tried just about every strategy to fix the stumble. Oddly enough, the
last couple of weeks it seems to occur less often. In fact, this
weekend I could not replicate the problem at any rpm setting. Change
in weather? Change in fuel? Loss of sanity? Who knows?
Eventually I want to replace the Stromberg with a Marvel Schebler, so
I'm saving my pennies. Until then, I'll just do as the Doc prescribed:
"Doc, it hurts when I do this. What should I do?"
"Well then, son, don't do that!"
>
>Jeff,
>
>I take it you fixed your mixture problem - what did it turn out to be?
>
>Dan
>
>Jeff Boatright wrote:
>>
>>I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel
>>landings at 2GA9 this weekend:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0
>>
>>A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0
>
>--
>Dan Yocum
>Fermilab 630.840.6509
>yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
>Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Got a new camera |
I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend!
The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best
glide speed, period.
If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit
that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180
degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500',
you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your
forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right).
With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end
of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly
some runway in front of you which you can land on.
Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of
hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them.
Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the
stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually
happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at
200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land.
So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as
many holes in my logic.
Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir?
Cheers,
Dan
H RULE wrote:
> After looking at the video again I see that your take offs are somewhat
> steep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other end of the
> field but you could do that with a much more conservative take off than
> what you are doing.I have been guilty in the past of doing this with my
> GN-1 Aircamper and the old guys at the field just shake their heads and
> say no,no,no.What would happen if you had an engine failure?There is a
> possiblility of a wing over and a steep dive or a stall which you will
> not have the altitude to recover from.Just passing some friendly advice
> along from the old guys.If the engine does quit then you can pick out a
> spot forward of you to put her down.Even if it wrecks the plane somewhat
> ,at least you'll be alive to rebuild it.I'm not going to say do
> not archive this because it is very important.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Mon, November 9, 2009 10:35:01 PM
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
> <mailto:jboatri@emory.edu>>
>
> I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel
> landings at 2GA9 this weekend:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0
>
> A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that evening:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0
> -- --> hsp; -Matr?Pietenpol-List"
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pieten; -->
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Got a new camera |
Jeff Boatright wrote:
>
> Well, we never did figure it out. As covered in the archives, we tried
> just about every strategy to fix the stumble. Oddly enough, the last
> couple of weeks it seems to occur less often. In fact, this weekend I
> could not replicate the problem at any rpm setting. Change in weather?
> Change in fuel? Loss of sanity? Who knows?
Strange... maybe you got a spider in the gas system and it finally
worked its way out... ;-)
>
> Eventually I want to replace the Stromberg with a Marvel Schebler, so
> I'm saving my pennies. Until then, I'll just do as the Doc prescribed:
Next time I'm out at the airport I'll dig out the receipt for the Marvel
Schebler I've got and send you the seller info, if you're interested. I
did notice that seller issued a "core" refund for the Stromberg to the
tune of about $400, bringing the actual cost to something like $700 for
the MA-3.
Cheers,
Dan
>
> "Doc, it hurts when I do this. What should I do?"
>
> "Well then, son, don't do that!"
>
>
>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> I take it you fixed your mixture problem - what did it turn out to be?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> Jeff Boatright wrote:
>>>
>>> I got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel
>>> landings at 2GA9 this weekend:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0
>>>
>>> A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that
>>> evening:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0
>>
>> --
>> Dan Yocum
>> Fermilab 630.840.6509
>> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
>> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>
>
>
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Got a new camera |
If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Gl
ider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much spe
ed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't kno
w about getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too s
teep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was
taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the
habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still arou
nd.I can't argue with that.-I have watched jet liners pull out at an unbe
lievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But then
again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is
different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for
my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwise.
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Dan Yocum <yocum@fn
al.gov>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1
1:57:04 AM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0A--> Pietenp
ol-List message posted by: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>=0A=0AI have to respec
tfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend!=0A=0AThe very firs
t thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best glide speed, per
iod.=0A=0AIf you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward an
d hit that speed.- If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 1
80 degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500', you'v
e got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your forward
field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right).=0A=0AWith such a
steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end of the runway,
you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly some runway in fron
t of you which you can land on.=0A=0ANow, I'm no old timer, but I do have a
glider ticket and a bunch of hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing
to go along with them. Every year we do at least one 200' rope break.- S
tep one is push the stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two,
which usually happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute
a 180 at 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 i
s land.=0A=0ASo, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to
poke as many holes in my logic.=0A=0AJack's the new CFI-in-training - what
do you say, sir?=0A=0ACheers,=0ADan=0A=0A=0A=0AH RULE wrote:=0A> After look
ing at the video again I see that your take offs are somewhat steep.Now I k
now you have trees to get over at the other end of the field but you could
do that with a much more conservative take off than what you are doing.I ha
ve been guilty in the past of doing this with my GN-1 Aircamper and the old
guys at the field just shake their heads and say no,no,no.What would happe
n if you had an engine failure?There is a possiblility of a wing over and a
steep dive or a stall which you will not have the altitude to recover from
.Just passing some friendly advice along from the old guys.If the engine do
es quit then you can pick out a spot forward of you to put her down.Even if
it wrecks the plane somewhat ,at least you'll be alive to rebuild it.I'm n
ot going to say do not archive this because it is very important.=0A> =0A>
------------------------------------------------------------------------=0A
> *From:* Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>=0A> *To:* pietenpol-list@matro
nics.com=0A> *Sent:* Mon, November 9, 2009 10:35:01 PM=0A> *Subject:* Piete
Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu <mailto:jboatri@emory.edu>>=0A> =0A> I-
got a new camera and we had some fun filming my squirrely wheel landings a
t 2GA9 this weekend:=0A> =0A> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcinXNmvXX0
=0A> =0A> A good buddy of mine also taxied his Pup for the first time that
evening:=0A> =0A> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauHA7p8ku0=0A> -- --> h
sp;- - - - - - - - - - -Matr?Pietenpol-List" target=_
blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pieten; --> <http://www.matronics.
com/contribution>=0A> =0A> =0A> <http://forums.matronics.com/>=0A> =0A> *
=0A> =0A> =0A> *=0A=0A-- Dan Yocum=0AFermilab- 630.840.6509=0Ayocum@fnal.
===============
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: | Re: Got a new camera |
Dan, up to a point I agree with you. I think what Harvey is trying to say
is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low
and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to push your
nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground. It's all
quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet. I've had two friends
die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground. One only killed himself
but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself. It
went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law. He was flying a super
cub (as was the other), had thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game
pilot and was showing off. As I say, very different than a 200' release
with a glider.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum@fnal.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
> I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend!
>
> The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best
> glide speed, period.
>
> If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit
> that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180
> degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500',
> you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your
> forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right).
>
> With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end
> of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly
> some runway in front of you which you can land on.
>
> Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of
> hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them.
> Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the
> stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually
> happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at
> 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land.
>
> So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as
> many holes in my logic.
>
> Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir?
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
>
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: | Re: Got a new camera |
Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch
Jeff's take off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of
take off. He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time
to drop the nose and keep flying speed.
Just my 2 cents worth
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: H RULE
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make
it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as
much speed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb
out.I don't know about getting that stick forward.You may not if your
climb angle is too steep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like
that.That's the way I was taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's
been hard for me to kick the habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys
told me and they are still around.I can't argue with that. I have
watched jet liners pull out at an unbelievable angle of attack and it
just makes me wonder who is right.But then again a jet liner has more
engines and more power and the whole aircraft is different than a Piet
so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm
stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwise.
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: Got a new camera |
I'm with Gene on this assessment. Departure stalls happen with an engine failure
because the instant loss of thrust is accompanied by a dramatic increase in
angle of attack. Remember the old pictures of the relative airflow in a full
power climb as compared to a power off nose high attitude. That relative airflow
changes very quickly with a power loss to the point that the wing will reach
its critical angle of attack before the pilot can react to it. Try it at
2000 feet. With full power, briskly pull the nose up until you reach your departure
climb speed, then retard the throttle to idle and see the result. I'd
suggest after you try that your climb angle on departure will become a little
more conservative.
As an aside, the climb angle of a transport category airliner on departure is necessary
to meet the stages of minimum net flight path altitudes on departure
and are designed to be sustainable in the event of a thrust loss in one engine
(one... Because they have more than one...)
Scott Knowlton
(slow builder in Burlington)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountycable.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Dan, up to a point I agree with you. I think what Harvey is trying to say
is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low
and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to push your
nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground. It's all
quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet. I've had two friends
die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground. One only killed himself
but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself. It
went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law. He was flying a super
cub (as was the other), had thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game
pilot and was showing off. As I say, very different than a 200' release
with a glider.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum@fnal.gov>
To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
> I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend!
>
> The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best
> glide speed, period.
>
> If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit
> that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180
> degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500',
> you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your
> forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right).
>
> With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end
> of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly
> some runway in front of you which you can land on.
>
> Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of
> hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them.
> Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the
> stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually
> happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at
> 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land.
>
> So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as
> many holes in my logic.
>
> Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir?
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
>
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: Got a new camera |
Harvey and Dan and Gene & Tammy,
Thanks for the discussion, and Harvey, thanks for the concern that
led to the initial email.
I agree with with you all.
How can that be? Is I just letting my inner middle-child syndrome out again?
Nope. I think that there is a real issue here and that there should
be a balance between the maximum climb-out performance (with
accompanying crazy climb-out angle) I could achieve in this
particular Piet versus the effects of the high-drag, control
limitations, and lift characteristics of the design. The Piet is a
high drag airframe with (relative to other designs) low mass and thus
low inertia. Mine has a weird airfoil. It will dissipate speed along
the axis of flight really quickly once power is off, so in climb-out
the nose will drop rapidly. And, with minimal or no dihedral, it WILL
drop a wing and recover slower under circumstances in which that
would not occur with other aircraft. At least, that's been my
experience.
It's important (to me) to know how the plane handles in such critical
situations. It's also important to me to know how I handle such
critical situations. I have practiced engine-out responses (both mine
and the Piet's) in emulated climb-out AT ALTITUDE. I have not done
all the testing that I intend to do. I have gradually pulled power,
and then pulled power more and more aggressively. I have NOT worked
up to absolute maximal climb and deck angle and chopped power. If
you have any concerns, you could cautiously test at altitude, but
that is up to you. You might be unpleasantly surprised, or you might
find that it's a non-event. I think it will depend on the individual
airplane and pilot. Alternatively, if you have concerns, you could
just keep to shallow climb angles. I certainly would if I hadn't done
any testing. I doubt that I would do even what I have with the
odd-ball leading edge our Piet has without first having installed the
vortex generators that tame it's slow flight characteristics (cue
requests for VG discussion).
As to the video that brought on this discussion, those take-offs sure
looks steep, and watching them makes me want to complete my climb-out
test program, but I think there's a bit of an optical illusion here.
The climbs in the video were made at 60-70 mph. This particular Piet
stalls power-off at 35-40 mph and 30 mph or below (can't measure it
with our ASI) with power and will climb easily at less than 50 mph.
The climb-outs you see are being done way above stall speeds and at
deck angles (as viewed in the cockpit) that are nowhere near those at
the power-on stall. Catastrophic power loss, in terms of the plane
snapping over or stalling and dropping a wing, is less of a concern
to me in this plane at those speeds (60-70 mph) because of my limited
testing at altitude. The nose drop even at those speeds and angles,
though, is NOT like a Cessna. It is dramatic.
If further testing shows that, to me, I am not balancing the climb
performance with the need to maintain control, I will change
behavior. Other parameters beyond just chopping power in max climb
might include coordinated and uncoordinated turn while climbing,
different weights (who wants to volunteer for the front cockpit?), or
gusty air.
Jeff
PS: Another factor to toss in here is that a higher deck angle makes
it more difficult to see traffic. Not much of a concern at 2GA9, a
little country airport, but could be the deciding factor in other
circumstances.
>After looking at the video again I see that your take offs are
>somewhat steep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other
>end of the field but you could do that with a much more conservative
>take off than what you are doing.I have been guilty in the past of
>doing this with my GN-1 Aircamper and the old guys at the field just
>shake their heads and say no,no,no.What would happen if you had an
>engine failure?There is a possiblility of a wing over and a steep
>dive or a stall which you will not have the altitude to recover
>from.Just passing some friendly advice along from the old guys.If
>the engine does quit then you can pick out a spot forward of you to
>put her down.Even if it wrecks the plane somewhat ,at least you'll
>be alive to rebuild it.I'm not going to say do not archive this
>because it is very important.
>
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: Got a new camera |
There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my f
ield feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these gu
ys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain speed.T
hey feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will come as
you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I thought I wa
s doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too steep.-=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@
bentoncountycable.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, Nove
mber 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A
=0A=0AHarvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Je
ff's take off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take o
ff.- He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop
the nose and keep flying speed.=0AJust my 2 cents worth=0AGene=0A----- Orig
inal Message ----- =0A>From: H RULE =0A>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
=0A>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-Lis
t: Got a new camera=0A>=0A>=0A>If you tried that turn in a Piet you would b
e toast.It would not make it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old
guys tell me to get as much speed as possible by keeping her level longer a
nd a slow climb out.I don't know about getting that stick forward.You may n
ot if your climb angle is too steep.Some of these ultralight guys take off
like that.That's the way I was taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it
's been hard for me to kick the habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys
told me and they are still around.I can't argue with that.-I have watched
jet liners pull out at an unbelievable angle of attack and it just makes m
e wonder who is right.But then again a jet liner has more engines and more
power and the whole aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who i
s right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys men
=====
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: Got a new camera |
There was aguy at our field one day thought it was a good idea to do a stee
p climb out in a Cessna.The seat wasn't locked and it slid back on him and
he couldn't shove the yoke forward.I don't need to tell you what happened t
o him.Now I know the seat in the Piet is not one that moves backwards and f
orwards or at least mine don't so this story doesn't apply.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_
_______________________________=0AFrom: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountyc
able.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009
12:28:14 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0A--> Piete
npol-List message posted by: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bentoncountycable.net>
=0A=0ADan, up to a point I agree with you.- I think what Harvey is trying
to say is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed
is low and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to pu
sh your nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground.- I
t's all quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet.- I've had t
wo friends die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground.- One only k
illed himself but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and
himself.- It went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law.- He
was flying a super cub (as was the other), had- thousands of hours as an
Alaskan Fish and Game pilot and was showing off.- As I say, very differen
t than a 200' release with a glider.=0AGene=0A=0A----- Original Message ---
-- From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum@fnal.gov>=0ATo: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
=0ASent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
<yocum@fnal.gov>=0A> =0A> I have to respectfully disagree on this point -
altitude is your friend!=0A> =0A> The very first thing you do when you lose
your engine is establish best=0A> glide speed, period.=0A> =0A> If you los
e an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit=0A> that speed
.- If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180=0A> degree tu
rn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500',=0A> you've got a
little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your=0A> forward fie
ld of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right).=0A> =0A> With such a
steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end=0A> of the run
way, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly=0A> some runway
in front of you which you can land on.=0A> =0A> Now, I'm no old timer, but
I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of=0A> hours in gliders and lots and
lots of landing to go along with them.=0A> Every year we do at least one 2
00' rope break.- Step one is push the=0A> stick forward and hit your best
glide speed, step two, which usually=0A> happens with step one, is turn ar
ound (a glider *can* execute a 180 at=0A> 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet
that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land.=0A> =0A> So, that's my take on the
situation, you may now feel free to poke as=0A> many holes in my logic.=0A>
=0A> Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir?=0A> =0A> Cheer
-=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Drall
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: | New organization |
Hey guys & gals:
I couldn't help but pass this info on since it has a great and very real
connection to the Pietenpol Air Camper.
Take a look at this web site for info on a new organization. The fellow
who started this, Don Abbott, is an old friend of mine from here in
Indiana. I was talking with him last winter when we were in Florida (he
lives on Sanibel Island), and he told me of his idea to start a
aircraft/camping organization. He has finally made it's presence known
via the attached site. I didn't know at the time that the name would be
the American Air Campers Association.
I think it's a great idea and he is looking for 6 regional directors and
a wing leader in each state. This is a perfect tie-in with our chosen
aircraft. Watch the video and then drop him a line with your interest
and ideas. This would be a great way to further promote the aircraft
that really started the idea of camping from your plane in the first
place. Go to www.americanaircampers.com
What do you guys think of the idea?
Bob
Robert Butsch
7360 Steinmeier Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana
46250-2567
PH 317-841-3786
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: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error |
Yep, in engineering terms, what's happening is that the fitting and the
strut don't line up, so when you resolve the load in the fitting into
parallel and perpendicular components, the perpendicular load creates a
bending moment about the centroid of the spar bolts.
It's really there. And it really does increase the forces in those
bolts.
About all we can say is that it's proven to work anyway, and that the
plane has, even with that, a reputation for being robust.
David Paule
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Ray
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe
Plans Error
Also I think I see extra stress caused by the strap acting as a lever,
I'm not an engineer but the strap is pulled in toward the plane and
would
result in a twisting motion in the out direction of the wing top.
Does any one else see this or is this a figment of my imagination?
It's probably strong enough that it doesn't matter but please if
any one else See's this let me know, or if you don't see it let me
know. It looks like having the bolt holes in alignment with the strut
would stop this?
I know we have some very talented engineers out there and I want
to hear from you?
Russell
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net> wrote:
I'm not even planning to utilize the top strap. I agree with Jack
that it just complicates things. I have seen others that just round off
that end of the fitting and bolt it on. That's my plan.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271636#271636
ber is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
-= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com
omebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com
http:/r generous support!
Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
=============
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: Got a new camera |
Well it certainly sounds like you have done some home work and it sounds li
ke you know what you are doing.I don't have VG's on my plane so I don't kno
w how it would react.I have an 80 hp Franklin and I usually climb out at 60
but these old guys are saying no ,you should be climbing out at max speed
( around 85)so since my plane is nothing like yours ,I'm going to stick wit
h the old guys.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Jeff
Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: T
ue, November 10, 2009 2:41:16 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new c
amera=0A=0A=0AHarvey and Dan and Gene & Tammy,=0A=0AThanks for the discussi
on, and Harvey, thanks for the concern that led to the initial email.=0A=0A
I agree with with you all.=0A=0AHow can that be? Is I just letting my inner
middle-child syndrome out again?=0A=0ANope. I think that there is a real i
ssue here and that there should be a balance between the maximum climb-out
performance (with accompanying crazy climb-out angle) Icould achieve in thi
s particular Piet- versus the effects of the high-drag, control limitatio
ns, and lift characteristics of the design. The Piet is a high drag airfram
e with (relative to other designs) low mass and thus low inertia. Mine has
a weird airfoil. It will dissipate speed along the axis of flight really qu
ickly once power is off, so in climb-out the nose will drop rapidly. And, w
ith minimal or no dihedral, it WILL drop a wing and recover slower under ci
rcumstances in which that would not occur with other aircraft. At least, th
at's been my experience.=0A=0AIt's important (to me) to know how the plane
handles in such critical situations. It's also important to me to know howI
handle such critical situations. I have practiced engine-out responses (bo
th mine and the Piet's) in emulated climb-out AT ALTITUDE. I have not done
all the testing that I intend to do. I have gradually pulled power, and the
n pulled power more and more aggressively. I have NOT worked up to absolute
maximal climb and deck angle and chopped power.- If you have any concern
s, you couldcautiously test at altitude, but that is up to you. You might b
e unpleasantly surprised, or you might find that it's a non-event. I think
it will depend on the individual airplane and pilot. Alternatively, if you
have concerns, you could just keep to shallow climb angles. I certainly wou
ld if I hadn't done any testing. I doubt that I would do even what I have w
ith the odd-ball leading edge our Piet has without first having installed t
he vortex generators
that tame it's slow flight characteristics (cue requests for VG discussion
).=0A=0AAs to the video that brought on this discussion, those take-offs su
re looks steep, and watching them makes me want to complete my climb-out te
st program, but I think there's a bit of an optical illusion here. The clim
bs in the video were made at 60-70 mph. This particular Piet- stalls powe
r-off at 35-40 mph and 30 mph or below (can't measure it with our ASI) with
power and will climb easily at less than 50 mph. The climb-outs you see ar
e being done way above stall speeds and at deck angles (as viewed in the co
ckpit) that are nowhere near those at the power-on stall. Catastrophic powe
r loss, in terms of the plane snapping over or stalling and dropping a wing
, is less of a concern tome inthis plane atthose speeds (60-70 mph) because
of my limited testing at altitude. The nose drop even at those speeds and
angles, though, is NOT like a Cessna. It is dramatic.=0A=0AIf further testi
ng shows that, to me, I am not balancing the climb performance with the nee
d to maintain control, I will change behavior. Other parameters beyond just
chopping power in max climb might include coordinated and uncoordinated tu
rn while climbing, different weights (who wants to volunteer for the front
cockpit?), or gusty air.=0A=0AJeff=0A=0APS: Another factor to toss in here
is that a higher deck angle makes it more difficult to see traffic. Not muc
h of a concern at 2GA9, a little country airport, but could be the deciding
factor in other circumstances.=0A=0A=0AAfter looking at the video again I
see that your take offs are somewhat steep.Now I know you have trees to get
over at the other end of the field but you could do that with a much more
conservative take off than what you are doing.I have been guilty in the pas
t of doing this with my GN-1 Aircamper and the old guys at the field just s
hake their heads and say no,no,no.What would happen if you had an engine fa
ilure?There is a possiblility of a wing over and a steep dive or a stall wh
ich you will not have the altitude to recover from.Just passing some friend
ly advice along from the old guys.If the engine does quit then you can pick
out a spot forward of you to put her down.Even if it wrecks the plane some
what ,at least you'll be alive to rebuild it.I'm not going to say do not-
=======
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: | Got a new camera |
Jeff,
What airfoil does your Piet have? What engine? What prop? What is your
empty weight?
Not only does it seem to be able to climb at an alarming angle, it really
accelerates quickly.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Harvey and Dan and Gene & Tammy,
Thanks for the discussion, and Harvey, thanks for the concern that led to
the initial email.
I agree with with you all.
How can that be? Is I just letting my inner middle-child syndrome out again?
Nope. I think that there is a real issue here and that there should be a
balance between the maximum climb-out performance (with accompanying crazy
climb-out angle) I could achieve in this particular Piet versus the effects
of the high-drag, control limitations, and lift characteristics of the
design. The Piet is a high drag airframe with (relative to other designs)
low mass and thus low inertia. Mine has a weird airfoil. It will dissipate
speed along the axis of flight really quickly once power is off, so in
climb-out the nose will drop rapidly. And, with minimal or no dihedral, it
WILL drop a wing and recover slower under circumstances in which that would
not occur with other aircraft. At least, that's been my experience.
It's important (to me) to know how the plane handles in such critical
situations. It's also important to me to know how I handle such critical
situations. I have practiced engine-out responses (both mine and the Piet's)
in emulated climb-out AT ALTITUDE. I have not done all the testing that I
intend to do. I have gradually pulled power, and then pulled power more and
more aggressively. I have NOT worked up to absolute maximal climb and deck
angle and chopped power. If you have any concerns, you could cautiously
test at altitude, but that is up to you. You might be unpleasantly
surprised, or you might find that it's a non-event. I think it will depend
on the individual airplane and pilot. Alternatively, if you have concerns,
you could just keep to shallow climb angles. I certainly would if I hadn't
done any testing. I doubt that I would do even what I have with the odd-ball
leading edge our Piet has without first having installed the vortex
generators that tame it's slow flight characteristics (cue requests for VG
discussion).
As to the video that brought on this discussion, those take-offs sure looks
steep, and watching them makes me want to complete my climb-out test
program, but I think there's a bit of an optical illusion here. The climbs
in the video were made at 60-70 mph. This particular Piet stalls power-off
at 35-40 mph and 30 mph or below (can't measure it with our ASI) with power
and will climb easily at less than 50 mph. The climb-outs you see are being
done way above stall speeds and at deck angles (as viewed in the cockpit)
that are nowhere near those at the power-on stall. Catastrophic power loss,
in terms of the plane snapping over or stalling and dropping a wing, is less
of a concern to me in this plane at those speeds (60-70 mph) because of my
limited testing at altitude. The nose drop even at those speeds and angles,
though, is NOT like a Cessna. It is dramatic.
If further testing shows that, to me, I am not balancing the climb
performance with the need to maintain control, I will change behavior. Other
parameters beyond just chopping power in max climb might include coordinated
and uncoordinated turn while climbing, different weights (who wants to
volunteer for the front cockpit?), or gusty air.
Jeff
PS: Another factor to toss in here is that a higher deck angle makes it more
difficult to see traffic. Not much of a concern at 2GA9, a little country
airport, but could be the deciding factor in other circumstances.
After looking at the video again I see that your take offs are somewhat
steep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other end of the field
but you could do that with a much more conservative take off than what you
are doing.I have been guilty in the past of doing this with my GN-1
Aircamper and the old guys at the field just shake their heads and say
no,no,no.What would happen if you had an engine failure?There is a
possiblility of a wing over and a steep dive or a stall which you will not
have the altitude to recover from.Just passing some friendly advice along
from the old guys.If the engine does quit then you can pick out a spot
forward of you to put her down.Even if it wrecks the plane somewhat ,at
least you'll be alive to rebuild it.I'm not going to say do not archive this
because it is very important.
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: Got a new camera |
Could you categorize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow airspeed
climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still
20-30mph above stall. I would rather have some altitude underneath me and
flying at 60-70mph if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy airplan
e
like the Piet is not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'upward
zoom'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude in tha
t
situation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place?
Ryan
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com> wrote:
> There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my
> field feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these
> guys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain
> speed.They feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will
> come as you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I
> thought I was doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too
> steep.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Gene & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountycable.net>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
> Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Jeff's
> take off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take off.
> He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop the n
ose
> and keep flying speed.
> Just my 2 cents worth
> Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
> If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make
> it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as m
uch
> speed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don'
t
> know about getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is
too
> steep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I w
as
> taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick t
he
> habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still
> around.I can't argue with that. I have watched jet liners pull out at an
> unbelievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But
> then again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole
> aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is
> wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I k
now
> otherwise.
>
>
> *
> AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>www.hom
ebuilthelp.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com/>href="http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution" rel=nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Pietenpol-List" rel=nofollow targe====
> *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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: | Got a new camera |
It has the original Piet airfoil, but the leading edge is very lumpy.
Instead of plywood, it is aluminum sheet. The fabric shrinking pulled
the aluminum non-uniformly, such that some parts of the leading edge
are pretty sharp and other parts approximate the airfoil per plans.
Engine is a Continental C-85, less than 200 hrs since rebuild.
Possibly running a little rich as I think our fuel burn rate is a
little high. Last annual showed compressions of 80/80/80/79. The
previous annual, using same gauge, was something like 80/79/78/79.
The same gauge does show lower numbers on some of the older engines
around the field, so we know it's not stuck at 80!
Prop is a Cloudcars 76x38 semi-scimitar. Definitely a climb prop.
Empty weight is 723 lbs. I am 185 dressed for the cold and there was
about 10 gals of fuel on board. Temps over the course of the video
were mid 60s to mid 70s (video is from two days of flying).
A couple of things about the video. First, the take-off run is pretty
seriously downhill, so maybe gravity adds to the acceleration a bit.
That may not be apparent in the videos. Second, the climb angle when
viewed in-person, for whatever reason, just doesn't look that bad. I
agree that it looks pretty steep in the video, certainly enough to
give me pause now that the list has got me looking at it again, but I
don't think I'm climbing any differently than Wayne is (in fact, he
does a better job of holding right at 60 mph in the climb). I mention
that because Wayne flying solo is the only time I'm on the ground
watching the Piet's climb-out (that is, "viewed in-person").
Sounds like I have another excuse -- I mean mission -- to go flying.
Gotta replicate the experiment! Honest, honey, it's all in the name
of science! :)
>Jeff,
>
>What airfoil does your Piet have? What engine? What prop? What is
>your empty weight?
>
>Not only does it seem to be able to climb at an alarming angle, it
>really accelerates quickly.
>
>Jack Phillips
>NX899JP
>Raleigh, NC
>
>
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
>Boatright
>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:41 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
>Harvey and Dan and Gene & Tammy,
>
>Thanks for the discussion, and Harvey, thanks for the concern that
>led to the initial email.
>
>I agree with with you all.
>
>How can that be? Is I just letting my inner middle-child syndrome out again?
>
>Nope. I think that there is a real issue here and that there should
>be a balance between the maximum climb-out performance (with
>accompanying crazy climb-out angle) I could achieve in this
>particular Piet versus the effects of the high-drag, control
>limitations, and lift characteristics of the design. The Piet is a
>high drag airframe with (relative to other designs) low mass and
>thus low inertia. Mine has a weird airfoil. It will dissipate speed
>along the axis of flight really quickly once power is off, so in
>climb-out the nose will drop rapidly. And, with minimal or no
>dihedral, it WILL drop a wing and recover slower under circumstances
>in which that would not occur with other aircraft. At least, that's
>been my experience.
>
>It's important (to me) to know how the plane handles in such
>critical situations. It's also important to me to know how I handle
>such critical situations. I have practiced engine-out responses
>(both mine and the Piet's) in emulated climb-out AT ALTITUDE. I have
>not done all the testing that I intend to do. I have gradually
>pulled power, and then pulled power more and more aggressively. I
>have NOT worked up to absolute maximal climb and deck angle and
>chopped power. If you have any concerns, you could cautiously test
>at altitude, but that is up to you. You might be unpleasantly
>surprised, or you might find that it's a non-event. I think it will
>depend on the individual airplane and pilot. Alternatively, if you
>have concerns, you could just keep to shallow climb angles. I
>certainly would if I hadn't done any testing. I doubt that I would
>do even what I have with the odd-ball leading edge our Piet has
>without first having installed the vortex generators that tame it's
>slow flight characteristics (cue requests for VG discussion).
>
>As to the video that brought on this discussion, those take-offs
>sure looks steep, and watching them makes me want to complete my
>climb-out test program, but I think there's a bit of an optical
>illusion here. The climbs in the video were made at 60-70 mph. This
>particular Piet stalls power-off at 35-40 mph and 30 mph or below
>(can't measure it with our ASI) with power and will climb easily at
>less than 50 mph. The climb-outs you see are being done way above
>stall speeds and at deck angles (as viewed in the cockpit) that are
>nowhere near those at the power-on stall. Catastrophic power loss,
>in terms of the plane snapping over or stalling and dropping a wing,
>is less of a concern to me in this plane at those speeds (60-70 mph)
>because of my limited testing at altitude. The nose drop even at
>those speeds and angles, though, is NOT like a Cessna. It is
>dramatic.
>
>If further testing shows that, to me, I am not balancing the climb
>performance with the need to maintain control, I will change
>behavior. Other parameters beyond just chopping power in max climb
>might include coordinated and uncoordinated turn while climbing,
>different weights (who wants to volunteer for the front cockpit?),
>or gusty air.
>
>Jeff
>
>PS: Another factor to toss in here is that a higher deck angle makes
>it more difficult to see traffic. Not much of a concern at 2GA9, a
>little country airport, but could be the deciding factor in other
>circumstances.
>
>
>>After looking at the video again I see that your take offs are
>>somewhat steep.Now I know you have trees to get over at the other
>>end of the field but you could do that with a much more
>>conservative take off than what you are doing.I have been guilty in
>>the past of doing this with my GN-1 Aircamper and the old guys at
>>the field just shake their heads and say no,no,no.What would happen
>>if you had an engine failure?There is a possiblility of a wing over
>>and a steep dive or a stall which you will not have the altitude to
>>recover from.Just passing some friendly advice along from the old
>>guys.If the engine does quit then you can pick out a spot forward
>>of you to put her down.Even if it wrecks the plane somewhat ,at
>>least you'll be alive to rebuild it.I'm not going to say do
>>not archive this because it is very important.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>www.aeroelectric.com
>www.homebuilthelp.com
>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
><http://www.buildersbooks.com>www.buildersbooks.com
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
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: Got a new camera |
As I said before,I was trained by ultralight pilots and they climb at high
attack angles and get up as fast as you can.We used 2 stroke engines in eve
ry case.The old guys are telling me that it's not a good idea with 4 stroke
engines to climb at such attack angles.They do not even agree with the pil
ots who fly the 2 strokes that it's a good idea to fly like that.They just
shake their heads and walk away and say good luck fella cause in their mind
you may be OK today but one day that's going to kill you.- =0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.
com>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:35
:16 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0ACould you categ
orize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow airspeed climb? At that
point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still 20-30mph above s
tall. I would rather have some altitude underneath me and flying at 60-70mp
h if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy airplane like the Piet i
s not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'upward zoom'...and if you
don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude in that situation, what
good did it do you to have it in the first place?=0A=0ARyan=0A=0A=0AOn Tue,
Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com> wrote:=0A=0AThere
was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my field
feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these guys ar
e telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain speed.They f
eel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will come as you g
ain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I thought I was doi
ng it right a few times and they told me I was still too steep.-=0A>=0A>
=0A>=0A>=0A________________________________=0A=0A>From: Gene & Tammy <zharv
ey@bentoncountycable.net>=0A>=0A>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0A>Sent:
Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM =0A>=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got
a new camera=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and
I was able to watch Jeff's take off and I personally don't see a problem wi
th his angle of take off.- He wasn't at such an acute angle that he would
n't have time to drop the nose and keep flying speed.=0A>Just my 2 cents wo
rth=0A>Gene=0A>----- Original Message ----- =0A>>From: H RULE =0A>>To: piet
enpol-list@matronics.com =0A>>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM=0A>
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>If you tried t
hat turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Glider ,yes but
the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much speed as possible
by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't know about gettin
g that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too steep.Some of t
hese ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was taught as well
as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the habit.I'm jus
t tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still around.I can't arg
ue with that.-I have watched jet liners pull out at an unbelievable angle
of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But then again a jet li
ner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is different tha
n a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for my money ,I'm
stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwise.=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>
-=0A>=0A> AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/" rel=nofollow target=_blan
k>www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" rel
=nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L
ist" rel=nofollow targe======0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>_blank">www.aer
oelectric.com=0A>.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>="_blan
k">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=0A>" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==
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: | Got a new camera |
Geez! I feel bad for Jeff!!! All he wanted to do was share some wheel
landing videos and he gets attacked!! I gotta say, looking at the first 15
seconds, it looks like the prop has a high speed wabble.I'm surprised that
someone hasn't asked him why he flies with a wobbly prop. My point is: How
can any of us make a critique of his climb out based on this kind of
footage? It looks to me like Jeff handles his Piet just fine.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
As I said before,I was trained by ultralight pilots and they climb at high
attack angles and get up as fast as you can.We used 2 stroke engines in
every case.The old guys are telling me that it's not a good idea with 4
stroke engines to climb at such attack angles.They do not even agree with
the pilots who fly the 2 strokes that it's a good idea to fly like that.They
just shake their heads and walk away and say good luck fella cause in their
mind you may be OK today but one day that's going to kill you.
_____
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:35:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Could you categorize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow airspeed
climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still
20-30mph above stall. I would rather have some altitude underneath me and
flying at 60-70mph if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy airplane
like the Piet is not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'upward
zoom'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude in that
situation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place?
Ryan
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com> wrote:
There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my
field feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these
guys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain
speed.They feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will
come as you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I
thought I was doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too
steep.
_____
From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountycable.net>
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Jeff's
take off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take off.
He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop the nose
and keep flying speed.
Just my 2 cents worth
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: H RULE <mailto:harvey.rule@rogers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make
it.Glider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much
speed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't
know about getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too
steep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was
taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the
habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still
around.I can't argue with that. I have watched jet liners pull out at an
unbelievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But
then again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole
aircraft is different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is
wrong but for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know
otherwise.
AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/ <http://www.aeroelectric.com/> "
rel=nofollow
target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on" rel=nofollow
target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" rel=nofollow
targe====
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
www.homebuilthel-> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
=======
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: | Got a new camera |
As I wrote previously, I greatly appreciate the concern that prompted
Harvey to comment on the climb-out angle. I also greatly appreciate
all the follow-on commentary. I apologize if any of my responses
seemed defensive - I certainly didn't mean them to be as I don't
think anyone was criticizing me personally - and I certainly didn't
take it that way. I am very, very used to open discussion - it's what
I do for a living. Further, I know that everyone on this list is only
interested in open and frank discussion to obtain facts, to make
helpful suggestions, and to work towards safe enjoyment of our
affliction. In no way is the discussion to be taken as personal dings
against an individual.
This level of discourse one of the many reasons that this the best
list on the internet!
So, please do continue to discuss. Like I wrote earlier, this gives
me even more enthusiasm for further tests!
Jeff
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: | Got a new camera |
I feel for Jeff as well Gary...believe me...
--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Geez! I feel bad for Jeff!!! All he wanted to do was share some wheel landi
ng videos and he gets attacked!! I gotta say, looking at the first 15 secon
ds, it looks like the prop has a high speed wabbleI=99m surp
rised that someone hasn=99t asked him why he flies with a wobbly prop
. My point is:=C2- How can any of us make a critique of his climb out bas
ed on this kind of footage? It looks to me like Jeff handles his Piet just
fine.
=C2-
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done,=C2-Fuselage=C2-on gear
(15 ribs down)
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
=C2-
As I said before,I was trained by ultralight pilots and they climb at high
attack angles and get up as fast as you can.We used 2 stroke engines in eve
ry case.The old guys are telling me that it's not a good idea with 4 stroke
engines to climb at such attack angles.They do not even agree with the pil
ots who fly the 2 strokes that it's a good idea to fly like that.They just
shake their heads and walk away and say good luck fella cause in their mind
you may be OK today but one day that's going to kill you.=C2-
=C2-
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:35:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Could you categorize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow airspeed
climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and still 2
0-30mph above stall. I would rather have some altitude underneath me and fl
ying at 60-70mph if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy airplane
like the Piet is not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'upward zoo
m'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude in that s
ituation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place?
Ryan
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com> wrote:
There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old guys at my f
ield feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth what these gu
ys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and gain speed.T
hey feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb will come as
you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I thought I wa
s doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too steep.=C2-
=C2-
From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountycable.net>
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
=C2-
Harvey, just got my puter to work properly and I was able to watch Jeff's t
ake off and I personally don't see a problem with his angle of take off.=C2
- He wasn't at such an acute angle that he wouldn't have time to drop the
nose and keep flying speed.
Just my 2 cents worth
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: H RULE
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
=C2-
If you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Gl
ider ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much spe
ed as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't kno
w about getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too s
teep.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was
taught as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the
habit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still arou
nd.I can't argue with that.=C2-I have watched jet liners pull out at an u
nbelievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But th
en again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft
is different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but
for my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwis
e.
=C2- =C2- AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/" rel=nofollow target=_bl
ank>www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" rel
=nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L
ist" rel=nofollow targe===== =C2-
=C2- =C2-_blank">www.aeroelectric.com.com" target="_blank">www.build
ersbooks.com="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com_blank">http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piete
npol-Listtp://forums.matronics.com =C2-
=C2-www.homebuilthel-> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
======== =C2-
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Got a new camera |
That being said.Why do you fly with a wobbly prop?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down.)
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
As I wrote previously, I greatly appreciate the concern that prompted Harvey
to comment on the climb-out angle. I also greatly appreciate all the
follow-on commentary. I apologize if any of my responses seemed defensive -
I certainly didn't mean them to be as I don't think anyone was criticizing
me personally - and I certainly didn't take it that way. I am very, very
used to open discussion - it's what I do for a living. Further, I know that
everyone on this list is only interested in open and frank discussion to
obtain facts, to make helpful suggestions, and to work towards safe
enjoyment of our affliction. In no way is the discussion to be taken as
personal dings against an individual.
This level of discourse one of the many reasons that this the best list on
the internet!
So, please do continue to discuss. Like I wrote earlier, this gives me even
more enthusiasm for further tests!
Jeff
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: | Got a new camera |
Well, what kinda world would it be if ALL of my
appendages were stiff? SOMEthing has to be
wobbly... >:-}
>That being said=8AWhy do you fly with a wobbly prop?
Please, please do not archive
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
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: Got a new camera |
Well, so far the only crazy-ass modifications it appears Jeff has made to
his Piet are to install vortex generators and a wobbly prop. He's playing
catch-up! ;) (j/k)
Seriously though, I hope it's not a wobbly prop....we're having one made by
the same guy right now. :P
Ryan
do not archive
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>wr
ote:
> I feel for Jeff as well Gary...believe me...
>
> --- On *Tue, 11/10/09, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 6:32 PM
>
>
> Geez! I feel bad for Jeff!!! All he wanted to do was share some wheel
> landing videos and he gets attacked!! I gotta say, looking at the first 1
5
> seconds, it looks like the prop has a high speed wabble=85I=92m surprised
that
> someone hasn=92t asked him why he flies with a wobbly prop. My point is:
How
> can any of us make a critique of his climb out based on this kind of
> footage? It looks to me like Jeff handles his Piet just fine.
>
>
> Gary Boothe
>
> Cool, Ca.
>
> Pietenpol
>
> WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
>
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
>
> (15 ribs down=85)
>
>
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: Got a new camera |
Scott,
Scott Knowlton wrote:
>
> I'm with Gene on this assessment. Departure stalls happen with an engine failure
because the instant loss of thrust is accompanied by a dramatic increase
in angle of attack. Remember the old pictures of the relative airflow in a full
power climb as compared to a power off nose high attitude. That relative airflow
changes very quickly with a power loss to the point that the wing will
reach its critical angle of attack before the pilot can react to it. Try it at
2000 feet. With full power, briskly pull the nose up until you reach your departure
climb speed, then retard the throttle to idle and see the result. I'd
suggest after you try that your climb angle on departure will become a little
more conservative.
Even more reason to get that stick forward and find that max L/D speed,
right now!
So, "the book" recommends 2 speeds: one for normal take-offs and one for
short field. In ye olde spam can, a C-152, the former is 65-75KIAS, for
the latter it's 54KIAS. In my Piet, the former (Vy) is 63mph, the
latter (Vx) is 59mph. I would never fly any slower than the Vx speed -
there's no point. As happy circumstance would have it, max L/D is also
59mph, so on power failure during climb out, push, push, push the stick
forward. It's completely anti-intuitive; your brain says "pull back,
pull back, pull back," which is exactly the wrong thing to do!
I am going to try Scott's experiment at altitude - I seem to recall
doing the maneuver when I got my licence almost 20 years ago, but I
don't remember the results.
> As an aside, the climb angle of a transport category airliner on departure is
necessary to meet the stages of minimum net flight path altitudes on departure
and are designed to be sustainable in the event of a thrust loss in one engine
(one... Because they have more than one...)
> Scott Knowlton
> (slow builder in Burlington)
Burlington... which state?
Cheers,
Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountycable.net>
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:28:14
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
>
> Dan, up to a point I agree with you. I think what Harvey is trying to say
> is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low
> and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to push your
> nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground. It's all
> quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet. I've had two friends
> die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground. One only killed himself
> but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself. It
> went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law. He was flying a super
> cub (as was the other), had thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game
> pilot and was showing off. As I say, very different than a 200' release
> with a glider.
> Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum@fnal.gov>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
>
> >
> > I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend!
> >
> > The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best
> > glide speed, period.
> >
> > If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit
> > that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180
> > degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500',
> > you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your
> > forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right).
> >
> > With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end
> > of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly
> > some runway in front of you which you can land on.
> >
> > Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of
> > hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them.
> > Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the
> > stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually
> > happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at
> > 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land.
> >
> > So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as
> > many holes in my logic.
> >
> > Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dan
> >
> >
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Got a new camera |
Ryan, you won't be sorry. He makes a great prop! Love my 76X38
Scimitar.
Gene
N502R (spent a little over an hour today flying the beautiful
Tennessee River at 100' AGL. What a thrill. Never tire of it. Shot up
three Tug & Barges and one Ferry Boat.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Well, so far the only crazy-ass modifications it appears Jeff has made
to his Piet are to install vortex generators and a wobbly prop. He's
playing catch-up! ;) (j/k)
Seriously though, I hope it's not a wobbly prop....we're having one
made by the same guy right now. :P
Ryan
do not archive
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: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error |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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: | Got a new camera |
Gene, I thought of you yesterday as I crossed over the Tennessee River,
ferrying the RV-4 back to North Carolina. I never had time to get up with
you and Randy. I got into Jackson late Sunday night and left fairly early
yesterday morning, trying to beat all the weather from Ida here. Good thing
I left when I did - we won't see the sun here now until Sunday, and are
forecast to get 6" of rain by then.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene & Tammy
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Ryan, you won't be sorry. He makes a great prop! Love my 76X38 Scimitar.
Gene
N502R (spent a little over an hour today flying the beautiful Tennessee
River at 100' AGL. What a thrill. Never tire of it. Shot up three Tug &
Barges and one Ferry Boat.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller <mailto:rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Well, so far the only crazy-ass modifications it appears Jeff has made to
his Piet are to install vortex generators and a wobbly prop. He's playing
catch-up! ;) (j/k)
Seriously though, I hope it's not a wobbly prop....we're having one made by
the same guy right now. :P
Ryan
do not archive
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: New organization |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 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: Got a new camera |
The state of Ontario!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
Scott,
Scott Knowlton wrote:
>
> I'm with Gene on this assessment. Departure stalls happen with an engine failure
because the instant loss of thrust is accompanied by a dramatic increase
in angle of attack. Remember the old pictures of the relative airflow in a full
power climb as compared to a power off nose high attitude. That relative airflow
changes very quickly with a power loss to the point that the wing will reach
its critical angle of attack before the pilot can react to it. Try it at 2000
feet. With full power, briskly pull the nose up until you reach your departure
climb speed, then retard the throttle to idle and see the result. I'd suggest
after you try that your climb angle on departure will become a little more
conservative.
Even more reason to get that stick forward and find that max L/D speed,
right now!
So, "the book" recommends 2 speeds: one for normal take-offs and one for
short field. In ye olde spam can, a C-152, the former is 65-75KIAS, for
the latter it's 54KIAS. In my Piet, the former (Vy) is 63mph, the
latter (Vx) is 59mph. I would never fly any slower than the Vx speed -
there's no point. As happy circumstance would have it, max L/D is also
59mph, so on power failure during climb out, push, push, push the stick
forward. It's completely anti-intuitive; your brain says "pull back,
pull back, pull back," which is exactly the wrong thing to do!
I am going to try Scott's experiment at altitude - I seem to recall
doing the maneuver when I got my licence almost 20 years ago, but I
don't remember the results.
> As an aside, the climb angle of a transport category airliner on departure is
necessary to meet the stages of minimum net flight path altitudes on departure
and are designed to be sustainable in the event of a thrust loss in one engine
(one... Because they have more than one...)
> Scott Knowlton
> (slow builder in Burlington)
Burlington... which state?
Cheers,
Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gene & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountycable.net>
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:28:14
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
>
> Dan, up to a point I agree with you. I think what Harvey is trying to say
> is that if you take off at too steep of an angle and your airspeed is low
> and the engine quites close to the ground, you don't have time to push your
> nose over and build up flying speed before you hit the ground. It's all
> quite different than being let off a tow at 200 feet. I've had two friends
> die because of steep takeoffs close to the ground. One only killed himself
> but the other killed his 4 yr old son, his father-in-law and himself. It
> went down in front of his wife and his mother-in-law. He was flying a super
> cub (as was the other), had thousands of hours as an Alaskan Fish and Game
> pilot and was showing off. As I say, very different than a 200' release
> with a glider.
> Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum@fnal.gov>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
>
>
> >
> > I have to respectfully disagree on this point - altitude is your friend!
> >
> > The very first thing you do when you lose your engine is establish best
> > glide speed, period.
> >
> > If you lose an engine on climb out, you push the stick forward and hit
> > that speed. If you're over 500' you've got a chance to execute a 180
> > degree turn and make it back to the airport, if you're under 500',
> > you've got a little (very little) lee-way in looking for a field in your
> > forward field of view (the "book" says 10 degrees left or right).
> >
> > With such a steep climb out angle, especially with obstacles at the end
> > of the runway, you buy yourself 2 things: altitude *and* the possibly
> > some runway in front of you which you can land on.
> >
> > Now, I'm no old timer, but I do have a glider ticket and a bunch of
> > hours in gliders and lots and lots of landing to go along with them.
> > Every year we do at least one 200' rope break. Step one is push the
> > stick forward and hit your best glide speed, step two, which usually
> > happens with step one, is turn around (a glider *can* execute a 180 at
> > 200' AGL - I'd be willing to bet that a Piet can't), and step 3 is land.
> >
> > So, that's my take on the situation, you may now feel free to poke as
> > many holes in my logic.
> >
> > Jack's the new CFI-in-training - what do you say, sir?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dan
> >
> >
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov <http://fermigrid.fnal.gov>
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Got a new camera |
Actually I wasn't attacking him.I am concerned for his safety just as the o
ld guys I fly with are concerned about my safety.I thought his landings wer
e perfect compared to what I do and I told him that and he thanked me for t
hat.Jeff knows what he is doing and that's OK too.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________
______________________=0AFrom: Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>=0AT
o: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 7:22:01 PM
=0ASubject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0A=0AI feel for Jeff as
well Gary...believe me...=0A=0A--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Gary Boothe <gboothe5
@comcast.net> wrote:=0A=0A=0A>From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>=0A>S
ubject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A>To: pietenpol-list@matronic
s.com=0A>Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 6:32 PM=0A>=0A>=0A>Geez! I feel
bad for Jeff!!! All he wanted to do was share some wheel landing videos and
he gets attacked!! I gotta say, looking at the first 15 seconds, it looks
like the prop has a high speed wabbleI=99m surprised that so
meone hasn=99t asked him why he flies with a wobbly prop. My point is
:=C2- How can any of us make a critique of his climb out based on this ki
nd of footage? It looks to me like Jeff handles his Piet just fine.=0A>=C2
-=0A>Gary Boothe=0A>Cool, Ca. =0A>Pietenpol =0A>WW Corvair Conversion, mo
unted =0A>Tail done,=C2-Fuselage=C2-on gear =0A>(15 ribs down)
=0A>=0A________________________________=0A=0A>From:owner-pietenpol-list-se
rver@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Be
half Of H RULE=0A>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:21 PM=0A>To: pietenpol
-list@matronics.com=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A>=C2
- =0A>As I said before,I was trained by ultralight pilots and they climb
at high attack angles and get up as fast as you can.We used 2 stroke engine
s in every case.The old guys are telling me that it's not a good idea with
4 stroke engines to climb at such attack angles.They do not even agree with
the pilots who fly the 2 strokes that it's a good idea to fly like that.Th
ey just shake their heads and walk away and say good luck fella cause in th
eir mind you may be OK today but one day that's going to kill you.=C2-
=0A>=C2-=0A>=0A________________________________=0A=0A>From:Ryan Mueller <
rmueller23@gmail.com>=0A>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0A>Sent: Tue, Nov
ember 10, 2009 3:35:16 PM=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera
=0A>=0A>Could you categorize climbing out at 60-70mph in a Piet as a slow a
irspeed climb? At that point Jeff's probably only 10-15mph from cruise, and
still 20-30mph above stall. I would rather have some altitude underneath m
e and flying at 60-70mph if the prop stops than be low and fast. A draggy a
irplane like the Piet is not going to gain much altitude in a power-off 'up
ward zoom'...and if you don't/can't trade that airspeed for much altitude i
n that situation, what good did it do you to have it in the first place?=0A
>=0A>Ryan=0A>On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.co
m> wrote:=0A>There was a time when I would have agreed with you but the old
guys at my field feel that is not the way to do it.I'm just putting forth
what these guys are telling me,that's all.They say keep your nose level and
gain speed.They feel that is more important than climb.They say the climb
will come as you gain speed but it will be a lvel climb not a steep climb.I
thought I was doing it right a few times and they told me I was still too
steep.=C2-=0A>=C2-=0A>=0A________________________________=0A=0A>From:Ge
ne & Tammy <zharvey@bentoncountycable.net>=0A>To:pietenpol-list@matronics.c
om=0A>Sent:Tue, November 10, 2009 1:41:16 PM =0A>=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol
-List: Got a new camera=0A>=C2-=0A>Harvey, just got my puter to work prop
erly and I was able to watch Jeff's take off and I personally don't see a p
roblem with his angle of take off.=C2- He wasn't at such an acute angle t
hat he wouldn't have time to drop the nose and keep flying speed.=0A>Just m
y 2 cents worth=0A>Gene=0A>----- Original Message ----- =0A>>From:H RULE
=0A>>To:pietenpol-list@matronics.com =0A>>Sent:Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1
1:25 AM=0A>>Subject:Re: Pietenpol-List: Got a new camera=0A>>=C2-=0A>>If
you tried that turn in a Piet you would be toast.It would not make it.Glide
r ,yes but the Piet is no glider.The old guys tell me to get as much speed
as possible by keeping her level longer and a slow climb out.I don't know a
bout getting that stick forward.You may not if your climb angle is too stee
p.Some of these ultralight guys take off like that.That's the way I was tau
ght as well as an ultralight pilot and it's been hard for me to kick the ha
bit.I'm just tellin ya what the old guys told me and they are still around.
I can't argue with that.=C2-I have watched jet liners pull out at an unbe
lievable angle of attack and it just makes me wonder who is right.But then
again a jet liner has more engines and more power and the whole aircraft is
different than a Piet so I don't know who is right or who is wrong but for
my money ,I'm stickin with the old guys mentallity till I know otherwise.
=0A>>=0A>>=C2-=0A> =C2-=0A> AeroElectric wwwmebuilthelp.com/" rel=nof
ollow target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com
/contribution" rel=nofollow target=_bla="http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?Pietenpol-List" rel=nofollow targe======0A> =C2-=0A>
=C2-=0A> =C2-=0A>_blank">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>.com" target="_blank
">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>_blank">htt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>"=0A> target="_blank">http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>tp://forums.matronics.com=0A> =C2
-=0A>=C2-=0A>www.homebuilthel-> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet
enpol-List=0A>=========0A> =C2-=0A>=0A>=0A>href="http:/
/www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>href="http://www.buildersb
ooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">ww
w.homebuilthelp.com=0A>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http:
//www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L
ist">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>href="http://fo
rums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>ollow ta
rget=_blank>www.aeroelectric.com=0A>/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>www
.buildersbooks.com=0A>ofollow target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>llow
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>" rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>et=_
===
Message 42
| 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: Got a new camera |
Amen ,well put Jeff.=0Ado not archive=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______________________
_________=0AFrom: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@m
atronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 7:10:36 PM=0ASubject: RE: Piete
npol-List: Got a new camera=0A=0A=0AAs I wrote previously, I greatly apprec
iate the concern that prompted Harvey to comment on the climb-out angle. I
also greatly appreciate all the follow-on commentary. I apologize if any of
my responses seemed defensive - I certainly didn't mean them to be as I do
n't think anyone was criticizing me personally - and I certainly didn't tak
e it that way.I am very, very used to open discussion - it's what I do for
a living. Further, I know that everyone on this list is only interested in
open and frank discussion to obtain facts, to make helpful suggestions,-
and to work towards safe enjoyment of our affliction. In no way is the disc
ussion to be taken as personal dings against an individual.=0A=0AThis level
of discourse one of the many reasons that this the best list on the intern
et!=0A=0ASo, please do continue to discuss. Like I wrote earlier, this give
=======
Message 43
| 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: | Got a new camera |
Jeff,
I like the new camera and your landings. Keep it up.
I sold my Piet in July this year so I could continue building and finish
my Zodiac 601XL. A series of Mods are now available for the 601 and they
will keep me out of the air for a while longer.
I am seriously considering building another Piet after this 601 and am
thoroughly enjoying your videos.
The weather in Aussie at the moment is beautiful for Piet flying and I
DON=99T HAVE
ONE
..
Thanks for the views.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
<http://www.cpc-world.com> http://www.cpc-world.com
Message 44
| 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: | New organization |
One of my main reasons for haste is my 8 yr old grandson, Zachary. He tells
everyone that we are going camping in the Aircamper! Zach even picked out
the instruments he wants in the front cockpit, but the first instrument he
picked was a clock. He says he, ".needs to know when it's time to turn
around and go home." How can I resist? I hope this site gets up and
running..
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Butsch
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New organization
Hey guys & gals:
I couldn't help but pass this info on since it has a great and very real
connection to the Pietenpol Air Camper.
Take a look at this web site for info on a new organization. The fellow who
started this, Don Abbott, is an old friend of mine from here in Indiana. I
was talking with him last winter when we were in Florida (he lives on
Sanibel Island), and he told me of his idea to start a aircraft/camping
organization. He has finally made it's presence known via the attached
site. I didn't know at the time that the name would be the American Air
Campers Association.
I think it's a great idea and he is looking for 6 regional directors and a
wing leader in each state. This is a perfect tie-in with our chosen
aircraft. Watch the video and then drop him a line with your interest and
ideas. This would be a great way to further promote the aircraft that really
started the idea of camping from your plane in the first place. Go to
www.americanaircampers.com
What do you guys think of the idea?
Bob
Robert Butsch
7360 Steinmeier Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana
46250-2567
PH 317-841-3786
Message 45
| 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: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error |
We re-covered the Aircamper at Pioneer Airport a few years ago during Oshkosh.
This plane was built by Bernard in 1966. I have a few photo's of the construction
of the wing. Here is how the designer put it together. Note the laminated
spar. Plywood was glued on both sides of the spar ( under the fitting ).
The spar was signed Bernard Pietenpol - 1966.
Dan Wilson
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272203#272203
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan1_209.jpg
Message 46
| 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: Got a new camera |
Hi Jeff:,
Looks perfect to me, I'm glad that I never have shown the rate of climb when I
had the Werner 145, 500 cu in. on my Piet, It was very capable of a loop on take-off
and still have 200 feet under me at the bottom of the loop. God help me
if the engine sneezed once. I tested that item at 2000Ft.
Jeff, fly as you feel comfortable with, And you sure look good to me.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272204#272204
Message 47
| 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: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error |
Dan,
That is fantastic. Thanks for sharing, and please share any others you may
have!
Ryan
do not archive
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:50 PM, dwilson <marwilson@charter.net> wrote:
>
> We re-covered the Aircamper at Pioneer Airport a few years ago during
> Oshkosh. This plane was built by Bernard in 1966. I have a few photo's of
> the construction of the wing. Here is how the designer put it together.
> Note the laminated spar. Plywood was glued on both sides of the spar (
> under the fitting ). The spar was signed Bernard Pietenpol - 1966.
>
> Dan Wilson
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272203#272203
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan1_209.jpg
>
>
Message 48
| 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: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error |
Wow, I agree! Please keep them coming!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Mueller
Sent: Nov 11, 2009 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error
Dan,
That is fantastic. Thanks for sharing, and please share any others you may have!
Ryan
do not archive
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:50 PM, dwilson <marwilson@charter.net> wrote:
We re-covered the Aircamper at Pioneer Airport a few years ago during Oshkosh.
This plane was built by Bernard in 1966. I have a few photo's of the construction
of the wing. Here is how the designer put it together. Note the laminated
spar. Plywood was glued on both sides of the spar ( under the fitting ).
The spar was signed Bernard Pietenpol - 1966.
Dan Wilson
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272203#272203
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan1_209.jpg
==========
="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
le, List Admin.
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
Message 49
| 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: Got a new camera |
I have a video of you and that Werner taking off at Brodhead in (I think) 2002...it
WAS incredible!
-----Original Message-----
>From: Pieti Lowell <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Nov 10, 2009 10:55 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Got a new camera
>
>
>Hi Jeff:,
>Looks perfect to me, I'm glad that I never have shown the rate of climb when I
had the Werner 145, 500 cu in. on my Piet, It was very capable of a loop on take-off
and still have 200 feet under me at the bottom of the loop. God help me
if the engine sneezed once. I tested that item at 2000Ft.
>Jeff, fly as you feel comfortable with, And you sure look good to me.
>Pieti Lowell
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272204#272204
>
>
Message 50
| 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: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error |
Thanks great picture!
Russell
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Jim Markle <jim_markle@mindspring.com>wrote:
> jim_markle@mindspring.com>
>
> Wow, I agree! Please keep them coming!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Ryan Mueller
>
> Sent: Nov 11, 2009 12:37 AM
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe
> Plans Error
>
>
> Dan,
>
> That is fantastic. Thanks for sharing, and please share any others you may
> have!
>
> Ryan
>
> do not archive
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:50 PM, dwilson <marwilson@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> We re-covered the Aircamper at Pioneer Airport a few years ago during
> Oshkosh. This plane was built by Bernard in 1966. I have a few photo's of
> the construction of the wing. Here is how the designer put it together.
> Note the laminated spar. Plywood was glued on both sides of the spar (
> under the fitting ). The spar was signed Bernard Pietenpol - 1966.
>
>
> Dan Wilson
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272203#272203
>
>
> Attachments:
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dan1_209.jpg
>
>
> ==========
>
> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>
> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>
> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> le, List Admin.
>
> ==========
>
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> ==========
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> ==========
>
>
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! --
|