Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:47 AM - built up spars (baileys)
2. 07:18 AM - Black Max brakes on my Piet (Brian Mitchely)
3. 07:24 AM - Re: built up spars (Ryan Mueller)
4. 07:33 AM - Re: Black Max brakes on my Piet (hvandervoo@aol.com)
5. 07:37 AM - Re: Piet Flying (Perry Rhoads)
6. 07:48 AM - Re: built up spars (Gary Boothe)
7. 08:10 AM - Re: built up spars (Tim Willis)
8. 01:05 PM - Re: built up spars (Peter W Johnson)
9. 01:23 PM - Re: built up spars (Tim Willis)
10. 03:49 PM - pilots operating manual (airlion)
11. 04:05 PM - General Pietenpol questions (njones)
12. 04:17 PM - Re: General Pietenpol questions (K5YAC)
13. 04:51 PM - Re: General Pietenpol questions (David Paule)
14. 04:52 PM - Re: General Pietenpol questions (Gene & Tammy)
15. 05:17 PM - Re: General Pietenpol questions (Jack Phillips)
16. 05:35 PM - Re: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 (njones)
17. 05:43 PM - Re: built up spars (hpvs@southwind.net)
18. 06:19 PM - Re: General Pietenpol questions (Jack)
19. 06:25 PM - General Pietenpol questions (Oscar Zuniga)
20. 06:56 PM - Re: pilots operating manual (Dan Yocum)
21. 07:13 PM - Re: built up spars (gcardinal)
22. 07:13 PM - Re: General Pietenpol questions (Dan Yocum)
23. 07:58 PM - Re: pilots operating manual (Jeff Boatright)
24. 08:11 PM - Re: Re: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 (Graham Hansen)
25. 08:25 PM - Re: pilots operating manual (Dan Yocum)
26. 09:02 PM - Re: built up spars (Peter W Johnson)
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 |
|
I'm joining in on this one a bit. Years ago I too tried to get plans
for the built up spar the Brits have. As far as I as able to find out
there is simply no legal way of doing it and that is the end of that.
However EAA has (or had) publications on built up spars. Also there are
a number successful home built aircraft that use built up spars.
Molt Taylor designed aircraft made largely out of cardboard, fiberglass
and epoxy. They used a built spar that probably didn't cost a hundred
bucks. Zenith Aircraft Company uses built up aluminum spars that are
(IMHO) probably cheaper that aircraft quality Sitka Spruce, stronger and
weigh less too.
The Skypup Ultra-lite does not have the classic beauty of a Piet, but it
uses just one built up spar and the removable three piece wing is fully
cantilevered. IMHO the Skypup designer is in the same league as Bernie
Pietenpol. A simple straight forward design using commonly available
materials. Only this man is a professional aeronautical engineer. If
anyone wants to see something about it there is a video called
"Machnone" on youtube that shows a lot of the construction methodology
of the Skypup. I bought a set of plans from the designer's son just to
see how it was constructed. (Over the years I have collected a number
of plans for the same reason.) Due to personal responsibilities that I
have, building my own Piet is not possible so I stand on the sidelines
wishing others well.
Hopefully, someone will be inspired by all that is out there on low cost
built up spars and the sky will be darkened with Pietenpol Air Campers
being flown by happy pilots before too long.
Back to lurking,
Bob B.
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: | Black Max brakes on my Piet |
I am looking at various wheel and brake options for my Aircamper build. I h
appened across this on my last trip to Aircraft Spruce in Georgia. Does any
one have any experience with the Black Max wheel and brake set up? The BX44
863 will support up to a gross weight of 1500 pounds and uses a 6X6 Tyre. H
ere is a link to the product as listed at Aircraft Spruce: http://www.aircr
aftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/blackmax.php -=0A=0A=0A
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: built up spars |
Well, I don't see how procuring the UK plans is against the law in any
way; Jim Wills just doesn't want to sell them to anyone here. If you
were to acquire a set it would be against his wishes, but I highly
doubt you would be breaking any laws.
As far as holding Zenith spars up as an example of a strong, high
quality design....you may want to reconsider that:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-12_safety_alert.asp
They've developed such a tendency to shed their wings/break up in
flight that the FAA has seemingly done all they can to require or
strongly recommend no further flight until an extensive package of
mods are completed on existing aircraft, and will not issue
airworthiness certificates for any new aircraft that do not have the
mods. Too bad for the Zenith guys...
Ryan
Sent from my mobile device
On Nov 17, 2009, at 5:32 AM, baileys <baileys@ktis.net> wrote:
>
> I'm joining in on this one a bit. Years ago I too tried to get plans
> for the built up spar the Brits have. As far as I as able to find out
> there is simply no legal way of doing it and that is the end of that.
> <snip>
> Zenith Aircraft Company uses built up aluminum spars that are
> (IMHO) probably cheaper that aircraft quality Sitka Spruce, stronger
> and
> weigh less too.
>
>
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: Black Max brakes on my Piet |
I am using a Matco setup that is very similar, 3/4" axle and similar gross
weight, succesfully.
BR
Hans
NX15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Mitchely <bmitchely@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, Nov 17, 2009 9:16 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Black Max brakes on my Piet
I am looking at various wheel and brake options for my Aircamper build. I
happened across this on my last trip to Aircraft Spruce in Georgia. Does
anyone have any experience with the Black Max wheel and brake set up? The
BX44863 will support up to a gross weight of 1500 pounds and uses a 6X6
Tyre. Here is a link to the product as listed at Aircraft Spruce: http://
www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/blackmax.php
========================
===========
-
-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
-= (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
-
-= November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
-= the Contribution link below to find out more about
-= this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided
-= by:
-= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com
-= * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com
-= * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com
-
-= List Contribution Web Site:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
========================
===========
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Al,
Great news !!
Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Bane" <adb7@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet Flying
>
> Perry,
>
> Nice pics.
>
> Hopefully we'll have another Piet flying at Litchfield in the next couple
> years. I bought a project from Bill See in Ohio this weekend and brought
> it home. Long fuselage (2 in added width), tail feathers and wing ribs
> are done. I've got spars and wing struts. It's in my garage now, but
> will move it to Litchfield as soon as our new hangars are done in the
> spring.
>
> Al Bane
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Perry Rhoads <prhoads61@frontiernet.net>
>>Sent: Nov 15, 2009 10:02 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Flying
>>
>>Just a few random Pietenpol flying pictures from yesterday in central
>>Illinois.
>>
>>I can't let this thing sit in the hangar all winter !!!
>>
>>Perry Rhoads
>>N12939
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
...with one minor correction....the FAA warning is for the 601XL model,
which is a long wing with no center section. Both the 601HD & HDS models are
performing just fine, with no concerns. They both have an 8' center section.
Still...as you say...too bad for the Zenith guys...
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: built up spars
Well, I don't see how procuring the UK plans is against the law in any
way; Jim Wills just doesn't want to sell them to anyone here. If you
were to acquire a set it would be against his wishes, but I highly
doubt you would be breaking any laws.
As far as holding Zenith spars up as an example of a strong, high
quality design....you may want to reconsider that:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-12_safety_alert.asp
They've developed such a tendency to shed their wings/break up in
flight that the FAA has seemingly done all they can to require or
strongly recommend no further flight until an extensive package of
mods are completed on existing aircraft, and will not issue
airworthiness certificates for any new aircraft that do not have the
mods. Too bad for the Zenith guys...
Ryan
Sent from my mobile device
On Nov 17, 2009, at 5:32 AM, baileys <baileys@ktis.net> wrote:
>
> I'm joining in on this one a bit. Years ago I too tried to get plans
> for the built up spar the Brits have. As far as I as able to find out
> there is simply no legal way of doing it and that is the end of that.
> <snip>
> Zenith Aircraft Company uses built up aluminum spars that are
> (IMHO) probably cheaper that aircraft quality Sitka Spruce, stronger
> and
> weigh less too.
>
>
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: built up spars |
It is a civil liability issue. The USA has about 75% of the world's lawyers and
generates about 95% of the world's lawsuits. US litigants have some standing
in UK courts, unlike in many countries which turn such suits away. Jim likely
wishes to continue speaking English in England and keeping his money and sanity...
good for him.
Maybe an interested builder can get dimensions on those caps and the web of the
built-up spar from a second source ("wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more").
Tim in central TX
no relation to Jim Wills
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
>Sent: Nov 17, 2009 9:24 AM
>To: "pietenpol-list@matronics.com" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: built up spars
>
>
>Well, I don't see how procuring the UK plans is against the law in any
>way; Jim Wills just doesn't want to sell them to anyone here. If you
>were to acquire a set it would be against his wishes, but I highly
>doubt you would be breaking any laws.
>
>As far as holding Zenith spars up as an example of a strong, high
>quality design....you may want to reconsider that:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-12_safety_alert.asp
>
>They've developed such a tendency to shed their wings/break up in
>flight that the FAA has seemingly done all they can to require or
>strongly recommend no further flight until an extensive package of
>mods are completed on existing aircraft, and will not issue
>airworthiness certificates for any new aircraft that do not have the
>mods. Too bad for the Zenith guys...
>
>Ryan
>
>Sent from my mobile device
>
>On Nov 17, 2009, at 5:32 AM, baileys <baileys@ktis.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm joining in on this one a bit. Years ago I too tried to get plans
>> for the built up spar the Brits have. As far as I as able to find out
>> there is simply no legal way of doing it and that is the end of that.
>> <snip>
>
>> Zenith Aircraft Company uses built up aluminum spars that are
>> (IMHO) probably cheaper that aircraft quality Sitka Spruce, stronger
>> and
>> weigh less too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Hi Guys,
I used Jim's plans for my spar.
When building, I make a quick drawing from the plans showing what I need to do
for that particular part and take that to the workshop, leaving the plans safe
in the office. I still have the notebook drawing I made to build the spars.
If I posted that on my web site, maybe people would have a better idea of what
is required. There are lots of photo's on page 4 of the builders log on the web
site. That way nobody needs to get upset.
What do you reckon??
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: built up spars
It is a civil liability issue. The USA has about 75% of the world's lawyers and
generates about 95% of the world's lawsuits. US litigants have some standing
in UK courts, unlike in many countries which turn such suits away. Jim likely
wishes to continue speaking English in England and keeping his money and sanity...
good for him.
Maybe an interested builder can get dimensions on those caps and the web of the
built-up spar from a second source ("wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more").
Tim in central TX
no relation to Jim Wills
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
>Sent: Nov 17, 2009 9:24 AM
>To: "pietenpol-list@matronics.com" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: built up spars
>
>
>Well, I don't see how procuring the UK plans is against the law in any
>way; Jim Wills just doesn't want to sell them to anyone here. If you
>were to acquire a set it would be against his wishes, but I highly
>doubt you would be breaking any laws.
>
>As far as holding Zenith spars up as an example of a strong, high
>quality design....you may want to reconsider that:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-12_safety_alert.asp
>
>They've developed such a tendency to shed their wings/break up in
>flight that the FAA has seemingly done all they can to require or
>strongly recommend no further flight until an extensive package of
>mods are completed on existing aircraft, and will not issue
>airworthiness certificates for any new aircraft that do not have the
>mods. Too bad for the Zenith guys...
>
>Ryan
>
>Sent from my mobile device
>
>On Nov 17, 2009, at 5:32 AM, baileys <baileys@ktis.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm joining in on this one a bit. Years ago I too tried to get plans
>> for the built up spar the Brits have. As far as I as able to find out
>> there is simply no legal way of doing it and that is the end of that.
>> <snip>
>
>> Zenith Aircraft Company uses built up aluminum spars that are
>> (IMHO) probably cheaper that aircraft quality Sitka Spruce, stronger
>> and
>> weigh less too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Peter,
If you provided sketches with dimensions, combined with the great pix on your site,
no one should need more.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter W Johnson <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
>Sent: Nov 17, 2009 3:01 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: built up spars
>
>
>Hi Guys,
>
>I used Jim's plans for my spar.
>
>When building, I make a quick drawing from the plans showing what I need to do
for that particular part and take that to the workshop, leaving the plans safe
in the office. I still have the notebook drawing I made to build the spars.
>
>If I posted that on my web site, maybe people would have a better idea of what
is required. There are lots of photo's on page 4 of the builders log on the web
site. That way nobody needs to get upset.
>
>What do you reckon??
>
>Cheers
>
>Peter
>Wonthaggi Australia
>http://www.cpc-world.com
>
>
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: | pilots operating manual |
I am looking for a POM for my Piet with a corvair engine. I heard that there was
one on the list that I could duplicate. Thanks, Gardiner Mason
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: | General Pietenpol questions |
As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this aircraft. To
begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual Cessnas and Piper
aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer. No tail dragger time
although I would certainly get this prior to flying any homebuilt project.
I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the Fly Baby
and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place configuration. (
Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft to fly? and is it a
hand-full on the ground?
Years ago back in the 70's I built a large RC model of this aircraft that I entered
in the Canadian Scale Nationals in Calgary. Frankly I was less than impressed
with the flight characteristics. It was difficult to balance with the short
nose moment, a bear to handle on the ground with that narrow gear, being prone
to ground loops and dragging a wing tip, especially in a cross-wind. In the
air it was particularly touchy in pitch and not pleasant to fly.
I realize it is difficult to compare the flight characteristics of a model to full
size ( Reynolds numbers etc. ) but they both have that narrow gear and almost
no dihedral, in fact in head-on flight pics the aircraft appears to have
zero dihedral.
Any thought on these comments? I love the aircraft and would consider powering
it with a C-85 or possibly a Corvair, the photos of the British G-BUCO are especially
inspiring.
Thx for the help,
Nigel Jones, BC, Canada
--------
Nigel R. Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273353#273353
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: General Pietenpol questions |
Interesting background (similar to my own) and good questions Nigel. I am a new
builder and do not have any flight time in this airplane yet, but surely someone
will be along soon to give you an experienced perspective.
G-BUCO also caught my eye very early in the decision making process. I'll be reading
the mail.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273355#273355
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: General Pietenpol questions |
Having built a Fly-Baby many years ago, I'd think that the Pietenpol would
be the clear choice for these reasons:
1. It's got that second seat.
2. Fly-Baby performance is often not that much different than the Pietenpol,
certainly not enough to be a deal-breaker, for the same engine. There are
some Fly-Bablys, though that are cleaned up and can cruise faster. The
Fly-Baby is probably easier to reduce drag on.
3. The Pietenpol can be built slightly lighter.
4. The visibility is better in the Pietenpol, if you don't use the Ford with
the upright radiator.
5. The Pietenpol might be slightly more robust. The struts help. The
Fly-Baby has flying and landing wires.
While the Fly-Baby does have folding wings, they are a bit awkward and
aren't used that often, generally speaking. Still, they are there and that
might make a difference.
David Paule
>
> As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this
> aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual
> Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer.
> No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying
> any homebuilt project.
>
> I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the
> Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place
> configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft
> to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground?
>
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: General Pietenpol questions |
Nigel, where in BC are you?
I have a Piet with a one piece wing, which has no dihedral. The Piet is a
joy to fly IF you enjoy open cockpit flying. It is stable in the air and on
the ground. The Piet is not prone to ground looping. Just a good, all
around easy and gentle plane to taxi, fly and land. Mine has the A 65 with
a 76 X 38 prop and I'm very happy with the cruise and climb. From what I
see, the only folks that are not happy with the Piet are the ones that try
to make it into something it was never ment to be. The Piet is a slow,
draggy, windy and delightful airplane and the only change you can make to
it, is to take out the delightful. If you do build one, built it by the
plans and build it light. You won't be sorry.
Gene
N502R in rainy Tennessee
----- Original Message -----
From: "njones" <deville-66@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: General Pietenpol questions
>
> As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this
> aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual
> Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer.
> No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying
> any homebuilt project.
>
> I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the
> Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place
> configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft
> to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground?
>
> Years ago back in the 70's I built a large RC model of this aircraft that
> I entered in the Canadian Scale Nationals in Calgary. Frankly I was less
> than impressed with the flight characteristics. It was difficult to
> balance with the short nose moment, a bear to handle on the ground with
> that narrow gear, being prone to ground loops and dragging a wing tip,
> especially in a cross-wind. In the air it was particularly touchy in pitch
> and not pleasant to fly.
>
> I realize it is difficult to compare the flight characteristics of a model
> to full size ( Reynolds numbers etc. ) but they both have that narrow gear
> and almost no dihedral, in fact in head-on flight pics the aircraft
> appears to have zero dihedral.
>
> Any thought on these comments? I love the aircraft and would consider
> powering it with a C-85 or possibly a Corvair, the photos of the British
> G-BUCO are especially inspiring.
>
> Thx for the help,
>
> Nigel Jones, BC, Canada
>
> --------
> Nigel R. Jones
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273353#273353
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
19:26:00
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: | General Pietenpol questions |
Nigel,
With sufficient tailwheel time I don't think you'll find a Pietenpol
difficult to handle. Its ground handling is quite docile, as long as you
are not bothered by not being able to see anything straight ahead.
It is not a particularly easy airplane to land, due to its very high drag.
When approaching power off, I find the best speed to be 55 mph on short
final. The flare has to be timed very well, because the time between
beginning the flare at 55 mph and stalling at 35 is approximately 1-2
seconds. However, if you carry a bit of power, the flare can be extended
somewhat, making it a bit easier to land. Directional control is not a
problem, any more than in any other taildragger. I have flown mine in a 25
knot direct crosswind, and while not enjoyable, the plane could handle it.
Flying in such wind is work, and I don't recommend it unless you have no
choice (like landing at Oshkosh in strong crosswinds).
As for the narrow gear, if you think it is too narrow, make it wider. I
widened mine a bit, to a width of 7 feet between the wheels. Still narrower
than a Cub (with its 10' tread), but certainly not a handful. Narrow gear
does not necessarily make a plane difficult to handle on the ground. I have
an RV-4 as well as the Pietenpol. The RV-4 has much narrower gear than the
Piet, but is absolutely the easiest plane to land I've ever flown, including
all tricycle gear types.
No dihedral? No problem. The parasol configuration adds substantial
stability, but if you're looking for the stability of a Cessna 210, look
elsewhere. On a glass smooth day, my Pietenpol will fly hands off for
minutes at a time. It will fly feet off for maybe as long as a second or
two. Stability in yaw is not a strong suit.
It flies like exactly what it is - a 1929 airplane design. It is very much
a rudder airplane, with lot's of adverse yaw. You do have to fly it, so
time in a Cherokee or a Cessna is not much of a prep. Try to get some time
in a J-3, to get more of a feel for what a Piet is like.
Is it enjoyable to fly? Very much. I have not flown a Fly Baby, so I can't
compare the two. Of planes I have flown, the closest in feel to a Pietenpol
is probably a 1934 Fairchild 22. Again, lots of drag, lots of adverse yaw,
and lots of fun.
Good luck with your decision. I had the same choice to make (with the
Volmer Sportsman thrown into the mix as well). I chose the Pietenpol and
have never regretted my choice. If you haven't decided by next July, I
suggest you make the trip to Brodhead, Wisconsin for the annual Pietenpol
gathering and take a ride in one.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of njones
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: General Pietenpol questions
As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this
aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual
Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer.
No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying any
homebuilt project.
I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the Fly
Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place
configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft
to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground?
Years ago back in the 70's I built a large RC model of this aircraft that I
entered in the Canadian Scale Nationals in Calgary. Frankly I was less than
impressed with the flight characteristics. It was difficult to balance with
the short nose moment, a bear to handle on the ground with that narrow gear,
being prone to ground loops and dragging a wing tip, especially in a
cross-wind. In the air it was particularly touchy in pitch and not pleasant
to fly.
I realize it is difficult to compare the flight characteristics of a model
to full size ( Reynolds numbers etc. ) but they both have that narrow gear
and almost no dihedral, in fact in head-on flight pics the aircraft
appears to have zero dihedral.
Any thought on these comments? I love the aircraft and would consider
powering it with a C-85 or possibly a Corvair, the photos of the British
G-BUCO are especially inspiring.
Thx for the help,
Nigel Jones, BC, Canada
--------
Nigel R. Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273353#273353
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: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 |
Graham, where in central Alberta are you located? I have a Daughter in Alix just
outside of Lacombe, if you are close by would like to see your Piet sometime.
I'm in the process of trying to decide on a project and researching various
designs. no decision yet.
Nigel Jones, Salmon arm, BC
--------
Nigel R. Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273366#273366
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: built up spars |
Gentlemen!
We do have Peter's most excellent material list, with all the "bits & pieces" --
I have "assembled" the spar from these pieces on paper some time ago -- Moment
of Inertia for the front PFA spar is very close to the routed "I" spar (1"
x 4 3/4" with the 1/2" web thickness). It's really a good design that only needs
a wider opening for the front spar in the Piet wing ribs (1 1/8" vs 1") --
The rear spar only needs the original 1" spar opening.
I could use some hints on the "swallow-tail" blocks between the caps! ;-)
Cheers!
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
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: General Pietenpol questions |
Jack great post, very helpful, thank you!
Jack
DSM
Do not archive
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2009, at 7:11 PM, "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> >
>
> Nigel,
>
> With sufficient tailwheel time I don't think you'll find a Pietenpol
> difficult to handle. Its ground handling is quite docile, as long
> as you
> are not bothered by not being able to see anything straight ahead.
>
> It is not a particularly easy airplane to land, due to its very high
> drag.
> When approaching power off, I find the best speed to be 55 mph on
> short
> final. The flare has to be timed very well, because the time between
> beginning the flare at 55 mph and stalling at 35 is approximately 1-2
> seconds. However, if you carry a bit of power, the flare can be
> extended
> somewhat, making it a bit easier to land. Directional control is
> not a
> problem, any more than in any other taildragger. I have flown mine
> in a 25
> knot direct crosswind, and while not enjoyable, the plane could
> handle it.
> Flying in such wind is work, and I don't recommend it unless you
> have no
> choice (like landing at Oshkosh in strong crosswinds).
>
> As for the narrow gear, if you think it is too narrow, make it
> wider. I
> widened mine a bit, to a width of 7 feet between the wheels. Still
> narrower
> than a Cub (with its 10' tread), but certainly not a handful.
> Narrow gear
> does not necessarily make a plane difficult to handle on the
> ground. I have
> an RV-4 as well as the Pietenpol. The RV-4 has much narrower gear
> than the
> Piet, but is absolutely the easiest plane to land I've ever flown,
> including
> all tricycle gear types.
>
> No dihedral? No problem. The parasol configuration adds substantial
> stability, but if you're looking for the stability of a Cessna 210,
> look
> elsewhere. On a glass smooth day, my Pietenpol will fly hands off for
> minutes at a time. It will fly feet off for maybe as long as a
> second or
> two. Stability in yaw is not a strong suit.
>
> It flies like exactly what it is - a 1929 airplane design. It is
> very much
> a rudder airplane, with lot's of adverse yaw. You do have to fly
> it, so
> time in a Cherokee or a Cessna is not much of a prep. Try to get
> some time
> in a J-3, to get more of a feel for what a Piet is like.
>
> Is it enjoyable to fly? Very much. I have not flown a Fly Baby, so
> I can't
> compare the two. Of planes I have flown, the closest in feel to a
> Pietenpol
> is probably a 1934 Fairchild 22. Again, lots of drag, lots of
> adverse yaw,
> and lots of fun.
>
> Good luck with your decision. I had the same choice to make (with the
> Volmer Sportsman thrown into the mix as well). I chose the
> Pietenpol and
> have never regretted my choice. If you haven't decided by next
> July, I
> suggest you make the trip to Brodhead, Wisconsin for the annual
> Pietenpol
> gathering and take a ride in one.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of njones
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:05 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: General Pietenpol questions
>
> <deville-66@hotmail.com>
>
> As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this
> aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the
> usual
> Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180
> Archer.
> No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to
> flying any
> homebuilt project.
>
> I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including
> the Fly
> Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place
> configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this
> aircraft
> to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground?
>
> Years ago back in the 70's I built a large RC model of this aircraft
> that I
> entered in the Canadian Scale Nationals in Calgary. Frankly I was
> less than
> impressed with the flight characteristics. It was difficult to
> balance with
> the short nose moment, a bear to handle on the ground with that
> narrow gear,
> being prone to ground loops and dragging a wing tip, especially in a
> cross-wind. In the air it was particularly touchy in pitch and not
> pleasant
> to fly.
>
> I realize it is difficult to compare the flight characteristics of a
> model
> to full size ( Reynolds numbers etc. ) but they both have that
> narrow gear
> and almost no dihedral, in fact in head-on flight pics the aircraft
> appears to have zero dihedral.
>
> Any thought on these comments? I love the aircraft and would consider
> powering it with a C-85 or possibly a Corvair, the photos of the
> British
> G-BUCO are especially inspiring.
>
> Thx for the help,
>
> Nigel Jones, BC, Canada
>
> --------
> Nigel R. Jones
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273353#273353
>
>
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: | General Pietenpol questions |
Jack wrote:
>The flare has to be timed very well, because
>the time between beginning the flare at 55 mph
>and stalling at 35 is approximately 1-2 seconds.
>However, if you carry a bit of power, the flare
>can be extended somewhat, making it a bit easier
>to land.
All very true, but I actually like the fact that
when you start the flare, you're committed to land
the airplane and there isn't much float to speak of.
The time in the landing phase in taildraggers that
has always been the most nervous for me is that
period where the wing is in a relatively high angle
of attack and near the stall, nose is up, wheels
aren't on the ground yet, and airspeed is scrubbing
off. It's when the airplane gets wobbly and the
crosswind has its way. Rudder effectiveness is
dropping off, so is aileron so you're busy stirring
the pot with the stick and your feet are moving to
the tempo that is needed to stay straight. So to me,
the fact that the Piet doesn't mess around once you
start the flare is a good thing. The "wobbly period"
is kept to a very minimum, which saves my nerves.
The airplane is, to me, a delight to fly but you
have to enjoy low, slow, breezy, antique style
flying where the wood and fabric are part of the
experience and the instrument panel is almost not
a factor at all.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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: pilots operating manual |
Gardiner,
This is the one that I've been using - modified accordingly, of course:
http://nx770cg.com/OperationsManual.html
Cheers,
Dan
airlion wrote:
>
> I am looking for a POM for my Piet with a corvair engine. I heard that there
was one on the list that I could duplicate. Thanks, Gardiner Mason
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
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: built up spars |
You can also go here:
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/construction.htm
And find a couple of good articles if you want to figure out your own.....
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: <hpvs@southwind.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: built up spars
>
>
> Gentlemen!
>
> We do have Peter's most excellent material list, with all the "bits &
> pieces" -- I have "assembled" the spar from these pieces on paper some
> time ago -- Moment of Inertia for the front PFA spar is very close to the
> routed "I" spar (1" x 4 3/4" with the 1/2" web thickness). It's really a
> good design that only needs a wider opening for the front spar in the Piet
> wing ribs (1 1/8" vs 1") -- The rear spar only needs the original 1" spar
> opening.
>
> I could use some hints on the "swallow-tail" blocks between the caps! ;-)
>
> Cheers!
> Mike C.
> Pretty Prairie, KS
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: General Pietenpol questions |
I'd also add that, in my unexperienced opinion, the landing gear on the
Piet are more forgiving/robust - the 'Baby only has those big wheels for
shock absorbtion.
As for flying and taxiing, I have to echo Jack's opinion that it's on
par with a J-3 Cub.
I bought mine in early August, started flying in in mid-September and
now have about 14 hours in the Piet. I love it, even if I do complain
about freezing my butt off when the temps dip into the 40's (5-10 C to
you sane, metric people). I just need to bundle up more is all.
Cheers,
Dan
David Paule wrote:
>
> Having built a Fly-Baby many years ago, I'd think that the Pietenpol
> would be the clear choice for these reasons:
>
> 1. It's got that second seat.
>
> 2. Fly-Baby performance is often not that much different than the
> Pietenpol, certainly not enough to be a deal-breaker, for the same
> engine. There are some Fly-Bablys, though that are cleaned up and can
> cruise faster. The Fly-Baby is probably easier to reduce drag on.
>
> 3. The Pietenpol can be built slightly lighter.
>
> 4. The visibility is better in the Pietenpol, if you don't use the Ford
> with the upright radiator.
>
> 5. The Pietenpol might be slightly more robust. The struts help. The
> Fly-Baby has flying and landing wires.
>
> While the Fly-Baby does have folding wings, they are a bit awkward and
> aren't used that often, generally speaking. Still, they are there and
> that might make a difference.
>
> David Paule
>
>
>
>
>>
>> As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this
>> aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the
>> usual Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a
>> 180 Archer. No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this
>> prior to flying any homebuilt project.
>>
>> I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including
>> the Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2
>> place configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is
>> this aircraft to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
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: pilots operating manual |
Hey, that's the one we use!
>
>Gardiner,
>
>This is the one that I've been using - modified accordingly, of course:
>
>http://nx770cg.com/OperationsManual.html
>
>Cheers,
>Dan
>
>
>airlion wrote:
>>
>>I am looking for a POM for my Piet with a corvair engine. I heard
>>that there was one on the list that I could duplicate. Thanks,
>>Gardiner Mason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Dan Yocum
>Fermilab 630.840.6509
>yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
>"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
>
>_
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
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: Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 |
Nigel,
I live in Camrose which isn't far from Alix. I keep my airplanes at a
friend's farm just east of Camrose. He has a nice grass runway and three
airplanes of his own. Currently, I also have three of the darned things: the
Pietenpol, a Vagabond (homebuilt version) and a Luscombe. Too many!
If you are in this neck of the woods, give me a call.
(780) 672-5725
Cheers,
Graham
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilots operating manual |
Jeff Boatright wrote:
>
> Hey, that's the one we use!
Great minds and all that.
Oh, crud! I was supposed to get you that info on the Marvell Schebler
carb retailer...
Ok, I officially give you permission to pester me on a regular basis
until I get it for you. Maybe I'll pin a note to my winter jacket -
kinda like being in grade school...
do not archive
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
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 |
|
Hi Guys,
I have put a couple of jpegs on the web site of my notes. Check out the wing spar construction page on http://www.cpc-world.com
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: built up spars
Peter,
If you provided sketches with dimensions, combined with the great pix on your site,
no one should need more.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter W Johnson <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
>Sent: Nov 17, 2009 3:01 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: built up spars
>
>
>Hi Guys,
>
>I used Jim's plans for my spar.
>
>When building, I make a quick drawing from the plans showing what I need to do
for that particular part and take that to the workshop, leaving the plans safe
in the office. I still have the notebook drawing I made to build the spars.
>
>If I posted that on my web site, maybe people would have a better idea of what
is required. There are lots of photo's on page 4 of the builders log on the web
site. That way nobody needs to get upset.
>
>What do you reckon??
>
>Cheers
>
>Peter
>Wonthaggi Australia
>http://www.cpc-world.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! --
|