Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:39 AM - Re: Ohio Piet Fly-in (Tim White)
2. 05:52 AM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Jeff Boatright)
3. 07:21 AM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Ryan Mueller)
4. 08:51 AM - Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (flea)
5. 10:45 AM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Bill Church)
6. 11:01 AM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com)
7. 11:46 AM - Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (flea)
8. 12:24 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Jeff Boatright)
9. 12:31 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (David Paule)
10. 12:52 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (H RULE)
11. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Bill Church)
12. 01:11 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (mike)
13. 01:11 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Ryan Mueller)
14. 02:39 PM - Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (flea)
15. 03:31 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Dan Yocum)
16. 03:40 PM - Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (flea)
17. 03:40 PM - Re: Ohio Piet Fly-in (Don Emch)
18. 04:55 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Ryan Mueller)
19. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (Clif Dawson)
20. 08:17 PM - Re: Karetaker aero website link bad (skybachs)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ohio Piet Fly-in |
Shad,
I would like to attend. Send out a reminder a couple of weeks ahead.
Tim White
3OH0 (New Carlisle)
----- Original Message -----
From: shad bell
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:44 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ohio Piet Fly-in
Hello guys, I am looking at having the piet fly in on the
saturday before fathers day, (father's day weekend). I got my vacation
schedule and that looks like my best weekend to arrange it. Any
comments, suggestions? Anyone who plans on attending please let me
know, I want to make sure enough people will be able to attend before
going through all the work of setting up the Fly-in. Again, the airport
is Chapman Memorial Airport OH71, Centerburg Ohio, about 30 miles north
of Columbus Ohio.
Shad
P.S. If this weekend is not good for many of you let me know,
there might be anothe weekend I can work out.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Jim,
Some of the changes that Grega made were incorporated into our Piet.
I don't see why you couldn't incorporate many of the changes Grega
made into a Pietenpol. What changes were you interested in?
There are some changes that I think are useful. The landing gear/wing
attachment cluster is a better design, I think. Also, the aileron
cable routing makes more sense to me. However, neither of those
changes were made on our Piet and my opinion is based only on visual
inspection, not operation!
Jeff
>
>nope, its a Pietenpol, well it will be when I get started anyhow. I
>want to built a GN-1 but am having problems sourcing the plans so it
>looks like it will be just a regular ole Piet. Not that there is
>anything wrong with that, don't get me wrong, I just wanted the
>changes incorporated into the GN1.
>
>The Flea name just goes back a decade or more with me, it is short
>for superflea and has nothing to do with aviation. Don't honestly
>remember where it came from just one of those things that stuck.
>
>Did look at the flying flea but wanted something a little more
>standard in design. I have always loved the WWI look and the
>Pietenpol delivers that to my satisfaction while still retaining the
>point A to B utility that I desire. Flying flea I suppose could also
>deliver that utility too, but the looks. . .well its an acquired
>taste that I guess I have not acquired.
>
>Jim
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276668#276668
>
>
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Just out of curiosity, what are the desirable characteristics of a GN-1 that
you are wanting (versus a Pietenpol)? I've never seen GN-1 plans, and all I
know is the differences I've read about; for example, the WestCoastPiet FAQ,
the old Grega site, and in the archives. For example, the differences
between a Piet and a GN-1, from the old Grega site:
1. Modified the structure to accept Piper, Aeronca and early Cessna wing
panels.
Don't see the advantage now, as those parts are no longer readily and
cheaply available as they were "back in the day", when Grega developed the
GN-1.
2. Modified the airfoil leading edge from the front spar forward to give
better stall characteristics.
If true, then there would be an appreciable advantage there.....but does the
Grega airfoil mod perform better than the Riblett, and if not (and you are
going to use a different airfoil than the Piet FC-10 anyway), then why not
use the Riblett?
3. Relocated the CG to acceptable limits.
You can tilt the Piet wing to tweak the CG, if need be....
4. Redesigned fuselage structure to accept flat-four aircraft engines, 65 to
85 hp.
There are Piet plans for a Continental mount.
5. Redesigned entire structure to accept Piper landing gear and Piper
firewall forward, which in the fifties were in plentiful supply new and
used. If not available today, no problem, these can be fabricated, plans
show how.
Again, I see no advantage here anymore, as anything with 'Cub' in the name
is quite expensive now.
6. Designed a steel tube, welded fuselage structure. The plans show both
wood and steel tube fuselages.
There is a steel tube fuse drawing for the Piet.
7. Raised the wing position to allow easier entry and exit for both pilot
and passenger.
You can do the same on a Piet.
Obviously that is not a complete list of all of the differences, and those
are just my thoughts upon reading those differences. I'm not attacking your
choice here....I'm just simply curious about what the perceived advantages
are to you in building a GN-1 versus a Pietenpol?
Have a good day,
Ryan
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:06 PM, flea <jimgriggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> nope, its a Pietenpol, well it will be when I get started anyhow. I want to
> built a GN-1 but am having problems sourcing the plans so it looks like it
> will be just a regular ole Piet. Not that there is anything wrong with that,
> don't get me wrong, I just wanted the changes incorporated into the GN1.
>
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
The above two posts pretty much hit the high points. But that said I have never
flown a Piet or the Grega design so nothing I have to say on it is to be taken
taken as expert opinion. Really I guess it comes down to the Airfoil (stall
characteristics) but as was already said the riblett sounds better yet. My only
real reason I guess is that all the info, materials, plans etc are found in
one convenient package. Except of course for the fact that the convenient package
itself can't be found. I have no apprehension at all about building a Piet
exactly as originally designed, FC 10 and all. There have been so many built
over the decades that its hard not to trust the design. My intention is to buy
the piet plans and some of the supplemental plans if I can't find the GN1 plans,
and it looks like I can't.
I love the classic lines of the air camper, I also like the idea of a more modern
airfoil if it delivers better performance throughout its flight envelope. However,
if some of those changes are not readily available or just plain hard
to find, that is not a deal breaker for me. The airfoil is easy to find info on
I agree. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not much of an aircraft
designer, I don't like the idea of building an airplane by choosing two options
from column A, one option from column B etc. I feel more comfortable looking
at two or three completed planes and choosing the one that fits my needs the
best and saying I'll build that one as it sits.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276710#276710
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Well, let's see...
In the GN-1 there's also all the unnecessary plywood added to the
fuselage sides, from the cockpit back.
And then, to counteract that extra weight in the tail, the firewall is
moved forward, giving the GN-1 a longer nose than the Pietenpol Air
Camper.
And the redesigned cabane fittings don't allow for shifting the wing
back, to adjust for weight and balance. The only option with the GN-1 is
to build a new motor mount, or add some lead in the nose.
And the use of Piper Cub landing gear means that the lift strut attach
points don't align with the landing gear attach points.
And the GN-1 has a few extra fuselage stringers down the sides, for some
reason.
Not sure which of the above would be deemed desirable characteristics
(do you sense a bias here?).
To be fair, the GN-1 was intended to be a "modernized" version of the
Pietenpol Air Camper, and, at the time the plans were drawn, made use of
many components that could be salvaged from other scrapped light
aircraft, that were in relatively good supply at the time. Since the
supply of those parts has pretty much dried up, GN-1 builders of today
are faced with the task of fabricating their own copies of hardware and
fittings that were originally intended for other aircraft. If you're
going to have to fabricate your own hardware and fittings from scratch,
why not make them to the original plans?
Still not sure why the plywood was extended the full length of the
fuselage, though. No indications whatsoever that the original fuselage
was under-designed.
Bill C.
(stepping off the soapbox now)
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan
Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad
Just out of curiosity, what are the desirable characteristics of a GN-1
that you are wanting (versus a Pietenpol)? I've never seen GN-1 plans,
and all I know is the differences I've read about; for example, the
WestCoastPiet FAQ, the old Grega site, and in the archives. For example,
the differences between a Piet and a GN-1, from the old Grega site:
1. Modified the structure to accept Piper, Aeronca and early Cessna wing
panels.
Don't see the advantage now, as those parts are no longer readily and
cheaply available as they were "back in the day", when Grega developed
the GN-1.
2. Modified the airfoil leading edge from the front spar forward to give
better stall characteristics.
If true, then there would be an appreciable advantage there.....but does
the Grega airfoil mod perform better than the Riblett, and if not (and
you are going to use a different airfoil than the Piet FC-10 anyway),
then why not use the Riblett?
3. Relocated the CG to acceptable limits.
You can tilt the Piet wing to tweak the CG, if need be....
4. Redesigned fuselage structure to accept flat-four aircraft engines,
65 to 85 hp.
There are Piet plans for a Continental mount.
5. Redesigned entire structure to accept Piper landing gear and Piper
firewall forward, which in the fifties were in plentiful supply new and
used. If not available today, no problem, these can be fabricated, plans
show how.
Again, I see no advantage here anymore, as anything with 'Cub' in the
name is quite expensive now.
6. Designed a steel tube, welded fuselage structure. The plans show both
wood and steel tube fuselages.
There is a steel tube fuse drawing for the Piet.
7. Raised the wing position to allow easier entry and exit for both
pilot and passenger.
You can do the same on a Piet.
Obviously that is not a complete list of all of the differences, and
those are just my thoughts upon reading those differences. I'm not
attacking your choice here....I'm just simply curious about what the
perceived advantages are to you in building a GN-1 versus a Pietenpol?
Have a good day,
Ryan
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:06 PM, flea <jimgriggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jimgriggs@yahoo.com>
nope, its a Pietenpol, well it will be when I get started
anyhow. I want to built a GN-1 but am having problems sourcing the plans
so it looks like it will be just a regular ole Piet. Not that there is
anything wrong with that, don't get me wrong, I just wanted the changes
incorporated into the GN1.
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Well stated Bill.................
Brian
SLC- UT
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad
Well, let's see...
In the GN-1 there's also all the unnecessary plywood added to the
fuselage sides, from the cockpit back.
And then, to counteract that extra weight in the tail, the firewall is
moved forward, giving the GN-1 a longer nose than the Pietenpol Air
Camper.
And the redesigned cabane fittings don't allow for shifting the wing
back, to adjust for weight and balance. The only option with the GN-1 is
to build a new motor mount, or add some lead in the nose.
And the use of Piper Cub landing gear means that the lift strut attach
points don't align with the landing gear attach points.
And the GN-1 has a few extra fuselage stringers down the sides, for some
reason.
Not sure which of the above would be deemed desirable characteristics
(do you sense a bias here?).
To be fair, the GN-1 was intended to be a "modernized" version of the
Pietenpol Air Camper, and, at the time the plans were drawn, made use of
many components that could be salvaged from other scrapped light
aircraft, that were in relatively good supply at the time. Since the
supply of those parts has pretty much dried up, GN-1 builders of today
are faced with the task of fabricating their own copies of hardware and
fittings that were originally intended for other aircraft. If you're
going to have to fabricate your own hardware and fittings from scratch,
why not make them to the original plans?
Still not sure why the plywood was extended the full length of the
fuselage, though. No indications whatsoever that the original fuselage
was under-designed.
Bill C.
(stepping off the soapbox now)
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan
Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad
Just out of curiosity, what are the desirable characteristics of a GN-1
that you are wanting (versus a Pietenpol)? I've never seen GN-1 plans,
and all I know is the differences I've read about; for example, the
WestCoastPiet FAQ, the old Grega site, and in the archives. For example,
the differences between a Piet and a GN-1, from the old Grega site:
1. Modified the structure to accept Piper, Aeronca and early Cessna wing
panels.
Don't see the advantage now, as those parts are no longer readily and
cheaply available as they were "back in the day", when Grega developed
the GN-1.
2. Modified the airfoil leading edge from the front spar forward to give
better stall characteristics.
If true, then there would be an appreciable advantage there.....but does
the Grega airfoil mod perform better than the Riblett, and if not (and
you are going to use a different airfoil than the Piet FC-10 anyway),
then why not use the Riblett?
3. Relocated the CG to acceptable limits.
You can tilt the Piet wing to tweak the CG, if need be....
4. Redesigned fuselage structure to accept flat-four aircraft engines,
65 to 85 hp.
There are Piet plans for a Continental mount.
5. Redesigned entire structure to accept Piper landing gear and Piper
firewall forward, which in the fifties were in plentiful supply new and
used. If not available today, no problem, these can be fabricated, plans
show how.
Again, I see no advantage here anymore, as anything with 'Cub' in the
name is quite expensive now.
6. Designed a steel tube, welded fuselage structure. The plans show both
wood and steel tube fuselages.
There is a steel tube fuse drawing for the Piet.
7. Raised the wing position to allow easier entry and exit for both
pilot and passenger.
You can do the same on a Piet.
Obviously that is not a complete list of all of the differences, and
those are just my thoughts upon reading those differences. I'm not
attacking your choice here....I'm just simply curious about what the
perceived advantages are to you in building a GN-1 versus a Pietenpol?
Have a good day,
Ryan
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:06 PM, flea <jimgriggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
nope, its a Pietenpol, well it will be when I get started anyhow. I want
to built a GN-1 but am having problems sourcing the plans so it looks
like it will be just a regular ole Piet. Not that there is anything
wrong with that, don't get me wrong, I just wanted the changes
incorporated into the GN1.
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/c
h
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matr
o
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
I certainly don't know why the added plywood either. I was under the impression
that the need for the extended nose was to compensate for the lighter certified
aircraft engines. lighter than a model A or corvair engine that is.
Is the GN1 a heavier plane? if so could that partially explain the added ply? Again
I don't know. Nah never mind that if it needed more rigidity due to extra
weight 1X 1 1/2 longerons would be used (or some larger dimension than 1X1) but
you wouldn't add 20 lbs of ply.
is the fixed location of the wing due to the idea that the entire CG was relocated
to "acceptable limits" as was posted above? if so that is a correction that
might lead the adjustable nature of the piet wing unnecessary.
But yes I do pick up on a bit of a bias. I, on the other hand, have no bias at
all. As they say I don't have a horse in this race. What I am doing is entering
the debate prior to the purchase of my "horse."
But to answer your question as to which of those things are desirable:
Plywood, I don't know why its there but the added stringers would be to give something
to attach said unnecessary plywood to.
The longer nose as I understand it is keep weight and balance for a lighter certified
engine. If it is then that is better than lead in the nose. Could be wrong
though.
Use of cub landing gear means the lift struts don't align with landing gear attach
points. Ok why is that bad. Different yes but why is it bad.
I have a hard time imagining that with all the aircraft salvage yards out there
that one can't find some of the hardware that is needed if you have a part number.
And at any rate as you say if you're going to fabricate the original Air
Camper parts then why is it bad to fabricate GN1 parts. That sword cuts both
ways.
And again if the added ply isn't needed then is there a reason it can't be omitted?
I understand the bias. I drive a chevy Camaro. I don't like pontiac firebirds.
They are both GM F bodies so whats the difference? I don't know I can't answer
that, but I like my Camaro and don't care for Firebirds.
Now don't misunderstand me I really don't have a vested interest in it either way
at this point. In fact it appears that the GN! isn't available anyway. I am
interested in hearing any real solid tangible reasons why the original air camper
is superior to the modernized GN1. Saying that you will have to fabricate
parts for a homebuilt plane doesn't cut it because in either case the parts need
to fabricated. So unless you're saying that fabricating parts for X is more
difficult, time consuming, expensive than fabricating parts for Y, then its
the same thing and not either a detriment or advantage.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276734#276734
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Bill C and Ryan,
I like the wing strut attach fittings much better on the Grega
design. This is also similar to the approved design in the UK. Also,
the aileron cable routing in the cockpit makes more sense to me.
Other than that, I don't know of Grega pluses.
Jeff
>Well, let's see...
>
>In the GN-1 there's also all the unnecessary plywood added to the
>fuselage sides, from the cockpit back.
>
>And then, to counteract that extra weight in the tail, the firewall
>is moved forward, giving the GN-1 a longer nose than the Pietenpol
>Air Camper.
>
>And the redesigned cabane fittings don't allow for shifting the wing
>back, to adjust for weight and balance. The only option with the
>GN-1 is to build a new motor mount, or add some lead in the nose.
>
>And the use of Piper Cub landing gear means that the lift strut
>attach points don't align with the landing gear attach points.
>
>And the GN-1 has a few extra fuselage stringers down the sides, for
>some reason.
>
>Not sure which of the above would be deemed desirable
>characteristics (do you sense a bias here?).
>
>To be fair, the GN-1 was intended to be a "modernized" version of
>the Pietenpol Air Camper, and, at the time the plans were drawn,
>made use of many components that could be salvaged from other
>scrapped light aircraft, that were in relatively good supply at the
>time. Since the supply of those parts has pretty much dried up, GN-1
>builders of today are faced with the task of fabricating their own
>copies of hardware and fittings that were originally intended for
>other aircraft. If you're going to have to fabricate your own
>hardware and fittings from scratch, why not make them to the
>original plans?
>
>Still not sure why the plywood was extended the full length of the
>fuselage, though. No indications whatsoever that the original
>fuselage was under-designed.
>
>Bill C.
>(stepping off the soapbox now)
>
>
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan
>Mueller
>Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad
>
>Just out of curiosity, what are the desirable characteristics of a
>GN-1 that you are wanting (versus a Pietenpol)? I've never seen GN-1
>plans, and all I know is the differences I've read about; for
>example, the WestCoastPiet FAQ, the old Grega site, and in the
>archives. For example, the differences between a Piet and a GN-1,
>from the old Grega site:
>
>1. Modified the structure to accept Piper, Aeronca and early Cessna
>wing panels.
>
>Don't see the advantage now, as those parts are no longer readily
>and cheaply available as they were "back in the day", when Grega
>developed the GN-1.
>
>2. Modified the airfoil leading edge from the front spar forward to
>give better stall characteristics.
>
>If true, then there would be an appreciable advantage there.....but
>does the Grega airfoil mod perform better than the Riblett, and if
>not (and you are going to use a different airfoil than the Piet
>FC-10 anyway), then why not use the Riblett?
>
>3. Relocated the CG to acceptable limits.
>
>You can tilt the Piet wing to tweak the CG, if need be....
>
>4. Redesigned fuselage structure to accept flat-four aircraft
>engines, 65 to 85 hp.
>
>There are Piet plans for a Continental mount.
>
>5. Redesigned entire structure to accept Piper landing gear and
>Piper firewall forward, which in the fifties were in plentiful
>supply new and used. If not available today, no problem, these can
>be fabricated, plans show how.
>
>Again, I see no advantage here anymore, as anything with 'Cub' in
>the name is quite expensive now.
>
>6. Designed a steel tube, welded fuselage structure. The plans show
>both wood and steel tube fuselages.
>
>There is a steel tube fuse drawing for the Piet.
>
>7. Raised the wing position to allow easier entry and exit for both
>pilot and passenger.
>
>You can do the same on a Piet.
>
>Obviously that is not a complete list of all of the differences, and
>those are just my thoughts upon reading those differences. I'm not
>attacking your choice here....I'm just simply curious about what the
>perceived advantages are to you in building a GN-1 versus a
>Pietenpol?
>
>Have a good day,
>
>Ryan
>
>On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:06 PM, flea
><<mailto:jimgriggs@yahoo.com>jimgriggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><<mailto:jimgriggs@yahoo.com>jimgriggs@yahoo.com>
>
>nope, its a Pietenpol, well it will be when I get started anyhow. I
>want to built a GN-1 but am having problems sourcing the plans so it
>looks like it will be just a regular ole Piet. Not that there is
>anything wrong with that, don't get me wrong, I just wanted the
>changes incorporated into the GN1.
>
>
>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/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
><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
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
In the early years of aviation, during crashes, sometimes a piece of
longeron or less frequently an upright, would splinter and stab the pilot.
The introduction of plywood sides, fully covered, eliminated this.
On the original Pietenpol, the cockpit was covered and the pilot's seat
backs were intended to avoid this. I don't know if the GN-1 had a structural
pilot's seat back, but for a goal of crash safety, it might still have
sheeted the aft fuselage.
It's not the only airplane designed that way... the Fly-Baby also had full
plywood covering of the fuselage sides.
David Paule
> I certainly don't know why the added plywood either. I was under the
> impression that the need for the extended nose was to compensate for the
> lighter certified aircraft engines. lighter than a model A or corvair
> engine that is.
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
The GN-1 has a removable back seat or at least mind does and you can get to
the controls by removing it.Tricky thing to remove once the seat belt brac
kets were installed but not impossible.It's just a framed piece of 1/4 inch
plywood.Very Sparten so I've been told since I sit on plywood as well.If y
ou put cushens in then there is even less room in the cockpit so I go with
out.We are tough up here in cold Canada!=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A____________________
____________=0AFrom: David Paule <dpaule@frii.com>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@mat
ronics.com=0ASent: Tue, December 8, 2009 3:31:10 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpo
l-List: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad=0A=0A--> Pietenpol-List message
posted by: "David Paule" <dpaule@frii.com>=0A=0AIn the early years of avia
tion, during crashes, sometimes a piece of longeron or less frequently an u
pright, would splinter and stab the pilot. The introduction of plywood side
s, fully covered, eliminated this.=0A=0AOn the original Pietenpol, the cock
pit was covered and the pilot's seat backs were intended to avoid this. I d
on't know if the GN-1 had a structural pilot's seat back, but for a goal of
crash safety, it might still have sheeted the aft fuselage.=0A=0AIt's not
the only airplane designed that way... the Fly-Baby also had full plywood c
overing of the fuselage sides.=0A=0ADavid Paule=0A=0A=0A> I certainly don't
know why the added plywood either. I was under the impression that the nee
d for the extended nose was to compensate for the lighter certified aircraf
===============
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Hey, Jeff. What do I know?
I haven't actually even seen a copy of the GN-1 plans.
But I have seen photos of a few GN-1s under construction (especially DJ
Vegh's website), and from what I've seen, there are a lot of differences
that I can't see any advantage to.
I never paid attention to the wing strut attach fittings (I assume you
mean the lift struts, not the cabanes), nor the aileron cable routing,
though.
Perhaps there are some "improvements" in there.
Bill
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:22 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad
Bill C and Ryan,
I like the wing strut attach fittings much better on the Grega design.
This is also similar to the approved design in the UK. Also, the aileron
cable routing in the cockpit makes more sense to me. Other than that, I
don't know of Grega pluses.
Jeff
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
In response to "flea" (jimgriggs@yahoo.com), specifically the question:
"Use of cub landing gear means the lift struts don't align with landing
gear attach points. Ok why is that bad? Different yes but why is it bad?"
It is typical in strut-equipped light plane structures to have the landing
gear and the lift strut attach to one really strong bulkhead in the
fuselage. Cessna tail draggers illustrate the concept. Similarly, the
original Pietenpol landing gear attaches to the same cluster that attaches
the lift struts, front to front, aft to aft. At the point they meet in the
fuselage, there is a vertical fuselage stringer and a strong cross piece.
These line up with the front and rear of the front cockpit, respectively,
and they are very strong parts of the fuselage structure.
The GN-1's use of Cub gear puts the aft landing gear attach points between
fuselage verticals, fairly close to the pilot's feet. A really hard landing,
or a high speed taxi into a ditch, might conceivably push the aft landing
gear struts through the fuselage. I have no idea if that has ever happened.
Mike Hardaway
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:45 PM, flea <jimgriggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I certainly don't know why the added plywood either. I was under the
> impression that the need for the extended nose was to compensate for the
> lighter certified aircraft engines. lighter than a model A or corvair engine
> that is.
>
> Is the GN1 a heavier plane? if so could that partially explain the added
> ply? Again I don't know. Nah never mind that if it needed more rigidity due
> to extra weight 1X 1 1/2 longerons would be used (or some larger dimension
> than 1X1) but you wouldn't add 20 lbs of ply.
>
I would think if the GN is heavier it's because of the added ply....sort of
a cart before the horse thing....
> is the fixed location of the wing due to the idea that the entire CG was
> relocated to "acceptable limits" as was posted above? if so that is a
> correction that might lead the adjustable nature of the piet wing
> unnecessary.
>
I could be wrong, but I think the inability to shift the wing to dial in the
c.g. is because of the desire to make the design work with either 'Piet
style' wings or Cub/Aeronca/what have you wings.
> But yes I do pick up on a bit of a bias. I, on the other hand, have no bias
> at all. As they say I don't have a horse in this race. What I am doing is
> entering the debate prior to the purchase of my "horse."
>
> But to answer your question as to which of those things are desirable:
>
> Plywood, I don't know why its there but the added stringers would be to
> give something to attach said unnecessary plywood to.
>
> The longer nose as I understand it is keep weight and balance for a lighter
> certified engine. If it is then that is better than lead in the nose. Could
> be wrong though.
>
To a point....an excessively long nose can be an aesthetics issue, but more
importantly can also be a flight safety issue insofar as having to much
frontal/side area up front and not enough rudder effectiveness to counteract
that. Being able to shift the wing aft can help reduce the amount you need
to extend the motor mount.
Use of cub landing gear means the lift struts don't align with landing gear
> attach points. Ok why is that bad. Different yes but why is it bad.
>
> I have a hard time imagining that with all the aircraft salvage yards out
> there that one can't find some of the hardware that is needed if you have a
> part number. And at any rate as you say if you're going to fabricate the
> original Air Camper parts then why is it bad to fabricate GN1 parts. That
> sword cuts both ways.
>
I would say good luck finding any serviceable Cub landing gear or Cub wings
in aircraft salvage yards....the popularity of Cubs and attrition over time
has dried up the supply of used good parts (at least compared to how it used
to be when Grega thought up the GN-1). There is one set of wings on
Barnstormers that I could find....for $10k. :P
And again if the added ply isn't needed then is there a reason it can't be
> omitted?
>
>
> I understand the bias. I drive a chevy Camaro. I don't like pontiac
> firebirds. They are both GM F bodies so whats the difference? I don't know I
> can't answer that, but I like my Camaro and don't care for Firebirds.
>
> Now don't misunderstand me I really don't have a vested interest in it
> either way at this point. In fact it appears that the GN! isn't available
> anyway. I am interested in hearing any real solid tangible reasons why the
> original air camper is superior to the modernized GN1. Saying that you will
> have to fabricate parts for a homebuilt plane doesn't cut it because in
> either case the parts need to fabricated. So unless you're saying that
> fabricating parts for X is more difficult, time consuming, expensive than
> fabricating parts for Y, then its the same thing and not either a detriment
> or advantage.
>
Because the GN-1 was supposedly an 'improved' version of the Pietenpol, I
would tend to look at it as "how is the GN-1 superior to the Air Camper?".
It would appear to me that the main benefit of the design was the ability to
use Cub wings and gear to save time and money when building the airplane.
Unfortunately time has rendered that benefit non-existent, as the parts are
far more difficult to find and significantly more expensive. There are
plenty of other changes, and ways in which it is different.....but I just
don't really see any issues that the GN-1 addresses that cannot be addressed
just as easily on Pietenpol.
I didn't intend to incite any battle over which design is right or wrong. I
was just curious to see what drew you to the GN-1 over the Piet......it's
your airplane, build whichever you would like. Good luck either way!
Ryan
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Ryan,
those are good arguments. The thing that attracted me to to the Grega design was
the recommendation of an experienced builder/pilot. However, as you have pointed
out there doesn't seem to be any significant improvements, changes yes,
but improvements no. And for the record I never viewed this as a battle, just
trying to answer your questions, and in the process acquire information that I
need. It is all somewhat moot anyway as the Pietenpol is the only one I can find
plans on at the moment. I am sure a set of GN1 plans may surface through one
of the classified ad sites on the web eventually, but the only thing readily
available is from the Pietenpol family.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276749#276749
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Pardon the pun, but here's some wood for the fire...
On one of Rob Bach's mykitplane pages, he's got a Grega and a Pietenpol
in their pre-covered stages sitting next to each other. I don't think
the "stab the pilot" argument holds much water with either airframe.
Here's the link to the page with the picture:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/planeDetail.cfm?PlaneID=609
Rob? Care to comment on the Grega vs. Pientenpol designs?
Cheers,
Dan
H RULE wrote:
> The GN-1 has a removable back seat or at least mind does and you can get
> to the controls by removing it.Tricky thing to remove once the seat belt
> brackets were installed but not impossible.It's just a framed piece of
> 1/4 inch plywood.Very Sparten so I've been told since I sit on plywood
> as well.If you put cushens in then there is even less room in the
> cockpit so I go with out.We are tough up here in cold Canada!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* David Paule <dpaule@frii.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tue, December 8, 2009 3:31:10 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Karetaker aero website link bad
>
> <mailto:dpaule@frii.com>>
>
> In the early years of aviation, during crashes, sometimes a piece of
> longeron or less frequently an upright, would splinter and stab the
> pilot. The introduction of plywood sides, fully covered, eliminated this.
>
> On the original Pietenpol, the cockpit was covered and the pilot's seat
> backs were intended to avoid this. I don't know if the GN-1 had a
> structural pilot's seat back, but for a goal of crash safety, it might
> still have sheeted the aft fuselage.
>
> It's not the only airplane designed that way... the Fly-Baby also had
> full plywood covering of the fuselage sides.
>
> David Paule
>
>
> > I certainly don't know why the added plywood either. I was under the
> impression that the need for the extended nose was to compensate for the
> lighter certified aircraft engines. lip;
> &nwww.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> _f="http://forums.matronics.com/"
> target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.=================
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
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 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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Why the missing stringers on the turtle deck of the GN is that for a cargo area/mother-in-law
box. not really the topic I know but was wondering as it jumped
out at me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276757#276757
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: Ohio Piet Fly-in |
Hey Shad,
It looks like that weekend would work for me. I think that's the 12th-ish, right?
I will check with the boss to make sure we don't have plans scheduled that
weekend. Sounds like a really good time! I'm sure we can get at least 4 or
5 Piets.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276758#276758
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Someone's been using that Grega for target practice!
do not archive
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
> Pardon the pun, but here's some wood for the fire...
>
> On one of Rob Bach's mykitplane pages, he's got a Grega and a Pietenpol in
> their pre-covered stages sitting next to each other. I don't think the
> "stab the pilot" argument holds much water with either airframe. Here's the
> link to the page with the picture:
>
> http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/planeDetail.cfm?PlaneID=609
>
> Rob? Care to comment on the Grega vs. Pientenpol designs?
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
Don't forget larger P factor and Centrrifugal forces.
Clif
To a point....an excessively long nose can be an aesthetics issue, but
more importantly can also be a flight safety issue insofar as having to
much frontal/side area up front and not enough rudder effectiveness to
counteract that.
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: Karetaker aero website link bad |
GN-1 vs Piet:
Sure, there you go, pictures side-by-side. The straight Piet was built off the
plans, the GN-1 was recovered from a swamp post-crash.
The damage to the GN-1 from a really nice landing (other than the fact it was in
a swamp) was:
1: Every piece of metal on the airplane was bent except for the engine mount and
steel bracing under the belly between the gear...and one strut.
2: The only wood damage was : the seat support and plywood side where it attached,
and the instrument panel. Oh, and the rudder horn was ripped off the rudder
on impact due to the pilot's feet being firmly planted on the pedals (an argument
for a rudder bar).
Having flown it before the amphibious assault, I found it heavier on the controls
and tighter in the cockpit. There's an inch less shoulder room and the panel
is much closer to one's face.
I prefer the aileron cable routing of the Piet over the GN-1 as well.
As I'm re-building the Swamp Thing, I've eliminated 35 lbs of weight so far. Most
of this is excess sheet metal forward of the rear cockpit, hardware, electrics,
monster tailwheel, and about a billion screws.
By the time I'm done (Spring), with the 85 hp Continental she should fly much better.
THe other GN-1 I've flown was also sort of a pig compared to the Piets from plans.
I say keep it light, don't raise the wing, build it straight, rig it square,
and (I know I'll get flak for this) put a degree of dihedral in it.
We're getting 80 mph with a 65 hp Continental and Hegy prop (awesome prop) with
an empty weight of just under 700 lbs (over target by 30 lbs mostly due to the
excessive use of brass).
Any doubters are welcome to come on up in May and fly them both to see for yourselves.
Rob
--------
NX29NX, C65, Hegy prop, Blue/Cream flying!
NX31TM, C85-12, GN-1, 90% done, Red/Cream
NX30NX, Corvair, on gear, wings/tail done
NX31NX, Hatz CB-1, O-320B, on gear, ribs done
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276786#276786
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! --
|