Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:31 AM - Re: Re: landing gears- which wheels? (helspersew@aol.com)
2. 04:47 AM - Re: Re: landing gears (Greg Cardinal)
3. 06:22 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
4. 06:22 AM - Re: Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post (TOM STINEMETZE)
5. 06:36 AM - Re: Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
6. 06:42 AM - Shad and others (KM Heide CPO/FAAOP)
7. 07:44 AM - Re: Brodhead flybys (Phil)
8. 07:52 AM - GN-1 (TriScout)
9. 08:12 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Dan Yocum)
10. 08:29 AM - Re: GN-1 (Jim Boyer)
11. 08:45 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (John Recine)
12. 08:50 AM - Re: Brodhead flybys (BYD)
13. 09:37 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Jack Phillips)
14. 09:37 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (airlion)
15. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Richard Schreiber)
16. 09:54 AM - Re: First visit to a Pietenpoler (kevinpurtee)
17. 09:56 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (helspersew@aol.com)
18. 10:02 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Jack)
19. 10:03 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (helspersew@aol.com)
20. 10:12 AM - Builders/Pietenpols in the Northeast? (JGriff)
21. 10:16 AM - Re: Brodhead flybys (899PM)
22. 10:28 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Jack Phillips)
23. 10:48 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Richard Schreiber)
24. 10:50 AM - Re: Brodhead flybys (899PM)
25. 11:06 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
26. 11:44 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Matt Wash)
27. 11:50 AM - Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post (kevinpurtee)
28. 11:53 AM - landing gear weights and wheels (Douwe Blumberg)
29. 11:58 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Scott Knowlton)
30. 11:59 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
31. 12:01 PM - Re: Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post (Jack Phillips)
32. 12:07 PM - Single strand of bungee (kevinpurtee)
33. 12:08 PM - Re: landing gear weights and wheels (kevinpurtee)
34. 12:10 PM - Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post (kevinpurtee)
35. 12:13 PM - Traffic Patterns (was Re: Brodhead flybys) (Jack Phillips)
36. 12:38 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Jeff Boatright)
37. 12:39 PM - Re: Brodhead flybys (K5YAC)
38. 12:52 PM - Re: GN-1 (Ben Charvet)
39. 01:01 PM - should I install mixture control? (Douwe Blumberg)
40. 01:10 PM - Re: should I install mixture control? (Jack Phillips)
41. 01:13 PM - Traffic Patterns (was Re: Brodhead flybys) (K5YAC)
42. 01:37 PM - Re: Single strand of bungee (Billy McCaskill)
43. 01:38 PM - Re: should I install mixture control? (Ryan Mueller)
44. 01:41 PM - Re: should I install mixture control? (H RULE)
45. 01:47 PM - Re: should I install mixture control? (Jeff Boatright)
46. 01:48 PM - Re: should I install mixture control? (Ben Charvet)
47. 01:48 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (H RULE)
48. 01:57 PM - Re: landing gear weights and wheels (Rick Holland)
49. 01:59 PM - Re: should I install mixture control? (Jack Phillips)
50. 02:01 PM - Re: Single strand of bungee (Rick Holland)
51. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Doug Dever)
52. 02:23 PM - Re: Brodhead flybys (BYD)
53. 02:34 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Jim Markle)
54. 02:48 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Ryan Mueller)
55. 02:49 PM - Re: Single strand of bungee (kevinpurtee)
56. 02:55 PM - Re: First visit to a Pietenpoler (Piet2112)
57. 02:59 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
58. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Gene Rambo)
59. 03:40 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (Rick Holland)
60. 03:56 PM - Re: should I install mixture control? (Jerry Dotson)
61. 04:00 PM - Fitting math...again (Michael Perez)
62. 04:32 PM - Re: Riblett 612 or 613.5, and jigs too... (Mark Roberts)
63. 04:39 PM - Re: Brodhead flybys (Pieti Lowell)
64. 07:13 PM - Texas TACOs to Brodhead- 2011 (Oscar Zuniga)
65. 07:50 PM - Poplar? Spruce? (Jim Markle)
66. 07:56 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead flybys (John Recine)
67. 08:18 PM - Re: Poplar? Spruce? (CJ Borsuk)
68. 08:48 PM - Re: Brodhead flybys (Baldeagle)
69. 09:23 PM - Re: Traffic Patterns (was Re: Brodhead flybys) (shad bell)
70. 09:31 PM - Re: Single strand of bungee (shad bell)
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: landing gears- which wheels? |
Hi Joe,
I vote for wire wheels. The wire wheels are heavier but look cooler, and
they are more of a chick magnet. They are harder to build because you hav
e to actually build the hubs, and then string the spokes (or have somebody
do it). When you are all done you will have something that is actually a
little unique and not the same-o same-o. Then you can cover them with fab
ric to pick up maybe 10 or 15 knts. :O)
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: j_dunavin <j_dunavin@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 3, 2010 11:00 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: landing gears
I can see how both would be nice.
v'e also seen both and I do like the wooden gear better, but I am all abou
t
implicity..and weight saving. Does anyone have a good number there? How mu
ch
eight difference? 25 or more lbs?
assume that we could go wire wheels with either setup?
hich I guess is another question for another post.... which wheel setup an
d
hy?
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307432#307432
========================
===========
-= - 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
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
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: landing gears |
Joe,
I don't know the weight of the steel gear but the Jenny style landing gear
on NX18235 weighs 60 lbs. That weight includes wheels, axle and spreader
bars, wooden struts, bungees and bracing cables. It does not include brakes
as they are not installed.
Dan Helspers comments about the wooden gear looking cooler is right
on.......
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: "j_dunavin" <j_dunavin@hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: landing gears
> I can see how both would be nice.
> Iv'e also seen both and I do like the wooden gear better, but I am all
> about simplicity..and weight saving. Does anyone have a good number there?
> How much weight difference? 25 or more lbs?
> I assume that we could go wire wheels with either setup?
> Which I guess is another question for another post.... which wheel setup
> and why?
>
>
>
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: Brodhead flybys |
Bill true enough, it may not be in the FAR however during training at an
uncontrolled field and towered the pattern discipline was highly stressed
and
a requirement when in the pattern you need to be doing it by the numbers
everytime. Having never been in or flown a biplane or a Piet my informatio
n
is greatly limited to the Cessna and Piper aircraft that being the case I
am in all probability not alone in that primary training strived to inst
ill
precision flying and predictable pattern operations. Hard to shake old
training habits. I suppose I have always subscribed to the idea that integ
rity
means doing the right thing when no one is watching, that goes for pattern
work also.
I agree with not wanting to fill the air with regulations and rules,
Brodhead is a special place and we already have a bunch of rules already,
especially since the first charge of PIC is "safety of flight", that bein
g the
case, we as the pilot community need to keep that fresh and in mind at al
l
times.
Don't need no stinkin rules all we really need are responsible pilots
following the rules we already know but may not completely remember. I don
t
remember them all, all the time and have to rely on the book to get them
refreshed at my age and in my mind a reminder is always good as a proactiv
e
measure rather than the accident investigation in the reactive case. Yes
I know
its the Safety Director in me coming out, its just a bunch easier to start
safe and end safe.
Safe in the morning, safe all day long!
The sermon is ended thanks be to patience, understanding and practicality
.
John
In a message dated 8/3/2010 11:30:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
billsayre@ymail.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "BYD" <billsayre@ymail.com>
Just some thoughts=C3=A2=82=AC=C2
John wrote:
> "it appeared to me that downwind to short final was more an arc rather
than the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unles
s
given a straight in approach".
In a Biplane, I was taught to fly an arc to landing for visibility
reasons. I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ll grant you the Air Camper may not be
quite as restricted but
unless I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m mistaken at an uncontrolled airfield th
ere is no one to =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93give=C3=A2=82=AC
=C2=9D a straight in approach (clearance?). To nit-pick, there isn=C3=A2
=82=AC=84=A2t an FAR
=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93requiring=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D a =C3=A2=82=AC=C5
=93squared off pattern=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D either =C3=A2=82=AC
=9C it=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s
suggested in the AIM (and a good idea IMO) but it is not required.
Gene wrote:
> "I propose that we encourage our group to allow only known individuals
to prop their aircraft, and possibly add a forum on hand propping to the
Saturday lineup, out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setu
ps as
demonstrations".
Group or no group, I can=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t imagine asking just som
e person to prop my
plane. Not only am I clueless whether this bozo knows how to prop a plan
e,
but how is he going to communicate if he wants the ignition on or off.
There=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s more going on than meets the eye (especial
ly to a non-aviators eye).
I like the idea of a forum on hand propping. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2t have to be
fancy or formal, but even just sharing amongst ourselves about chocking
or
tying and techniques we use and letting anyone listen in is great. I had
never hand-propped a Model-A and since I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m buildin
g one I wanted to
experience it, so I approached Larry Williams and explained my reasoning
and he was
kind enough to allow me to prop his Piet. Afterwards I felt silly for
asking because it was straightforward but in truth I=C3=A2=82=AC=84
=A2m glad I did.
I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2d hate to see our group fill up with rules and
regulations, but I
understand the desire for safety. I just start to wonder who will enforc
e the
rules and what will the penalties be if I round off my base to final leg
without being given a straight in approach.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307431#307431
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
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: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post |
>I understand that collections are being taken to raise money to be able
to dig a pond at Brodhead in case of future events like this.
>Jack Phillips
>NX899JP
>Raleigh, NC
Jack:
Good idea! The Kevin "Axel" Purtee memorial alternate landing site and
fishin'hole. (No skinny dippin' allowed!)
I don't know about makin' this an "event" though. Unless, of course, we
provided sufficient loaner milk jugs or ping pong balls to float the Piet
after landing. We should restrict this event to Ford powered birds
however since they are already used to having water all over them most of
the time.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X (which may actually be up on gear by this weekend)
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: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post |
we are funding the Purtee pond now, I like it. How much per share and who
is in charge of the fund raising efforts?
Do not archive
Less Yawanna
In a message dated 8/4/2010 9:22:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
TOMS@mcpcity.com writes:
>I understand that collections are being taken to raise money to be able
to dig a pond at Brodhead in case of future events like this.
>Jack Phillips
>NX899JP
>Raleigh, NC
Jack:
Good idea! The Kevin "Axel" Purtee memorial alternate landing site and
fishin'hole. (No skinny dippin' allowed!)
I don't know about makin' this an "event" though. Unless, of course, we
provided sufficient loaner milk jugs or ping pong balls to float the Piet
after landing. We should restrict this event to Ford powered birds however
since they are already used to having water all over them most of the time.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X (which may actually be up on gear by this weekend)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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 |
|
Shad and others on the list:
-
Last night I received from reading your email a anti-spam virus from the UK
and it appears to be traveling through the pietenpol list serve. I tracked
it down to a site in Europe.-This virus-locks out the exe.list files a
nd will not allow access to any part or-program-of your computer. The b
astard about this....I never open the file it just automatically attached i
tself and shut my system down! It even circumvented my own anti-spy-ware!
-
Please (everyone) run your software checks for viruses often and at least d
aily before you shut down.
-
Ken Heide
Hawley, MN
-
--- On Tue, 8/3/10, shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Crash - The Epilogue.
Dad and I plan to make Brodhead- in 2011.- He just got done building a
1950's style teardrop camper, that he built just for Brodhead trips.- Whi
ch leaves me the "chore" of flying the piet.- On a side note I just had a
guy stop by who is 68, and thinking about building a piet.- A real newco
mer, not a pilot, but has woodworking experiance.- He had seen photos onl
ine, and we were only 20 miles away so he came to check it out, and see if
he thought he could tackle it.- I told him just take it 1 step at a time
and do something on it every day and you'll get her done.
-
Shad Bell- "Unsafe at any speed"
=0A=0A=0A
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: Brodhead flybys |
I rarely chime in, although I read every message on the list. But I'd like to
add something to this conversation, although, never having even been to Brodhead
(yet!), perhaps I shouldn't. Still, in the interest of discussing important
issues of safety, I agree completely with that priority. No good reason to
take unnecessary risks. Lots of fun to be had without doing so.
And it is in the interest of safety that I have to disagree with John. I'm sure
we all had precision flying stressed during training. And rightly so. Aim
for a particular spot, not a general area; plant her right down the centerline,
etc. And, yes, we're taught ground reference maneuvers, and are expected to
be able to fly them with precision and regularity, and that happens so we can
apply those skills while flying practical maneuvers, like landings. But the
safest pattern doesn't prioritize geometry, I don't think. If everyone is flying
the pattern with appropriate spacing, then an arc on final presents no particular
safety hazard I can think of. And if necessary to complete the pattern
efficiently, an arc can be the safest route to take, and can actually make things
better for those behind in the pattern by clearing faster.
The pattern is very important, particularly on uncontrolled fields. Crossing mid-field
or entering on the 45 downwind, pilots should always enter the appropriate
pattern for the field at predictable spots, so other traffic knows where
to look.
But I question the idea that there's something particularly safe or even always
appropriate about a rectangular pattern on base to final. Every landing is unique.
Each landing presents different winds and conditions. Turning base is
a critical decision and it won't be made in the same spot every time. But turning
base to final is, both in location and pattern, dictated by the conditions
found once on base, I think. There are many occasions when an "arc" pattern
from base to final is the safest and best route. I try to fly base/final at
idle every time. A power approach is easier, but sets one up for missing the
field entirely if the engine quits. If I am low, or the winds are pushing me
slower over the ground than expected at that moment, or if I judged turn to base
poorly, then the only options are to add power in order to square the pattern,
or shorten the pattern by rounding off the turn from base to final.
I've seen this strategy emphasized by many instructors, by training videos, by
the AOPA. The safest pattern for base and final is the pattern that gets you
to the numbers most efficiently. Everyone at the fields I fly at, both controlled
and uncontrolled, expects just that on the final approach.
That's how it seems to me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307472#307472
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 |
|
Caught a good deal on a GN-1, so I bought it and UHauled her home to Dallas. In
the market for a used (safe) C85/A65. Any Intel on a one, feel free to lemme
know. Prefer to find one w/in a day's drive/nearby. Was starting to build Piet
ribs, but who knows..maybe I can make Brodhead earlier than I thought.. (will
attempt a photo)
Larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307475#307475
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscf3741_105.jpg
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: Brodhead flybys |
On the east end of the field there are some tall trees that block the
view of aircraft on the base leg. However, if you place yourself
correctly, you can see aircraft coming in on a "standard" final leg.
On one particular departure, I almost got a pretty baby-blue T-craft up
my keister because he was doing a very close in, arcing base leg. His
left wing was down... I'm not sure he ever saw me. Luckily, I saw him
through a gap in the trees before I entered the active.
One very good reason to perform squared off patterns in a high wing
aircraft is to get the wing out of the line of sight of the runway so
you can see what's happening on the ground.
Dan
--
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 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 |
|
Larry, it looks like a nice clean airplane. Good luck getting it flying, ho
pe to see you at Brodhead next year.
Jim b.
----- Original Message -----
From: "TriScout" <apfelcyber@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 7:52:32 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1
Caught a good deal on a GN-1, so I bought it and UHauled her home to Dallas
. In the market for a used (safe) C85/A65. Any Intel on a one, feel free to
lemme know. Prefer to find one w/in a day's drive/nearby. Was starting to
build Piet ribs, but who knows..maybe I can make Brodhead earlier than I th
ought.. (will attempt a photo)
Larry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307475#307475
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscf3741_105.jpg
===========
===========
MS -
===========
e -
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
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: Brodhead flybys |
Sounds like what I saw from the ground Dan! Interestingly enough it was not enough
to change his approach in subsequent landings. I have no idea who it was nor
am I in a position to admonish anyone it just appeared careless and not well
thought out as far as consideration for other aircraft in the pattern
John
------Original Message------
From: Dan Yocum
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Sent: Aug 4, 2010 11:12 AM
On the east end of the field there are some tall trees that block the
view of aircraft on the base leg. However, if you place yourself
correctly, you can see aircraft coming in on a "standard" final leg.
On one particular departure, I almost got a pretty baby-blue T-craft up
my keister because he was doing a very close in, arcing base leg. His
left wing was down... I'm not sure he ever saw me. Luckily, I saw him
through a gap in the trees before I entered the active.
One very good reason to perform squared off patterns in a high wing
aircraft is to get the wing out of the line of sight of the runway so
you can see what's happening on the ground.
Dan
--
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."
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
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: Brodhead flybys |
Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me also
say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from base to final
so I can get one last check that someone isnt racing in on a straight-in.
I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on how to approach
and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good (as are the AIM) just
short of creating rules. Also, unlike closing the extra runways, there isnt
a way to communicate the agreed procedures to a new arrival until after theyre
on the ground.
Youre totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted procedures
we are all taught somehow I got the feeling we might be headed towards
vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might criticize a Hatz or Pitts
pilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307483#307483
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: Brodhead flybys |
That's the same Taylorcraft that never seemed to get above 300' as it flew
over the grounds. I also had him cut me off when I was on final to land on
27 - he just cut right in front and never saw me.
I'm fine with publishing a few safety rules about flying the pattern at
Brodhead. I'll admit, the flying seemed a bit more haphazard this year than
it has in the past. I even saw a few planes land on runway 21, which was
closed with big yellow X's on each end (apart from Kevin who had a
legitimate reason to land straight into the wind).
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Recine
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Sounds like what I saw from the ground Dan! Interestingly enough it was not
enough to change his approach in subsequent landings. I have no idea who it
was nor am I in a position to admonish anyone it just appeared careless and
not well thought out as far as consideration for other aircraft in the
pattern
John
------Original Message------
From: Dan Yocum
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Sent: Aug 4, 2010 11:12 AM
On the east end of the field there are some tall trees that block the
view of aircraft on the base leg. However, if you place yourself
correctly, you can see aircraft coming in on a "standard" final leg.
On one particular departure, I almost got a pretty baby-blue T-craft up
my keister because he was doing a very close in, arcing base leg. His
left wing was down... I'm not sure he ever saw me. Luckily, I saw him
through a gap in the trees before I entered the active.
One very good reason to perform squared off patterns in a high wing
aircraft is to get the wing out of the line of sight of the runway so
you can see what's happening on the ground.
Dan
--
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."
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
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: Brodhead flybys |
My suggestion would be to have a radio man out by the weathervane during th
e =0Apiet fly ins . It sure works at Peachstate Aerodrome south of Atlanta,
Ga. He =0Amonitors 122.8 and everyone calls when approaching. It sure make
s it a lot =0Asafer. He is a volunteer - not a Govt. man. Cheers, Gardiner
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "AMsafetyC@aol.com"
<AMsafetyC@aol.com>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wed, August
4, 2010 9:20:42 AM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys=0A
=0ABill true enough, it may not be in the FAR however during training at an
=0Auncontrolled field and towered the pattern discipline was highly stres
sed and a =0Arequirement when in the pattern you need to be doing it by th
e numbers =0Aeverytime. Having never been in or flown a biplane or a Piet
my information is =0Agreatly limited to the Cessna and Piper aircraft that
being the case I am in =0Aall probability not alone in that primary train
ing strived to instill precision =0Aflying and predictable pattern operati
ons. Hard to shake old training habits. I =0Asuppose I have always subscri
bed to the idea that integrity means doing the =0Aright thing when no one
is watching, that goes for pattern work also. =0A =0AI agree with not want
ing to fill the air with regulations and rules, =0ABrodhead is a special p
lace and we already have a bunch of rules =0Aalready, especially since the
first charge of PIC is "safety of flight", that =0Abeing the case, we as
the pilot community need to keep that fresh and in mind =0Aat all times.
=0A=0A =0ADon't need no stinkin rules all we really need are responsible pi
lots following =0Athe rules we already know but may not completely remembe
r. I dont remember them =0Aall, all the time and have to rely on the book
to get them refreshed at my age =0Aand in my mind a reminder is always goo
d as a proactive measure rather than the =0Aaccident investigation in the
reactive case. Yes I know its the Safety Director =0Ain me coming out, its
just a bunch easier to start safe and end safe.=0A =0ASafe in the morning
, safe all day long!=0A =0AThe sermon is ended thanks be to patience, under
standing and practicality. =0A =0AJohn=0A =0A =0AIn a message dated 8/3/20
10 11:30:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, =0Abillsayre@ymail.com writes:=0A-
-> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "BYD" <billsayre@ymail.com>=0A>
=0A>Just some thoughts=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=0A>=0A>John wrote: =0A>> "it ap
peared to me that downwind to short final was more an arc rather than
=0A>>the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unle
ss given a =0A>>straight in approach".=0A>=0A>=0A>In a Biplane, I was taugh
t to fly an arc to landing for visibility reasons. =0A>I=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2ll grant you the Air Camper may not be quite as restricted but
unless =0A>I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m mistaken at an uncontrolled airfie
ld there is no one to =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93give=C3=A2=82=AC a =0A>straig
ht in approach (clearance?). To nit-pick, there isn=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2t an FAR =0A>=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93requiring=C3=A2=82=AC a =C3
=A2=82=AC=C5=93squared off pattern=C3=A2=82=AC either =C3=A2=82=AC
=9C it=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s suggested in the =0A>AIM (and a good
idea IMO) but it is not required.=0A>=0A>Gene wrote: =0A>> "I propose th
at we encourage our group to allow only known individuals to =0A>>prop t
heir aircraft, and possibly add a forum on hand propping to the =0A>>Sat
urday lineup, out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setups
=0A>>as demonstrations".=0A>=0A>=0A>Group or no group, I can=C3=A2
=82=AC=84=A2t imagine asking just some person to prop my =0A>plane.
Not only am I clueless whether this bozo knows how to prop a plane, =0A>
but how is he going to communicate if he wants the ignition on or off.
=0A>There=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s more going on than meets the eye (esp
ecially to a non-aviators =0A>eye).=0A>=0A>I like the idea of a forum on ha
nd propping. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t have to be fancy =0A>or
formal, but even just sharing amongst ourselves about chocking or tying
=0A>and techniques we use and letting anyone listen in is great. I had
never =0A>hand-propped a Model-A and since I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m bu
ilding one I wanted to experience =0A>it, so I approached Larry Williams
and explained my reasoning and he was kind =0A>enough to allow me to prop
his Piet. Afterwards I felt silly for asking =0A>because it was straigh
tforward but in truth I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m glad I did.=0A>=0A>I=C3
=A2=82=AC=84=A2d hate to see our group fill up with rules and regu
lations, but I =0A>understand the desire for safety. I just start to wo
nder who will enforce =0A>the rules and what will the penalties be if I
round off my base to final leg =0A>without being given a straight in app
roach.=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://for
ums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307431#307431========
ay =======================
=0A> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS =0A>=========
============== - List Contribution
=0A>Web Site sp; =0A>========
============ =0A
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: Brodhead flybys |
I agree John, we don't need more rules but do need to follow those that have served
us all well in the past.
I typically arrive at Brodhead in my Tripacer. The pucker factor goes way up when
I get close to Brodhead. Even though I self announce on 122.9, I know that
no one is listening. I have no idea how many planes will be in the pattern and
at what altitude and direction they will be traveling. This can get real scary
on hazy days, which is why I elected to drive this year.
Rick Schreiber
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: 8/4/2010 8:24:28 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Bill true enough, it may not be in the FAR however during training at an uncontrolled
field and towered the pattern discipline was highly stressed and a requirement
when in the pattern you need to be doing it by the numbers everytime.
Having never been in or flown a biplane or a Piet my information is greatly limited
to the Cessna and Piper aircraft that being the case I am in all probability
not alone in that primary training strived to instill precision flying and
predictable pattern operations. Hard to shake old training habits. I suppose
I have always subscribed to the idea that integrity means doing the right thing
when no one is watching, that goes for pattern work also.
I agree with not wanting to fill the air with regulations and rules, Brodhead is
a special place and we already have a bunch of rules already, especially since
the first charge of PIC is "safety of flight", that being the case, we as the
pilot community need to keep that fresh and in mind at all times.
Don't need no stinkin rules all we really need are responsible pilots following
the rules we already know but may not completely remember. I dont remember them
all, all the time and have to rely on the book to get them refreshed at my
age and in my mind a reminder is always good as a proactive measure rather than
the accident investigation in the reactive case. Yes I know its the Safety Director
in me coming out, its just a bunch easier to start safe and end safe.
Safe in the morning, safe all day long!
The sermon is ended thanks be to patience, understanding and practicality.
John
In a message dated 8/3/2010 11:30:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, billsayre@ymail.com
writes:
Just some thoughts
John wrote:
> "it appeared to me that downwind to short final was more an arc rather than the
squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unless given a straight
in approach".
In a Biplane, I was taught to fly an arc to landing for visibility reasons. Ill
grant you the Air Camper may not be quite as restricted but unless Im mistaken
at an uncontrolled airfield there is no one to give a straight in approach
(clearance?). To nit-pick, there isnt an FAR requiring a squared off pattern
either its suggested in the AIM (and a good idea IMO) but it is not required.
Gene wrote:
> "I propose that we encourage our group to allow only known individuals to prop
their aircraft, and possibly add a forum on hand propping to the Saturday lineup,
out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setups as demonstrations".
Group or no group, I cant imagine asking just some person to prop my plane. Not
only am I clueless whether this bozo knows how to prop a plane, but how is he
going to communicate if he wants the ignition on or off. Theres more going
on than meets the eye (especially to a non-aviators eye).
I like the idea of a forum on hand propping. It doesnt have to be fancy or formal,
but even just sharing amongst ourselves about chocking or tying and techniques
we use and letting anyone listen in is great. I had never hand-propped
a Model-A and since Im building one I wanted to experience it, so I approached
Larry Williams and explained my reasoning and he was kind enough to allow me
to prop his Piet. Afterwards I felt silly for asking because it was straightforward
but in truth Im glad I did.
Id hate to see our group fill up with rules and regulations, but I understand the
desire for safety. I just start to wonder who will enforce the rules and what
will the penalties be if I round off my base to final leg without being given
a straight in approach.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307431#307431==============================================
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: First visit to a Pietenpoler |
Curtis - You are less than 200 miles from my completed plane and Tim Willis' project,
both in Georgetown. I enjoy visitors and I think I can safely say that
Tim does as well. 512-422-6371
Axel
do not archive
--------
Kevin Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307494#307494
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: Brodhead flybys |
Trouble is, that each pilot in command is responsible for his own airplane
, and is using his own best judgement. I for one would never follow along
most of the Cessna and Piper pilots that do giant rectangular patters, si
mply because I feel that it is unsafe for me and my aircraft. If there is
an engine failure or trouble, I want to be able to make the runway.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 4, 2010 8:20 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Bill true enough, it may not be in the FAR however during training at an
uncontrolled field and towered the pattern discipline was highly stressed
and a requirement when in the pattern you need to be doing it by the numb
ers everytime. Having never been in or flown a biplane or a Piet my inform
ation is greatly limited to the Cessna and Piper aircraft that being the
case I am in all probability not alone in that primary training strived
to instill precision flying and predictable pattern operations. Hard to
shake old training habits. I suppose I have always subscribed to the idea
that integrity means doing the right thing when no one is watching, that
goes for pattern work also.
I agree with not wanting to fill the air with regulations and rules, Brodh
ead is a special place and we already have a bunch of rules already, espec
ially since the first charge of PIC is "safety of flight", that being the
case, we as the pilot community need to keep that fresh and in mind at al
l times.
Don't need no stinkin rules all we really need are responsible pilots foll
owing the rules we already know but may not completely remember. I dont re
member them all, all the time and have to rely on the book to get them ref
reshed at my age and in my mind a reminder is always good as a proactive
measure rather than the accident investigation in the reactive case. Yes
I know its the Safety Director in me coming out, its just a bunch easier
to start safe and end safe.
Safe in the morning, safe all day long!
The sermon is ended thanks be to patience, understanding and practicality.
John
In a message dated 8/3/2010 11:30:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, billsayre
@ymail.com writes:
Just some thoughts=C3=A2=82=AC=C2
John wrote:
> "it appeared to me that downwind to short final was more an arc rather
than the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unles
s given a straight in approach".
In a Biplane, I was taught to fly an arc to landing for visibility reasons
. I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ll grant you the Air Camper may not be quite
as restricted but unless I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m mistaken at an uncont
rolled airfield there is no one to =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93give=C3=A2=82
=AC=C2=9D a straight in approach (clearance?). To nit-pick, there isn=C3
=A2=82=AC=84=A2t an FAR =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93requiring=C3=A2=82
=AC=C2=9D a =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93squared off pattern=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D
either =C3=A2=82=AC=9C it=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s suggested in
the AIM (and a good idea IMO) but it is not required.
Gene wrote:
> "I propose that we encourage our group to allow only known individuals
to prop their aircraft, and possibly add a forum on hand propping to the
Saturday lineup, out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setu
ps as demonstrations".
Group or no group, I can=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t imagine asking just some
person to prop my plane. Not only am I clueless whether this bozo knows
how to prop a plane, but how is he going to communicate if he wants the
ignition on or off. There=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s more going on than me
ets the eye (especially to a non-aviators eye).
I like the idea of a forum on hand propping. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2t have to be fancy or formal, but even just sharing amongst ourselve
s about chocking or tying and techniques we use and letting anyone listen
in is great. I had never hand-propped a Model-A and since I=C3=A2=82
=AC=84=A2m building one I wanted to experience it, so I approached Larr
y Williams and explained my reasoning and he was kind enough to allow me
to prop his Piet. Afterwards I felt silly for asking because it was stra
ightforward but in truth I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m glad I did.
I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2d hate to see our group fill up with rules and re
gulations, but I understand the desire for safety. I just start to wonder
who will enforce the rules and what will the penalties be if I round off
my base to final leg without being given a straight in approach.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307431#307431=====
========================
=================
========================
======== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ====
========================
==================== -
List Contribution Web Site sp; ======
========================
====================
========================
===========
-= - 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
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
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: Brodhead flybys |
I think we need to require a full stack of radios including TCAS and
Transponder, all others can divert to Oshkosh.:-)
Jack
DSM
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Schreiber
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
I agree John, we don't need more rules but do need to follow those that
have
served us all well in the past.
I typically arrive at Brodhead in my Tripacer. The pucker factor goes
way up
when I get close to Brodhead. Even though I self announce on 122.9, I
know
that no one is listening. I have no idea how many planes will be in the
pattern and at what altitude and direction they will be traveling. This
can
get real scary on hazy days, which is why I elected to drive this year.
Rick Schreiber
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com>
Sent: 8/4/2010 8:24:28 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Bill true enough, it may not be in the FAR however during training at an
uncontrolled field and towered the pattern discipline was highly
stressed
and a requirement when in the pattern you need to be doing it by the
numbers
everytime. Having never been in or flown a biplane or a Piet my
information
is greatly limited to the Cessna and Piper aircraft that being the case
I am
in all probability not alone in that primary training strived to instill
precision flying and predictable pattern operations. Hard to shake old
training habits. I suppose I have always subscribed to the idea that
integrity means doing the right thing when no one is watching, that goes
for
pattern work also.
I agree with not wanting to fill the air with regulations and rules,
Brodhead is a special place and we already have a bunch of rules
already,
especially since the first charge of PIC is "safety of flight", that
being
the case, we as the pilot community need to keep that fresh and in mind
at
all times.
Don't need no stinkin rules all we really need are responsible pilots
following the rules we already know but may not completely remember. I
dont
remember them all, all the time and have to rely on the book to get them
refreshed at my age and in my mind a reminder is always good as a
proactive
measure rather than the accident investigation in the reactive case. Yes
I
know its the Safety Director in me coming out, its just a bunch easier
to
start safe and end safe.
Safe in the morning, safe all day long!
The sermon is ended thanks be to patience, understanding and
practicality.
John
In a message dated 8/3/2010 11:30:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
billsayre@ymail.com writes:
Just some thoughtsb&
John wrote:
> "it appeared to me that downwind to short final was more an arc rather
than the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly,
unless
given a straight in approach".
In a Biplane, I was taught to fly an arc to landing for visibility
reasons.
Ibll grant you the Air Camper may not be quite as restricted but unless
Ibm
mistaken at an uncontrolled airfield there is no one to b=1Cgiveb a
straight
in approach (clearance?). To nit-pick, there isnbt an FAR
b=1Crequiringb a
b=1Csquared off patternb either b=13 itbs suggested in the AIM (and a
good idea
IMO) but it is not required.
Gene wrote:
> "I propose that we encourage our group to allo w only known
individuals to
prop their aircraft, and possibly add a forum on hand propping to the
Saturday lineup, out in front of the aircraft with differing
engines/setups
as demonstrations".
Group or no group, I canbt imagine asking just some person to prop my
plane.
Not only am I clueless whether this bozo knows how to prop a plane, but
how
is he going to communicate if he wants the ignition on or off. Therebs
more
going on than meets the eye (especially to a non-aviators eye).
I like the idea of a forum on hand propping. It doesnbt have to be
fancy or
formal, but even just sharing amongst ourselves about chocking or tying
and
techniques we use and letting anyone listen in is great. I had never
hand-propped a Model-A and since Ibm building one I wanted to experience
it,
so I approached Larry Williams and explained my reasoning and he was
kind
enough to allow me to prop his Piet. Afterwards I felt silly for asking
b!
ec >
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: Brodhead flybys |
Rick,
You should come over here on no wind days to practice puckering. 3 runways
and many airplanes flying 6 different directions.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Schreiber <lmforge@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wed, Aug 4, 2010 11:40 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
I agree John, we don't need more rules but do need to follow those that ha
ve served us all well in the past.
I typically arrive at Brodhead in my Tripacer. The pucker factor goes way
up when I get close to Brodhead. Even though I self announce on 122.9, I
know that no one is listening. I have no idea how many planes will be in
the pattern and at what altitude and direction they will be traveling.
This can get real scary on hazy days, which is why I elected to drive thi
s year.
Rick Schreiber
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: 8/4/2010 8:24:28 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Bill true enough, it may not be in the FAR however during training at an
uncontrolled field and towered the pattern discipline was highly stressed
and a requirement when in the pattern you need to be doing it by the numb
ers everytime. Having never been in or flown a biplane or a Piet my inform
ation is greatly limited to the Cessna and Piper aircraft that being the
case I am in all probability not alone in that primary training strived
to instill precision flying and predictable pattern operations. Hard to
shake old training habits. I suppose I have always subscribed to the idea
that integrity means doing the right thing when no one is watching, that
goes for pattern work also.
I agree with not wanting to fill the air with regulations and rules, Brodh
ead is a special place and we already have a bunch of rules already, espec
ially since the first charge of PIC is "safety of flight", that being the
case, we as the pilot community need to keep that fresh and in mind at al
l times.
Don't need no stinkin rules all we really need are responsible pilots foll
owing the rules we already know but may not completely remember. I dont re
member them all, all the time and have to rely on the book to get them ref
reshed at my age and in my mind a reminder is always good as a proactive
measure rather than the accident investigation in the reactive case. Yes
I know its the Safety Director in me coming out, its just a bunch easier
to start safe and end safe.
Safe in the morning, safe all day long!
The sermon is ended thanks be to patience, understanding and practicality.
John
In a message dated 8/3/2010 11:30:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, billsayre
@ymail.com writes:
Just some thoughts=C3=A2=82=AC=C2
John wrote:
> "it appeared to me that downwind to short final was more an arc rather
than the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unles
s given a straight in approach".
In a Biplane, I was taught to fly an arc to landing for visibility reasons
. I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ll grant you the Air Camper may not be quite
as restricted but unless I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m mistaken at an uncont
rolled airfield there is no one to =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93give=C3=A2=82
=AC=C2=9D a straight in approach (clearance?). To nit-pick, there isn=C3
=A2=82=AC=84=A2t an FAR =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93requiring=C3=A2=82
=AC=C2=9D a =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93squared off pattern=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D
either =C3=A2=82=AC=9C it=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s suggested in
the AIM (and a good idea IMO) but it is not required.
Gene wrote:
> "I propose that we encourage our group to allo w only known individuals
to prop their aircraft, and possibly add a forum on hand propping to the
Saturday lineup, out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setu
ps as demonstrations".
Group or no group, I can=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t imagine asking just some
person to prop my plane. Not only am I clueless whether this bozo knows
how to prop a plane, but how is he going to communicate if he wants the
ignition on or off. There=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s more going on than me
ets the eye (especially to a non-aviators eye).
I like the idea of a forum on hand propping. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2t have to be fancy or formal, but even just sharing amongst ourselve
s about chocking or tying and techniques we use and letting anyone listen
in is great. I had never hand-propped a Model-A and since I=C3=A2=82
=AC=84=A2m building one I wanted to experience it, so I approached Larr
y Williams and explained my reasoning and he was kind enough to allow me
to prop his Piet. Afterwards I felt silly for asking bec >
========================
===========
-= - 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
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
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: | Builders/Pietenpols in the Northeast? |
Hello everyone. First time poster.
Ive been thinking about building (or buying) a Pietenpol and wondered if there
were any other builders here in the Northeast. I'd really like to see a project
and the plans before I commit to anything. I'd also really like to see a completed
one and see if how well I fit into one (I'm 6'2" 190).
Is there anyone in the New England/New York area that would be willing to show
me their project? I'm based in the Boston area.
Thanks.
Jamie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307500#307500
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: Brodhead flybys |
Jack,
Do you remember what day you saw aircraft landing 3/21? As of late Thursday afternoon
21 was still open.
--------
PAPA MIKE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307501#307501
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: Brodhead flybys |
It was Friday afternoon, after kevin's emergency landing, and the X's were
clearly in place.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 899PM
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Jack,
Do you remember what day you saw aircraft landing 3/21? As of late Thursday
afternoon 21 was still open.
--------
PAPA MIKE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307501#307501
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: Brodhead flybys |
Dan:
We have the same problem over here at Porter Co on no wind days. Plus add into
the mix the Biz Jet who is coming in on the 27 ILS and only talking to South Bend.
It has gotten so bad on some days that we have had planes on final for 18,
9 and 27 all at the same time. When this happened I just left the pattern until
they all got it straightened out. Currently VPZ is the busiest airport in
Indiana, but we don't have a tower. The locals seem to do OK, its just the transients,
especially the jets, that seem to do strange things.
Rick Schreiber
Valparaiso, IN
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: 8/4/2010 12:05:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Rick,
You should come over here on no wind days to practice puckering. 3 runways and
many airplanes flying 6 different directions.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
do not archive
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: Brodhead flybys |
That's a big OOPS! I wish I had seen it.....I would have gone straight to the pilot
and politely asked if he realized that he had landed on a closed runway.
We need to police our own ranks or someone will do it for us.
--------
PAPA MIKE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307506#307506
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: Brodhead flybys |
Bill,
Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based upon
several factors aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather conditions
and obviously the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency,
all
within reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is
foolishly dangerous and unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases of de
clared
emergency, which everyone in the patter would be aware of assuming the
emergency was visually obvious or declared on the radio.
Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the
3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you tr
ust
your engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no
different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in rout
e, I see
little difference in the condition and more in the outcome of the event.
The possibility of an engine out is always there to some degree when rely
ing
on any piece of machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a tighter
pattern on the possibility of that occurring. I would suspect if that's
a
concern that prevails based upon past performance or other information th
e
flight should not take place. Engine out on departure is a more frighteni
ng
possibility than on approach, not that anyone wants either.
The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground.
It is the decision of pilot and responsibility to make certain its worthy
of flight on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such a
good day to fly.
Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the new
s
letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the
community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.
John
In a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
billsayre@ymail.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "BYD" <billsayre@ymail.com>
Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, le
t
me also say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from
base to final so I can get one last check that someone isn=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2t racing in on
a straight-in. I totally agree with having an understanding between pilo
ts
on how to approach and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good
(as are the AIM) =C3=A2=82=AC=9C just short of creating =C3=A2
=82=AC=C5=93rules=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D. Also, unlike
closing the extra runways, there isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t a way to co
mmunicate the agreed
procedures to a new arrival until after they=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re on
the ground.
You=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re totally right John that we should all utiliz
e the commonly
accepted procedures we are all taught =C3=A2=82=AC=9C somehow I
got the feeling we might be
headed towards vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might
criticize a Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or visa-ve
rsa).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307483#307483
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead flybys |
John,
I don't follow your logic, but I don't trust any engine. It's a machine and
machines fail. This is why I always have my eye open for suitable engine ou
t
landing spots.
There is inherent risk in flying, it's entirely unavoidable and this is why
I stack the cards in my favor by flying a tight pattern. It's simple risk
mitigation, like pre-flighting. Saves on gas too.
It would upset me to be in a pattern above 500AGL and not be able to make i
t
back to the airport staring me at the face.
~Matt
Do Not Archive
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:06 PM, <AMsafetyC@aol.com> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based upon
> several factors aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather condition
s
> and obviously the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency,
all
> within reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is
> foolishly dangerous and unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases
> of declared emergency, which everyone in the patter would be aware of
> assuming the emergency was visually obvious or declared on the radio.
>
> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the
> 3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you
> trust your engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
>
> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no
> different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in rout
e,
> I see little difference in the condition and more in the outcome of the
> event. The possibility of an engine out is always there to some degree wh
en
> relying on any piece of machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a
> tighter pattern on the possibility of that occurring. I would suspect if
> that's a concern that prevails based upon past performance or other
> information the flight should not take place. Engine out on departure is
a
> more frightening possibility than on approach, not that anyone wants eith
er.
>
> The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground
.
> It is the decision of pilot and responsibility to make certain its worthy
of
> flight on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such a go
od
> day to fly.
>
> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the new
s
> letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the
> community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.
>
> John
>
> In a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> billsayre@ymail.com writes:
>
>
> Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, le
t
> me also say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from b
ase
> to final so I can get one last check that someone isn=99t racing in
on a
> straight-in. I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots
on
> how to approach and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good (as
> are the AIM) =93 just short of creating =9Crules . Als
o, unlike closing
> the extra runways, there isn=99t a way to communicate the agreed pr
ocedures
> to a new arrival until after they=99re on the ground.
>
> You=99re totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly
> accepted procedures we are all taught =93 somehow I got the feeling
we might
> be headed towards vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot migh
t
> criticize a Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or
> visa-versa).
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307483#307483====
=================
======
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> ========================
========================
- List
> Contribution Web Site sp;
> ========================
=
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post |
Since it's named after me can we have a hot tub, too?
Axel
do not archive
--------
Kevin Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307514#307514
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | landing gear weights and wheels |
I've thought about this a lot over the years. I'd guesstimate the wooden
"V's" of the Jenny gear are comparable in weight to the Metal ones of the
split gear. Not sure what the axle weights, but you can figure that out by
looking at ACS catalog under the proper tubing and it gives a weight per
foot, so that'll answer that. Subtract that, but add back the cross ties
and there's your difference. My complete WAG would be the Jenny gear with
the same wheels as the split gear will weigh fifteen pounds more??? (again,
this is a COMPLETE guesstimate)
Douwe
Ps. Kevin.. I was there, but each time I wanted to introduce myself you were
either showing off your one-sided retractable Piet gear or surrounded by
people. I'll be sure to find you next year.
"Perhaps we shall fly together one day, you and I."
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead flybys |
I would like to wade into the pattern size debate. Here in Canada, we teach safe
emergency landings from specific points in the pattern to reinforce the idea
behind acceptable pattern size. A circuit by definition is a manouever flown
to carry out a landing. This being the case, the safest circuit is one that
would result in a runway landing from the greatest number of points on the circuit
should engine trouble exist... which does happen. This is also why we forego
raising the landing gear of a non high performance airplane until the end
of the runway is reached. This would permit a runway landing on wheels should
an engine failure occur... Once again, a safer outcome.
Finally, we teach route flying in a single engine aircraft to avoid open bodies
of water, high density populations and hazardous terrain because we want to always
ensure we have options to carry out a safe landing in the event of an engine
failure.
>From an airmanship point of view, we need to conform to other faster, slower,
wider or tighter traffic in an uncontrolled circuit. In a perfect world, however,
I would always fly a pattern that gives me the greatest chance of landing
on the runway from an engine failure. I've had two engines fail in 10,000 hours,
both on certified aircraft, both in the circuit. I was grateful for my training
in both occurences and landing safely on the airport from both reinforced
how I fly and how I teach.
Our forum is for experimental airplanes which as we've been reading do have a higher
incidence of engine issues. We all recognize that our chosen sport/hobby
does bring with it potential dangers that we must deal with. A tighter pattern
on any occasion that it can be safely flown is a great method I support to
make our sport safer.
Scott Knowlton
Slow builder in Burlington Ontario.
-----Original Message-----
From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Bill,
Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based upon several
factors aircraft configurations, nuiances,wind/weather conditions and obviously
the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency, all within reason.
Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is foolishly dangerous
and unnecessary, onlyacceptable only in cases ofdeclaredemergency, which everyone
in the patter would be aware of assuming the emergency was visually obvious
or declared on the radio.
Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4 mile
big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust your engines
reliability and performanceor you don't fly.
Flying aclose in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different thanthe
same concern foran engine out on departure or in route, I see little difference
in the condition and more in the outcome of the event.The possibility of
an engine out is always there to some degree when relying on any piece of machinery,
however I cant rationalize flying a tighter pattern on the possibility
of that occurring. I would suspectif that's a concern that prevails based upon
past performance or other information the flight should not take place. Engine
out on departure is a more frightening possibility than on approach, not that
anyone wants either.
The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground. It is
the decision ofpilot and responsibility to make certain its worthy of flight
on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such a good day to fly.
Again just opinions, itmay be something worthy ofpublication in the news letter
prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community for the
safety and sake of all in attendance.
John
Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me also
say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from base to final
so I can get one last check that someone isnTt racing in on a straight-in.
I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on how to approach
and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good (as are the AIM) " just
short of creating rules. Also, unlike closing the extra runways, there isnTt
a way to communicate the agreed procedures to a new arrival until after theyTre
on the ground.
YouTre totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted procedures
we are all taught " somehow I got the feeling we might be headed towards
vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might criticize a Hatz or
Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307483#307483==============================================
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead flybys |
I guess we are going to stick with what works for us as individual pilots
doing the best we can and let the chips fall where they may. I just hope
none of them chips fall and hit me!
John
Do not archive
In a message dated 8/4/2010 2:44:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mattwash@mattwash.com writes:
John,
I don't follow your logic, but I don't trust any engine. It's a machine
and machines fail. This is why I always have my eye open for suitable eng
ine
out landing spots.
There is inherent risk in flying, it's entirely unavoidable and this is
why I stack the cards in my favor by flying a tight pattern. It's simple
risk
mitigation, like pre-flighting. Saves on gas too.
It would upset me to be in a pattern above 500AGL and not be able to make
it back to the airport staring me at the face.
~Matt
Do Not Archive
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:06 PM, <AMsafetyC@_aol.com_ (http://aol.com/) >
wrote:
Bill,
Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based upon
several factors aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather condition
s
and obviously the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency,
all within reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is
foolishly dangerous and unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases of dec
lared
emergency, which everyone in the patter would be aware of assuming the
emergency was visually obvious or declared on the radio.
Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the
3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you
trust your engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no
different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in rout
e, I see
little difference in the condition and more in the outcome of the event.
The possibility of an engine out is always there to some degree when rely
ing
on any piece of machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a tighter
pattern on the possibility of that occurring. I would suspect if that's
a
concern that prevails based upon past performance or other information th
e
flight should not take place. Engine out on departure is a more frighteni
ng
possibility than on approach, not that anyone wants either.
The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground
.
It is the decision of pilot and responsibility to make certain its worthy
of flight on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such
a
good day to fly.
Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the new
s
letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the
community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.
John
In a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_billsayre@ymail.com_ (mailto:billsayre@ymail.com) writes:
(mailto:billsayre@ymail.com) >
Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, le
t
me also say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from
base to final so I can get one last check that someone isn=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2t racing in on
a straight-in. I totally agree with having an understanding between pilo
ts
on how to approach and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good
(as are the AIM) =C3=A2=82=AC=9C just short of creating =C3=A2
=82=AC=C5=93rules=C3=A2=82=AC . Also, unlike
closing the extra runways, there isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t a way to co
mmunicate the agreed
procedures to a new arrival until after they=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re on
the ground.
You=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re totally right John that we should all utiliz
e the commonly
accepted procedures we are all taught =C3=A2=82=AC=9C somehow I
got the feeling we might be
headed towards vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might
criticize a Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or
visa-versa).
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307483#307483====
=============
====_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307483#307483====
==================)
Use the ties Day ==================
===== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=======================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post |
No hot tub, but there will be a pair of clawfoot bathtubs sitting in the
grass overlooking the pond in case anyone has taken Cialis.
For Heaven's sake, DO NOT ARCHIVE
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kevinpurtee
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post
<kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
Since it's named after me can we have a hot tub, too?
Axel
do not archive
--------
Kevin Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307514#307514
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Single strand of bungee |
For those of you building per-the-plans split gear - my gear is straight out of
the 1932 plans (except for the wire wheels and brakes) and uses a single 6' strand
of bungee on each side.
When the bungee broke on Sunday the 24th, I realized that it is a single point
of failure. Fortunately, the safety cable worked as designed.
For the sake of redundancy I plan to replace the single strand system with donuts.
An additional benefit is that donuts are easier to install.
I'll fabricate the donuts using the neat safety wire clamp tool thingy we bought
at oshkosh and use 1/2" bungee. I'll test a couple of donuts to 500 or 600
lbs before I actually use them on the plane. If successful, I'll put enough of
the donuts on each side to handle a 4 or 5 G landing.
Thought about replacing the whole mess with springs but I like the rubber bands.
Will let you know how it works out.
Axel
--------
Kevin Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307521#307521
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: landing gear weights and wheels |
Next year, my friend.
do not archive
--------
Kevin Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307522#307522
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crash - The Epilogue. Yet Another Long Post |
dude...
do not archive
--------
Kevin Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307523#307523
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Traffic Patterns (was Re: Brodhead flybys) |
I agree, Scott. I'm continually at odds with the Flying Club at my local
airport where they teach their students to fly downwind a mile and a half off
the runway and 2 mile finals. I make it a point to fly my downwind leg close
enough to be able to make the runway in the event of an engine failure (I've
had one too, in a certificated airplane). In a Pietenpol, that requires a
VERY close downwind, since its glide ratio is somewhere between that of a
brick and a bowling ball.
I recently got my certification as a Flight Instructor and the Inspector from
FSDO was pleased when I flew my downwind within an easy glide of the runway
(this is a Cherokee Arrow that glides no better than a Pietenpol - best glide
speed is 105 mph, which requires a nose down attitude of about 20 degrees, and
it comes down at about 800 fpm!). He said he was ready to pull the engine if
I had made a wide pattern, just to make a point, but I didn't give him the
opportunity.
Different airplanes obviously require different pattern sizes, otherwise we'd
all be making patterns the size of bizjets. Given that premise, why not fly
the pattern so you can make the airport if the engine quits?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Knowlton
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
<flyingscott_k@hotmail.com>
I would like to wade into the pattern size debate. Here in Canada, we teach
safe emergency landings from specific points in the pattern to reinforce the
idea behind acceptable pattern size. A circuit by definition is a manouever
flown to carry out a landing. This being the case, the safest circuit is one
that would result in a runway landing from the greatest number of points on
the circuit should engine trouble exist... which does happen. This is also
why we forego raising the landing gear of a non high performance airplane
until the end of the runway is reached. This would permit a runway landing on
wheels should an engine failure occur... Once again, a safer outcome.
Finally, we teach route flying in a single engine aircraft to avoid open
bodies of water, high density populations and hazardous terrain because we
want to always ensure we have options to carry out a safe landing in the event
of an engine failure.
>From an airmanship point of view, we need to conform to other faster, slower,
>wider or tighter traffic in an uncontrolled circuit. In a perfect world,
>however, I would always fly a pattern that gives me the greatest chance of
>landing on the runway from an engine failure. I've had two engines fail in
>10,000 hours, both on certified aircraft, both in the circuit. I was
>grateful for my training in both occurences and landing safely on the airport
>from both reinforced how I fly and how I teach.
Our forum is for experimental airplanes which as we've been reading do have a
higher incidence of engine issues. We all recognize that our chosen
sport/hobby does bring with it potential dangers that we must deal with. A
tighter pattern on any occasion that it can be safely flown is a great method
I support to make our sport safer.
Scott Knowlton
Slow builder in Burlington Ontario.
-----Original Message-----
From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Bill,
Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based upon
several factors aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather conditions and
obviously the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency, all
within reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is foolishly
dangerous and unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases of declared
emergency, which everyone in the patter would be aware of assuming the
emergency was visually obvious or declared on the radio.
Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4
mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust your
engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different
than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route, I see little
difference in the condition and more in the outcome of the event. The
possibility of an engine out is always there to some degree when relying on
any piece of machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a tighter pattern
on the possibility of that occurring. I would suspect if that's a concern
that prevails based upon past performance or other information the flight
should not take place. Engine out on departure is a more frightening
possibility than on approach, not that anyone wants either.
The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground. It
is the decision of pilot and responsibility to make certain its worthy of
flight on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such a good
day to fly.
Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news
letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community
for the safety and sake of all in attendance.
John
In a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
<billsayre@ymail.com>
Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me
also say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from base to
final so I can get one last check that someone isn?Tt racing in on a
straight-in. I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on
how to approach and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good (as are
the AIM) ?" just short of creating ?orules?. Also, unlike closing the
extra runways, there isn?Tt a way to communicate the agreed procedures to a
new arrival until after they?Tre on the ground.
You?Tre totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted
procedures we are all taught ?" somehow I got the feeling we might be headed
towards vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might criticize a
Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307483#307483==============================================
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead flybys |
John,
What if there were data showing that power system
failures occur more often when changes are made
with engine controls (throttle, MP, etc.), like
occurs most often in the pattern? That's what my
instructor taught me and it is specifically why
he taught me to fly tight patterns. I have not
personally seen those data, though, so I don't
know for a fact that power system failures occur
more often in the pattern than, say, in cruise.
Jeff
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
>Content-Language: en
>
>Bill,
>
>Minor variations to pattern flying is expected
>and anticipated based upon several factors
>aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather
>conditions and obviously the remote possibility
>of a declared or implied emergency, all within
>reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in
>the pattern is foolishly dangerous and
>unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases
>of declared emergency, which everyone in the
>patter would be aware of assuming the emergency
>was visually obvious or declared on the radio.
>
>Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small
>pattern is preferred over the 3/4 mile big fat
>pattern hold much creditability in my mind.
>Either you trust your engines reliability and
>performance or you don't fly.
>
>Flying a close in pattern because you may have
>an engine out is no different than the same
>concern for an engine out on departure or in
>route, I see little difference in the condition
>and more in the outcome of the event. The
>possibility of an engine out is always there to
>some degree when relying on any piece of
>machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a
>tighter pattern on the possibility of that
>occurring. I would suspect if that's a concern
>that prevails based upon past performance or
>other information the flight should not take
>place. Engine out on departure is a more
>frightening possibility than on approach, not
>that anyone wants either.
>
>The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and
>happy to stay on the ground. It is the decision
>of pilot and responsibility to make certain its
>worthy of flight on each trip and if concerns
>are warranted maybe its not such a good day to
>fly.
>
>Again just opinions, it may be something worthy
>of publication in the news letter prior to the
>gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the
>community for the safety and sake of all in
>attendance.
>
>John
>
>In a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M.
>Eastern Daylight Time, billsayre@ymail.com
>writes:
>
>
>Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to
>landing in a biplane, let me also say that in a
>high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn
>from base to final so I can get one last check
>that someone isn=A4=81t racing in on a straight-in.
>I totally agree with having an understanding
>between pilots on how to approach and fly the
>pattern and the suggestions here are good (as
>are the AIM) =A4" just short of creating
>=A4rules=A4=F9. Also, unlike closing the extra
>runways, there isn=A4=81t a way to communicate the
>agreed procedures to a new arrival until after
>they=A4=81re on the ground.
>
>You=A4=81re totally right John that we should all
>utilize the commonly accepted procedures we are
>all taught =A4" somehow I got the feeling we
>might be headed towards vigilantism and I was
>concerned that a C-150 pilot might criticize a
>Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little
>different (or visa-versa).
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307483#307483=====
================
>=========================
=======================
>- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>=========================
=======================
>- List Contribution Web Site sp;
>=========================
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead flybys |
Don't be discouraged John, I think your concerns are completely legitimate.
Amsafetyc wrote:
> I guess we are going to stick with what works for us as individual pilots doing
the best we can and let the chips fall where they may. I just hope none of
them chips fall and hit me!
>
> John
>
--------
Mark Chouinard
Finishing up Wings - Working on Center Section
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307527#307527
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Nice looking plane. You can find used engines pretty easily on
Barnstormers.com. Look under piston engines, then Continental. If you
watch the list for a while something close by is bound to turn up. From
my past experience it would be best to find an engine you can see run
with good oil pressures, logbooks, and get a compression check done
before you buy, unless you are planning to do a rebuild before you fly.
Get'r'done!
Ben
On 8/4/2010 10:52 AM, TriScout wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "TriScout"<apfelcyber@yahoo.com>
>
> Caught a good deal on a GN-1, so I bought it and UHauled her home to Dallas.
In the market for a used (safe) C85/A65. Any Intel on a one, feel free to lemme
know. Prefer to find one w/in a day's drive/nearby. Was starting to build Piet
ribs, but who knows..maybe I can make Brodhead earlier than I thought.. (will
attempt a photo)
>
> Larry
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307475#307475
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscf3741_105.jpg
>
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | should I install mixture control? |
Trying to decide if I should install my mixture control or just wire it
rich.
What are your experiences?
Douwe
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | should I install mixture control? |
What carburetor? With a Marvel-Schebler I would use the mixture control.
On the Stromberg on my Pietenpol, I've wired it full rich.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douwe
Blumberg
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: should I install mixture control?
Trying to decide if I should install my mixture control or just wire it
rich.
What are your experiences?
Douwe
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Traffic Patterns (was Re: Brodhead flybys) |
More good points Jack.
I can see that there are lots of reasons to do things a certain way depending on
conditions and equipment. On the other hand, I've seen a local Breezy driver
(no radio) cut off several people on short final as he flies in close. Some
have been students... I had to call one on the radio because I wasn't sure that
he saw the guy cut in underneath him. I often wonder if he thinks that he
has the right of way because he is lower and slower than everything else, or if
he truly doesn't see them... either is dangerous of course. I know, we are
talking primarily about Brodhead and the low and slow flying going on around there.
I remember sitting with John while waiting for our numbers NOT to be drawn
for prizes while we watched the aircraft in the pattern. There were a few
flying close in patterns, and while I do understand your comments about flying
a pattern that is suitable to your airplane, it seemed that a couple were doing
race track touch-and-gos. A couple of these guys could have spread out and
took a more reasonable (cautious) approach. There were three of us watching
one airplane in particular... each time he passed we all said, "look at that
guy!" as he banked his wings steep and abrupt, cutting right into the runway with
little or no attempt at a base or final leg... pass after pass. Anyhow, that
was just from our point of view... perhaps he was justified from where he
was sitting.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Finishing up Wings - Working on Center Section
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307533#307533
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Single strand of bungee |
Sounds like a good idea, Kevin. And the donuts don't weigh much or take up much
space, so you could keep a couple of spares in the plane with you in case that
you ever find yourself needing to make repairs on the field again.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307535#307535
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: should I install mixture control? |
I believe Douwe said Marvel in the earlier posts where he was asking about
rebuilding.
You may not bother to lean the mixture at the altitudes you would fly your
Piet at, but having the mixture control would also allow you to shut the
engine down by pulling the mixture to idle/cut-off and starving the engine
of fuel, as opposed to just shutting off the mags and leaving a fuel/air
charge in the cylinders.....theoretically safer. Those of us with Stromberg
s
can't do much about that....
Ryan
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>wrote
:
> What carburetor? With a Marvel-Schebler I would use the mixture
> control. On the Stromberg on my Pietenpol, I=92ve wired it full rich.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Douwe Blumberg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:00 PM
> *To:* pietenpolgroup
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: should I install mixture control?
>
>
> Trying to decide if I should install my mixture control or just wire it
> rich.
>
>
> What are your experiences?
>
>
> Douwe
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: should I install mixture control? |
My AME wired it rich for me due to the fact I told him it was unlikely I wo
uld =0Aever be flying above 3000 ft at which point one can play with such t
hings.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Douwe Blumber
g <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>=0ATo: pietenpolgroup <pietenpol-list@matron
ics.com>=0ASent: Wed, August 4, 2010 4:00:28 PM=0ASubject: Pietenpol-List:
should I install mixture control?=0A=0A=0ATrying to decide if I should inst
all my mixture control or just wire it rich.=0A-=0AWhat are your experien
====================== =0A
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: should I install mixture control? |
I turn the fuel off at the tank. Seems safest to me. Plus, if I
don't, all the fuel leaks out over the week. Leaky Stromberg...
>I believe Douwe said Marvel in the earlier posts where he was asking
>about rebuilding.
>
>You may not bother to lean the mixture at the altitudes you would
>fly your Piet at, but having the mixture control would also allow
>you to shut the engine down by pulling the mixture to idle/cut-off
>and starving the engine of fuel, as opposed to just shutting off the
>mags and leaving a fuel/air charge in the
>cylinders.....theoretically safer. Those of us with Strombergs can't
>do much about that....
>
>Ryan
>
>On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jack Phillips
><<mailto:pietflyr@bellsouth.net>pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>What carburetor? With a Marvel-Schebler I would use the mixture
>control. On the Stromberg on my Pietenpol, I've wired it full rich.
>
>Jack Phillips
>
>NX899JP
>
>Raleigh, NC
>
>
>From:
><mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:<mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]
>On Behalf Of Douwe Blumberg
>Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:00 PM
>To: pietenpolgroup
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: should I install mixture control?
>
>Trying to decide if I should install my mixture control or just wire it rich.
>
>What are your experiences?
>
>Douwe
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: should I install mixture control? |
The stromberg NAS3B on mine doesn't even have a mixture control. I
don't generally fly high enough to need it. Plus I get to check the
integrity of my P-lead grounds every time I shut it off.
Ben
On 8/4/2010 4:00 PM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
> Trying to decide if I should install my mixture control or just wire
> it rich.
>
> What are your experiences?
>
> Douwe
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead flybys |
At our field on thr Redeau River here in Ottawa Canada it is frowned upon i
f you =0Ado a flyby anywhere other than down the middle of the runway.I fle
w over the =0Ahangers one day and got into a pile of trouble for it.Safety
first is their =0Amotto and the middle of the runway is the safest place fo
r such things.That's my =0Atake on the matter anyway.-=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A____
____________________________=0AFrom: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>=0ATo: piete
npol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wed, August 4, 2010 11:12:27 AM=0ASubject:
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys=0A=0A--> Pietenpol-List message pos
ted by: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>=0A=0AOn the east end of the field there
are some tall trees that block the view of =0Aaircraft on the base leg.-
However, if you place yourself correctly, you can see =0Aaircraft coming in
on a "standard" final leg.=0A=0AOn one particular departure, I almost got
a pretty baby-blue T-craft up my =0Akeister because he was doing a very clo
se in, arcing base leg.- His left wing =0Awas down... I'm not sure he eve
r saw me.- Luckily, I saw him through a gap in =0Athe trees before I ente
red the active.=0A=0AOne very good reason to perform squared off patterns i
n a high wing aircraft is =0Ato get the wing out of the line of sight of th
e runway so you can see what's =0Ahappening on the ground.=0A=0ADan=0A=0A
=0A-- Dan Yocum=0AFermilab- 630.840.6509=0Ayocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigr
id.fnal.gov=0A"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty
===================
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: landing gear weights and wheels |
I agree with Jack that Don Emich's metal gear with large spoke wheels is
kind of the best of both worlds, especially with the wheel covers. Minimum
weight (and less expensive) but still retaining the vintage look. I think
that the large covered spoke wheels provides 75% of the vintage gear look
(especially from a distance). I built mine with Cub-style gear based on the
GN-1 plans with 8.0-6 tires but would build it like Don's if doing it again
.
rick
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.ne
t
> wrote:
> I=92ve thought about this a lot over the years. I=92d guesstimate the w
ooden
> =93V=92s=94 of the Jenny gear are comparable in weight to the Metal ones
of the
> split gear. Not sure what the axle weights, but you can figure that out
by
> looking at ACS catalog under the proper tubing and it gives a weight per
> foot, so that=92ll answer that. Subtract that, but add back the cross ti
es
> and there=92s your difference. My complete WAG would be the Jenny gear w
ith
> the same wheels as the split gear will weigh fifteen pounds more??? (agai
n,
> this is a COMPLETE guesstimate)
>
>
> Douwe
>
>
> Ps. Kevin.. I was there, but each time I wanted to introduce myself you
> were either showing off your one-sided retractable Piet gear or surrounde
d
> by people. I=92ll be sure to find you next year.
>
>
> =93Perhaps we shall fly together one day, you and I=85=94
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | should I install mixture control? |
As I said, my Stromberg has the mixture wired full rich, but there are times
even flying 500' AGL that I wish I had the ability to lean the mixture.
Flying from North Carolina to Brodhead I've got to get it to 4500' to stay
at least 500' AGL when crossing over the ridge that separates Virginia from
West Virginia, and the loss in power at that altitude is noticeable. I've
been in downdrafts in that area where I was climbing at full throttle and
losing 500 feet per minute. What I'd give for an extra 50 RPM then!
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: should I install mixture control?
The stromberg NAS3B on mine doesn't even have a mixture control. I don't
generally fly high enough to need it. Plus I get to check the integrity of
my P-lead grounds every time I shut it off.
Ben
On 8/4/2010 4:00 PM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
Trying to decide if I should install my mixture control or just wire it
rich.
What are your experiences?
Douwe
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Single strand of bungee |
How did you attach your safety cable Kevin? I should add one and I didn't
notice it when I was looking at your beautiful and just repaired Piet at
Broadhead.
rick
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:07 PM, kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>wrote:
> kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
>
> For those of you building per-the-plans split gear - my gear is straight
> out of the 1932 plans (except for the wire wheels and brakes) and uses a
> single 6' strand of bungee on each side.
>
> When the bungee broke on Sunday the 24th, I realized that it is a single
> point of failure. Fortunately, the safety cable worked as designed.
>
> For the sake of redundancy I plan to replace the single strand system with
> donuts. An additional benefit is that donuts are easier to install.
>
> I'll fabricate the donuts using the neat safety wire clamp tool thingy we
> bought at oshkosh and use 1/2" bungee. I'll test a couple of donuts to 500
> or 600 lbs before I actually use them on the plane. If successful, I'll put
> enough of the donuts on each side to handle a 4 or 5 G landing.
>
> Thought about replacing the whole mess with springs but I like the rubber
> bands.
>
> Will let you know how it works out.
>
> Axel
>
> --------
> Kevin Purtee
> NX899KP
> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307521#307521
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 51
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
I don't chime in much either except for questions. But=2C as a spam can dr
iver and former CFI (I'm not offended Dan) I'm a big advocate of "FAA" patt
erns and proceedures. I taught out of a 2=2C300 x 38ft strip and we taught
to pull the power on downwind opposte the numbers and adjust your pattern.
Our patterns were tight=2C but they were still rectangular. All landings
were full stall or in extreme conditions the slowest practical airspeed.
I like to raise the wing to see what's there and by flying a straight final
you have a much moe stable approach. That being said=2C most of the time
I have is in the Canadian bush flying seaplanes. And=2C yes=2C I fly recta
ngular patterns. Mostly for the ability to concentrate on the approach and
have the aircraft in a stable configuation. Many approaches demanded atte
ntion due to terrain avoidence and limited landing space. Departures on th
e otherhand often anything but standard.
As pilots we are taught to always expect the unexpeted. However it's nice
when other pilots are doing what you expect. Just my .02.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
From: helspersew@aol.com
Trouble is=2C that each pilot in command is responsible for his own airplan
e=2C and is using his own best judgement. I for one would never follow alon
g most of the Cessna and Piper pilots that do giant rectangular patters=2C
simply because I feel that it is unsafe for me and my aircraft. If there is
an engine failure or trouble=2C I want to be able to make the runway.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove=2C IL.
Message 52
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4
mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust your
engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs and made
it to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no longer fly.
> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different
than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route
Maybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly field to field when away
from the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me occasionally to see
if I had a field picked out and to see if I could make it.
> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letter
prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community for
the safety and sake of all in attendance.
That is an excellent recommendation. I dont wish to get hurt and Id have a tough
time living with myself if I caused major injury to someone else, so I dont
mind reviewing procedures I just get nervous when people bring up acting like
the police.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307549#307549
Message 53
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
I think it's time for a "Hitler Hates Flying in the Pattern Rules" video.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: BYD <billsayre@ymail.com>
>Sent: Aug 4, 2010 5:23 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
>
>
>
>> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4
mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust your
engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
>
>
>There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs and made
it to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no longer fly.
>
>
>> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different
than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route
>
>
>Maybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly field to field when away
from the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me occasionally to see
if I had a field picked out and to see if I could make it.
>
>
>> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letter
prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community for
the safety and sake of all in attendance.
>
>
>That is an excellent recommendation. I dont wish to get hurt and Id have a tough
time living with myself if I caused major injury to someone else, so I dont
mind reviewing procedures I just get nervous when people bring up acting like
the police.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307549#307549
>
>
Message 54
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
"Navratil and Cardinal enter from the north.....Phillips, and the Hayfield
Boys enter from the east.....Gantzer and Williams from the south.....that
damned blue Taylorcraft going over at 300 ft, and Cuy & Ozbirn with their
screaming overhead break....doesn't anyone know how to enter at 45 to the
downwind!?!? Nein, nein, nein!!!!
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Jim Markle <jim_markle@mindspring.com>wrote
:
> jim_markle@mindspring.com>
>
> I think it's time for a "Hitler Hates Flying in the Pattern Rules"
> video.....
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: BYD <billsayre@ymail.com>
> >Sent: Aug 4, 2010 5:23 PM
> >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
> >
> >
> >
> >> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over t
he
> 3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you
> trust your engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
> >
> >
> >There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs
> and made it to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no
> longer fly.
> >
> >
> >> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no
> different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in rout
e
> >
> >
> >Maybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly =9Cfield to
field
> when away from the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me
> occasionally to see if I had a field picked out and to see if I could mak
e
> it.
> >
> >
> >> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the
> news letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the
> community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.
> >
> >
> >That is an excellent recommendation. I don=99t wish to get hurt a
nd I=99d
> have a tough time living with myself if I caused major injury to someone
> else, so I don=99t mind reviewing procedures =93 I just get n
ervous when
> people bring up acting like the police.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Read this topic online here:
> >
> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307549#307549
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
Message 55
| 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: Single strand of bungee |
Rick - I just wrapped a piece of 1/8 control cable around the two bungee retaining
tubes and swaged it. I zip tie it up out of the way for aesthetics.
--------
Kevin Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307551#307551
Message 56
| 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: First visit to a Pietenpoler |
Thanks Axel for the invite! I'll be sure to give you a call before my next trip
to Austin. Hopefully sooner than later!
Curtis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307553#307553
Message 57
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
I can't wait to see what John H. puts together on THIS one. Man he is one
talented guy on that video stuff. Hilarious !
I used to come to Brodhead for the airplanes. Now I come for the friends
and look at the airplanes in my spare time.
Mike C.
do not archive
Message 58
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
It looks like this post got hijacked and wayyyy off topic. There is a worl
d of difference between the fly-by pattern and the landing pattern. Andrew
King's very legitimate observation was that people doing fly-bys were not
following any kind of predictable pattern that is the norm for fly-ins ever
ywhere. I am not a fan of unnecessary rules and regulations=2C but safety
is always the first consideration. A request that everyone do their fly-by
s in a predictable manner is not an onerous rule. The discussion of the me
rits of a standard landing pattern is a whole different subject.
Gene
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
> From: billsayre@ymail.com
> Date: Wed=2C 4 Aug 2010 14:23:13 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
> > Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over th
e 3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you t
rust your engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
>
>
> There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs a
nd made it to a runway in both instances. Using your logic=2C I would no lo
nger fly.
>
>
> > Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no diff
erent than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route
>
>
> Maybe it was just my training=2C but I was taught to fly =9Cfield t
o field=9D when away from the airport and my instructor even pulled p
ower on me occasionally to see if I had a field picked out and to see if I
could make it.
>
>
> > Again just opinions=2C it may be something worthy of publication in the
news letter prior to the gathering=2C no big shakes just a reminder to the
community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.
>
>
> That is an excellent recommendation. I don=99t wish to get hurt and
I=99d have a tough time living with myself if I caused major injury
to someone else=2C so I don=99t mind reviewing procedures =93 I
just get nervous when people bring up acting like the police.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307549#307549
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
Message 59
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
You are such a rebel Markle.
do not archive
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Jim Markle <jim_markle@mindspring.com>wrote
:
> jim_markle@mindspring.com>
>
> I think it's time for a "Hitler Hates Flying in the Pattern Rules"
> video.....
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: BYD <billsayre@ymail.com>
> >Sent: Aug 4, 2010 5:23 PM
> >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
> >
> >
> >
> >> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over t
he
> 3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you
> trust your engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
> >
> >
> >There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs
> and made it to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no
> longer fly.
> >
> >
> >> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no
> different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in rout
e
> >
> >
> >Maybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly =9Cfield to
field
> when away from the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me
> occasionally to see if I had a field picked out and to see if I could mak
e
> it.
> >
> >
> >> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the
> news letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the
> community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.
> >
> >
> >That is an excellent recommendation. I don=99t wish to get hurt a
nd I=99d
> have a tough time living with myself if I caused major injury to someone
> else, so I don=99t mind reviewing procedures =93 I just get n
ervous when
> people bring up acting like the police.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Read this topic online here:
> >
> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307549#307549
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 60
| 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: should I install mixture control? |
For sure use the mixture control. The O-200 will have some flavor of MA-3 on it
and what Jack said as well as it will stop on a hot day when you want to shut
down. Also if you suspect an oil fouled plug on a mag check a lean mixture for
a few seconds will help dry it off.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
Ribs and tailfeathers done
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307561#307561
Message 61
| 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: | Fitting math...again |
Hello Jack. I am using aluminum streamline tubing for all of my struts. The
se struts need some type of insert for strength. I want to use aluminum ins
ide to avoid corrosion issues. However, I need to be sure what I have come
up with is solid and strong. I have revisited an email from you time and ti
me again on edge distance and tensile strength. Here is what I have:-
-
6060-T6 aluminum bar 3/4" square
-
1/4" bolt
-
Edge distance of .5" (actual edge distance...bolt center is about 5/8")
-
.5 X .75 = .375 sq.in.
-
.375 X 22000 psi (conservative?) = 8,250 lbs.
-
Your thoughts please.
-
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
Message 62
| 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: Riblett 612 or 613.5, and jigs too... |
True enough about weight. I am no help there, as I will never see 230
again most likely. At 255 right now, I am gonna be the heaviest thing
next to the engine in the plane! (Well, that is a bit of an
exaggeration...)
However, I am thinking of going with Spruce after all, as every little
bit helps, and poplar is heavier. Chaper and easier to get, but
heavier...
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
>
>> You can change a lot of the flight dynamics witha ANY airfoil by building
>> the Piet as light as possible, powering it up a bit, and/or by adding some
>> wingspan.
>
>
> I had the opportunity to see Ty Daniels take off at Brodhead in his Piet -
> talk about an absolute elevator! Unbelievable. He and his wife were at
> 100' within 100' of leaving the runway! I'm not exaggerating. At that
> height he nosed it over a bit to gain some extra speed to keep flying, but
> then he just kept climbing, although at a slower rate.
>
> The key is to build light light light. Ty's plane weighs 640 *with 12gal
> fuel!!*
>
> Ty's a young guy about 6'3" and 140lbs. His wife is 110lbs. He's got an
> A-65 with a McCauley climb prop of unknown pitch.
>
> For comparison, N8031 is between 710-730lbs *empty* and with just my butt in
> there I could get to 250-300' by the end of the 2400' runway.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> 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."
>
>
--
Mark Roberts
California Laser Etch
www.california-laser.com
888-882-5015
888-882-5016 fax
Message 63
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
I saw the the landing on Friday, 3/21, When the pilot shut down his engine I walked
up to him and asked if he was aware that the yellow X meant that he was not
to land on that runway.His remark was," Is there an active runway available?"
I told him we are using 27/09, he than asked where it was. I pointed in direction
of a landing Pietenpol.I told him to do the best that he can on departure
when heading West.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307566#307566
Message 64
| 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: | Texas TACOs to Brodhead- 2011 |
> Do you think you could bring Oscar Z. and Hans Van. with you next year.
> Those are two guys I would really like to meet=2C and two planes I have b
een
> waiting for years to see.
If you're buyin'=2C we're flyin'-! =3Bo)
> Hans & Oscar: we need to do a 3 ship next year. Celebrate your 60th=2C Os
car=2C and
> Hans' whatever. We could even pick up others enroute. They're out there.
> My legs are pretty short but when you lose patience I'd just meet you at
night.
You think your legs are short? I'd be doing good to put in a 2 or 2-1/2 hr
. leg in 41CC.
Matter of fact=2C the way I've broken up the flight plan=2C it works out in
2 hr. legs that
happen to coincide with meals and breaks. Or something. When I drive x-c
=2C I plan
for 7AM-7PM max=2C or 700 miles=2C whichever comes first. Driving across N
evada and
Arizona=2C I could really click off the miles but in the Piet headed out to
Brodhead from
Texas=2C I want to take it easy=2C stop and meet friends here and there=2C
and enjoy the
trip. So=2C more like 8 flight hrs. x 70 MPH = 560 miles per day. Give
or take.
> We could do it and it would be fun. Start thinking:).
What do you mean start thinking? I've been thinking about a trip to Brodhe
ad since
I joined this motley crew! I have all the charts=2C pencil lines drawn=2C
stops planned=2C
all of that. What I've been thinking is=2C if I were a computer whiz I cou
ld come up
with an interactive map that we could plot our flight plans on and then adj
ust as
we decided on "friendly" fields or fuel stops along the way. Other list re
aders
could add those friendly stops to the map so we could tweak flight plans to
make
intentional stops there (avoiding=2C of course=2C the black hole for hand t
ools in Oklahoma).
There are other Piets in Texas=2C too. Howard Henderson's old 444MH is dow
n in the
Rockport area=2C and there are others.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio=2C TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 65
| 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 |
|
>However, I am thinking of going with Spruce after all, as every little
>bit helps, and poplar is heavier. Chaper and easier to get, but
>heavier...
Actually....Jack and Chuck and I talked about this very subject when we got together
this week. I personally think you should go with spruce if at all possible....the
time it takes to get poplar or douglas fir or whatever and find the
stuff with the right number of growth rings, etc....well, I think you're better
off just going ahead and buying Spruce.
I spent a LOT of time in Lowes/Home Depot/specialty lumber yards finding just the
right pieces of Douglas Fir....and that was time I could have (and SHOULD have!)
spent building....
If I was to do it over I would go with Spruce without giving it a second thought...in
the long run it will probably not actually cost any more....
I know I wasn't asked but that's my 2 cents anyway.... :-)
jm
Message 66
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
Acting like police, you got the wrong guy for that one!
I have over 35 years of professional career experience dedicated to preserving
human life as a safety professional and practicing consultant.... Police, not
hardly.
I can tell you without a doubt or hesitation safety rules come from two sources
of information
First is empirical knowledge gathered through accident investigation.
Second is proactive forecast modeling that looks at behavior and situations to
identify potential and real hazards.
Like it or not rules are designed to eliminate the acts and propagation of human
stupidity and poor choice selection.
85 percent of all accidents are caused by unsafe acts of people with the remaining
14.9999 percent attributable to unsafe conditions that too may be the action
of another. The balance is left to as acts of God.
There is a higher than normal probability that following established rules and
procedures will result in a safe and uneventful activity. Not following rules
and proven procedures have a greater probability of ending in disaster.
Hold my beer and watch this....
Safety police nope, safety professional, you bet your donkey! Student of human
behavior, absolutely!
John
Don't care if you archive or not
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "BYD" <billsayre@ymail.com>
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4
mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust your
engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.
There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs and made
it to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no longer fly.
> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different
than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route
Maybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly field to field when away
from the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me occasionally to see
if I had a field picked out and to see if I could make it.
> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letter
prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community for
the safety and sake of all in attendance.
That is an excellent recommendation. I dont wish to get hurt and Id have a tough
time living with myself if I caused major injury to someone else, so I dont
mind reviewing procedures I just get nervous when people bring up acting like
the police.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307549#307549
Message 67
| 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: Poplar? Spruce? |
So that's where my spruce went!!
Do not archive.
Chuck
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:50 PM, Jim Markle <jim_markle@mindspring.com> wrote:
However, I am thinking of going with Spruce after all, as every little
bit helps, and poplar is heavier. Chaper and easier to get, but
heavier...
Actually....Jack and Chuck and I talked about this very subject when we got together
this week. I personally think you should go with spruce if at all possible....the
time it takes to get poplar or douglas fir or whatever and find the
stuff with the right number of growth rings, etc....well, I think you're better
off just going ahead and buying Spruce.
I spent a LOT of time in Lowes/Home Depot/specialty lumber yards finding just the
right pieces of Douglas Fir....and that was time I could have (and SHOULD have!)
spent building....
If I was to do it over I would go with Spruce without giving it a second thought...in
the long run it will probably not actually cost any more....
I know I wasn't asked but that's my 2 cents anyway.... :-)
jm
Message 68
| 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: Brodhead flybys |
As Gene said my reason for starting this thread had little to do with the traffic
pattern for landings and take-offs, it was about the flyby pattern, or apparent
lack of one. I've been going to Brodhead fly-ins for more than 20 years,
and the flyby pattern has always been south of 9/27, a rectangular pattern with
downwind south of the hangars and flybys south of the runway, parallel and
same direction as landing aircraft. Traffic pattern was outside the flyby pattern
for 27, and opposite side of the airport for 9. Flybys are not made over
the runway so that it is kept clear for landing and taking off, avoiding confusion.
This is still set out for the September antique fly-in, and used to be
set out for the Piet fly-in, but somehow that seems to have been lost.
Another point, Brodhead during the fly-ins isn't a normal airport and often trying
to fly "your" normal pattern will in fact decrease safety by causing a conflict
with other aircraft. Instead you will have to fly a wider pattern that is
out of gliding distance from the airport to provide seperation. Would you rather
land in the corn or have a mid-air?
And speaking of making it back to the airport, I saw flybys being made downwind
at a height and speed that if the engine quit at the wrong place the Piet would've
ended up crashing into the parked aircraft or the campers, not safe in my
book. I always try to make my flybys high enough and/or fast enough so that
if she quits I can get away from the people and planes before getting to the
ground.
Incidentally the idiot in the blue Taylorcraft got a talking to from one of the
Brodhead bunch.
And no matter how good you think you are at looking for traffic, everybody misses
one sometime and the last thing the fly-in needs is a mid-air over the field.
I would just like to see the old flyby pattern used to keep things safe.
-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307585#307585
Message 69
| 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: Traffic Patterns (was Re: Brodhead flybys) |
Well said Jack, As I have been at the reighns of a unhealthy engine myself,
I am always within gliding distance of the runway, at any point-in the p
attern, except climbout.- Pilots should always have an out, in case the a
irplane turns into a glider.-
-
Shad "Unsafe at any speed" Bell
-
Airspeed is life, altitude is life insurance, And go-arounds pay more.=0A
=0A=0A
Message 70
| 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: Single strand of bungee |
Kevin, are you using powdered, or cream filled, cinimon rolls are too heavy
-
Shad
--- On Wed, 8/4/10, kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil> wrote:
From: kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Single strand of bungee
il>
For those of you building per-the-plans split gear - my gear is straight ou
t of the 1932 plans (except for the wire wheels and brakes) and uses a sing
le 6' strand of bungee on each side.-
When the bungee broke on Sunday the 24th, I realized that it is a single po
int of failure.- Fortunately, the safety cable worked as designed.-
For the sake of redundancy I plan to replace the single strand system with
donuts.- An additional benefit is that donuts are easier to install.-
I'll fabricate the donuts using the neat safety wire clamp tool thingy we b
ought at oshkosh and use 1/2" bungee.- I'll test a couple of donuts to 50
0 or 600 lbs before I actually use them on the plane.- If successful, I'l
l put enough of the donuts on each side to handle a 4 or 5 G landing.
Thought about replacing the whole mess with springs but I like the rubber b
ands.-
Will let you know how it works out.
Axel
--------
Kevin Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=307521#307521
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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! --
|