---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 03/23/11: 49 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:03 AM - Re: Pietenpol wooden landing gear (Larry V) 2. 08:18 AM - Landing Gear differences (jarheadpilot82) 3. 08:48 AM - Re: Landing Gear differences (shad bell) 4. 08:49 AM - Re: Landing Gear differences (Rick Holland) 5. 08:49 AM - Re: Landing Gear differences (TOM STINEMETZE) 6. 09:11 AM - Gear differences (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]) 7. 09:16 AM - Re: Landing Gear differences (jarheadpilot82) 8. 09:36 AM - Re: Gear differences (kevinpurtee) 9. 09:38 AM - Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in (kevinpurtee) 10. 09:54 AM - Re: Gear differences (Rick Holland) 11. 09:54 AM - wire wheels and Jenny gear (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]) 12. 10:08 AM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Dan Yocum) 13. 10:12 AM - Re: wire wheels and Jenny gear (Dan Yocum) 14. 10:26 AM - Re: Gear differences (Ken Bickers) 15. 10:40 AM - Re: Landing Gear differences (jarheadpilot82) 16. 10:46 AM - Re: Gear differences (Ken Bickers) 17. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: Gear differences (Dan Yocum) 18. 10:47 AM - Re: wire wheels and Jenny gear (Steve Ruse) 19. 11:03 AM - Re: Landing Gear differences (Gene Rambo) 20. 11:39 AM - As Dan said, Brodhead's coming! (kevinpurtee) 21. 11:43 AM - Re: Landing Gear differences (Gboothe5) 22. 11:48 AM - Re: Landing Gear differences (jarheadpilot82) 23. 12:03 PM - Re: Landing Gear differences (kevinpurtee) 24. 12:53 PM - Re: Landing Gear differences (jarheadpilot82) 25. 02:07 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (airlion) 26. 02:26 PM - Re: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in (shad bell) 27. 02:30 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Rick Holland) 28. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in (steve emo) 29. 02:51 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Rick Holland) 30. 02:55 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Michael Perez) 31. 03:05 PM - Re: Landing Gear differences (Bill Church) 32. 03:11 PM - Re: Landing Gear differences (jarheadpilot82) 33. 03:21 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Terry Hand) 34. 05:02 PM - Re: Landing Gear differences (Richard Schreiber) 35. 05:07 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Jack) 36. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Jack) 37. 06:53 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Dan Yocum) 38. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (airlion) 39. 07:25 PM - Back to Corvairs...I guess. (Gboothe5) 40. 08:02 PM - Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. (Jack Phillips) 41. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in (Matthew VanDervort) 42. 08:39 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Rick Holland) 43. 08:43 PM - Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. (K5YAC) 44. 08:44 PM - Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. (Rick Holland) 45. 08:47 PM - Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. (K5YAC) 46. 08:54 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Greg Cardinal) 47. 09:10 PM - Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. (Ryan Mueller) 48. 09:31 PM - Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. (K5YAC) 49. 11:27 PM - Re: Re: Landing Gear differences (Clif Dawson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:03:45 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol wooden landing gear From: "Larry V" Chris , Thank you for the reply Larry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334750#334750 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:18:27 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences From: "jarheadpilot82" Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about the community. Very nice. Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the Cub-style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself to either, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned about drag on this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two styles- 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all? 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear. I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for another day. Thanks in advance for the information. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334773#334773 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:48:51 AM PST US From: shad bell Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences Terry, I would say the "Cub" style gear is less drag if you used 6 inch air craft style wheels.- If you used open spoke wheels I think the drag would increase.- I can't confirm any of this, the frontal area of the landing gears are probably close.-I would say as far as speed is concerned it all comes down to how the airplane is rigged, c/g, prop weight etc.- Just go with which ever you like better.- As far as welding, there is a fair amo unt of welding on any "all wood" design, not just in the landing gear, just a requirement in joining steel togeather.- It is not that hard to learn, find a EAA how to seminar and practice, it gets to be addicting and it is fun when it "clicks and you get the feel of the torch.- Its is your choic e so choose wisely. - Shad --- On Wed, 3/23/11, jarheadpilot82 wrote: From: jarheadpilot82 Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences ail.com> Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Y outube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I re ad in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about the community. Very nice. Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the- Cub-st yle metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use le nds itself to either, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned about drag on this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two styl es- 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all? 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal g ear. I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I c an reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the e ngine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for another day. Thanks in advance for the information. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334773#334773 le, List Admin. =0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:49:22 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences From: Rick Holland Hello Terry You are making a great choice with the Piet, as far as the gear type I think the choice for many is more emotion driven. I think most go for the Jenny style gear because it looks like a Jenny gear. There is no answer to the question of which is better (like the corvair vs. continental debate). It comes down to the look you want and as you mentioned whether you like wood work or metal work more. The cub style gear is a significant amount of metal work although there is also a fair amount with the Jenny gear. I did the cub gear with 8x6 tires. If I was going to build another Piet (which many have done) I would do a 'best of both worlds' design staying with the cub gear but modified to use the big 21" spoke wheels as is used with the Jenny style with covers as per Dom Emch: http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/095309L.html rick On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:15 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote: > jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> > > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but > I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great > look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the > Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I > read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get > excited about the community. Very nice. > > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and > I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the Cub-style > metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a > better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends > itself to either, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am > concerned about drag on this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong > decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two > styles- > > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of > the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all? > > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have > down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could > figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal > gear. > > I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I > can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it > is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the > engine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over > FWF for another day. > > Thanks in advance for the information. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334773#334773 > > -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:49:43 AM PST US From: "TOM STINEMETZE" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences Terry: Welcome to the list - I believe you have the list personality pegged pretty well. Also, it is good you do not want to discuss the merits of the various engine choices because we NEVER do that here. As to your question about the landing gear I will leave that to more knowledgeable members. Tom Stinemetze N328X (in the gear stage myself) and using a Corvair with 5th bearing. >>> "jarheadpilot82" 3/23/2011 10:15 AM >>> plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for another day. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:26 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences Welcome to the LIST Terry and you're among good company with Ryan Mueller on the list who is also a Marine and very active in the Pietenpol community. Personally I don't thing drag reduction on a Pietenpol is something a builder should worry about because the design, no matter how many little details you change still has drag written all over it. Shad Bell's words were golden---a lightly built Pietenpol (leave out the heated seats, radio stacks (if possible) instruments in both cockpits (what passenger really needs to see any instruments anyway really ?), the heavy upholstery and carpeting, the starter/generator/battery (unless needed for your airspace requirements of course) and rig the airplane straight and true according to the excellent guidelines in EAA's Tony Bingelis set of builders books. (set of four will cost you around $95 but they are worth every cent when you have questions of any sort during the building process.) I say choose the landing gear that LOOKS best to you and built it. To me the wood gear and wire wheels look fantastic and there are no toe-in, toe-out or camber issues to worry about so my airplane tracks straight and true because of that. When you build the steel-tube landing gear you have to make sure that your wheels are tracking true and straight so your axels have to come out just so when going all that gear welding. There are shims too I believe you can use if you're using axel stubs to get your tracking true but just something to think about. For a wooden airplane there is way more metalworking and welding than I ever imagined. I had to learn how to weld and fabricate my own fitting which was very time consuming but little by little you get better and better in making parts and getting them to fit right. You don't need a 100 horsepower engine on a Pietenpol. Many are flying today (if the airframes are built LIGHT as they should be) on Model A Fords and 65 hp Continentals with good two-person performance. Ken Perkin's Pietenpol is Ford powered and gives rides all weekend long at Brodhead and many to adult sized passengers. I have a 65 hp Continental and have carried passengers close to 200 pounds but you can't do that on an 85 F day.....keep those heavier passengers for more dense air when the temperatures are in the high 60's and low 70's. Lots depends on how much YOU weigh too as far as how heavy a passenger you can carry. I weigh 195 lbs. and normally my weight limit for a passenger (with about 10 gallons of avgas aboard--I hold 17 gals) is around 170 lbs. Normally I require my passengers to be attractive females as well but that isn't always mandatory--it's just a personal guidline that I sometimes follow:) Welcome to the list and stick with it ! Don't GIVE UP EVER ! The second best thing you'll do in your life is to build your own airplane....the best thing will be to COMPLETE it and FLY IT yourself ! Mike C. in Ohio ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:16:16 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: "jarheadpilot82" I do like the "Jenny-style" landing gear, so I expect that that is what I will do. I have a paint/design scheme similar to a Jenny or to a a DeHavilland DH-4 in 1920's USMC colors. I think it would look good, but that is just me. The Marine Corps flew a lot of Close Air Support missions in those biplanes down in Nicaragua in the 1920's and really developed their tactics that would later serve them well in WWII. I just would like to do something a little different along those lines to reflect my Marine Corps heritage as well as honor those Marine Aviators of the 1920's. So the Jenny-style works for me. Thanks for the input. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334782#334782 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:36:26 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Gear differences From: "kevinpurtee" Hi Terry - I'll 2nd Mike's welcome. I like your choice of engines. The debate on this list is lots of fun regarding the pros and cons of powerplant choices. Jack Phillips (engineer, pilot & Piet builder extraordinaire) LOVES the Corvair. I can guarantee that he'll give you his unvarnished "support" on that engine choice. I'd suggest that you get the books Mike mentioned and go ahead and order the plans. You can get started on wing ribs cheap & easy & continue your research on the innumerable options you have building this airplane. Mike - As a highly attractive, slightly-over-170-pound male, I'm surprised I have not been offered a ride, yet. Kevin -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee NX899KP Austin/Georgetown, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334786#334786 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:38:58 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in From: "kevinpurtee" You know, Shad, you're almost as far away as Brodhead, and I only have the vacation for one trip like that a year. I'm thinking you should move to Texas. Axel do not archive -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee NX899KP Austin/Georgetown, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334787#334787 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:54:55 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences From: Rick Holland > > > You don't need a 100 horsepower engine on a Pietenpol. Many are flying > today (if the airframes are built LIGHT as they > should be) on Model A Fords and 65 hp Continentals with good two-person > performance. Ken Perkin's Pietenpol is Ford > powered and gives rides all weekend long at Brodhead and many to adult > sized passengers. > > ...possibly unless you fly out of a 7000 ft. airport with over 10,000 ft. summer density altitudes. -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:54:57 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: wire wheels and Jenny gear You can just about guarantee that when you take a plane with wire wheels an d a Jenny type gear to any fly-in or air show that you'll have more onlookers than and F-22 Raptor. There will be rows of RV's, and other cool homebuilts but the wire wheels a nd the Jenny gear are just SO unique and beauuuutiful. Nothing against the Cub type metal gear on a Piet--those are wonderful too just that I prefer the look of the Jenny/wire wheel landing gear. Here's a nice wire wheel Piet below that was built by Jack Phillips from Ra leigh, NC. >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol- >list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jarheadpilot82 >Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:14 PM >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences > > > >I do like the "Jenny-style" landing gear, so I expect that that is what >I will do. I have a paint/design scheme similar to a Jenny or to a a >DeHavilland DH-4 in 1920's USMC colors. I think it would look good, but >that is just me. The Marine Corps flew a lot of Close Air Support >missions in those biplanes down in Nicaragua in the 1920's and really >developed their tactics that would later serve them well in WWII. I just >would like to do something a little different along those lines to >reflect my Marine Corps heritage as well as honor those Marine Aviators >of the 1920's. So the Jenny-style works for me. > >Thanks for the input. > >-------- >Semper Fi, > >Terry > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334782#334782 > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:08:18 AM PST US From: Dan Yocum Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Hi Terry, Welcome to the list. There's a wealth of knowledge and experience here. Use it to your advantage! Are you planning on building the long or short fuselage? Wood or steel? If wood, what species - sitka spruce, doug fir, poplar? How are you going to cover it - Stewart System, Stits process, or something else? What glue are you thinking about using - T-88 or West Systems epoxy? Are you going to clamp your gussets to your ribs or use brad nails like Bernard? Will you be building a single or 3 piece wing? Will you construct your fuel tank out of galvanized sheet metal or aluminium? Are you going to build your struts out of wood, steel or aluminium? Do you have a supplier for your turnbuckles? Are you going to cut all your wood yourself or order it from a supplier like Aircraft Spruce or Wicks? Are you going to use modern instruments or sift through eBay and the fly-mart at Oshkosh for antique ones? What prop are you planning on using - wood, metal, composite? What diameter and pitch? Are you going to use a tail wheel or a skid? Et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What I'm really driving at is this - don't get hung up on the final product and what it will look like. Eat your elephant one bite at a time. Buy the plans. Buy the Bingelis books. Buy some T-88 and some capstrip and build a few ribs to see if you're into it. When you start covering your plane (a many month process in and of itself), then start thinking about the color scheme. Don't get down on yourself if you put the project on the shelf for a while, but know this, if you touch it everyday and work on it EVERY DAY you will end up with an incredibly awesome time machine that travels at about 75mph no matter what gear you decide on. Good luck! We're rooting for you! Cheers, Dan On 03/23/2011 11:13 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "jarheadpilot82" > > I do like the "Jenny-style" landing gear, so I expect that that is what I will do. I have a paint/design scheme similar to a Jenny or to a a DeHavilland DH-4 in 1920's USMC colors. I think it would look good, but that is just me. The Marine Corps flew a lot of Close Air Support missions in those biplanes down in Nicaragua in the 1920's and really developed their tactics that would later serve them well in WWII. I just would like to do something a little different along those lines to reflect my Marine Corps heritage as well as honor those Marine Aviators of the 1920's. So the Jenny-style works for me. > > Thanks for the input. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334782#334782 > > -- 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 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:12:54 AM PST US From: Dan Yocum Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wire wheels and Jenny gear On 03/23/2011 11:51 AM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP] wrote: > Here's a nice wire wheel Piet below that was built by Jack Phillips from > Raleigh, NC. Mike is such a modest feller! Here's a picture of *his* award winning wire-wheel, wood-gear Piet (attached). 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 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:16 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences From: Ken Bickers Exactly my concern, too. And why building light is especially important. On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Rick Holland wrote: > > >> >> You don't need a 100 horsepower engine on a Pietenpol. Many are flying >> today (if the airframes are built LIGHT as they >> should be) on Model A Fords and 65 hp Continentals with good two-person >> performance. Ken Perkin's Pietenpol is Ford >> powered and gives rides all weekend long at Brodhead and many to adult >> sized passengers. >> >> >> >> > > ...possibly unless you fly out of a 7000 ft. airport with over 10,000 ft. > summer density altitudes. > > > -- > Rick Holland > Castle Rock, Colorado > > "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:40:11 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: "jarheadpilot82" Dan, Thanks for the response. Actually, thanks to ALL who have responded. You are right- just do it. I was a flight instructor in Navy Flight School in Pensacola many years ago, and we would get a student who would want to drop because they were overwhelmed by the idea that they could be flying jets off a carrier in as little as a year. They were just overwhelmed by what was ahead of them. I would tell my students, "Fly one flight at a time." Just put one foot in front of the other and eventually you get there. The same applies in building this or any other plane. One foot in front of the other. By the way, I just mentioned the paint scheme/design because I find that by planning, I create a picture in my mind of the end. My picture may change but it gives me a starting vision. Besides, who wants to fly an ugly airplane, and I have seen a few of those! My plans are on order and I am getting ready to send off for materials to start making some ribs. I will let you know when I get started. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334797#334797 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:55 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences From: Ken Bickers ... though to be fair, our airport is ONLY at 5000 feet. We rarely see density altitudes in summer that are much above 9000. On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Ken Bickers wrote: > Exactly my concern, too. And why building light is especially important. > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Rick Holland wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> You don't need a 100 horsepower engine on a Pietenpol. Many are flying >>> today (if the airframes are built LIGHT as they >>> should be) on Model A Fords and 65 hp Continentals with good two-person >>> performance. Ken Perkin's Pietenpol is Ford >>> powered and gives rides all weekend long at Brodhead and many to adult >>> sized passengers. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ...possibly unless you fly out of a 7000 ft. airport with over 10,000 ft. >> summer density altitudes. >> >> >> -- >> Rick Holland >> Castle Rock, Colorado >> >> "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" >> >> > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:59 AM PST US From: Dan Yocum Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Gear differences On 03/23/2011 11:33 AM, kevinpurtee wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "kevinpurtee" > > Hi Terry - I'll 2nd Mike's welcome. I like your choice of engines. The debate on this list is lots of fun regarding the pros and cons of powerplant choices. Jack Phillips (engineer, pilot& Piet builder extraordinaire) LOVES the Corvair. I can guarantee that he'll give you his unvarnished "support" on that engine choice. > > I'd suggest that you get the books Mike mentioned and go ahead and order the plans. You can get started on wing ribs cheap& easy& continue your research on the innumerable options you have building this airplane. > > Mike - As a highly attractive, slightly-over-170-pound male, I'm surprised I have not been offered a ride, yet. Oh, my! Brodhead is a little under 4 months away! I've had my nose against the grind stone for so long that I hadn't even noticed. tick-tock-tick-tock! 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 18 ____________________________________ Time: 10:47:18 AM PST US From: Steve Ruse Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wire wheels and Jenny gear I have to agree on the wire wheel Piets...they look much nicer (and I have a steel cub type gear). A friend of mine bought a wire wheel Piet last year, I ferried it for him, man it was nice. My plane gets attention at fly-ins and just about anywhere I land, but in a wire wheel Piet I'm guessing people treat you about the same as the would if you landed in an Apollo capsule. I get all kinds of funny questions from non-pilots when I go to airport open houses, etc. "Can it still fly"? "How far can it fly?" "What is it made from"? (while poking the fabric with a finger) "How high can it go"? Lots of fun. Some people can't believe I've flown it from TX to Wisconsin and back. Seems normal to me. Steve Ruse Norman, OK do not archive Quoting Dan Yocum : > > > On 03/23/2011 11:51 AM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE > CORP] wrote: > >> Here's a nice wire wheel Piet below that was built by Jack Phillips from >> Raleigh, NC. > > > Mike is such a modest feller! > > Here's a picture of *his* award winning wire-wheel, wood-gear Piet > (attached). > > 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 19 ____________________________________ Time: 11:03:57 AM PST US From: Gene Rambo Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences To add to other's comments=2C the Jenny gear looks great=2C but it is a bit ch to make. Don't just start it based on written explanations or photos=2C go to someone who has built one and work through it until you understand i t completely. The jenny gear DOES make a difference in the fuselage=2C so decide BEFORE you start building the fuselage. It is also heavy and draggy . That is not to say that it is too heavy=2C lots of Piets are flying with it. I understand that people who use the Cub gear are forced to pull thei r wing aft to make up for the weight difference. It is also very rugged an d simple. It makes brakes more difficult to add=2C but not impossible. I don't think the Cub gear is much harder to make. It is lighter and more streamlined. There are more wheel choices=2C and brakes are easy to add. The Cub gear looks fine on a Piet=2C especially with wire wheels. Just a few observations=2C I hope they help. I built my Jenny gear and am happy to give any help I can. I had to make modificaitons to my fuselage b ecause I built it before looking too closely at the gear. Gene Rambo > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences > From: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com > Date: Wed=2C 23 Mar 2011 08:15:47 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > tmail.com> > > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy=2C still in the research stage but I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the g reat look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in t he Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about the community. Very nice. > > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups=2C and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle=2C and the Cub -style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub=2C but I just couldn't figur e out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to u se lends itself to either=2C but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes=2C I know =2C if I am concerned about drag on this airplane=2C I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two styles- > > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all? > > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder=2C but h ave down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood=2C but could figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the m etal gear. > > I plan (in my mind=2C at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol =2C it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine=2C just the questions about landing gear=2C so I will save the fight over FWF for another day. > > Thanks in advance for the information. > > -------- > Semper Fi=2C > > Terry > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334773#334773 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:18 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: As Dan said, Brodhead's coming! From: "kevinpurtee" It's looming large in my mind, Dan, as I wait for the installation kit for the 5th bearing, then actually install said bearing, then make the mods necessary so everything will still fit, and then reinstall the reworked heads. PLUS, Shelley made me buy her a house. We're closing in 2 weeks so that honey-do list will be long. Not much spare time in the next 4 months! However, I have every intent and desire to fly to Brodhead again. do not archive -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee NX899KP Austin/Georgetown, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334808#334808 ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 11:43:40 AM PST US From: "Gboothe5" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences Jarhead, Thanks for your service! Not to be contrary, but I found the building of the Jenny style gear to be a snap. All wood parts were cut to fit in less than half a day, on a table saw, which is the only part that troubles most. Like you, I am strong in woodology, and week in welding. Besides that, I have little to offer to advise you on which way to go. Happy building, Gary Boothe From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene Rambo Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences To add to other's comments, the Jenny gear looks great, but it is a bitch to make. Don't just start it based on written explanations or photos, go to someone who has built one and work through it until you understand it completely. The jenny gear DOES make a difference in the fuselage, so decide BEFORE you start building the fuselage. It is also heavy and draggy. That is not to say that it is too heavy, lots of Piets are flying with it. I understand that people who use the Cub gear are forced to pull their wing aft to make up for the weight difference. It is also very rugged and simple. It makes brakes more difficult to add, but not impossible. I don't think the Cub gear is much harder to make. It is lighter and more streamlined. There are more wheel choices, and brakes are easy to add. The Cub gear looks fine on a Piet, especially with wire wheels. Just a few observations, I hope they help. I built my Jenny gear and am happy to give any help I can. I had to make modificaitons to my fuselage because I built it before looking too closely at the gear. Gene Rambo > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences > From: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:15:47 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about the community. Very nice. > > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the Cub-style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself to either, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned about drag on this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two styles- > > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all? > > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear. > > I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for another day. > > Thanks in advance for the information. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334773#334773 > ====================== &g====== > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:52 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: "jarheadpilot82" Gene, Thanks for your thoughts. It does go back to my original question. What if any speed difference is there between the two. In other words, how draggy are the Jenny style? What kind of mods did you have to make. Beef up the attach points of the fuselage? Any idea how much (approximately) the Jenny style weighs over the Cub style? Thanks again to all who have answered. My intention is to come to Brodhead this summer. One good way to get motivated, I would think! -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334811#334811 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 12:03:13 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: "kevinpurtee" Terry - I'm not sure if anyone's changed their gear back and forth to check on speed differences. It will truly not matter. It's a slow, draggy airplane no matter what gear you use, as you mentioned in your original post. As someone already said, you're going to cruise around 75-80 mph. (Someone will no doubt pop up with "I cruise at 110." Uh huh.) A lot of your questions are addressed in the archives. Folks don't mind answering, but you can sure learn a lot using the search feature. I'm thinking the weight difference is buried in there somewhere. You also learn a lot of other stuff as you dig through. I've read the veteran list members message to many new folks: get your plans, start on something small (ribs - as you are), come to Brodhead (look forward to seeing you there!), search the archives, read the Bingelis books, etc. It'll all come. Kevin -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee NX899KP Austin/Georgetown, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334813#334813 ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 12:53:28 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: "jarheadpilot82" Kevin, Thanks for the advice. I will take your advice. See you at Brodhead as well? That is a 'fur piece' from Texas. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334816#334816 ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:07:23 PM PST US From: airlion Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Terry, where are you building your piet? I am in Lagrange ga. and flying to sun n fun Sat. AM. I also flew draggy planes (AD6)in the Marine Corps out of Miami Fl. Gardiner Mason. ----- Original Message ---- From: jarheadpilot82 Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 3:50:25 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Kevin, Thanks for the advice. I will take your advice. See you at Brodhead as well? That is a 'fur piece' from Texas. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334816#334816 ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:26:39 PM PST US From: shad bell Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in Kevin,-if I moved to Texas I couldn't call it an Ohio Piet fly-in could I ?- I wish we had the warmer winters here like TX does.- It is 70 degree s now, but the low tonight is 25 and snow, Ohio weather mood swings.- Loo king forward to meeting you at Brodhead, you fellow crank snapper. - Corvair Crank Snappin Club, reminds me of the He-Man Woman Haters Club, on the little rascals. - - Shad Do not archive --- On Wed, 3/23/11, kevinpurtee wrote: From: kevinpurtee Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in il> You know, Shad, you're almost as far away as Brodhead, and I only have the vacation for one trip like that a year.- I'm thinking you should move to Texas. Axel do not archive -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee NX899KP Austin/Georgetown, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334787#334787 le, List Admin. =0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:30:56 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: Rick Holland Terry You can be the first "Top Gun" Pietenpoler at Brodhead (and the first Piet with an arresting hook). And you are correct, just one thing at a time, - just get the plans - just order some capstrip and plywood (and T-88) - just build a rib jig - just build a rib - just build arresting hook - etc - etc rick On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:37 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote: > jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> > > Dan, > > Thanks for the response. Actually, thanks to ALL who have responded. You > are right- just do it. > > I was a flight instructor in Navy Flight School in Pensacola many years > ago, and we would get a student who would want to drop because they were > overwhelmed by the idea that they could be flying jets off a carrier in as > little as a year. They were just overwhelmed by what was ahead of them. I > would tell my students, "Fly one flight at a time." Just put one foot in > front of the other and eventually you get there. The same applies in > building this or any other plane. One foot in front of the other. > > By the way, I just mentioned the paint scheme/design because I find that by > planning, I create a picture in my mind of the end. My picture may change > but it gives me a starting vision. Besides, who wants to fly an ugly > airplane, and I have seen a few of those! > > My plans are on order and I am getting ready to send off for materials to > start making some ribs. I will let you know when I get started. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334797#334797 > > -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 02:39:50 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in From: steve emo Hope you guys don't follow that tradition - they all ended life in a rather untimely way! On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:20 PM, shad bell wrote: > Kevin, if I moved to Texas I couldn't call it an Ohio Piet fly-in could I? > I wish we had the warmer winters here like TX does. It is 70 degrees now, > but the low tonight is 25 and snow, Ohio weather mood swings. Looking > forward to meeting you at Brodhead, you fellow crank snapper. > > Corvair Crank Snappin Club, reminds me of the He-Man Woman Haters Club, on > the little rascals. > > > Shad > Do not archive > > --- On *Wed, 3/23/11, kevinpurtee * wrote: > > > From: kevinpurtee > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 12:36 PM > > kevin.purtee@us.army.mil > > > > You know, Shad, you're almost as far away as Brodhead, and I only have the > vacation for one trip like that a year. > > I'm thinking you should move to Texas. > > Axel > > do not archive > > -------- > Kevin "Axel" Purtee > NX899KP > Austin/Georgetown, TX > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334787#334787httef="http://forums.matronics.com/" > target=_blank>http://forums.matronics; - List Contribution Web Site > - > p; = --> > > > ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 02:51:05 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: Rick Holland Dan you forgot to mention the most important decision of all, will I power it with an 'Unsafe at any Altitude' CORVAIR or not. rick On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Dan Yocum wrote: > > Hi Terry, > > Welcome to the list. There's a wealth of knowledge and experience here. > Use it to your advantage! > > Are you planning on building the long or short fuselage? Wood or steel? > If wood, what species - sitka spruce, doug fir, poplar? How are you going > to cover it - Stewart System, Stits process, or something else? What glue > are you thinking about using - T-88 or West Systems epoxy? Are you going to > clamp your gussets to your ribs or use brad nails like Bernard? Will you be > building a single or 3 piece wing? Will you construct your fuel tank out of > galvanized sheet metal or aluminium? Are you going to build your struts out > of wood, steel or aluminium? Do you have a supplier for your turnbuckles? > Are you going to cut all your wood yourself or order it from a supplier > like Aircraft Spruce or Wicks? Are you going to use modern instruments or > sift through eBay and the fly-mart at Oshkosh for antique ones? What prop > are you planning on using - wood, metal, composite? What diameter and > pitch? Are you going to use a tail wheel or a skid? Et cetera, ad > infinitum, ad nauseum. > > What I'm really driving at is this - don't get hung up on the final product > and what it will look like. Eat your elephant one bite at a time. Buy the > plans. Buy the Bingelis books. Buy some T-88 and some capstrip and build a > few ribs to see if you're into it. When you start covering your plane (a > many month process in and of itself), then start thinking about the color > scheme. Don't get down on yourself if you put the project on the shelf for > a while, but know this, if you touch it everyday and work on it EVERY DAY > you will end up with an incredibly awesome time machine that travels at > about 75mph no matter what gear you decide on. > > Good luck! We're rooting for you! > > Cheers, > Dan > > > On 03/23/2011 11:13 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote: > >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "jarheadpilot82"< >> jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> >> >> I do like the "Jenny-style" landing gear, so I expect that that is what I >> will do. I have a paint/design scheme similar to a Jenny or to a a >> DeHavilland DH-4 in 1920's USMC colors. I think it would look good, but that >> is just me. The Marine Corps flew a lot of Close Air Support missions in >> those biplanes down in Nicaragua in the 1920's and really developed their >> tactics that would later serve them well in WWII. I just would like to do >> something a little different along those lines to reflect my Marine Corps >> heritage as well as honor those Marine Aviators of the 1920's. So the >> Jenny-style works for me. >> >> Thanks for the input. >> >> -------- >> Semper Fi, >> >> Terry >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334782#334782 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- > 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." > > -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:21 PM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Hello Terry and welcome. About the landing gear...I can only comment on the wood, straight axle type as that is what I have been working on the last f ew months.- As someone else mentioned, I had my wood legs made pretty qui ck as well. I did a lot of planning, drawing and thinking prior to making t he cuts, but, for me, it was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be.- It takes time, but it was really not bad at all to handle. Go slow and rea lly pay attention to the details and it will come out fine. - My thoughts on drag...yes the Pietenpol is a drag queen. (Aerodynamically s peaking...) But to me, that is a great reason to be very aware of it and tr y to minimize it as best you can...same with weight.- I think you have th e right idea about having some idea of how the finished product will look i n your mind. That will help you decide along the way how to build/make ever ything else look and it will keep you motivated. Having an overall image of my finished plane has helped keep me interested and focused. - I really hope you stay with some type of military/Marine type look!- I am doing that very thing...mine is Navy inspired. - Good luck- sir. Michael Perez Karetaker Aero www.karetakeraero.com ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 03:05:19 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: "Bill Church" If I had to make a call on this one, I'd guess that the Jenny style gear would have slightly LESS drag than the split Cub-style gear. One of the least aerodynamic shapes is a round cross-section. The cub-style gear is built entirely of round tube. The Jenny style gear has wood members that are streamlined, so the main legs of the Jenny gear would induce less drag than the main legs of the split gear. Now, the Jenny gear does have one big round tube that runs from one wheel to the other (the axle), and cross brace cables, while the split gear has the diagonal shock absorber bracing, so neither one is very good in that area. Probably if you were to add streamline fairings to the cub style gear, you'd get the least drag. In any case, neither one has any great advantage over the other, when it comes to drag. It's really more a matter of personal preference than anything. Bill C. Now, if you were to put a Sonex tailwheel on the back... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334827#334827 ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 03:11:46 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: "jarheadpilot82" Rick, I actually flew Hueys in the Fleet (I am a rotorhead), and flew T-34C's in the Training Command. No tailhook for me, although I did live and fly off the ship for 14 months. I am "just" getting my plans next week. Thanks for the motivational comments from everyone. On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:37 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote: > > Dan, > > Thanks for the response. Actually, thanks to ALL who have responded. You are right- just do it. > > I was a flight instructor in Navy Flight School in Pensacola many years ago, and we would get a student who would want to drop because they were overwhelmed by the idea that they could be flying jets off a carrier in as little as a year. They were just overwhelmed by what was ahead of them. I would tell my students, "Fly one flight at a time." Just put one foot in front of the other and eventually you get there. The same applies in building this or any other plane. One foot in front of the other. > > By the way, I just mentioned the paint scheme/design because I find that by planning, I create a picture in my mind of the end. My picture may change but it gives me a starting vision. Besides, who wants to fly an ugly airplane, and I have seen a few of those! > > My plans are on order and I am getting ready to send off for materials to start making some ribs. I will let you know when I get started. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334797#334797 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334797#334797) > > > > > > > > ========== > st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > > -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" > [b] -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334828#334828 ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 03:21:54 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: Terry Hand I live in Athens. I flew Hueys in the Fleet. I was in 1978-1988. Terry On Mar 23, 2011, at 5:04 PM, airlion wrote: > > Terry, where are you building your piet? I am in Lagrange ga. and flying to sun > n fun Sat. AM. I also flew draggy planes (AD6)in the Marine Corps out of Miami > Fl. Gardiner Mason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: jarheadpilot82 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 3:50:25 PM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences > > > > Kevin, > Thanks for the advice. I will take your advice. See you at Brodhead as well? > That is a 'fur piece' from Texas. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334816#334816 > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 05:02:02 PM PST US From: "Richard Schreiber" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences I have to agree with you Chris. I always planned on doing the Jenny style straight axle gear, but I was deading the construction. I followed your construstion log and technique that you posted on you web site (westcoastpiet.com/) and it was a snap. I didn't run into any problems. I was very happy how easy it was to fabricate. I am like you, strong on wood construction but weak on welding. Fortunately I have a friend who helped me alot with the welding. I have finished up almost all of the airframe construction and will be moving the airframe out to the hangar for final assembly and covering in a few weeks. I am currently into the final assembly of my Corvair engine. My block and crank are ready and my OT-10 cam will arrive from Clarks tomorrow. I do plan on going to the next Corvair College to pick up some tips before I finish my engine assembly. Fortunately the next college is close to home. Rick Schreiber Valparaiso, IN ----- Original Message ----- From: Gboothe5 Sent: 3/23/2011 1:53:15 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences Jarhead, Thanks for your service! Not to be contrary, but I found the building of the Jenny style gear to be a snap. All wood parts were cut to fit in less than half a day, on a table saw, which is the only part that troubles most. Like you, I am strong in woodology, and week in welding. Besides that, I have little to offer to advise you on which way to go Happy building, Gary Boothe From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene Rambo Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences To add to other's comments, the Jenny gear looks great, but it is a bitch to make. Don't just start it based on written explanations or photos, go to someone who has built one and work through it until you understand it completely. The jenny gear DOES make a difference in the fuselage, so decide BEFORE you start building the fuselage. It is also heavy and draggy. That is not to say that it is too heavy, lots of Piets are flying with it. I understand that people who use the Cub gear are forced to pull their wing aft to make up for the weight difference. It is also very rugged and simple. It makes brakes more difficult to add, but not impossible. I don't think the Cub gear is much harder to make. It is lighter and more streamlined. There are more wheel choices, and brakes are easy to add. The Cub gear looks fine on a Piet, especially with wire wheels. Just a few observations, I hope they help. I built my Jenny gear and am happy to give any help I can. I had to make modificaitons to my fuselage because I built it before looking too closely at the gear. Gene Rambo > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences > From: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:15:47 -0700 > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > > > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about the community. Very nice. > > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the Cub-style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself to either, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned about drag on this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two styles- > > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all? > > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear. > > I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for another day. > > Thanks in advance for the information. > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334773#334773 > ====================== &g====== > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 05:07:41 PM PST US From: "Jack" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Terry that is great news, welcome to the building community! If you would like to get in the Pietenpol Directory, fill out the attached file and return to me. I will then send you the listing which now has 100 members! Thanks, Jack DSM -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jarheadpilot82 Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:38 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Dan, Thanks for the response. Actually, thanks to ALL who have responded. You are right- just do it. I was a flight instructor in Navy Flight School in Pensacola many years ago, and we would get a student who would want to drop because they were overwhelmed by the idea that they could be flying jets off a carrier in as little as a year. They were just overwhelmed by what was ahead of them. I would tell my students, "Fly one flight at a time." Just put one foot in front of the other and eventually you get there. The same applies in building this or any other plane. One foot in front of the other. By the way, I just mentioned the paint scheme/design because I find that by planning, I create a picture in my mind of the end. My picture may change but it gives me a starting vision. Besides, who wants to fly an ugly airplane, and I have seen a few of those! My plans are on order and I am getting ready to send off for materials to start making some ribs. I will let you know when I get started. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334797#334797 ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 05:14:48 PM PST US From: "Jack" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Kevin, I actually really enjoy perusing through the archive quite often. I think many times folks forget they are a great resource. Jack DSM Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kevinpurtee Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:59 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Terry - I'm not sure if anyone's changed their gear back and forth to check on speed differences. It will truly not matter. It's a slow, draggy airplane no matter what gear you use, as you mentioned in your original post. As someone already said, you're going to cruise around 75-80 mph. (Someone will no doubt pop up with "I cruise at 110." Uh huh.) A lot of your questions are addressed in the archives. Folks don't mind answering, but you can sure learn a lot using the search feature. I'm thinking the weight difference is buried in there somewhere. You also learn a lot of other stuff as you dig through. I've read the veteran list members message to many new folks: get your plans, start on something small (ribs - as you are), come to Brodhead (look forward to seeing you there!), search the archives, read the Bingelis books, etc. It'll all come. Kevin -------- Kevin "Axel" Purtee NX899KP Austin/Georgetown, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334813#334813 ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:10 PM PST US From: Dan Yocum Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences On 03/23/2011 04:48 PM, Rick Holland wrote: > Dan you forgot to mention the most important decision of all, will I > power it with an 'Unsafe at any Altitude' CORVAIR or not. Oh, us aircraft engine pushers will wear him down one logical point at a time. For instance - it costs just as much to make a Corvair airworthy - with the 5th bearing and all of Wm. Wynne's mods - as it does to buy a O-235, etc. ;-) 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 38 ____________________________________ Time: 07:03:43 PM PST US From: airlion Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Yocum Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 9:50:31 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences On 03/23/2011 04:48 PM, Rick Holland wrote: > Dan you forgot to mention the most important decision of all, will I > power it with an 'Unsafe at any Altitude' CORVAIR or not. Oh, us aircraft engine pushers will wear him down one logical point at a time. For instance - it costs just as much to make a Corvair airworthy - with the 5th bearing and all of Wm. Wynne's mods - as it does to buy a O-235, etc. ;-) 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 39 ____________________________________ Time: 07:25:17 PM PST US From: "Gboothe5" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Back to Corvairs...I guess. Huh? I built my 'core' for $3,000 (just a hair over). I'll add another $1,000 for the 5th bearing. Can you get a new 0-235 for $4,000+? One advantage to the Corvair is that a builder is capable of scrounging for parts, and doing almost everything himself, that he is comfortable with. Now, I'm no motorhead, and I'm certainly not a good scrounger, but I know of those who are both and building for even less. I don't know how this rumor got started that the engine is so expensive...maybe because WW has said he will build and engine for $6,000 (probably more now). Yes, the mods can add to that, but no one is required to use those mods. Stock oil coolers are just fine for a Piet, and WW supplies shop drawings for those who want to machine their own stuff. Heck, you want to be a purist and do as BHP did? Your probably around $1,200, but you won't get 100 hp. Gary Boothe Enjoying the Kool-ade! -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yocum Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:51 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences On 03/23/2011 04:48 PM, Rick Holland wrote: > Dan you forgot to mention the most important decision of all, will I > power it with an 'Unsafe at any Altitude' CORVAIR or not. Oh, us aircraft engine pushers will wear him down one logical point at a time. For instance - it costs just as much to make a Corvair airworthy - with the 5th bearing and all of Wm. Wynne's mods - as it does to buy a O-235, etc. ;-) 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 40 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:48 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Back to Corvairs...I guess. You won't get a "new" corvair for $4,000. Maybe a rebuilt one, but certainly not new. Chevrolet mercifully ended production of that anomoly in 1969. They superceded it with the Vega. A worthy replacement. Jack Phillips NX899JP "Icarus Plummet" Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gboothe5 Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:16 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Back to Corvairs...I guess. Huh? I built my 'core' for $3,000 (just a hair over). I'll add another $1,000 for the 5th bearing. Can you get a new 0-235 for $4,000+? One advantage to the Corvair is that a builder is capable of scrounging for parts, and doing almost everything himself, that he is comfortable with. Now, I'm no motorhead, and I'm certainly not a good scrounger, but I know of those who are both and building for even less. I don't know how this rumor got started that the engine is so expensive...maybe because WW has said he will build and engine for $6,000 (probably more now). Yes, the mods can add to that, but no one is required to use those mods. Stock oil coolers are just fine for a Piet, and WW supplies shop drawings for those who want to machine their own stuff. Heck, you want to be a purist and do as BHP did? Your probably around $1,200, but you won't get 100 hp. Gary Boothe Enjoying the Kool-ade! -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yocum Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:51 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences On 03/23/2011 04:48 PM, Rick Holland wrote: > Dan you forgot to mention the most important decision of all, will I > power it with an 'Unsafe at any Altitude' CORVAIR or not. Oh, us aircraft engine pushers will wear him down one logical point at a time. For instance - it costs just as much to make a Corvair airworthy - with the 5th bearing and all of Wm. Wynne's mods - as it does to buy a O-235, etc. ;-) 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 41 ____________________________________ Time: 08:25:12 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in From: Matthew VanDervort Shad, I'm putting in my vacation request today! And worst case scenario... Ne w job will keep me away :( but I will gladly send money in advance for our s hare of hotdogs and wanna be glasairs, i mean port o potty's!! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2011, at 5:20 PM, shad bell wrote: > Kevin, if I moved to Texas I couldn't call it an Ohio Piet fly-in could I? I wish we had the warmer winters here like TX does. It is 70 degrees now, but the low tonight is 25 and snow, Ohio weather mood swings. Looking forw ard to meeting you at Brodhead, you fellow crank snapper. > > Corvair Crank Snappin Club, reminds me of the He-Man Woman Haters Club, on the little rascals. > > > Shad > Do not archive > > --- On Wed, 3/23/11, kevinpurtee wrote: > > From: kevinpurtee > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Father's Day Weekend piet fly-in > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 12:36 PM > mil> > > You know, Shad, you're almost as far away as Brodhead, and I only have the vacation for one trip like that a year. > > I'm thinking you should move to Texas. > > Axel > > do not archive > > -------- > Kevin "Axel" Purtee > NX899KP > Austin/Georgetown, TX > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334787#334787httef="http:/ /forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronics; - L ist Contribution Web Site - ========================== ========================== ========================== ========================== ========================== ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:59 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences From: Rick Holland Hell I knew a guy that found a 100 hr O-200 on craigs list for $200, that's $6800 cheaper than a stinkin Corvair and that front bearing is bigger than an full grown hog's leg and blah..blah....blah........... On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Dan Yocum wrote: > > > On 03/23/2011 04:48 PM, Rick Holland wrote: > >> Dan you forgot to mention the most important decision of all, will I >> power it with an 'Unsafe at any Altitude' CORVAIR or not. >> > > Oh, us aircraft engine pushers will wear him down one logical point at a > time. For instance - it costs just as much to make a Corvair airworthy - > with the 5th bearing and all of Wm. Wynne's mods - as it does to buy a > O-235, etc. > > ;-) > > 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." > > -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 08:43:07 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. From: "K5YAC" I'll probably have close to $8k in mine, but it is getting the royal treatment. Nothing super duper or flashy, but I am planning to do all of the things that are recommended nowadays. So far I've got about $2k in the crank and heads (work by Moldex and Falcon), and I'm getting ready to send my case, crank, cam, connecting rods and accessory cover to Roy for 5th bearing, piston and connecting rod balancing, line boring the case, checking run out on my new cam, etc. He estimates around $5k of work, which includes some of the items I had planned to purchase on my own (pistons, cam, etc.)... then I'll still need several hundred worth of WW components to complete the task. But, I expect to have a very robust engine that will offer me years of service at minimal expense when maintenance is required. I mean, once all the heavy work is done, I'll be visiting Napa and Summit for my service parts, right? Maybe I'll end up being wrong, but from what I've read I expect that I'm on the right track with this experimental power plant. I've already got another suitable case and heads, and I've got leads on several cores. I plan on riding the Corvair movement right into my next project, whatever it may be. Mark, in flat as a pancake Oklahoma. [Laughing] -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334869#334869 ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 08:44:23 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Back to Corvairs...I guess. From: Rick Holland Very nice, love that exhaust. Show us a picture when you get your cowling done. rick On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Gboothe5 wrote: > Huh? I built my 'core' for $3,000 (just a hair over). I'll add another > $1,000 for the 5th bearing. Can you get a new 0-235 for $4,000+? One > advantage to the Corvair is that a builder is capable of scrounging for > parts, and doing almost everything himself, that he is comfortable with. > > Now, I'm no motorhead, and I'm certainly not a good scrounger, but I know > of > those who are both and building for even less. I don't know how this rumor > got started that the engine is so expensive...maybe because WW has said he > will build and engine for $6,000 (probably more now). Yes, the mods can add > to that, but no one is required to use those mods. Stock oil coolers are > just fine for a Piet, and WW supplies shop drawings for those who want to > machine their own stuff. > > Heck, you want to be a purist and do as BHP did? Your probably around > $1,200, but you won't get 100 hp. > > Gary Boothe > Enjoying the Kool-ade! > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yocum > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:51 PM > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences > > > > On 03/23/2011 04:48 PM, Rick Holland wrote: > > Dan you forgot to mention the most important decision of all, will I > > power it with an 'Unsafe at any Altitude' CORVAIR or not. > > Oh, us aircraft engine pushers will wear him down one logical point at a > time. For instance - it costs just as much to make a Corvair airworthy > - with the 5th bearing and all of Wm. Wynne's mods - as it does to buy a > O-235, etc. > > ;-) > > 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." > > -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:27 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. From: "K5YAC" Oh, I forgot to add... I don't give a rip what I spend on my engine. I'm doing this for the fun and I chose the Corvair for a variety of reasons, not all of which were based on cost. If I end up spending the same, or even a little more as another engine, oh well, I'll still be flying. -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334872#334872 ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 08:54:33 PM PST US From: "Greg Cardinal" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences I can answer your question on the weight of the Jenny style gear. The gear on NX18235 weighs exactly 60 lbs. That includes: 1. Ash struts 2. 19" Aluminum rims 3. 3.50 X 19 motorcyle tires 4. 8 gauge stainless steel spokes 5. Axle 6. Spreader bars 7. All metal fittings 8. Bungee cords 9. All bracing cables assemblies 10. Brass grease cups 11. NO brakes Greg Cardinal Minneapolis ----- Original Message ----- From: "jarheadpilot82" Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:45 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences > > > Gene, > Thanks for your thoughts. It does go back to my original question. What if > any speed difference is there between the two. In other words, how draggy > are the Jenny style? What kind of mods did you have to make. Beef up the > attach points of the fuselage? > > Any idea how much (approximately) the Jenny style weighs over the Cub > style? > > Thanks again to all who have answered. My intention is to come to Brodhead > this summer. One good way to get motivated, I would think! > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334811#334811 > > > ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 09:10:15 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Back to Corvairs...I guess. From: Ryan Mueller She'll sound pretty nice too... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjrY-3JYjg0 On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Rick Holland wrote: > Very nice, love that exhaust. Show us a picture when you get your cowling > done. > > rick > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Gboothe5 wrote: > >> Huh? I built my 'core' for $3,000 (just a hair over). I'll add another >> $1,000 for the 5th bearing. Can you get a new 0-235 for $4,000+? One >> advantage to the Corvair is that a builder is capable of scrounging for >> parts, and doing almost everything himself, that he is comfortable with. >> >> Now, I'm no motorhead, and I'm certainly not a good scrounger, but I know >> of >> those who are both and building for even less. I don't know how this rumor >> got started that the engine is so expensive...maybe because WW has said he >> will build and engine for $6,000 (probably more now). Yes, the mods can >> add >> to that, but no one is required to use those mods. Stock oil coolers are >> just fine for a Piet, and WW supplies shop drawings for those who want to >> machine their own stuff. >> >> Heck, you want to be a purist and do as BHP did? Your probably around >> $1,200, but you won't get 100 hp. >> >> Gary Boothe >> Enjoying the Kool-ade! >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yocum >> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:51 PM >> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences >> >> >> >> >> On 03/23/2011 04:48 PM, Rick Holland wrote: >> > Dan you forgot to mention the most important decision of all, will I >> > power it with an 'Unsafe at any Altitude' CORVAIR or not. >> >> Oh, us aircraft engine pushers will wear him down one logical point at a >> time. For instance - it costs just as much to make a Corvair airworthy >> - with the 5th bearing and all of Wm. Wynne's mods - as it does to buy a >> O-235, etc. >> >> ;-) >> >> 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." >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Rick Holland > Castle Rock, Colorado > > "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" > > * > > * > > ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 09:31:46 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Back to Corvairs...I guess. From: "K5YAC" Sounds good indeed! -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334879#334879 ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:07 PM PST US From: "Clif Dawson" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences Must be one of them metric pilotes. Clif (Someone will no doubt pop up with "I cruise at 110." Uh huh.) > Kevin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.