Having built a Fly-Baby many years ago, I'd think that the Pietenpol would
be the clear choice for these reasons:
1. It's got that second seat.
2. Fly-Baby performance is often not that much different than the Pietenpol,
certainly not enough to be a deal-breaker, for the same engine. There are
some Fly-Bablys, though that are cleaned up and can cruise faster. The
Fly-Baby is probably easier to reduce drag on.
3. The Pietenpol can be built slightly lighter.
4. The visibility is better in the Pietenpol, if you don't use the Ford with
the upright radiator.
5. The Pietenpol might be slightly more robust. The struts help. The
Fly-Baby has flying and landing wires.
While the Fly-Baby does have folding wings, they are a bit awkward and
aren't used that often, generally speaking. Still, they are there and that
might make a difference.
David Paule
>
> As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this
> aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual
> Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer.
> No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying
> any homebuilt project.
>
> I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the
> Fly Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place
> configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft
> to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground?
>
