Nigel,
With sufficient tailwheel time I don't think you'll find a Pietenpol
difficult to handle. Its ground handling is quite docile, as long as you
are not bothered by not being able to see anything straight ahead.
It is not a particularly easy airplane to land, due to its very high drag.
When approaching power off, I find the best speed to be 55 mph on short
final. The flare has to be timed very well, because the time between
beginning the flare at 55 mph and stalling at 35 is approximately 1-2
seconds. However, if you carry a bit of power, the flare can be extended
somewhat, making it a bit easier to land. Directional control is not a
problem, any more than in any other taildragger. I have flown mine in a 25
knot direct crosswind, and while not enjoyable, the plane could handle it.
Flying in such wind is work, and I don't recommend it unless you have no
choice (like landing at Oshkosh in strong crosswinds).
As for the narrow gear, if you think it is too narrow, make it wider. I
widened mine a bit, to a width of 7 feet between the wheels. Still narrower
than a Cub (with its 10' tread), but certainly not a handful. Narrow gear
does not necessarily make a plane difficult to handle on the ground. I have
an RV-4 as well as the Pietenpol. The RV-4 has much narrower gear than the
Piet, but is absolutely the easiest plane to land I've ever flown, including
all tricycle gear types.
No dihedral? No problem. The parasol configuration adds substantial
stability, but if you're looking for the stability of a Cessna 210, look
elsewhere. On a glass smooth day, my Pietenpol will fly hands off for
minutes at a time. It will fly feet off for maybe as long as a second or
two. Stability in yaw is not a strong suit.
It flies like exactly what it is - a 1929 airplane design. It is very much
a rudder airplane, with lot's of adverse yaw. You do have to fly it, so
time in a Cherokee or a Cessna is not much of a prep. Try to get some time
in a J-3, to get more of a feel for what a Piet is like.
Is it enjoyable to fly? Very much. I have not flown a Fly Baby, so I can't
compare the two. Of planes I have flown, the closest in feel to a Pietenpol
is probably a 1934 Fairchild 22. Again, lots of drag, lots of adverse yaw,
and lots of fun.
Good luck with your decision. I had the same choice to make (with the
Volmer Sportsman thrown into the mix as well). I chose the Pietenpol and
have never regretted my choice. If you haven't decided by next July, I
suggest you make the trip to Brodhead, Wisconsin for the annual Pietenpol
gathering and take a ride in one.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of njones
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:05 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: General Pietenpol questions
As a new forum member I have some questions regarding building this
aircraft. To begin with I'm a rusty low time pilot with time in the usual
Cessnas and Piper aircraft including some instrument time in a 180 Archer.
No tail dragger time although I would certainly get this prior to flying any
homebuilt project.
I'm currently reviewing a number of project possibilities including the Fly
Baby and the Piet, the advantage with the Piet being the 2 place
configuration. ( Both similar build times ) How difficult is this aircraft
to fly? and is it a hand-full on the ground?
Years ago back in the 70's I built a large RC model of this aircraft that I
entered in the Canadian Scale Nationals in Calgary. Frankly I was less than
impressed with the flight characteristics. It was difficult to balance with
the short nose moment, a bear to handle on the ground with that narrow gear,
being prone to ground loops and dragging a wing tip, especially in a
cross-wind. In the air it was particularly touchy in pitch and not pleasant
to fly.
I realize it is difficult to compare the flight characteristics of a model
to full size ( Reynolds numbers etc. ) but they both have that narrow gear
and almost no dihedral, in fact in head-on flight pics the aircraft
appears to have zero dihedral.
Any thought on these comments? I love the aircraft and would consider
powering it with a C-85 or possibly a Corvair, the photos of the British
G-BUCO are especially inspiring.
Thx for the help,
Nigel Jones, BC, Canada
--------
Nigel R. Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273353#273353
