Jack great post, very helpful, thank you!
Jack
DSM
Do not archive
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2009, at 7:11 PM, "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> >
>
> 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
>
> <deville-66@hotmail.com>
>
> 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
>
>
