Original Posted By: "David B. Schober"
A friend of mine turned me on to homebuilt aircraft and the Pietenpol. I've heard of the GN-1 also. Which one is quicker, easier, cheaper,better to build? I've heard there are many existing parts available for the GN-1, makingit quicker and easier to build. Is that true?Thanks for any feedback.Roger________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Which plane to build?
Pietenpol-List: Re: Which plane to build?
Original Posted By: Ed0248(at)aol.com
If you want a Pietenpol, build a Pietenpol! All the others are only wana be's.Roger Hanson wrote:> A friend of mine turned me on to homebuilt aircraft and the Pietenpol. I'veheard of the GN-1 also. Which one is quicker, easier, cheaper, better to build?> I've heard there are many existing parts available for the GN-1, making it quickerand easier to build. Is that true?> Thanks for any feedback.>> Roger--David B.Schober, CPEInstructor, Aviation MaintenanceFairmont State CollegeNational Aerospace Education CenterRt. 3 Box 13Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503(304) 842-8300________________________________________________________________________________
If you want a Pietenpol, build a Pietenpol! All the others are only wana be's.Roger Hanson wrote:> A friend of mine turned me on to homebuilt aircraft and the Pietenpol. I'veheard of the GN-1 also. Which one is quicker, easier, cheaper, better to build?> I've heard there are many existing parts available for the GN-1, making it quickerand easier to build. Is that true?> Thanks for any feedback.>> Roger--David B.Schober, CPEInstructor, Aviation MaintenanceFairmont State CollegeNational Aerospace Education CenterRt. 3 Box 13Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503(304) 842-8300________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Which plane to build?
Original Posted By: Steve Eldredge
The GN-1 has much redundant structure and is needlessly overbuilt and will come out somewhat heavier than the average Piet. It is designed to use off the shelf J-3 gear and control sticks. I am not going to buildto the Grega structure, but there are some good ideas in the design andthe plans are really cheap (25 bucks) so I'll probably get a set.On the plywood issue: Note the fuselage, being a truss, does not depend onthe plywood side skins for strength except were they serve as gussetsclose to the joints. The main reason for the plywood skins, as Berniepoints out in the 1932 article, is to prevent splintering of the longeronsin a crash. I will certainly not use door skins for the fuse sides, but marine grade ply should be fine...Except for the floor... where the plywood skin *is* part of the structure... so that will be aircraft grade or close to it.Anyway... I'm now underway making fittings that I'm cutting down froma bunch of Starduster Too fittings I aquired many years ago...John KahnBombardier Inc.P.S. I had fun visiting Domenic to look at his project this week. Impressiveworkmanship Dom! ________________________________________________________________________________
The GN-1 has much redundant structure and is needlessly overbuilt and will come out somewhat heavier than the average Piet. It is designed to use off the shelf J-3 gear and control sticks. I am not going to buildto the Grega structure, but there are some good ideas in the design andthe plans are really cheap (25 bucks) so I'll probably get a set.On the plywood issue: Note the fuselage, being a truss, does not depend onthe plywood side skins for strength except were they serve as gussetsclose to the joints. The main reason for the plywood skins, as Berniepoints out in the 1932 article, is to prevent splintering of the longeronsin a crash. I will certainly not use door skins for the fuse sides, but marine grade ply should be fine...Except for the floor... where the plywood skin *is* part of the structure... so that will be aircraft grade or close to it.Anyway... I'm now underway making fittings that I'm cutting down froma bunch of Starduster Too fittings I aquired many years ago...John KahnBombardier Inc.P.S. I had fun visiting Domenic to look at his project this week. Impressiveworkmanship Dom! ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Which plane to build?
Original Posted By: Owen Davies
John Kahn wrote:> > The GN-1 has much redundant structure and is needlessly overbuilt and> will come out somewhat heavier than the average Piet. It is designed to> use off the shelf J-3 gear and control sticks. I am not going to build> to the Grega structure, but there are some good ideas in the design and> the plans are really cheap (25 bucks) so I'll probably get a set.> > On the plywood issue: Note the fuselage, being a truss, does not depend on> the plywood side skins for strength except were they serve as gussets> close to the joints. The main reason for the plywood skins, as Bernie> points out in the 1932 article, is to prevent splintering of the longerons> in a crash. I will certainly not use door skins for the fuse sides, but> marine grade ply should be fine...> > Except for the floor... where the plywood skin *is* part of the structure> ... so that will be aircraft grade or close to it.> > Anyway... I'm now underway making fittings that I'm cutting down from> a bunch of Starduster Too fittings I aquired many years ago...> > John Kahn> Bombardier Inc.> > P.S. I had fun visiting Domenic to look at his project this week. Impressive> workmanship Dom!Thanks John, I appreciate that. And will be happy to help you along yourway as much as I can. Once you start building, remember my motto " Whenthe last little job is complete...the big one will have disappeared". Idon't know where this little saying came from but I had it printed infancy hand printing and posted it in my workshop. When I got a littlediscouraged by the amount of work I had yet to complete I would glanceat my motto and then carry on.Good luck Pietenpoller,Domenic________________________________________________________________________________
John Kahn wrote:> > The GN-1 has much redundant structure and is needlessly overbuilt and> will come out somewhat heavier than the average Piet. It is designed to> use off the shelf J-3 gear and control sticks. I am not going to build> to the Grega structure, but there are some good ideas in the design and> the plans are really cheap (25 bucks) so I'll probably get a set.> > On the plywood issue: Note the fuselage, being a truss, does not depend on> the plywood side skins for strength except were they serve as gussets> close to the joints. The main reason for the plywood skins, as Bernie> points out in the 1932 article, is to prevent splintering of the longerons> in a crash. I will certainly not use door skins for the fuse sides, but> marine grade ply should be fine...> > Except for the floor... where the plywood skin *is* part of the structure> ... so that will be aircraft grade or close to it.> > Anyway... I'm now underway making fittings that I'm cutting down from> a bunch of Starduster Too fittings I aquired many years ago...> > John Kahn> Bombardier Inc.> > P.S. I had fun visiting Domenic to look at his project this week. Impressive> workmanship Dom!Thanks John, I appreciate that. And will be happy to help you along yourway as much as I can. Once you start building, remember my motto " Whenthe last little job is complete...the big one will have disappeared". Idon't know where this little saying came from but I had it printed infancy hand printing and posted it in my workshop. When I got a littlediscouraged by the amount of work I had yet to complete I would glanceat my motto and then carry on.Good luck Pietenpoller,Domenic________________________________________________________________________________