Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
For thoise of you in the hi performance moneys..I mean mooneys and comanchesand bonanzas... make sure you check the density altitude for arrival anddeparture. The runway is quite short. Only one runway will be open. It isthe east west at the north end and there typically is a 90 degree crosswindwith turbulence of the air spilling over the trees so don't count on anywind.chris bobka-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.)
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadA big thank you to the people of Brodhead who exhibited real southern hospitality last Friday and Sat. Isabelle and I enjoyed our visit, meeting friends we'd met on the internet and new friends we met while strolling. Hopefully we can repeat this nice visit annually. Sunday afternoon we lifted off Madison airport about 1530. I had a port side window seat and after a few minutes I looked down and there it was. BRODHEAD. Only one plane on the tarmac. It was completely deserted. Good memories. Corky and Isabelle back in La after having her completely reyankeeized. She even wanted to bring back a bushel of corn.________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadA big thank you to the people of Brodhead who exhibited real southern hospitality last Friday and Sat. Isabelle and I enjoyed our visit, meeting friends we'd met on the internet and new friends we met while strolling. Hopefully we can repeat this nice visit annually. Sunday afternoon we lifted off Madison airport about 1530. I had a port side window seat and after a few minutes I looked down and there it was. BRODHEAD. Only one plane on the tarmac. It was completely deserted. Good memories. Corky and Isabelle back in La after having her completely reyankeeized. She even wanted to bring back a bushel of corn.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Christian Bobka"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadHi everone...Hope someone can help me out here, At Brodhead I met aheavy set gentleman with a big white mustash, He had some continenalparts in the back of his car out in the parking area right in front ofthe pagoda that he was trying to sell. He said he had some Franklinpistons at home that he would like to sellbut I got chased off by the thunderstorm Saturday afternoon and nevergot his name. Does anyone know who I'm talking about and a name andaddress, TIA Ed Grentzer ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadHi everone...Hope someone can help me out here, At Brodhead I met aheavy set gentleman with a big white mustash, He had some continenalparts in the back of his car out in the parking area right in front ofthe pagoda that he was trying to sell. He said he had some Franklinpistons at home that he would like to sellbut I got chased off by the thunderstorm Saturday afternoon and nevergot his name. Does anyone know who I'm talking about and a name andaddress, TIA Ed Grentzer ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Richard Navratril"
This is a heartfelt plea to those of you who might not have a lot of Pietenpolreunions under their belts.There was a recent post about a Tailwind gaggle going to an unnamed airport asa jumping off place for Oshkosh. That's all well and good but..........Please don't advertise (even with good intentions) to any other groups that Brodheadwould be a great place for them to assemble during the Piet reunion. Inthe past we have had various groups "drop in" which severely strained the resourcesand the volunteers at the airport. Comaraderie is a wonderful thing butwhen a volunteer group plans for a particular bunch to show up and about triplethat number arrives........ you get the picture. I'm sure the field loves to sell all the gas but other things have to be consideredlike: longer lines for the shower, portapotties need replenished more often,gathering food for the dinner has to be refigured at the last minute, moretrash to collect, not enough seats at meal-time, and other things that I don'teven know about. This thing is planned for months in advance, last minute changesare not what future invitations are made of.I'm sure the planners at Brodhead would be too polite to bring this up as theywelcome any and all, but I have seen and heard their concerns in the past. I guessif we can all remember that this is the "Brodhead PIETENPOL REUNION", that'sall that has to be said.Thanks for reading my rant,Larryps. Thank everyone at Brodhead that has ANYTHING to do with putting on the reunion!!!!________________________________________________________________________________
This is a heartfelt plea to those of you who might not have a lot of Pietenpolreunions under their belts.There was a recent post about a Tailwind gaggle going to an unnamed airport asa jumping off place for Oshkosh. That's all well and good but..........Please don't advertise (even with good intentions) to any other groups that Brodheadwould be a great place for them to assemble during the Piet reunion. Inthe past we have had various groups "drop in" which severely strained the resourcesand the volunteers at the airport. Comaraderie is a wonderful thing butwhen a volunteer group plans for a particular bunch to show up and about triplethat number arrives........ you get the picture. I'm sure the field loves to sell all the gas but other things have to be consideredlike: longer lines for the shower, portapotties need replenished more often,gathering food for the dinner has to be refigured at the last minute, moretrash to collect, not enough seats at meal-time, and other things that I don'teven know about. This thing is planned for months in advance, last minute changesare not what future invitations are made of.I'm sure the planners at Brodhead would be too polite to bring this up as theywelcome any and all, but I have seen and heard their concerns in the past. I guessif we can all remember that this is the "Brodhead PIETENPOL REUNION", that'sall that has to be said.Thanks for reading my rant,Larryps. Thank everyone at Brodhead that has ANYTHING to do with putting on the reunion!!!!________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "D. Engelkenjohn"
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "D. Engelkenjohn"
C'mon folks, it is not a question of what you arrive in. It is a questionof people taking it on themselves to "invite" other airplane groups to holda fly-in at a private airport during the Piet fly-in. Brodhead is a privateairport and all of the services are provided by volunteers and paid for,initially, our of their own pockets. The Brodhead folks are extremelygenerous and get understandably upset at uninvited guests. Piet people canarrive by car, plane (of any type), dogsled, or on their hands and knees.Just don't tell the RV crowd they're welcome to drop in for an informalfly-in at the same time.Gene----- Original Message -----
C'mon folks, it is not a question of what you arrive in. It is a questionof people taking it on themselves to "invite" other airplane groups to holda fly-in at a private airport during the Piet fly-in. Brodhead is a privateairport and all of the services are provided by volunteers and paid for,initially, our of their own pockets. The Brodhead folks are extremelygenerous and get understandably upset at uninvited guests. Piet people canarrive by car, plane (of any type), dogsled, or on their hands and knees.Just don't tell the RV crowd they're welcome to drop in for an informalfly-in at the same time.Gene----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: Doc Mosher
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: ADonJr(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadGene, and others, As part of the "sizeable N. California contingent" which came in and "took over" the Pietenpol Fly-in, I'd like to state that I came because I am a Piet enthusiast, a potential builder and thought that we were welcome. The tone of the comments I'm reading now, from other Piet enthusiasts makes me question the attitude of those folks. I have always been attracted to the Piet, and to the type of people who have been similarly drawn to it. I have attended Brodhead Fly-ins on three occasions, and been made to feel welcome. I hope that this group is not going to adopt the attitude that "outsiders" are not welcome. That would be more than sad. Don Cooley Ercoupe N3571H ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadGene, and others, As part of the "sizeable N. California contingent" which came in and "took over" the Pietenpol Fly-in, I'd like to state that I came because I am a Piet enthusiast, a potential builder and thought that we were welcome. The tone of the comments I'm reading now, from other Piet enthusiasts makes me question the attitude of those folks. I have always been attracted to the Piet, and to the type of people who have been similarly drawn to it. I have attended Brodhead Fly-ins on three occasions, and been made to feel welcome. I hope that this group is not going to adopt the attitude that "outsiders" are not welcome. That would be more than sad. Don Cooley Ercoupe N3571H ________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By:
Now, don't ya'll go getting upset 'cause some damn elitist tried to becomemore of one! If yall are interested in Piets, it doesn't matter what youarrive in - enjoy yourselves!----- Original Message -----
Now, don't ya'll go getting upset 'cause some damn elitist tried to becomemore of one! If yall are interested in Piets, it doesn't matter what youarrive in - enjoy yourselves!----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "D. Engelkenjohn"
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Gary Gower"
I just got home from four days of volunteer work at the Southwest RegionalFlyin, Tired. It is the extra work of the "extra" people that is the issue.I still think that we all should go. However, Why not try to give a handwhile there. Three or four hours collecting garbage would be a very worthything to do. It is low on the totem pole and is something that all willbenefit from. I know as most of my timeat SWRFI was spent doing that. Lastyear was my first time at Brodhead and they are a very good group. When thenumber of visitors is overwhelming the attitude can slip to why bother.Lets all go and all help. It will be an excellent event!!Jon BotsfordGN-1 N4057T----- Original Message -----
I just got home from four days of volunteer work at the Southwest RegionalFlyin, Tired. It is the extra work of the "extra" people that is the issue.I still think that we all should go. However, Why not try to give a handwhile there. Three or four hours collecting garbage would be a very worthything to do. It is low on the totem pole and is something that all willbenefit from. I know as most of my timeat SWRFI was spent doing that. Lastyear was my first time at Brodhead and they are a very good group. When thenumber of visitors is overwhelming the attitude can slip to why bother.Lets all go and all help. It will be an excellent event!!Jon BotsfordGN-1 N4057T----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Gadd, Skip"
Could someone post the dates of this years Brodhead event. Thank you.Chad Johnson--- Susan Johnson--- chadnsue(at)earthlink.net________________________________________________________________________________
Could someone post the dates of this years Brodhead event. Thank you.Chad Johnson--- Susan Johnson--- chadnsue(at)earthlink.net________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Richard Navratril"
July 25th to 27th 2003.>Could someone post the dates of this years Brodhead event. Thank you.>Chad Johnson________________________________________________________________________________
July 25th to 27th 2003.>Could someone post the dates of this years Brodhead event. Thank you.>Chad Johnson________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
THIS year, guys, I want to bring name tags. Last year I talked to peoplethat turned out to be from the list and I never knew it until later.Gene Ramboarriving friday afternoon until sunday morning________________________________________________________________________________
THIS year, guys, I want to bring name tags. Last year I talked to peoplethat turned out to be from the list and I never knew it until later.Gene Ramboarriving friday afternoon until sunday morning________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadIn a message dated 7/10/03 7:04:27 PM Central Daylight Time, rambog(at)erols.com writes:>Gene,I think name tags are a great idea !! Chuck________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadIn a message dated 7/10/03 7:04:27 PM Central Daylight Time, rambog(at)erols.com writes:>Gene,I think name tags are a great idea !! Chuck________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Dean Dayton"
I will be among the people who can't make it this year.... Made it last year forthe first time and there were only a few airplanes there. I hear that is notthe norm... I'm bummed I'll be missing out but hopefully people will takephotos and share some good tales.Have fun!Tom Brant, Brooklyn Park, MN________________________________________________________________________________
I will be among the people who can't make it this year.... Made it last year forthe first time and there were only a few airplanes there. I hear that is notthe norm... I'm bummed I'll be missing out but hopefully people will takephotos and share some good tales.Have fun!Tom Brant, Brooklyn Park, MN________________________________________________________________________________
> Re: Pietenpol-List: introduction and -- where's the cargo go?
Original Posted By: Craig Lawler
Their used to be a flying club at Palo Alto (maybe still is) that flew a no electric Cub with a handheld radio. It was a lot of fun to fly, but it certainly did limit where you could go in that area.Dean Dayton>>From: Jeff Cours >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: introduction and -- where's the cargo go?>>>Christian Bobka wrote:> > Why the mode C?>>Unfortunately, the two nearby airports (San Carlos and Palo Alto) are>both within San Francisco International's mode C veil. I'm not too>worried about installing mode C, though one of the things I'm pondering>as I decide whether or not to build a Piet is that I'd be flying it out>of some crowded, tower controlled airports with concrete runways and>fairly complex airspace -- not exactly a Piet's native environment. So,>it'd probably need to pick up some extra equipment, which starts to>detract from its simplicity. On the other hand, I really like the fact>that it has a nice, slow cruise speed, which would give me plenty of>time to figure out which way I need to go next so I don't fly through>the wrong airspace on my way out to the wide open places.>>- Jeff C.>>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:55:04 -0400
Their used to be a flying club at Palo Alto (maybe still is) that flew a no electric Cub with a handheld radio. It was a lot of fun to fly, but it certainly did limit where you could go in that area.Dean Dayton>>From: Jeff Cours >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: introduction and -- where's the cargo go?>>>Christian Bobka wrote:> > Why the mode C?>>Unfortunately, the two nearby airports (San Carlos and Palo Alto) are>both within San Francisco International's mode C veil. I'm not too>worried about installing mode C, though one of the things I'm pondering>as I decide whether or not to build a Piet is that I'd be flying it out>of some crowded, tower controlled airports with concrete runways and>fairly complex airspace -- not exactly a Piet's native environment. So,>it'd probably need to pick up some extra equipment, which starts to>detract from its simplicity. On the other hand, I really like the fact>that it has a nice, slow cruise speed, which would give me plenty of>time to figure out which way I need to go next so I don't fly through>the wrong airspace on my way out to the wide open places.>>- Jeff C.>>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:55:04 -0400
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Okay, Jim, Max, how was it?Now I'm worried, you guys make it back okay?Larry________________________________________________________________________________
Okay, Jim, Max, how was it?Now I'm worried, you guys make it back okay?Larry________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Dale Johnson"
Dick and Georgeen Carden plan to attend. Flying into Madison, renting a car for Brodhead (Fri-Sun)and then to OSH.________________________________________________________________________________
Dick and Georgeen Carden plan to attend. Flying into Madison, renting a car for Brodhead (Fri-Sun)and then to OSH.________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Hodgson, Mark O"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Broadhead 2004I'm about 75% certain that I'll be making the trip to Broadhead.Name: Sterling BrooksMode of travel: Car (yuk) but someday in an aircamperTraveling from: Central Texas (Knot2Shabby Airport, 5TA6 San Antonio Sectional)I have a Pietenpol rebuild project...A GN-1 ProjectA Continental A-80 engine overhaul project________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadDate: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:35:48 -0400
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Broadhead 2004I'm about 75% certain that I'll be making the trip to Broadhead.Name: Sterling BrooksMode of travel: Car (yuk) but someday in an aircamperTraveling from: Central Texas (Knot2Shabby Airport, 5TA6 San Antonio Sectional)I have a Pietenpol rebuild project...A GN-1 ProjectA Continental A-80 engine overhaul project________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadDate: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:35:48 -0400
RE: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Textor, Jack"
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: At7000ft(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadI can bring both of my sets of plans for the Pietenpol and GN-1 if needed. Please contact me directly at:kts5ta6(at)wmconnect.comSterlling BrooksKnot 2 Shabby Airport5TA6 San Antonio Sectional________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:07:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadI can bring both of my sets of plans for the Pietenpol and GN-1 if needed. Please contact me directly at:kts5ta6(at)wmconnect.comSterlling BrooksKnot 2 Shabby Airport5TA6 San Antonio Sectional________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:07:46 -0400
Re: Pietenpol-List: One piece landing gear reinforcement straps and brackets
Original Posted By:
Hi,Yes, by routing the groove, the ply was flush on the fuse structure.Lou larsen----- Original Message -----
Hi,Yes, by routing the groove, the ply was flush on the fuse structure.Lou larsen----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadMark:I'll not only bring my plans, but I'll probably trailer either my GN-1 project or my never flown but FSDO signed-off Pietenpol to Broadhead. The Piet(Frankenstein) had to be stripped of fabric and disassembled because the builderfailed to paint and prime most of the metal structural parts and didn't use anygusetts in the fuselage. I found out after I purchased it when we started an extensive annual inspection. Call it the school of hard knocks. I'd like for other builders to scrutinize the Piet and point out more defects that I need toaddress.Can anyone advise of RV facilities near Broadhead? I might be coming in a motorhome.Thanks,Sterling Brooks5TA6, San Antonio Sectional________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:03:40 -0700
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadMark:I'll not only bring my plans, but I'll probably trailer either my GN-1 project or my never flown but FSDO signed-off Pietenpol to Broadhead. The Piet(Frankenstein) had to be stripped of fabric and disassembled because the builderfailed to paint and prime most of the metal structural parts and didn't use anygusetts in the fuselage. I found out after I purchased it when we started an extensive annual inspection. Call it the school of hard knocks. I'd like for other builders to scrutinize the Piet and point out more defects that I need toaddress.Can anyone advise of RV facilities near Broadhead? I might be coming in a motorhome.Thanks,Sterling Brooks5TA6, San Antonio Sectional________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:03:40 -0700
Re: Pietenpol-List: One piece landing gear reinforcement straps and brackets
Original Posted By:
Jack,What thickness of metal did you use for this and are there more picturesavailable?ThanksAlex Sloan----- Original Message -----
Jack,What thickness of metal did you use for this and are there more picturesavailable?ThanksAlex Sloan----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Richard Navratil"
Just out of curiosity.Who is planning to attend?Name _______Jeff Hill___________Flying or driving __hope to be flying in a buddies Baron to Monroe___________Aircraft _______________Departure point of origin __Trophy Club, TX (DFW area)___________Hope to see lots of you guys there.Jeff________________________________________________________________________________
Just out of curiosity.Who is planning to attend?Name _______Jeff Hill___________Flying or driving __hope to be flying in a buddies Baron to Monroe___________Aircraft _______________Departure point of origin __Trophy Club, TX (DFW area)___________Hope to see lots of you guys there.Jeff________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: John Hofmann
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadI'm planning to head out by pick 'em up truck from LSE in an hour or two. First-timer to Brodhead Piet fly-in and hope to learn a lot from all you who havebuilt and are flying! I've got plans and a Model A engine and plan to start overhauling/converting/gluing/building soon...By the way, how about starting the Wisconsin Air Camper Organization -- WACO. Say, I've heard of that before...didn't they build airplanes or something? Or it's somewhere in Texas, or... ; ) Fred B. (A damned Yankee)La Crosse, WI________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:13:31 -0400
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadI'm planning to head out by pick 'em up truck from LSE in an hour or two. First-timer to Brodhead Piet fly-in and hope to learn a lot from all you who havebuilt and are flying! I've got plans and a Model A engine and plan to start overhauling/converting/gluing/building soon...By the way, how about starting the Wisconsin Air Camper Organization -- WACO. Say, I've heard of that before...didn't they build airplanes or something? Or it's somewhere in Texas, or... ; ) Fred B. (A damned Yankee)La Crosse, WI________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:13:31 -0400
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
I sure hope to fly my new airplane ("Corky's Piet") to Brodhead next year. However- looking at the map, it's 1,080 mi. from San Antonio to Brodhead, but only 795 mi. to Guadalajara, Mexico. As a Head Pilot for the Helotes, TX district of TACO, it may be more appropriate for me to fly down to Corona country to visit Gary Gower! But no, because Guadalajara is in the mountains it may be more appropriate for something like Mountain Piet to make that journey.Let's see... get to Guadalajara, turn south-southeast for a while and end up in Belize to visit The Fisherman and have some rum & coke with some grilled mahi-mahi...Oscar ZunigaSan Antonio, TXmailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.comwebsite at http://www.flysquirrel.net________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:33:11 -0400
I sure hope to fly my new airplane ("Corky's Piet") to Brodhead next year. However- looking at the map, it's 1,080 mi. from San Antonio to Brodhead, but only 795 mi. to Guadalajara, Mexico. As a Head Pilot for the Helotes, TX district of TACO, it may be more appropriate for me to fly down to Corona country to visit Gary Gower! But no, because Guadalajara is in the mountains it may be more appropriate for something like Mountain Piet to make that journey.Let's see... get to Guadalajara, turn south-southeast for a while and end up in Belize to visit The Fisherman and have some rum & coke with some grilled mahi-mahi...Oscar ZunigaSan Antonio, TXmailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.comwebsite at http://www.flysquirrel.net________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:33:11 -0400
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Oscar Zuniga"
I have been to Helotes. I even have a shirt from there. It has been aneasy 20 years since. Is that where you live, Oscar?Chris Bobka----- Original Message -----
I have been to Helotes. I even have a shirt from there. It has been aneasy 20 years since. Is that where you live, Oscar?Chris Bobka----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Doyle Combs"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadHello: We have to pick our summer vacation in the next week or so (whereI work) The last B.Head newsletter didn't have any dates for the flyin. Is it the weekend before Oshkosh as usual? Does any ine know?Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadHello: We have to pick our summer vacation in the next week or so (whereI work) The last B.Head newsletter didn't have any dates for the flyin. Is it the weekend before Oshkosh as usual? Does any ine know?Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Varnished Wings
Original Posted By:> Galen Hutcheson
Galen, you might want to check out latex paint. I clearcoated the latex andit looks pretty good and not soft as it was before.> [Original Message]
Galen, you might want to check out latex paint. I clearcoated the latex andit looks pretty good and not soft as it was before.> [Original Message]
RE: Pietenpol-List: Varnished Wings
Original Posted By: Galen Hutcheson
RE: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Oscar Zuniga"
Leon, The EAA chapter website says July 22 and 23 2005.SkipIs it the weekend before Oshkosh as usual? Does any ine know?> Thanks. >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Leon, The EAA chapter website says July 22 and 23 2005.SkipIs it the weekend before Oshkosh as usual? Does any ine know?> Thanks. >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: FTLovley(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Dick Navratil"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadLast year, it was Picture Perfect !! I missed Saturday evening dinner, giving rides. Couldn't help it...the Sky was calling me !! After dark, BanjoLarry was pickin' & grinnin' at the camp fire, along with some juce harps. Heflew a Starduster II in to Brodhead, and gave me a ride, and introduced me to Aerobatics !! Way Cool !! Does anyone know if the Hatz are going to be there again this year ?Chuck________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadLast year, it was Picture Perfect !! I missed Saturday evening dinner, giving rides. Couldn't help it...the Sky was calling me !! After dark, BanjoLarry was pickin' & grinnin' at the camp fire, along with some juce harps. Heflew a Starduster II in to Brodhead, and gave me a ride, and introduced me to Aerobatics !! Way Cool !! Does anyone know if the Hatz are going to be there again this year ?Chuck________________________________________________________________________________
> Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: blugoos1(at)direcway.com
Yes the Hatz will be there again this year.Jim Dallas>From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead>Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:11:29 EDT>>Last year, it was Picture Perfect !! I missed Saturday evening dinner,>giving rides. Couldn't help it...the Sky was calling me !! After dark, >Banjo>Larry was pickin' & grinnin' at the camp fire, along with some juce harps. >He>flew a Starduster II in to Brodhead, and gave me a ride, and introduced me >to>Aerobatics !! Way Cool !!>Does anyone know if the Hatz are going to be there again this year ?>>Chuck________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:23:44 -1000
Yes the Hatz will be there again this year.Jim Dallas>From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead>Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:11:29 EDT>>Last year, it was Picture Perfect !! I missed Saturday evening dinner,>giving rides. Couldn't help it...the Sky was calling me !! After dark, >Banjo>Larry was pickin' & grinnin' at the camp fire, along with some juce harps. >He>flew a Starduster II in to Brodhead, and gave me a ride, and introduced me >to>Aerobatics !! Way Cool !!>Does anyone know if the Hatz are going to be there again this year ?>>Chuck________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:23:44 -1000
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By:
Actually, Dick, there were 19.ChrisBraumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren----- Original Message -----
Actually, Dick, there were 19.ChrisBraumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren----- Original Message -----
RE: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Textor, Jack"
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Dale Johnson"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadBrodhead was terrific, even if it did rain on Sunday. I personally counted 18 Piets and I think I missed a couple in hangars around the corner, and so the 19 figure I also saw in another post is correct... Had a great time, lot's tosee and do, the fly-bys on Friday evening were terrific. I hope to have my film back this morning and will post some pics. (My son and I are home already-- we took off about 3:00 on Saturday -- I got itchy to get home and get to work on my Piet!). Yep, Chuck G. and Mike C. did do a little skywriting -- Chuck likes to turn his on on the ground which may have caused a little consternation for a couplepilots -- probably the first time they had to go on instruments while taxiing!All in good fun...Again, a great time and many thanks to everyone for the tips and advice that will help with my Piet! Keep cool and keep that water going -- supposed to be in the upper 90s today! Keep cool!Fred B.La Crosse WI ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadBrodhead was terrific, even if it did rain on Sunday. I personally counted 18 Piets and I think I missed a couple in hangars around the corner, and so the 19 figure I also saw in another post is correct... Had a great time, lot's tosee and do, the fly-bys on Friday evening were terrific. I hope to have my film back this morning and will post some pics. (My son and I are home already-- we took off about 3:00 on Saturday -- I got itchy to get home and get to work on my Piet!). Yep, Chuck G. and Mike C. did do a little skywriting -- Chuck likes to turn his on on the ground which may have caused a little consternation for a couplepilots -- probably the first time they had to go on instruments while taxiing!All in good fun...Again, a great time and many thanks to everyone for the tips and advice that will help with my Piet! Keep cool and keep that water going -- supposed to be in the upper 90s today! Keep cool!Fred B.La Crosse WI ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Douwe Blumberg"
The two New Zealanders - Clem & Dave - drove across USA in a rental car, 5550 miles.We met some wonderful people during our trip . A special thanks to Carland Ann Lekven for their offers of hospitality. We met amazing people at Brodhead.It was great to meet the people I have followed on this site over theyears. I loved Lowell Frank's radial engined Piet.RegardsClem Boyd________________________________________________________________________________
The two New Zealanders - Clem & Dave - drove across USA in a rental car, 5550 miles.We met some wonderful people during our trip . A special thanks to Carland Ann Lekven for their offers of hospitality. We met amazing people at Brodhead.It was great to meet the people I have followed on this site over theyears. I loved Lowell Frank's radial engined Piet.RegardsClem Boyd________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead
Original Posted By: Gary Gower
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadThe Brodhead dates are Fri Jul 21-- Sun Jul 23. I plan to drive up and get there as early as possible on Friday. I will havea car for errands, supplies, beer runs, etc. I will be camping there on Fridaynight, but will likely move to a motel in Rockford on Saturday, for I am meetingan old friend from Chicago who says his 75-yr.-old back doesn't do air matressesany longer. That's my plan for now. Chuck Gantzer told me he was likely going up Thursday to get settled in. Oscar has told me he cannot go this year. Corky, are you thinking of going? I'll have the scotch this time. I look forward to meeting you all. Tim . Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: *=================================================Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive=================================================Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenp ... 9.htmlText Version:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenp ... =====EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive===============================================----------------------------------------------------------Pietenpol-List Digest Archive---Total Messages Posted Mon 06/19/06: 13----------------------------------------------------------Today's Message Index:----------------------1. 04:59 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)2. 06:07 AM - GN-1 Gap Seals (Mike King)3. 08:02 AM - Re: Engine selection (Bill Church)4. 09:36 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)5. 09:56 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)6. 10:52 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)7. 11:08 AM - Re: Engine selection (Steve Eldredge)8. 11:57 AM - Engine selection (HelsperSew(at)aol.com)9. 01:23 PM - Re: Engine selection (KMHeide)10. 06:58 PM - Re: Engine selection (Dick Navratil)11. 07:07 PM - radial eng chopper (Dick Navratil)12. 07:16 PM - Re: Covering (Peter W Johnson)13. 08:14 PM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carryingpassengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approachesat your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It alsocannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across WestVirginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climbover a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm ina downdraft.Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb emptyweight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and densityaltitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try thisfrom the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. Weflew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructedapproaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, butstill acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impactedthe trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to buildanother one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, whichwould add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealedthe gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I founda slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mphimprovement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of theairplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using myspring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose downslightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PMKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had towork the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With onlya slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, Ihave power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forgetthat the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed aroundsmaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longerengine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work finefor you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. Ihave yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close toideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I wereto build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN_________________________________________________or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other useof the email by you is prohibited.________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________BlankSay guys, I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all thistalkabout slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendationsfrom those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planeswere built.I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gapseals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slightlynose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on theplane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wingsand the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summermonths.As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatlyappreciated.Thanks.Mike KingGN-177MKDallasAttachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b2 ... __________ Message 3 _____________________________________In Graham's words:"If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 willwork fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was neverdesigned to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would workhard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modestpower.".On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th AnnualPietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with BrianKenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HPContinental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. Buthe emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down asmuch as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so itis possible to build lighter if we really make the effort.As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately astrong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). Butthere were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures ofand talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has beenflying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it toschool regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me hehas about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the originalcovering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, andDacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their secondPiet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacroncovering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as ateenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then gotresurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim saidit was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took greatcare to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleasedwith the results.I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download forabout a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share.Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which isonly five weeks away).Bill C.________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM> >> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. > For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or > VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of > sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a > downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on > the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' > ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a > downdraft.>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area.>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before.>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>> -----Original Message-----> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>> Ken Heide,>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts.>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course).>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup.>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>> _________________________________________________>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - >>> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________Gene,Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, afterattending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is aPietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and=== message truncated == ---------------------------------________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadThe Brodhead dates are Fri Jul 21-- Sun Jul 23. I plan to drive up and get there as early as possible on Friday. I will havea car for errands, supplies, beer runs, etc. I will be camping there on Fridaynight, but will likely move to a motel in Rockford on Saturday, for I am meetingan old friend from Chicago who says his 75-yr.-old back doesn't do air matressesany longer. That's my plan for now. Chuck Gantzer told me he was likely going up Thursday to get settled in. Oscar has told me he cannot go this year. Corky, are you thinking of going? I'll have the scotch this time. I look forward to meeting you all. Tim . Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: *=================================================Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive=================================================Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenp ... 9.htmlText Version:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenp ... =====EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive===============================================----------------------------------------------------------Pietenpol-List Digest Archive---Total Messages Posted Mon 06/19/06: 13----------------------------------------------------------Today's Message Index:----------------------1. 04:59 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)2. 06:07 AM - GN-1 Gap Seals (Mike King)3. 08:02 AM - Re: Engine selection (Bill Church)4. 09:36 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)5. 09:56 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)6. 10:52 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)7. 11:08 AM - Re: Engine selection (Steve Eldredge)8. 11:57 AM - Engine selection (HelsperSew(at)aol.com)9. 01:23 PM - Re: Engine selection (KMHeide)10. 06:58 PM - Re: Engine selection (Dick Navratil)11. 07:07 PM - radial eng chopper (Dick Navratil)12. 07:16 PM - Re: Covering (Peter W Johnson)13. 08:14 PM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carryingpassengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approachesat your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It alsocannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across WestVirginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climbover a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm ina downdraft.Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb emptyweight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and densityaltitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try thisfrom the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. Weflew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructedapproaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, butstill acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impactedthe trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to buildanother one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, whichwould add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealedthe gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I founda slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mphimprovement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of theairplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using myspring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose downslightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PMKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had towork the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With onlya slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, Ihave power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forgetthat the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed aroundsmaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longerengine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work finefor you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. Ihave yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close toideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I wereto build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN_________________________________________________or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other useof the email by you is prohibited.________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________BlankSay guys, I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all thistalkabout slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendationsfrom those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planeswere built.I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gapseals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slightlynose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on theplane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wingsand the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summermonths.As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatlyappreciated.Thanks.Mike KingGN-177MKDallasAttachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b2 ... __________ Message 3 _____________________________________In Graham's words:"If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 willwork fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was neverdesigned to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would workhard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modestpower.".On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th AnnualPietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with BrianKenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HPContinental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. Buthe emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down asmuch as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so itis possible to build lighter if we really make the effort.As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately astrong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). Butthere were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures ofand talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has beenflying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it toschool regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me hehas about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the originalcovering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, andDacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their secondPiet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacroncovering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as ateenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then gotresurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim saidit was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took greatcare to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleasedwith the results.I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download forabout a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share.Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which isonly five weeks away).Bill C.________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM> >> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. > For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or > VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of > sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a > downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on > the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' > ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a > downdraft.>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area.>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before.>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>> -----Original Message-----> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>> Ken Heide,>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts.>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course).>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup.>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>> _________________________________________________>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - >>> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________Gene,Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, afterattending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is aPietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and=== message truncated == ---------------------------------________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadHow far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on how tocombine business with passion and really need to see examples and continue theprebuild research.ThanksJohn -----Original Message-----The Brodhead dates are Fri Jul 21-- Sun Jul 23. I plan to drive up and get there as early as possible on Friday. I will havea car for errands, supplies, beer runs, etc. I will be camping there on Fridaynight, but will likely move to a motel in Rockford on Saturday, for I am meetingan old friend from Chicago who says his 75-yr.-old back doesn't do air matressesany longer. That's my plan for now. Chuck Gantzer told me he was likely going up Thursday to get settled in. Oscar has told me he cannot go this year. Corky, are you thinking of going? I'll have the scotch this time. I look forward to meeting you all. Tim . Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: *=================================================Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive=================================================Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenp ... 9.htmlText Version:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenp ... =====EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive===============================================----------------------------------------------------------Pietenpol-List Digest Archive---Total Messages Posted Mon 06/19/06: 13----------------------------------------------------------Today's Message Index:----------------------1. 04:59 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)2. 06:07 AM - GN-1 Gap Seals (Mike King)3. 08:02 AM - Re: Engine selection (Bill Church)4. 09:36 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)5. 09:56 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)6. 10:52 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)7. 11:08 AM - Re: Engine selection (Steve Eldredge)8. 11:57 AM - Engine selection (HelsperSew(at)aol.com)9. 01:23 PM - Re: Engine selection (KMHeide)10. 06:58 PM - Re: Engine selection (Dick Navratil)11. 07:07 PM - radial eng chopper (Dick Navratil)12. 07:16 PM - Re: Covering (Peter W Johnson)13. 08:14 PM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carryingpassengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approachesat your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It alsocannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across WestVirginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climbover a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm ina downdraft.Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb emptyweight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and densityaltitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try thisfrom the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. Weflew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructedapproaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, butstill acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impactedthe trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to buildanother one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, whichwould add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealedthe gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I founda slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mphimprovement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of theairplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using myspring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose downslightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PMKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had towork the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With onlya slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, Ihave power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forgetthat the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed aroundsmaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longerengine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work finefor you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. Ihave yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close toideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I wereto build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN_________________________________________________or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other useof the email by you is prohibited.________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________BlankSay guys, I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all thistalkabout slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendationsfrom those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planeswere built.I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gapseals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slightlynose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on theplane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wingsand the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summermonths.As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatlyappreciated.Thanks.Mike KingGN-177MKDallasAttachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b2 ... __________ Message 3 _____________________________________In Graham's words:"If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 willwork fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was neverdesigned to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would workhard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modestpower.".On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th AnnualPietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with BrianKenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HPContinental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. Buthe emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down asmuch as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so itis possible to build lighter if we really make the effort.As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately astrong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). Butthere were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures ofand talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has beenflying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it toschool regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me hehas about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the originalcovering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, andDacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their secondPiet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacroncovering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as ateenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then gotresurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim saidit was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took greatcare to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleasedwith the results.I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download forabout a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share.Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which isonly five weeks away).Bill C.________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM> >> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. > For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or > VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of > sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a > downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on > the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' > ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a > downdraft.>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area.>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before.>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>> -----Original Message-----> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>> Ken Heide,>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts.>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course).>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup.>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>> _________________________________________________>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - >>> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________Gene,Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, afterattending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is aPietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and=== message truncated == ---------------------------------________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadHow far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on how tocombine business with passion and really need to see examples and continue theprebuild research.ThanksJohn -----Original Message-----The Brodhead dates are Fri Jul 21-- Sun Jul 23. I plan to drive up and get there as early as possible on Friday. I will havea car for errands, supplies, beer runs, etc. I will be camping there on Fridaynight, but will likely move to a motel in Rockford on Saturday, for I am meetingan old friend from Chicago who says his 75-yr.-old back doesn't do air matressesany longer. That's my plan for now. Chuck Gantzer told me he was likely going up Thursday to get settled in. Oscar has told me he cannot go this year. Corky, are you thinking of going? I'll have the scotch this time. I look forward to meeting you all. Tim . Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: *=================================================Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive=================================================Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenp ... 9.htmlText Version:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenp ... =====EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive===============================================----------------------------------------------------------Pietenpol-List Digest Archive---Total Messages Posted Mon 06/19/06: 13----------------------------------------------------------Today's Message Index:----------------------1. 04:59 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)2. 06:07 AM - GN-1 Gap Seals (Mike King)3. 08:02 AM - Re: Engine selection (Bill Church)4. 09:36 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)5. 09:56 AM - Re: Engine selection (Phillips, Jack)6. 10:52 AM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)7. 11:08 AM - Re: Engine selection (Steve Eldredge)8. 11:57 AM - Engine selection (HelsperSew(at)aol.com)9. 01:23 PM - Re: Engine selection (KMHeide)10. 06:58 PM - Re: Engine selection (Dick Navratil)11. 07:07 PM - radial eng chopper (Dick Navratil)12. 07:16 PM - Re: Covering (Peter W Johnson)13. 08:14 PM - Re: Engine selection (Gene & Tammy)________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carryingpassengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approachesat your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It alsocannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across WestVirginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climbover a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm ina downdraft.Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb emptyweight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and densityaltitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try thisfrom the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. Weflew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructedapproaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, butstill acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impactedthe trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to buildanother one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, whichwould add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealedthe gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I founda slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mphimprovement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of theairplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using myspring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose downslightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PMKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had towork the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With onlya slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, Ihave power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forgetthat the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed aroundsmaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longerengine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work finefor you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. Ihave yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close toideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I wereto build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN_________________________________________________or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other useof the email by you is prohibited.________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________BlankSay guys, I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to plans.That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all thistalkabout slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendationsfrom those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planeswere built.I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gapseals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slightlynose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on theplane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wingsand the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summermonths.As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatlyappreciated.Thanks.Mike KingGN-177MKDallasAttachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b2 ... __________ Message 3 _____________________________________In Graham's words:"If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 willwork fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was neverdesigned to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would workhard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modestpower.".On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th AnnualPietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with BrianKenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HPContinental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. Buthe emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down asmuch as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so itis possible to build lighter if we really make the effort.As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately astrong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). Butthere were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures ofand talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has beenflying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it toschool regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me hehas about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the originalcovering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, andDacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their secondPiet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacroncovering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as ateenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then gotresurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim saidit was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took greatcare to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleasedwith the results.I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download forabout a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share.Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which isonly five weeks away).Bill C.________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM> >> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. > For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or > VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of > sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a > downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on > the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' > ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a > downdraft.>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area.>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before.>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>> -----Original Message-----> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>> Ken Heide,>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts.>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course).>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup.>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>> _________________________________________________>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - >>> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________Gene,Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, afterattending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is aPietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and=== message truncated == ---------------------------------________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadAccording to my map it's about 37 miles.....Jim MarklePryor, OK214.505.6101----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:50 AM>> How far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on > how to combine business with passion and really need to see examples and > continue the prebuild research.>________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BrodheadAccording to my map it's about 37 miles.....Jim MarklePryor, OK214.505.6101----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:50 AM>> How far is it from Rockford to Broadhead? I am gathering some thoughts on > how to combine business with passion and really need to see examples and > continue the prebuild research.>________________________________________________________________________________