Original Posted By: del magsam
Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines
Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines
Original Posted By: "Les Schubert"
OK, I would like to hear more about this gas turbine. How do I get one? Howmuch does it cost? Can you throttle it? What is is made for or where is itused in normal life?BED----- Original Message -----
OK, I would like to hear more about this gas turbine. How do I get one? Howmuch does it cost? Can you throttle it? What is is made for or where is itused in normal life?BED----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines
Original Posted By: "Barry Davis"
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
> Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines
Original Posted By: "DJ Vegh"
Les,I too like the idea of a BRS but am wondering where it would go in a Piet. Ok, let me take a break here and call myself all those bad names before everybody gets on my case for committing the sacrilege of wanting a BRS chute in a homebuilt airplane ...$#*#*$&@), &@@($(#)...$(@)#)@!!Ok, now that's out of the way. All I really want to know is where would be the best placement for W&B purposes etc.Thanks.Eric(The above name-calling thing was said all in fun by the way. I've just seen people get reeeeeal opinionated on other lists about using BRS chutes, and I'm just curious about the technical side of it at this point.)>From: Les Schubert >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines>Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:23:53 -0600>>>I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use >whatever engine would give>you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that was >light enough to suit>the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane.>I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet >for the cost of the wood.>That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other >things for the plane>like a BRS.>If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a >used a converted car engine.>The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas >turbine (weighs about>55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it >should be all in at about>80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!!>Les>>http://travel.msn.com________________________________________________________________________________
Les,I too like the idea of a BRS but am wondering where it would go in a Piet. Ok, let me take a break here and call myself all those bad names before everybody gets on my case for committing the sacrilege of wanting a BRS chute in a homebuilt airplane ...$#*#*$&@), &@@($(#)...$(@)#)@!!Ok, now that's out of the way. All I really want to know is where would be the best placement for W&B purposes etc.Thanks.Eric(The above name-calling thing was said all in fun by the way. I've just seen people get reeeeeal opinionated on other lists about using BRS chutes, and I'm just curious about the technical side of it at this point.)>From: Les Schubert >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines>Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:23:53 -0600>>>I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use >whatever engine would give>you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford that was >light enough to suit>the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane.>I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet >for the cost of the wood.>That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other >things for the plane>like a BRS.>If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a >used a converted car engine.>The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas >turbine (weighs about>55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it >should be all in at about>80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!!>Les>>http://travel.msn.com________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS)
Original Posted By: "Eric Williams"
I saw a GN-1 with the BRS placed in the wing center section. A little bitof the "tube" stuck out past the top of the wing but it was unobtrusive.You would tie it into the front and rear center section spars and then Iwould suggest running 1/8" cables from the unit down the sides (or maybeinside of) the cabanes and terminate them at the lower longeron. That way itwould take an awfully large load to yank it from the airframe.... sure itmay damage the structure but it'll do it's job of saving your hide.I have also considered the BRS. I would do it except it cost about $3000.Alot to pay for something you probably will never use.... I really shouldn'tgo there though cause I don't wanna jinx myself. :-)The other solution is to do like they do in the Fisher line of aircraft.Put it inside the airframe just aft of the rear seat. Have it pointed outof the top side of the turtledeck. The turtledeck stringer that is "in theway" of the aim of fire of the chute does not get glued to the formers butrather just lays there and is held in place by the covering. The BRSrocket/chute will rip right through the covering. Just be sure the mountthat sucker securely and use cables to grab onto other stronger areas of theairframe.Most importantly contact BRS. They will help you with your particularinstall.... which is better than any advice I have listed above.DJ VeghN74DVMesa, AZwww.imagedv.com/aircamper----- Original Message -----
I saw a GN-1 with the BRS placed in the wing center section. A little bitof the "tube" stuck out past the top of the wing but it was unobtrusive.You would tie it into the front and rear center section spars and then Iwould suggest running 1/8" cables from the unit down the sides (or maybeinside of) the cabanes and terminate them at the lower longeron. That way itwould take an awfully large load to yank it from the airframe.... sure itmay damage the structure but it'll do it's job of saving your hide.I have also considered the BRS. I would do it except it cost about $3000.Alot to pay for something you probably will never use.... I really shouldn'tgo there though cause I don't wanna jinx myself. :-)The other solution is to do like they do in the Fisher line of aircraft.Put it inside the airframe just aft of the rear seat. Have it pointed outof the top side of the turtledeck. The turtledeck stringer that is "in theway" of the aim of fire of the chute does not get glued to the formers butrather just lays there and is held in place by the covering. The BRSrocket/chute will rip right through the covering. Just be sure the mountthat sucker securely and use cables to grab onto other stronger areas of theairframe.Most importantly contact BRS. They will help you with your particularinstall.... which is better than any advice I have listed above.DJ VeghN74DVMesa, AZwww.imagedv.com/aircamper----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines (& BRS)
Original Posted By: "Eric Williams"
The big problem on a Piet isn't where to mount the BRS as much as it's howto connect the cables to the airframe. If everything works right and theBRS fires perfect, but the cable tears out of the wood you are in a realhurtin way. You need hard points that can take the shock and suspend theplane under the chute in a way that you will land safely. That requires theharness to go to the engine mounts up front or the forward cabaines and theaft cabaines or some hard point aft of the seat (if they are strong enough,remember they weren't designed for the loads a chute would apply). Got tokeep in mind when the thing fires you don't want the cables to cut your headoff either.This brings us back to the actual point. Why would you want a BRS on aPiet? (MAN! None of the guys are going to believe I said that!) I wouldREALLY have to be in serious trouble to not want to glide in under the wingthan a chute. The only case where I would want a chute is if I had a majorstructural failure (don't know of that ever happening on a Piet) or loss ofa surface (hope you build and pre flight better than that!). If there was aspecific flight where I thought I would need a BRS I think I would wear areserve chute and leave the plane. Scary thought but so is a BRS.OK there, you got me to agree that a mod to a Piet was not a good idea. Arethe purists happy now? ;-)Hank----- Original Message -----
The big problem on a Piet isn't where to mount the BRS as much as it's howto connect the cables to the airframe. If everything works right and theBRS fires perfect, but the cable tears out of the wood you are in a realhurtin way. You need hard points that can take the shock and suspend theplane under the chute in a way that you will land safely. That requires theharness to go to the engine mounts up front or the forward cabaines and theaft cabaines or some hard point aft of the seat (if they are strong enough,remember they weren't designed for the loads a chute would apply). Got tokeep in mind when the thing fires you don't want the cables to cut your headoff either.This brings us back to the actual point. Why would you want a BRS on aPiet? (MAN! None of the guys are going to believe I said that!) I wouldREALLY have to be in serious trouble to not want to glide in under the wingthan a chute. The only case where I would want a chute is if I had a majorstructural failure (don't know of that ever happening on a Piet) or loss ofa surface (hope you build and pre flight better than that!). If there was aspecific flight where I thought I would need a BRS I think I would wear areserve chute and leave the plane. Scary thought but so is a BRS.OK there, you got me to agree that a mod to a Piet was not a good idea. Arethe purists happy now? ;-)Hank----- Original Message -----
> > Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines
Original Posted By: "hjarrett"
> >> >> >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use> >whatever engine would give> >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford thatwas> >light enough to suit> >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane.> >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet> >for the cost of the wood.> >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other> >things for the plane> >like a BRS.> >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a> >used a converted car engine.> >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas> >turbine (weighs about> >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it> >should be all in at about> >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!!> >Les> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> _________________________________________________________________> http://travel.msn.com>>________________________________________________________________________________
> >> >> >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use> >whatever engine would give> >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford thatwas> >light enough to suit> >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane.> >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet> >for the cost of the wood.> >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other> >things for the plane> >like a BRS.> >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a> >used a converted car engine.> >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas> >turbine (weighs about> >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it> >should be all in at about> >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!!> >Les> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> _________________________________________________________________> http://travel.msn.com>>________________________________________________________________________________
> > Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines
Original Posted By: dave rowe
> >> >> >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use> >whatever engine would give> >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford thatwas> >light enough to suit> >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane.> >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet> >for the cost of the wood.> >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other> >things for the plane> >like a BRS.> >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a> >used a converted car engine.> >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas> >turbine (weighs about> >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it> >should be all in at about> >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!!> >Les> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> _________________________________________________________________> http://travel.msn.com>>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:50:32 -0700
> >> >> >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use> >whatever engine would give> >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford thatwas> >light enough to suit> >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane.> >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet> >for the cost of the wood.> >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other> >things for the plane> >like a BRS.> >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a> >used a converted car engine.> >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas> >turbine (weighs about> >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it> >should be all in at about> >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!!> >Les> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> _________________________________________________________________> http://travel.msn.com>>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:50:32 -0700
> > Pietenpol-List: pietenpol engines
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
> >> >> >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use> >whatever engine would give> >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford thatwas> >light enough to suit> >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane.> >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet> >for the cost of the wood.> >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other> >things for the plane> >like a BRS.> >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a> >used a converted car engine.> >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas> >turbine (weighs about> >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it> >should be all in at about> >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!!> >Les> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> _________________________________________________________________> http://travel.msn.com>>________________________________________________________________________________
> >> >> >I would guess that Bernie would be of the opinion that you should use> >whatever engine would give> >you reliable power in the 65 to 100 hp range that you could afford thatwas> >light enough to suit> >the gross weight and the balance requirements of the plane.> >I got lucky and found a very nice 65 continental with a partly built Piet> >for the cost of the wood.> >That was just good luck. This gives me some money to spend on some other> >things for the plane> >like a BRS.> >If I hadn't got this deal on the continental I most likely would have a> >used a converted car engine.> >The other choice that I keep walking around is a Solent Plessey 60 hp gas> >turbine (weighs about> >55 lbs with a output at 6000 rpm). With a 2.5-1 planetary reduction it> >should be all in at about> >80 lbs. Well maybe next year!!!> >Les> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> _________________________________________________________________> http://travel.msn.com>>________________________________________________________________________________