Thanks Scott neat stuff! Looks a little bit like a Baking Duce, a design I consideredbefore the Piet...Sent from my iPadJack Textor> On Jan 22, 2015, at 4:27 PM, "AircamperN11MS" wrote:> > > Hello Fellow Pieters,> > Well Like I said, I have nothing to hide except the fear that you guys may wantto ban me from the Piet list now.
Where do I start? How about the useof the word Certified? I used the term very loosely when I made my last entry.I should better explain. "Aerobatics" are authorized on my "Operating Limitations"for "one" person only. It is on the limitations the way it is becauseit was done in 1972. Today it is done through a logbook entry. The test pilottoday just states that certain maneuvers have been demonstrated and are safeto perform. Back in 1972 the maneuvers had to be performed in view of theFAA person who issued the "Operating Limitations". Mine were so demonstrated.Loops, Rolls, Stalls, Spins, Hammerheads etc. All positive G's. > > The question about the parachute. I can legally fly and do aerobatics withouta chute if I am by myself. If I had a passenger, both persons would need towear a chute. Now we all know that there simply is not any room in a Piet fora chute. This is true with my plane too, so yes I do the aerobatics without one.I quit doing loops about 15 years ago because the pull up in the beginningof the loop induced a fare amount of G's to get the plane over the top of theloop. So now if I want the feeling of the loop I just do a split S. I cando that and keep the plane under 2-G's safely. Why load the plane up if I don'tneed to? Yes the barrel only puts a little more than 1-G on the plane. > > Okay, so now on to the air-frame differences. I admit that it looks like a Pietbut under the fabric, it is not. I have a steel tube fuselage. It is notthe fuse on the Pietenpol drawings. The dimensions are the same as the Piet butthe structure is not. I have a lot more tubing in mine. I also have steeltail feathers. The wing is also different hence the bigger ailerons. The wingswere actually built to the "REED" Clipped wing drawings for the J-3 cub.These are the wings that allow the guys to do acro in the cubs. So the wingis a proven acro wing. I only have a 27 foot wing span, this make the aileronslook huge. > > This is only a brief description of the big differences and it will only causemore questions, but that is okay with me. Like you guys, I like talking aboutmy plane. > > So I'm sure some of you are wondering what the G limitations are on my plane?Back in the mid 1970's an engineer from General Dynamics did the calculationsfor us. His name was Bud Evans. His name may be familiar to so of you oldtimers. He is the guy that designed the Volksplane one and two. He was very wellqualified to do the math. Anyway to the point. the documents I have fromhim say the plane is good for 4.2 G's. He even told us where it would fail ifit did. Yes I do need be nice and handle the plane gently. The good part isthat the plane is so draggy that it doesn't pick up much speed during the descentsmaking it easy to not overload the thing. > > Attached is a naked pic of the fuse. > > Please feel free to ask more questions. I would like you all to understand thatI am very much in support of the Piet and the community. I don't pretendthat mine is a Piet, it very much looks like one from 100 feet. It is supposedto. Piets are cool. I just happen to have one of the most different snowflakesfrom the rest.> > Cheers all, More later,> > --------> Scott Liefeld> Flying N11MS since March 1972> Steel Tube> C-85-12> Wire Wheels> Brodhead in 1996> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 481#437481> > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_117_140.jpg> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Toolstock 2015. 26 February - 1 march