Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Dear all,I was wondering when this might come up, and because of its seemingsensitive nature I chosen not to say anything up to this point. Butsince some recent posts have indicated a Pietenpol Purist air (punintended) --And since I run this list--I submit the following as the"official" statement on the subject. (despite the seeming opposing viewof wonderful newsletter editors.)While I certainly respect the"Don't-change-anything-thing-the-Piet-is-perfect-as-it-is" point ofview, imposing it on other homebuilders of the fine design is a littleirritating. Pietenpol himself was an innovator and I feel would be amongthe firstto encourage a certain amount of innovation by builders. A buddy ofmine is about to fly the first Subaru powered Piet I have seen, and whenthe old timers come around the hanger and ask where the model A is, hisresponse is that "Bernie would be flying behind a subaru if he wouldhave had one" I think that there is more than a degree of likelihood inthis statement. With regard to airframe modifications: There is nocommandment that you have to follow them. Not even Howard Henderson hasa perfect "to-the-plans-piet" anyone who uses braided cable fordrag/anti-drag wires or aluminum instead of "tern plate" has mademodifications to the plans. Others have added a wing or used cub parts,or changed the airfoil--and still call it a Pietenpol. Granted itreally isn't an Air Camper anymore, but it is still someone's vision ofwhat they want in airplane. Changes to the plans are ok so long as youknow what you are doing, which brings me to the point of this post.I believe that a zealous rush to defend the design as it sits on paperis the type of response that has a tendency to stifle open discussionand acts to discourage people from asking questions. I suggest thatfolks not rush so quickly to the "don't changeanything response" when others ask sincere honest questions.After all if we really wanted to pick a nit, none of us have a truePietenpol unless we bought one built by Bernard himself.Respectfully Steve e.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Purist Pietenpol RFPRM
Pietenpol-List: Re: Purist Pietenpol RFPRM
Original Posted By: Greg Cardinal
Regarding Steve E's pure Piet comments: None of Bernard's Piets were exactly like the other because hewas a continual innovator and experimenter. That's the beautyof home building. You build it the way you want it. I personallythink they are ALL neat. Model A, Corvair, Subaru, Cont. /LycFiesta, 3 piece or one piece, Scout or Air Camper. There isno such thing as a pure Piet (except for those Bernie built) andeach one of those had its own unique characteristics. I'm happy to see new members on the list and hope to encouragethem as a whole in all areas. I'm also thankful to the veryexperienced members who share their years of tinkering andwisdom with us so we don't stumble off into a dangerous area.I'm not for radical changes to the plans by any stretch- Berniedefinitely knew what he was doing. for what it was intended to do and its limitations you will be a happy (Air) Camper.MC________________________________________________________________________________
Regarding Steve E's pure Piet comments: None of Bernard's Piets were exactly like the other because hewas a continual innovator and experimenter. That's the beautyof home building. You build it the way you want it. I personallythink they are ALL neat. Model A, Corvair, Subaru, Cont. /LycFiesta, 3 piece or one piece, Scout or Air Camper. There isno such thing as a pure Piet (except for those Bernie built) andeach one of those had its own unique characteristics. I'm happy to see new members on the list and hope to encouragethem as a whole in all areas. I'm also thankful to the veryexperienced members who share their years of tinkering andwisdom with us so we don't stumble off into a dangerous area.I'm not for radical changes to the plans by any stretch- Berniedefinitely knew what he was doing. for what it was intended to do and its limitations you will be a happy (Air) Camper.MC________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Purist Pietenpol RFPRM
Original Posted By:> Steve Eldredge
Right on, and well said!
Right on, and well said!
Pietenpol-List: Re: Purist Pietenpol RFPRM
Original Posted By: baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey)
Steve Eldredge wrote:> > Dear all,> > I was wondering when this might come up, and because of its seeming> sensitive nature I chosen not to say anything up to this point. But> since some recent posts have indicated a Pietenpol Purist air (pun> intended) --And since I run this list--I submit the following as the> "official" statement on the subject. (despite the seeming opposing view> of wonderful newsletter editors.)> > While I certainly respect the> "Don't-change-anything-thing-the-Piet-is-perfect-as-it-is" point of> view, imposing it on other homebuilders of the fine design is a little> irritating. Pietenpol himself was an innovator and I feel would be among> the first> to encourage a certain amount of innovation by builders. A buddy of> mine is about to fly the first Subaru powered Piet I have seen, and when> the old timers come around the hanger and ask where the model A is, his> response is that "Bernie would be flying behind a subaru if he would> have had one" I think that there is more than a degree of likelihood in> this statement. With regard to airframe modifications: There is no> commandment that you have to follow them. Not even Howard Henderson has> a perfect "to-the-plans-piet" anyone who uses braided cable for> drag/anti-drag wires or aluminum instead of "tern plate" has made> modifications to the plans. Others have added a wing or used cub parts,> or changed the airfoil--and still call it a Pietenpol. Granted it> really isn't an Air Camper anymore, but it is still someone's vision of> what they want in airplane. Changes to the plans are ok so long as you> know what you are doing, which brings me to the point of this post.> > I believe that a zealous rush to defend the design as it sits on paper> is the type of response that has a tendency to stifle open discussion> and acts to discourage people from asking questions. I suggest that> folks not rush so quickly to the "don't change> anything response" when others ask sincere honest questions.> > After all if we really wanted to pick a nit, none of us have a true> Pietenpol unless we bought one built by Bernard himself.> > Respectfully> Steve e.Steve E. Very well said. Some folks are leaders and inovators, othersare followers for lack of skills, knowledge, abilities, or the desire ormoxey to step out of the crowd. B . Pietenpol was a leader and inovatoras is folks like Jim Bede, Burt Rutan and many others, being a leader orfollower are both commendable as both are producers of things we haveloved from the past and things that propel us into the future and thatbrings me to a question?? Did you see the Wainfans Facitmobile atOshkosh? I did not make it this year but seen an article in the Octoberissue of kit planes on it but no real information on performance ectand too many bodies around the bird to see much of it in the photos butit certainly looked interesting and as I understand it , it is anultralight . Did any one see this ship fly? Ernie.________________________________________________________________________________
Steve Eldredge wrote:> > Dear all,> > I was wondering when this might come up, and because of its seeming> sensitive nature I chosen not to say anything up to this point. But> since some recent posts have indicated a Pietenpol Purist air (pun> intended) --And since I run this list--I submit the following as the> "official" statement on the subject. (despite the seeming opposing view> of wonderful newsletter editors.)> > While I certainly respect the> "Don't-change-anything-thing-the-Piet-is-perfect-as-it-is" point of> view, imposing it on other homebuilders of the fine design is a little> irritating. Pietenpol himself was an innovator and I feel would be among> the first> to encourage a certain amount of innovation by builders. A buddy of> mine is about to fly the first Subaru powered Piet I have seen, and when> the old timers come around the hanger and ask where the model A is, his> response is that "Bernie would be flying behind a subaru if he would> have had one" I think that there is more than a degree of likelihood in> this statement. With regard to airframe modifications: There is no> commandment that you have to follow them. Not even Howard Henderson has> a perfect "to-the-plans-piet" anyone who uses braided cable for> drag/anti-drag wires or aluminum instead of "tern plate" has made> modifications to the plans. Others have added a wing or used cub parts,> or changed the airfoil--and still call it a Pietenpol. Granted it> really isn't an Air Camper anymore, but it is still someone's vision of> what they want in airplane. Changes to the plans are ok so long as you> know what you are doing, which brings me to the point of this post.> > I believe that a zealous rush to defend the design as it sits on paper> is the type of response that has a tendency to stifle open discussion> and acts to discourage people from asking questions. I suggest that> folks not rush so quickly to the "don't change> anything response" when others ask sincere honest questions.> > After all if we really wanted to pick a nit, none of us have a true> Pietenpol unless we bought one built by Bernard himself.> > Respectfully> Steve e.Steve E. Very well said. Some folks are leaders and inovators, othersare followers for lack of skills, knowledge, abilities, or the desire ormoxey to step out of the crowd. B . Pietenpol was a leader and inovatoras is folks like Jim Bede, Burt Rutan and many others, being a leader orfollower are both commendable as both are producers of things we haveloved from the past and things that propel us into the future and thatbrings me to a question?? Did you see the Wainfans Facitmobile atOshkosh? I did not make it this year but seen an article in the Octoberissue of kit planes on it but no real information on performance ectand too many bodies around the bird to see much of it in the photos butit certainly looked interesting and as I understand it , it is anultralight . Did any one see this ship fly? Ernie.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Purist Pietenpol RFPRM
Original Posted By: William Conway
Every single Pietenpol I have ever looked at is different in some way.I think the key is that we respect each others opinions. It isinteresting to speculate about what changes Bernard might make if hewere building today?Bob BaileySteve Eldredge wrote:> > Dear all,> > I was wondering when this might come up, and because of its seeming> sensitive nature I chosen not to say anything up to this point. But> since some recent posts have indicated a Pietenpol Purist air (pun> intended) --And since I run this list--I submit the following as the> "official" statement on the subject. (despite the seeming opposing view> of wonderful newsletter editors.)> > While I certainly respect the> "Don't-change-anything-thing-the-Piet-is-perfect-as-it-is" point of> view, imposing it on other homebuilders of the fine design is a little> irritating. Pietenpol himself was an innovator and I feel would be among> the first> to encourage a certain amount of innovation by builders. A buddy of> mine is about to fly the first Subaru powered Piet I have seen, and when> the old timers come around the hanger and ask where the model A is, his> response is that "Bernie would be flying behind a subaru if he would> have had one" I think that there is more than a degree of likelihood in> this statement. With regard to airframe modifications: There is no> commandment that you have to follow them. Not even Howard Henderson has> a perfect "to-the-plans-piet" anyone who uses braided cable for> drag/anti-drag wires or aluminum instead of "tern plate" has made> modifications to the plans. Others have added a wing or used cub parts,> or changed the airfoil--and still call it a Pietenpol. Granted it> really isn't an Air Camper anymore, but it is still someone's vision of> what they want in airplane. Changes to the plans are ok so long as you> know what you are doing, which brings me to the point of this post.> > I believe that a zealous rush to defend the design as it sits on paper> is the type of response that has a tendency to stifle open discussion> and acts to discourage people from asking questions. I suggest that> folks not rush so quickly to the "don't change> anything response" when others ask sincere honest questions.> > After all if we really wanted to pick a nit, none of us have a true> Pietenpol unless we bought one built by Bernard himself.> > Respectfully> Steve e.________________________________________________________________________________
Every single Pietenpol I have ever looked at is different in some way.I think the key is that we respect each others opinions. It isinteresting to speculate about what changes Bernard might make if hewere building today?Bob BaileySteve Eldredge wrote:> > Dear all,> > I was wondering when this might come up, and because of its seeming> sensitive nature I chosen not to say anything up to this point. But> since some recent posts have indicated a Pietenpol Purist air (pun> intended) --And since I run this list--I submit the following as the> "official" statement on the subject. (despite the seeming opposing view> of wonderful newsletter editors.)> > While I certainly respect the> "Don't-change-anything-thing-the-Piet-is-perfect-as-it-is" point of> view, imposing it on other homebuilders of the fine design is a little> irritating. Pietenpol himself was an innovator and I feel would be among> the first> to encourage a certain amount of innovation by builders. A buddy of> mine is about to fly the first Subaru powered Piet I have seen, and when> the old timers come around the hanger and ask where the model A is, his> response is that "Bernie would be flying behind a subaru if he would> have had one" I think that there is more than a degree of likelihood in> this statement. With regard to airframe modifications: There is no> commandment that you have to follow them. Not even Howard Henderson has> a perfect "to-the-plans-piet" anyone who uses braided cable for> drag/anti-drag wires or aluminum instead of "tern plate" has made> modifications to the plans. Others have added a wing or used cub parts,> or changed the airfoil--and still call it a Pietenpol. Granted it> really isn't an Air Camper anymore, but it is still someone's vision of> what they want in airplane. Changes to the plans are ok so long as you> know what you are doing, which brings me to the point of this post.> > I believe that a zealous rush to defend the design as it sits on paper> is the type of response that has a tendency to stifle open discussion> and acts to discourage people from asking questions. I suggest that> folks not rush so quickly to the "don't change> anything response" when others ask sincere honest questions.> > After all if we really wanted to pick a nit, none of us have a true> Pietenpol unless we bought one built by Bernard himself.> > Respectfully> Steve e.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Purist Pietenpol RFPRM
Original Posted By: jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn)
ernest l. hagness wrote:>Did you see the Wainfans Facitmobile at> Oshkosh? I did not make it this year but seen an article in the October> issue of kit planes on it but no real information on performance ect> and too many bodies around the bird to see much of it in the photos but it certainlylooked interesting and as I understand it , it is an> ultralight . Did any one see this ship fly? Ernie.The Facetmobile was at Oshkosh 1 or 2 years ago and flew before theafternoon airshows several times (very high angle of attack - whichprompted the installation of a plexi panel in the floor for forwardvisibility). Rotax powered and probably close to the ultralightcategory, it was displayed in the homebuilt area and never was in theultralight area so probably was an experimental registartion. Seems Iread somewhere that the plane subsequently crashed on takeoff a year agoor so, by hitting a fence (minor personal damage - major structuraldamage), and will not be rebuilt. Other design innovations are beingexplored.Hope this helps.Larry * E-Mail glhuber(at)mail.wiscnet.net Procurement Services Div. *________________________________________________________________________________
ernest l. hagness wrote:>Did you see the Wainfans Facitmobile at> Oshkosh? I did not make it this year but seen an article in the October> issue of kit planes on it but no real information on performance ect> and too many bodies around the bird to see much of it in the photos but it certainlylooked interesting and as I understand it , it is an> ultralight . Did any one see this ship fly? Ernie.The Facetmobile was at Oshkosh 1 or 2 years ago and flew before theafternoon airshows several times (very high angle of attack - whichprompted the installation of a plexi panel in the floor for forwardvisibility). Rotax powered and probably close to the ultralightcategory, it was displayed in the homebuilt area and never was in theultralight area so probably was an experimental registartion. Seems Iread somewhere that the plane subsequently crashed on takeoff a year agoor so, by hitting a fence (minor personal damage - major structuraldamage), and will not be rebuilt. Other design innovations are beingexplored.Hope this helps.Larry * E-Mail glhuber(at)mail.wiscnet.net Procurement Services Div. *________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Purist Pietenpol RFPRM
Original Posted By: POWRACER(at)aol.com
Gerard "Larry" Huber wrote:> > ernest l. hagness wrote:> >Did you see the Wainfans Facitmobile at> > Oshkosh? I did not make it this year but seen an article in the October> > issue of kit planes on it but no real information on performance ect> > and too many bodies around the bird to see much of it in the photos but itcertainly looked interesting and as I understand it , it is an> > ultralight . Did any one see this ship fly? Ernie.> > The Facetmobile was at Oshkosh 1 or 2 years ago and flew before the> afternoon airshows several times (very high angle of attack - which> prompted the installation of a plexi panel in the floor for forward> visibility). Rotax powered and probably close to the ultralight> category, it was displayed in the homebuilt area and never was in the> ultralight area so probably was an experimental registartion. Seems I> read somewhere that the plane subsequently crashed on takeoff a year ago> or so, by hitting a fence (minor personal damage - major structural> damage), and will not be rebuilt. Other design innovations are being> explored.> > Hope this helps.> > Larry> * E-Mail glhuber(at)mail.wiscnet.net Procurement Services Div. *Thanks for your input.The facitmobile may be a little too experimentalfor an old gaffer like me, but am always interested in research. Will beni milwaukee and greenbay on 9-18 for 2 weeks visiting old friends andrelatives. Am looking forward to some weather that is under 100 dfh ashas been the case in south texas this summer. Ernie.________________________________________________________________________________
Gerard "Larry" Huber wrote:> > ernest l. hagness wrote:> >Did you see the Wainfans Facitmobile at> > Oshkosh? I did not make it this year but seen an article in the October> > issue of kit planes on it but no real information on performance ect> > and too many bodies around the bird to see much of it in the photos but itcertainly looked interesting and as I understand it , it is an> > ultralight . Did any one see this ship fly? Ernie.> > The Facetmobile was at Oshkosh 1 or 2 years ago and flew before the> afternoon airshows several times (very high angle of attack - which> prompted the installation of a plexi panel in the floor for forward> visibility). Rotax powered and probably close to the ultralight> category, it was displayed in the homebuilt area and never was in the> ultralight area so probably was an experimental registartion. Seems I> read somewhere that the plane subsequently crashed on takeoff a year ago> or so, by hitting a fence (minor personal damage - major structural> damage), and will not be rebuilt. Other design innovations are being> explored.> > Hope this helps.> > Larry> * E-Mail glhuber(at)mail.wiscnet.net Procurement Services Div. *Thanks for your input.The facitmobile may be a little too experimentalfor an old gaffer like me, but am always interested in research. Will beni milwaukee and greenbay on 9-18 for 2 weeks visiting old friends andrelatives. Am looking forward to some weather that is under 100 dfh ashas been the case in south texas this summer. Ernie.________________________________________________________________________________
> Purist Pietenpol RFPRM
Original Posted By: Ian Holland
> > Dear all,> > I was wondering when this might come up, and because of its seeming> sensitive nature I chosen not to say anything up to this point. But> since some recent posts have indicated a Pietenpol Purist air (pun> intended) --And since I run this list--I submit the following as the> "official" statement on the subject. (despite the seeming opposing view> of wonderful newsletter editors.)> > > While I certainly respect the> "Don't-change-anything-thing-the-Piet-is-perfect-as-it-is" point of> view, imposing it on other homebuilders of the fine design is a little> irritating. Pietenpol himself was an innovator and I feel would be among> the first> to encourage a certain amount of innovation by builders. A buddy of> mine is about to fly the first Subaru powered Piet I have seen, and when> the old timers come around the hanger and ask where the model A is, his> response is that "Bernie would be flying behind a subaru if he would> have had one" I think that there is more than a degree of likelihood in> this statement. With regard to airframe modifications: There is no> commandment that you have to follow them. Not even Howard Henderson has> a perfect "to-the-plans-piet" anyone who uses braided cable for> drag/anti-drag wires or aluminum instead of "tern plate" has made> modifications to the plans. Others have added a wing or used cub parts,> or changed the airfoil--and still call it a Pietenpol. Granted it> really isn't an Air Camper anymore, but it is still someone's vision of> what they want in airplane. Changes to the plans are ok so long as you> know what you are doing, which brings me to the point of this post.> > I believe that a zealous rush to defend the design as it sits on paper> is the type of response that has a tendency to stifle open discussion> and acts to discourage people from asking questions. I suggest that> folks not rush so quickly to the "don't change> anything response" when others ask sincere honest questions.> > After all if we really wanted to pick a nit, none of us have a true> Pietenpol unless we bought one built by Bernard himself.> > Respectfully> Steve e.> > ________________________________________________________________________________
> > Dear all,> > I was wondering when this might come up, and because of its seeming> sensitive nature I chosen not to say anything up to this point. But> since some recent posts have indicated a Pietenpol Purist air (pun> intended) --And since I run this list--I submit the following as the> "official" statement on the subject. (despite the seeming opposing view> of wonderful newsletter editors.)> > > While I certainly respect the> "Don't-change-anything-thing-the-Piet-is-perfect-as-it-is" point of> view, imposing it on other homebuilders of the fine design is a little> irritating. Pietenpol himself was an innovator and I feel would be among> the first> to encourage a certain amount of innovation by builders. A buddy of> mine is about to fly the first Subaru powered Piet I have seen, and when> the old timers come around the hanger and ask where the model A is, his> response is that "Bernie would be flying behind a subaru if he would> have had one" I think that there is more than a degree of likelihood in> this statement. With regard to airframe modifications: There is no> commandment that you have to follow them. Not even Howard Henderson has> a perfect "to-the-plans-piet" anyone who uses braided cable for> drag/anti-drag wires or aluminum instead of "tern plate" has made> modifications to the plans. Others have added a wing or used cub parts,> or changed the airfoil--and still call it a Pietenpol. Granted it> really isn't an Air Camper anymore, but it is still someone's vision of> what they want in airplane. Changes to the plans are ok so long as you> know what you are doing, which brings me to the point of this post.> > I believe that a zealous rush to defend the design as it sits on paper> is the type of response that has a tendency to stifle open discussion> and acts to discourage people from asking questions. I suggest that> folks not rush so quickly to the "don't change> anything response" when others ask sincere honest questions.> > After all if we really wanted to pick a nit, none of us have a true> Pietenpol unless we bought one built by Bernard himself.> > Respectfully> Steve e.> > ________________________________________________________________________________