> Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:43 pm
Original Posted By:> WilliamTCA(at)aol.com
In defense of Tony - or more to the point the defense of an conservative approach to building has its merits. Most of the advice requested from builders to this blog are from people learning to build. They are not experienced and if they were almost by definition they wouldn't be asking the questions in the first place. Based on my experience with local Pietenpol builders my conclusion is that a conventional and conservative has proven to more successfully than pushing the envelope. There have been about 20 Pietenpol built in my area of southern Ontario. The successful ones have been powered by aircraft engines. The ones that have not used aircraft engines have by in large not been successful. This DOES NOT MEAN THEY COULDNT HAVE BEEN SUCESSFUL BUT THEY HAVENT BEEN - it is a fact not an opinion.I am a fan of innovation and admire those who innovate but not everyone has the skills to do that. I am considering doing something quite radical in my next project but there is no way I would encourage others to do the same because it can lead others to follow in a path that is more dangerous and could ultimately lead to a poor outcome. Building a scratch built aircraft is a job that only the most diligent can complete. Those who persevere should have the greatest chance of success=2C they deserve it. Following Tony is good advice even if it is out of date and even wrong. You could do a lot worse by not following it. I have two good friends that have lost 15 years or more each of good flying because they chose not to use an aircraft engine. Are they regretful=2C perhaps not=2C but from my perspective they should be. So when giving advice think about what the experience of the person asking the question=2C not what your particular talent or experience is. > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol
In defense of Tony - or more to the point the defense of an conservative approach to building has its merits. Most of the advice requested from builders to this blog are from people learning to build. They are not experienced and if they were almost by definition they wouldn't be asking the questions in the first place. Based on my experience with local Pietenpol builders my conclusion is that a conventional and conservative has proven to more successfully than pushing the envelope. There have been about 20 Pietenpol built in my area of southern Ontario. The successful ones have been powered by aircraft engines. The ones that have not used aircraft engines have by in large not been successful. This DOES NOT MEAN THEY COULDNT HAVE BEEN SUCESSFUL BUT THEY HAVENT BEEN - it is a fact not an opinion.I am a fan of innovation and admire those who innovate but not everyone has the skills to do that. I am considering doing something quite radical in my next project but there is no way I would encourage others to do the same because it can lead others to follow in a path that is more dangerous and could ultimately lead to a poor outcome. Building a scratch built aircraft is a job that only the most diligent can complete. Those who persevere should have the greatest chance of success=2C they deserve it. Following Tony is good advice even if it is out of date and even wrong. You could do a lot worse by not following it. I have two good friends that have lost 15 years or more each of good flying because they chose not to use an aircraft engine. Are they regretful=2C perhaps not=2C but from my perspective they should be. So when giving advice think about what the experience of the person asking the question=2C not what your particular talent or experience is. > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: you don't need a static port or static line on a Pietenpol