Original Posted By: steve(at)byu.edu
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Originality>John Mc N. wrote about the nit-picking that goes on in other>lists about originality. Fortunately, we have a good group>here about Piets, GN-1's etc. but you'll always run across an>individual who claims something to not be original Pietenpol.>If Bernard were on this list today he'd probably laugh if anyone>tried to 'pin down' what an original Pietenpol configuration would>be. There was a chronological lineage of 26 planes Bernard built>with none being exactly the same. How cool- the guy never just>got in a rut and always tried new engines, props, landing gears, >and even had a tailwheel and radio in one of them. Imagine that !>That's what is so much fun about seeing the various Piets, GN-1's at>Brodhead, elsewhere, because we can pick up ideas and>methods tried and incorporated by dozens of other creative builders and>use whatever suits us in our planes. Neat.>>Mike C. >>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Originality
Pietenpol-List: Originality
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Originality>John Mc N. wrote about the nit-picking that goes on in other>lists about originality. Fortunately, we have a good group>here about Piets, GN-1's etc. but you'll always run across an>individual who claims something to not be original Pietenpol.>If Bernard were on this list today he'd probably laugh if anyone>tried to 'pin down' what an original Pietenpol configuration would>be. There was a chronological lineage of 26 planes Bernard built>with none being exactly the same. How cool- the guy never just>got in a rut and always tried new engines, props, landing gears,>and even had a tailwheel and radio in one of them. Imagine that !>That's what is so much fun about seeing the various Piets, GN-1's at>Brodhead, elsewhere, because we can pick up ideas and>methods tried and incorporated by dozens of other creative builders and>use whatever suits us in our planes. Neat.>>Mike C.>>________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Originality>John Mc N. wrote about the nit-picking that goes on in other>lists about originality. Fortunately, we have a good group>here about Piets, GN-1's etc. but you'll always run across an>individual who claims something to not be original Pietenpol.>If Bernard were on this list today he'd probably laugh if anyone>tried to 'pin down' what an original Pietenpol configuration would>be. There was a chronological lineage of 26 planes Bernard built>with none being exactly the same. How cool- the guy never just>got in a rut and always tried new engines, props, landing gears,>and even had a tailwheel and radio in one of them. Imagine that !>That's what is so much fun about seeing the various Piets, GN-1's at>Brodhead, elsewhere, because we can pick up ideas and>methods tried and incorporated by dozens of other creative builders and>use whatever suits us in our planes. Neat.>>Mike C.>>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Originality
Original Posted By: Larry Ragan
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Originality>John Mc N. wrote about the nit-picking that goes on in other>lists about originality. Fortunately, we have a good group>here about Piets, GN-1's etc. but you'll always run across an>individual who claims something to not be original Pietenpol.>If Bernard were on this list today he'd probably laugh if anyone>tried to 'pin down' what an original Pietenpol configuration would>be. There was a chronological lineage of 26 planes Bernard built>with none being exactly the same. How cool- the guy never just>got in a rut and always tried new engines, props, landing gears,>and even had a tailwheel and radio in one of them. Imagine that !>That's what is so much fun about seeing the various Piets, GN-1's at>Brodhead, elsewhere, because we can pick up ideas and>methods tried and incorporated by dozens of other creative builders and>use whatever suits us in our planes. Neat.>>Mike C.>>________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Originality>John Mc N. wrote about the nit-picking that goes on in other>lists about originality. Fortunately, we have a good group>here about Piets, GN-1's etc. but you'll always run across an>individual who claims something to not be original Pietenpol.>If Bernard were on this list today he'd probably laugh if anyone>tried to 'pin down' what an original Pietenpol configuration would>be. There was a chronological lineage of 26 planes Bernard built>with none being exactly the same. How cool- the guy never just>got in a rut and always tried new engines, props, landing gears,>and even had a tailwheel and radio in one of them. Imagine that !>That's what is so much fun about seeing the various Piets, GN-1's at>Brodhead, elsewhere, because we can pick up ideas and>methods tried and incorporated by dozens of other creative builders and>use whatever suits us in our planes. Neat.>>Mike C.>>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Originality
Original Posted By: jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry)
John Mc N. wrote about the nit-picking that goes on in otherlists about originality. Fortunately, we have a good grouphere about Piets, GN-1's etc. but you'll always run across anindividual who claims something to not be original Pietenpol.If Bernard were on this list today he'd probably laugh if anyonetried to 'pin down' what an original Pietenpol configuration wouldbe. There was a chronological lineage of 26 planes Bernard builtwith none being exactly the same. How cool- the guy never justgot in a rut and always tried new engines, props, landing gears, and even had a tailwheel and radio in one of them. Imagine that !That's what is so much fun about seeing the various Piets, GN-1's atBrodhead, elsewhere, because we can pick up ideas andmethods tried and incorporated by dozens of other creative builders anduse whatever suits us in our planes. Neat.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
John Mc N. wrote about the nit-picking that goes on in otherlists about originality. Fortunately, we have a good grouphere about Piets, GN-1's etc. but you'll always run across anindividual who claims something to not be original Pietenpol.If Bernard were on this list today he'd probably laugh if anyonetried to 'pin down' what an original Pietenpol configuration wouldbe. There was a chronological lineage of 26 planes Bernard builtwith none being exactly the same. How cool- the guy never justgot in a rut and always tried new engines, props, landing gears, and even had a tailwheel and radio in one of them. Imagine that !That's what is so much fun about seeing the various Piets, GN-1's atBrodhead, elsewhere, because we can pick up ideas andmethods tried and incorporated by dozens of other creative builders anduse whatever suits us in our planes. Neat.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Originality
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Mike,Well said. For example, BHP built three scouts (I think). As far as Iknow, only the first one is like the drawings. The A scouts are differentdimensions!An observation: One of the neat things about the Piet is that it draws afollowing from a relatively diverse bunch of airplane people. I think theyfall into two broad groups: 1. Experimental aircraft people -- theoriginal EAA types. These are the ones more apt to modify, modify, modify,and experiment. 2. Antique aircraft people. These are more likely tobuild close to the plans and stick closer to old techniques. I think bothof these approaches are legitimate.When I first became interested in building a Piet, I viewed it more from theeyes of the first group mentioned. The Piet offered a cheap affordable safeairplane. Now, 7 years later as my ship nears completion, I find myselfmore in the second group. And still, I see the Piet as the poor man'santique airplane -- Classic styling, antique obselete power plant, opencockpit primitive aviation, etc. I was once offered a chance to buy a WacoQCF-2 (an ultimate airplane), in fact the prototype QCF-2 ..... for$250,000.00. I guarantee you I can have 90% of the fun (maybe much more asthe value of the Waco introduces more worries) for less than 4% of theacquisition cost and for probably 15-20% of the operating cost.I digress. At any rate, I think some of the concern some have aboutmodifications is the highly modified machines around that are called'Pietenpols'. If they exhibit poor characteristics due to themodifications, it is probably not fair to BHP to hang his name on thecreation. I understand this thinking. It is interesting to note thatbuilders who build more than one Piet appear to follow the plans moreclosely with each succeeding ship and push for less modifications. BHP wasapparantly a clever person who worked a lot of things out that are notobvious. It is said that it is rare for a builder to make any realimprovements to a Piet though he may make many changes. This is probablytrue.As for my own humble opinion: Build whatever you are happy with as long asit is safe, and have as much fun with this as you can. As for me, I am moreinterested in a authentic plans-built antique.If you have read this far, you have the patience of Job. One last thought:The Piet vs GN-1 controversy probably centers more around Mr. Gregaoriginally marketing his plans as 'Pietenpol' plans than anything else. Ihave read that people purchased them and built airplanes not realizing theywere something other than a Pietenpol. I am probably not qualified to saywhether the Piet is superior to the GN-1 or vice versa (I do have myopinion, but that's another story....) but I can say they are definitelyvery different airplanes from each other. Its a shame if the abovementioned controversy creates bad blood between the owners of each type.Hope there is some cohereance in the foregoing chatter.JMG-----Original Message-----
Mike,Well said. For example, BHP built three scouts (I think). As far as Iknow, only the first one is like the drawings. The A scouts are differentdimensions!An observation: One of the neat things about the Piet is that it draws afollowing from a relatively diverse bunch of airplane people. I think theyfall into two broad groups: 1. Experimental aircraft people -- theoriginal EAA types. These are the ones more apt to modify, modify, modify,and experiment. 2. Antique aircraft people. These are more likely tobuild close to the plans and stick closer to old techniques. I think bothof these approaches are legitimate.When I first became interested in building a Piet, I viewed it more from theeyes of the first group mentioned. The Piet offered a cheap affordable safeairplane. Now, 7 years later as my ship nears completion, I find myselfmore in the second group. And still, I see the Piet as the poor man'santique airplane -- Classic styling, antique obselete power plant, opencockpit primitive aviation, etc. I was once offered a chance to buy a WacoQCF-2 (an ultimate airplane), in fact the prototype QCF-2 ..... for$250,000.00. I guarantee you I can have 90% of the fun (maybe much more asthe value of the Waco introduces more worries) for less than 4% of theacquisition cost and for probably 15-20% of the operating cost.I digress. At any rate, I think some of the concern some have aboutmodifications is the highly modified machines around that are called'Pietenpols'. If they exhibit poor characteristics due to themodifications, it is probably not fair to BHP to hang his name on thecreation. I understand this thinking. It is interesting to note thatbuilders who build more than one Piet appear to follow the plans moreclosely with each succeeding ship and push for less modifications. BHP wasapparantly a clever person who worked a lot of things out that are notobvious. It is said that it is rare for a builder to make any realimprovements to a Piet though he may make many changes. This is probablytrue.As for my own humble opinion: Build whatever you are happy with as long asit is safe, and have as much fun with this as you can. As for me, I am moreinterested in a authentic plans-built antique.If you have read this far, you have the patience of Job. One last thought:The Piet vs GN-1 controversy probably centers more around Mr. Gregaoriginally marketing his plans as 'Pietenpol' plans than anything else. Ihave read that people purchased them and built airplanes not realizing theywere something other than a Pietenpol. I am probably not qualified to saywhether the Piet is superior to the GN-1 or vice versa (I do have myopinion, but that's another story....) but I can say they are definitelyvery different airplanes from each other. Its a shame if the abovementioned controversy creates bad blood between the owners of each type.Hope there is some cohereance in the foregoing chatter.JMG-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Originality
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Right on!J Mc-----Original Message-----
Right on!J Mc-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Originality
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Mike, I'm with you all the way! Thanx for the ride on the 21st - aninspiration beyond expression ( I smiled the whole way to Pittsburgh!!!!!!)To the Piet Group.... I was honored to fly with Mike on 6-21-99, the firstyear anniversary of NX488MC taking to the skies (and the summer solstice!).Mike, again congrats. Well done! Thanx.-----Original Message-----
Mike, I'm with you all the way! Thanx for the ride on the 21st - aninspiration beyond expression ( I smiled the whole way to Pittsburgh!!!!!!)To the Piet Group.... I was honored to fly with Mike on 6-21-99, the firstyear anniversary of NX488MC taking to the skies (and the summer solstice!).Mike, again congrats. Well done! Thanx.-----Original Message-----