Original Posted By: "Richard Navratil"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels (and forward fuselage length).... Dave, I understand you plan to use a C 85 engine and extend the forward fuselage by 6 inches. In the May 1956 issue of THE EXPERIMENTER (which became SPORT AVIATION published by EAA), there was an excellent article about the Pietenpol airplanes written by George Hardie, Jr. It included letters from builders and owners of Pietenpols. I shall quote a letter from Bernard Pietenpol himself which could be of interest to the group and perhaps answer some of your questions: Dear Sir: Received the last Experimenter and read it with much interest. You seem to be getting a bit of interest in home-built aeroplanes again. I am getting some mail and orders for blueprints and was wonder- ing if you would publish a few changes that should be made if they wish to build from the original plans. As I don't have the time to change the plans, only the following changes are recommended. In making up the fuselage landing gear fittings, make the strap go way across the bottom. Where the flying struts are fastened to the wing, slant the wing fittings at about the slant of the flying struts. Cub wing fittings would work swell. Some sort of stop should be put on the controls. If a 65 HP engine is used, make the fuselage just 6 inches longer in front, and make the upper engine mount fittings go back at least 3 inches further on the longeron. A complete Cub landing gear couldbe used to advantage. If I ever get the time, I would like to build up one more ship and the only changes I would make are the ones listed. The ship Mr. Schermerhorn has, has most of these changes ex- cept for the longer fuselage. I built one with with a foot longer fuselage, but that was too much--does not handle good in a steep slip. Wishing you the best, B. H. Pietenpol So there you have the word of the old master, himself. I built mine incorporating all of his recommendations, plus I made the fuselage 2 inches wider at the cockpits. Initally, I used a Continental A 65 with a wooden propeller and had to move the wing back about 3 inches because I have an Aeronca 7ac/ 11ac engine mount which extends 8 inches ahead of the firewall. Then I switched to a C 85 - 12 and was able to move the wing ahead about 3/4 inch, still using a wooden prop. Even with Slick magnetos (which are quite compact), the -12 engine(sans electrics) is very close to the firewall. Two advantages of the 6 inch longer fuselage is the extra leg room in the front pit and additional space for a nose tank, if desired. Graham Hansen EAA 2063 (Pietenpol CF-AUN)________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels (and forward fuselage length)....
Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels (and forward fuselage length)....
Original Posted By: "Oscar Zuniga"
FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, MIME_QP_LONG_LINEDave,I understand you plan to use a C 85 engine and extend theforward fuselage by 6 inches.In the May 1956 issue of THE EXPERIMENTER (which becameSPORT AVIATION published by EAA), there was an excellentarticle about the Pietenpol airplanes written by George Hardie, Jr.It included letters from builders and owners of Pietenpols. I shallquote a letter from Bernard Pietenpol himself which could be ofinterest to the group and perhaps answer some of your questions:Dear Sir: Received the last Experimenter and read it with much interest.You seem to be getting a bit of interest in home-built aeroplanesagain. I am getting some mail and orders for blueprints and was wonder-ing if you would publish a few changes that should be made if theywish to build from the original plans. As I don't have the time to change the plans, only the followingchanges are recommended. In making up the fuselage landinggear fittings, make the strap go way across the bottom. Wherethe flying struts are fastened to the wing, slant the wing fittingsat about the slant of the flying struts. Cub wing fittings wouldwork swell. Some sort of stop should be put on the controls. If a 65 HP engine is used, make the fuselage just 6 incheslonger in front, and make the upper engine mount fittings goback at least 3 inches further on the longeron. A complete Cublanding gear couldbe used to advantage. If I ever get the time, I would like to build up one more shipand the only changes I would make are the ones listed. Theship Mr. Schermerhorn has, has most of these changes ex-cept for the longer fuselage. I built one with with a foot longerfuselage, but that was too much--does not handle good in asteep slip. Wishing you the best, B. H. PietenpolSo there you have the word of the old master, himself. I builtmine incorporating all of his recommendations, plus I madethe fuselage 2 inches wider at the cockpits. Initally, I used aContinental A 65 with a wooden propeller and had to movethe wing back about 3 inches because I have an Aeronca7ac/ 11ac engine mount which extends 8 inches ahead ofthe firewall. Then I switched to a C 85 - 12 and was able tomove the wing ahead about 3/4 inch, still using a woodenprop. Even with Slick magnetos (which are quite compact),the -12 engine(sans electrics) is very close to the firewall.Two advantages of the 6 inch longer fuselage is the extraleg room in the front pit and additional space for a nose tank, if desired.Graham Hansen EAA 2063 (Pietenpol CF-AUN)________________________________________________________________________________
FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, MIME_QP_LONG_LINEDave,I understand you plan to use a C 85 engine and extend theforward fuselage by 6 inches.In the May 1956 issue of THE EXPERIMENTER (which becameSPORT AVIATION published by EAA), there was an excellentarticle about the Pietenpol airplanes written by George Hardie, Jr.It included letters from builders and owners of Pietenpols. I shallquote a letter from Bernard Pietenpol himself which could be ofinterest to the group and perhaps answer some of your questions:Dear Sir: Received the last Experimenter and read it with much interest.You seem to be getting a bit of interest in home-built aeroplanesagain. I am getting some mail and orders for blueprints and was wonder-ing if you would publish a few changes that should be made if theywish to build from the original plans. As I don't have the time to change the plans, only the followingchanges are recommended. In making up the fuselage landinggear fittings, make the strap go way across the bottom. Wherethe flying struts are fastened to the wing, slant the wing fittingsat about the slant of the flying struts. Cub wing fittings wouldwork swell. Some sort of stop should be put on the controls. If a 65 HP engine is used, make the fuselage just 6 incheslonger in front, and make the upper engine mount fittings goback at least 3 inches further on the longeron. A complete Cublanding gear couldbe used to advantage. If I ever get the time, I would like to build up one more shipand the only changes I would make are the ones listed. Theship Mr. Schermerhorn has, has most of these changes ex-cept for the longer fuselage. I built one with with a foot longerfuselage, but that was too much--does not handle good in asteep slip. Wishing you the best, B. H. PietenpolSo there you have the word of the old master, himself. I builtmine incorporating all of his recommendations, plus I madethe fuselage 2 inches wider at the cockpits. Initally, I used aContinental A 65 with a wooden propeller and had to movethe wing back about 3 inches because I have an Aeronca7ac/ 11ac engine mount which extends 8 inches ahead ofthe firewall. Then I switched to a C 85 - 12 and was able tomove the wing ahead about 3/4 inch, still using a woodenprop. Even with Slick magnetos (which are quite compact),the -12 engine(sans electrics) is very close to the firewall.Two advantages of the 6 inch longer fuselage is the extraleg room in the front pit and additional space for a nose tank, if desired.Graham Hansen EAA 2063 (Pietenpol CF-AUN)________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels (and forward fuselage length)....
Original Posted By: Graham Hansen
Thanks Graham!!! This is great news! I did plan on having a nose tank and reallydo need the leg room. I've made just one other change to my fuselage, whichhad to be done if I was going to have a Pietenpol. I am 6", 2" , kinda longin the leg and have a very tender, old back. I had a Flybaby with a seat verysimilar to that in a Piet, meaning that the back of the seat was nearly vertical.That configuration resulted in a lot of pain. So...I have moved the backbottom of the rear seat of my Piet a few inches forward. I did not changethe top part of the back of the seat, just moved the bottom forward a bit. Itseems to provide a lot more comfort. My feet will be farther forward, but hopefullyI haven't done anything to mess up the airplane's flying characteristics.I think there will still be sufficient room for full movement of the yoke.This also seems to set me lower in the aircraft so I don't look like a giantsticking out of the cockpit. I have a photo of this modification if anyonewould be interested. Again, I hope that I haven't made a change that will causebig problems, but it was something I felt I had to do. Thanks again Graham.You must have quite a collection of aviation magazines to go back that far.Dave -----Original Message-----
Thanks Graham!!! This is great news! I did plan on having a nose tank and reallydo need the leg room. I've made just one other change to my fuselage, whichhad to be done if I was going to have a Pietenpol. I am 6", 2" , kinda longin the leg and have a very tender, old back. I had a Flybaby with a seat verysimilar to that in a Piet, meaning that the back of the seat was nearly vertical.That configuration resulted in a lot of pain. So...I have moved the backbottom of the rear seat of my Piet a few inches forward. I did not changethe top part of the back of the seat, just moved the bottom forward a bit. Itseems to provide a lot more comfort. My feet will be farther forward, but hopefullyI haven't done anything to mess up the airplane's flying characteristics.I think there will still be sufficient room for full movement of the yoke.This also seems to set me lower in the aircraft so I don't look like a giantsticking out of the cockpit. I have a photo of this modification if anyonewould be interested. Again, I hope that I haven't made a change that will causebig problems, but it was something I felt I had to do. Thanks again Graham.You must have quite a collection of aviation magazines to go back that far.Dave -----Original Message-----