Pietenpol-List: BRS for Pietenpol

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:57 pm

Original Posted By: Les Schubert
Getting started with a Pietenpol project, I have lots of questions. Other lightaircraft, and ultralight communities I have been involved with used BRS chuteson the planes. In fact most ultralights seem to have them now days. Has anyoneever installed one on a Piet? I'm sure it would take away from the nostalgiclook, and I don't know if the airframe could take the stress of a chute deployment.If someone has used a chute, where was it attached? Since the planehas been around and flying for 75 years, needless to say it's an airworthy design.Has there been any documentation of structural failures or incidents? Mywife has concerns about a plane being built out of wood and fabric. She didn'trealize that until the mid 1900's most planes were wood and fabric. I have toresolve her concerns before I can dip into the "kitty" for some plane money.I am sure you all have been there once or twice. Thanks to all those who respondedto my first posting. I received lots of valuabl e info.BrianClinton, UTGetting started with a Pietenpol project, I have lots of questions.Otherlight aircraft, and ultralight communities I have been involved with usedBRSchutes onthe planes. In fact most ultralights seem to have themnow days. Has anyone ever installed one on a Piet? I'm sure it would takeaway from the nostalgic look, and I don't know if the airframe could takethestress of a chute deployment. If someone has used a chute, wherewas it attached? Since the plane has been around and flying for 75 years, needlessto say it's an airworthy design. Has there been any documentation of structuralfailures or incidents? My wife has concerns about a plane beingbuilt out of wood and fabric. She didn't realize that until the mid 1900'smostplanes were wood and fabric. I have to resolve her concerns before I candip into the "kitty" for some plane money. I am sure you all have been thereonce or twice. Thanks to all those who responded to my first posting. I received lots of valuable info.BrianClinton, UT________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:48:39 -0700

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:14 am

Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:17 am

Original Posted By: Greg Bacon

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:29 am

Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:24 am

Original Posted By: Greg Bacon
while I have heard the same about no Piets going down due to structural failure,I do know of one case right here at my home field (Falcon Field - FFZ) whereback in the 70's a Piet went down due to the elevator control system failing.The plane went into a nose dive on downwind and killed the pilot..... mightas well have been a structural failure because at the point the control systemfailed it was all over except the screaming. A BRS woulda been nice (botnot yet in use in the 70's)I too have often thought about a BRS. I opted to not use one and just make surethat my plane is as safe as I can possibly make it.... but I sometimes stillwonder if I shoulda put one in.DJ ----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:34 am

Original Posted By: Les Schubert

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:40 pm

Original Posted By: Gary Gower

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:10 pm

Original Posted By: "Graham Hansen"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: BRS for PietenpolIn a message dated 2/3/05 10:25:31 AM Central Standard Time, djv(at)imagedv.com writes:>DJ, I looked up this incident that you referred to, in the data base that I have stored in my computer. I have done an extensive search of all accidents of Pietenpols from 1966 to the present. Now, referr to the last line in the report. The Pietenpol aircraft design Does NOT have a push pull rod in the control system, therefore this planewas NOT built to the plans.AMTRPL AIRCAMPER NNUM: 3586 LOCATION: MESA, AZ DATE: 07/08/79 ACFT HRS: 450 YEAR OF MFG: 0 FATALS: 1 INJURIES:0 WX AND WIND: UNKNOWN DAY CLER G10 0 0/ ENGINE: PILOT: TOTAL HRS.: 465 HRS IN MODEL: 125 LAST 90 DAYS: 30 CAUSES: ELEVATOR CONTROL SYSTEM TYPE EVENT: UNCONTROLLED COLL WITH GRND DMG: DEMOLISHED PHASE OF FLIGHT: IN TRAFFIC PATTERN-CIRCLING CATEGORY: INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE TYPE AIRCRAFT: MONOPLANE-HIGH/PARASOL WINGREMARKS: ELEVATOR PUSH-PULL ROD FAILED DUE TO METAL FATIGUE.________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:04 am

Original Posted By:
may have been a GN-1 then. GN-1's have a push-pull rod connected to a walking beam.DJ----- Original Message -----

Brodhead Pietenpol Association