Original Posted By: "Robison Family"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionFellow Pieters, Just a curious question......is the A-65 Continental engine enough power forthe piet? It appears many are either upgrading to a 75hp, 85hp, or even a 90 hpContinental. Not to also mention the Corvair. Is this because of personal choice,power to weight ratio, or just not enough prop pitch to feel comfortable?Kind of got me think-in....what is the best engine for this project? Ken H. Fargo, ND --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: KMHeide
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionHi Ken,We are flying NX18235 with an A-65 and a prop that is a little too course which keeps the max rpm at about 2150. This is the equivalent of flying with an A-50.We have flown at weights as high as 1200 lbs. on 85 degree days. Field elevations were at 900'Climb rate is rather anemic in these conditions but it does fly.Solo at 1000 lbs. results in a climb rate of 250 - 300 fpm. Not a blistering rate of climb but adequate in the midwest flatlands.Re-propping will be done soon.To answer your question, an A-65 is perfectly adequate for most conditions.Greg Cardinal ----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionHi Ken,We are flying NX18235 with an A-65 and a prop that is a little too course which keeps the max rpm at about 2150. This is the equivalent of flying with an A-50.We have flown at weights as high as 1200 lbs. on 85 degree days. Field elevations were at 900'Climb rate is rather anemic in these conditions but it does fly.Solo at 1000 lbs. results in a climb rate of 250 - 300 fpm. Not a blistering rate of climb but adequate in the midwest flatlands.Re-propping will be done soon.To answer your question, an A-65 is perfectly adequate for most conditions.Greg Cardinal ----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aid
Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aidYeah, I saw that after I sent off that email. Goodidea from some bright soul.A few years ago at Arlington a fellow had theseear inserts that fit into the ear and flush with the outside of the ear.Later on I came across them again on the internet.Then found a company that would send you a kitto mold the inside of your ear, you send them backand they would make up earphones for you. NowI can't find the link I saved!! But since then Ihave heard that there are hearing aid shops thatdo that. You just need the AC innards as opposed to hearing aid equipment. Then figure out theattachment hardware to attach the mic to yourleather helmet , which wouldn't be a big deal foranyone able to build an entire 1930's AC fromold plans now, would it. :-)Clif> > That would cost a huge amount of money but I did read an email off the> list yesterday that I acted on and that was to buy the focal lences from> ACS for about 20$ that just stick on inside.> > > > Have somebody make you bifocal goggles Harv.> > Clif________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aidYeah, I saw that after I sent off that email. Goodidea from some bright soul.A few years ago at Arlington a fellow had theseear inserts that fit into the ear and flush with the outside of the ear.Later on I came across them again on the internet.Then found a company that would send you a kitto mold the inside of your ear, you send them backand they would make up earphones for you. NowI can't find the link I saved!! But since then Ihave heard that there are hearing aid shops thatdo that. You just need the AC innards as opposed to hearing aid equipment. Then figure out theattachment hardware to attach the mic to yourleather helmet , which wouldn't be a big deal foranyone able to build an entire 1930's AC fromold plans now, would it. :-)Clif> > That would cost a huge amount of money but I did read an email off the> list yesterday that I acted on and that was to buy the focal lences from> ACS for about 20$ that just stick on inside.> > > > Have somebody make you bifocal goggles Harv.> > Clif________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aid
Original Posted By: Gene Beenenga
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aidI found it! This is somewhat expensive but what theheck, it's a one time expense and you'll look like areal old time aviator instead of a Disney character.http://www.pantherelectronics.com/dual_headset.htmlClif> >> Thinking of helmet and goggles makes me wonder if anyone else has found> a solution to a dilemma I have found. In these modern times of aviation> and radios, trying to get goggles to fit over the ear-cups of a headset> has proven rather difficult. If the straps go over the cups, the> goggles ride up and if the straps go over then the goggles won't sit> down and seal. I'd like to stay with old looking goggles, but may have> to resort to bigger ski-goggles.>> Anyone else find a solution?________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aidI found it! This is somewhat expensive but what theheck, it's a one time expense and you'll look like areal old time aviator instead of a Disney character.http://www.pantherelectronics.com/dual_headset.htmlClif> >> Thinking of helmet and goggles makes me wonder if anyone else has found> a solution to a dilemma I have found. In these modern times of aviation> and radios, trying to get goggles to fit over the ear-cups of a headset> has proven rather difficult. If the straps go over the cups, the> goggles ride up and if the straps go over then the goggles won't sit> down and seal. I'd like to stay with old looking goggles, but may have> to resort to bigger ski-goggles.>> Anyone else find a solution?________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding too much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding too much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aid
Original Posted By: "Oscar Zuniga"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aidSend em an email. Or better yet turn up withyour Piet. How could she refuse?> > Does she come with the gear?> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aidSend em an email. Or better yet turn up withyour Piet. How could she refuse?> > Does she come with the gear?> ________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: "Mike King"
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionAs always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carryingpassengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approachesat your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It alsocannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across WestVirginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climbover a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm ina downdraft.Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb emptyweight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and densityaltitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try thisfrom the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. Weflew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructedapproaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, butstill acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impactedthe trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to buildanother one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, whichwould add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealedthe gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I founda slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mphimprovement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of theairplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using myspring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose downslightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PMKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had towork the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With onlya slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, Ihave power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forgetthat the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed aroundsmaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longerengine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work finefor you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. Ihave yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close toideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I wereto build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN_________________________________________________or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other useof the email by you is prohibited.________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionAs always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carryingpassengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approachesat your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It alsocannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across WestVirginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climbover a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm ina downdraft.Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb emptyweight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and densityaltitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try thisfrom the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. Weflew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructedapproaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, butstill acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impactedthe trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to buildanother one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, whichwould add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealedthe gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I founda slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mphimprovement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of theairplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using myspring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose downslightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PMKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had towork the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With onlya slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, Ihave power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forgetthat the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed aroundsmaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longerengine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work finefor you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. Ihave yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close toideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I wereto build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN_________________________________________________or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other useof the email by you is prohibited.________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: "Gene & Tammy"
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionIn Graham's words:"If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 willwork fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was neverdesigned to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would workhard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modestpower.".On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th AnnualPietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with BrianKenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HPContinental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. Buthe emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down asmuch as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so itis possible to build lighter if we really make the effort.As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately astrong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). Butthere were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures ofand talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has beenflying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it toschool regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me hehas about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the originalcovering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, andDacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their secondPiet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacroncovering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as ateenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then gotresurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim saidit was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took greatcare to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleasedwith the results.I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download forabout a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share.Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which isonly five weeks away).Bill C.________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionIn Graham's words:"If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 willwork fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was neverdesigned to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would workhard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modestpower.".On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th AnnualPietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with BrianKenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HPContinental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. Buthe emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down asmuch as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so itis possible to build lighter if we really make the effort.As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately astrong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). Butthere were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures ofand talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has beenflying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it toschool regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me hehas about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the originalcovering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, andDacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their secondPiet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacroncovering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as ateenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then gotresurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim saidit was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took greatcare to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleasedwith the results.I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download forabout a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share.Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which isonly five weeks away).Bill C.________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionMy thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM> >> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. > For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or > VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of > sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a > downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on > the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' > ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a > downdraft.>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area.>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before.>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>> -----Original Message-----> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>> Ken Heide,>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts.>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course).>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup.>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>> _________________________________________________>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - >>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionMy thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM> >> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. > For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or > VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of > sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a > downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on > the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' > ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a > downdraft.>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area.>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before.>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>> -----Original Message-----> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>> Ken Heide,>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts.>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course).>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup.>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>> _________________________________________________>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - >>> ________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: "Gene & Tammy"
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionGene,Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, afterattending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is aPietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, andfound it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison CountyExecutive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it veryfriendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also landedat Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going nofurther north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains andshouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800'Jack PhillipsNX899JP-----Original Message-----[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &TammySent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PMMy thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'mjust in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Floridaline to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me someidea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the tripbut I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. Itwill take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'mnot in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionGene,Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, afterattending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is aPietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, andfound it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison CountyExecutive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it veryfriendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also landedat Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going nofurther north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains andshouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800'Jack PhillipsNX899JP-----Original Message-----[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &TammySent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PMMy thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'mjust in the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Floridaline to Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me someidea what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the tripbut I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. Itwill take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'mnot in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionJack,Thank you for your reply. All good info. I have a stop planned for MDQ. I live East of Jackson in Camden (I 40 to North on 641 at exit 126.) I'm flying the plane from Thomasville, Ga. and will be headed up across Alabama to Tennessee. Should be leaving monday the 26th if the weather permits.I'd be very interested in meeting with a builder near me so hopefully if there is one he will contact me on this list. I do know of a Pietenpol in Humboldt and will be checking it out.Any more advice for the trip? Have you found googles necessary on long trips? I do wish the cockpit was a bit larger so I could stash charts and such.Gene----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:50 AM> >> Gene,>> Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)> originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after> attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a> Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.>> On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and> found it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison County> Executive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it very> friendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also landed> at Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going no> further north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains and> shouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800'>> Jack Phillips> NX899JP>> -----Original Message-----> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &> Tammy> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PM>> >> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm> just in> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida> line to> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some> idea> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip> but> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It> will> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm> not> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.> Thank You> Gene> Pietenpol N502R>>> _________________________________________________>>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionJack,Thank you for your reply. All good info. I have a stop planned for MDQ. I live East of Jackson in Camden (I 40 to North on 641 at exit 126.) I'm flying the plane from Thomasville, Ga. and will be headed up across Alabama to Tennessee. Should be leaving monday the 26th if the weather permits.I'd be very interested in meeting with a builder near me so hopefully if there is one he will contact me on this list. I do know of a Pietenpol in Humboldt and will be checking it out.Any more advice for the trip? Have you found googles necessary on long trips? I do wish the cockpit was a bit larger so I could stash charts and such.Gene----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:50 AM> >> Gene,>> Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)> originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after> attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a> Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.>> On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and> found it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison County> Executive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it very> friendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also landed> at Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going no> further north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains and> shouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800'>> Jack Phillips> NX899JP>> -----Original Message-----> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &> Tammy> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PM>> >> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm> just in> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida> line to> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some> idea> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip> but> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It> will> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm> not> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.> Thank You> Gene> Pietenpol N502R>>> _________________________________________________>>> ________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: HelsperSew(at)aol.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionI also fly with an A-65. my field elevation is 4500' Solo is fine. Density altitudeand weight make drastic differences in low powered aircraft. My emptyweight is 626lbs and I weight 215lbs. I have carried up to a 220# passengeron long runways. Since I carved my own prop (acts more like a cruise, than climbprop) I have limited my passenger weight to about 150lbs.I've been keeping my eyes open for a o-200. I think without electricity it wouldgive very good performance with two people, and climb would be very smart indeedsolo.I finally shook the dust off and flew my piet for 30 minutes for the first timethis season. I've been flying a stinson lately. There is nothing to beat windin your hair!Steve EldredgeSpanish Fork, UT-----Original Message-----Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:56 AMAs always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carryingpassengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approachesat your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It alsocannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across WestVirginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climbover a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm ina downdraft.Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb emptyweight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and densityaltitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try thisfrom the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. Weflew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructedapproaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, butstill acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impactedthe trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to buildanother one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, whichwould add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealedthe gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I founda slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mphimprovement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of theairplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using myspring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose downslightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PMKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had towork the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With onlya slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, Ihave power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forgetthat the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed aroundsmaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longerengine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work finefor you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. Ihave yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close toideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I wereto build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionI also fly with an A-65. my field elevation is 4500' Solo is fine. Density altitudeand weight make drastic differences in low powered aircraft. My emptyweight is 626lbs and I weight 215lbs. I have carried up to a 220# passengeron long runways. Since I carved my own prop (acts more like a cruise, than climbprop) I have limited my passenger weight to about 150lbs.I've been keeping my eyes open for a o-200. I think without electricity it wouldgive very good performance with two people, and climb would be very smart indeedsolo.I finally shook the dust off and flew my piet for 30 minutes for the first timethis season. I've been flying a stinson lately. There is nothing to beat windin your hair!Steve EldredgeSpanish Fork, UT-----Original Message-----Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:56 AMAs always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carryingpassengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approachesat your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It alsocannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across WestVirginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climbover a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm ina downdraft.Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb emptyweight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and densityaltitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try thisfrom the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. Weflew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructedapproaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, butstill acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impactedthe trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to buildanother one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, whichwould add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealedthe gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I founda slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mphimprovement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of theairplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using myspring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose downslightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PMKen Heide,Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had towork the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts.Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With onlya slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, Ihave power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forgetthat the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed aroundsmaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry.However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course).In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longerengine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.)If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work finefor you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. Ihave yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close toideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I wereto build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power.Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: KMHeide
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionI would like to hear some feedback along this vein from the guys with the souped-up Ford A engines that are supposedly getting 70 HP.Dan Helsper________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionI would like to hear some feedback along this vein from the guys with the souped-up Ford A engines that are supposedly getting 70 HP.Dan Helsper________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: "Dick Navratil"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionGraham, I truly appreciate your insight on this matter of engine selection. I was attemptingto utilize the Corvair but ran short with parts from WW. He was willingto take my $$ but then never produce what I needed. I have purchased a nice A-65 Continental for $1,000.00. The mechanic stored itfor several years and needs a once over. I am planning on (with assistance fromanother builder) creating our own prop for this plane. This will make fora much better match for my height, weight, and size compared with weight and balanceof he plane. I am going to attach an electric starter and possible a charger to the engineas my only modification. Air boat technology has created this modification yearsago. I hope to be starting the fuse any day now and look forward to many fun filleddays of building. Since I am 265lbs. finding a mate who wants to fly front seatwith me is far and few between.....That's o.k. my toy and only for me. Ken Heide Fargo, ND Graham Hansen wrote: Ken Heide, Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND. For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one hadto work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts. Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. Withonly a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased byabout 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with theA65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays,I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts. When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend toforget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designedaround smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry. However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keepthem (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course). In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (Alonger engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.) If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will workfine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed todo. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important.I have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is closeto ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup. As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If Iwere to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power. Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN ---------------------------------________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionGraham, I truly appreciate your insight on this matter of engine selection. I was attemptingto utilize the Corvair but ran short with parts from WW. He was willingto take my $$ but then never produce what I needed. I have purchased a nice A-65 Continental for $1,000.00. The mechanic stored itfor several years and needs a once over. I am planning on (with assistance fromanother builder) creating our own prop for this plane. This will make fora much better match for my height, weight, and size compared with weight and balanceof he plane. I am going to attach an electric starter and possible a charger to the engineas my only modification. Air boat technology has created this modification yearsago. I hope to be starting the fuse any day now and look forward to many fun filleddays of building. Since I am 265lbs. finding a mate who wants to fly front seatwith me is far and few between.....That's o.k. my toy and only for me. Ken Heide Fargo, ND Graham Hansen wrote: Ken Heide, Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quitea bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND. For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggishwith an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one hadto work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserveto deal with downdrafts. Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. Withonly a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significantimprovement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased byabout 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with theA65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays,I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts. When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend toforget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubsand Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspanof 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around sevencompared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designedaround smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) poundersthese days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplaneswould perform much better because that is close to what they were designed tocarry. However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--andthe airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keepthem (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without addingtoo much weight, of course). In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine forthe Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the sameclearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpoland it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessorycase, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (Alonger engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,etc.) If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will workfine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed todo. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important.I have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or theC85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is closeto ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromiseand one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certifiedpropellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup. As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If Iwere to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possiblein order to fly well with modest power. Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN ---------------------------------________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: "Dick Navratil"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionGeneI hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.Dick N.----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AMMy thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just inthe act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line toWestern Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some ideawhat I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip butI'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It willtake a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm notin a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM> >> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For > carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY > clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on > takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget > flying it across West Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at > 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of > climb and losing 500 fpm in a downdraft.>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area.>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before.>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>> -----Original Message-----> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>> Ken Heide,>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts.>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course).>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup.>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>> _________________________________________________>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - >>________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionGeneI hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.Dick N.----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AMMy thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just inthe act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line toWestern Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some ideawhat I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip butI'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It willtake a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm notin a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.Thank YouGenePietenpol N502R----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM> >> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything > he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For > carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY > clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on > takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget > flying it across West Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at > 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of > climb and losing 500 fpm in a downdraft.>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh > 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 > lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was > 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough > sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end > where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway > is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either > end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in > about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm. > He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight, > stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from > longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we > would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. > If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to > the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 > sq. ft to the wing area.>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I > sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct > tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, > and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it > changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the > plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full > nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the > tail is providing more lift than before.>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>> -----Original Message-----> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>> Ken Heide,>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is > quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 > Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb > rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise > with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; > there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. > With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The > most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed > increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by > much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within > ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles > and cope with downdrafts.>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend > to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to > Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these > airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 > square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square > feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, > making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers > that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, > they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we > all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform > much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these > days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is > keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power > (without adding too much weight, of course).>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine > for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides > the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 > in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the > rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and > the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't > wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will > work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never > designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is > extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for > mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may > find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a > fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try > out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work, > but they may not be the best for your setup.>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If > I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light > as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>> _________________________________________________>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - >>________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionDick,Guess I'm going to have to adjust my thinking and my flying. My wife tells me this should be right up my alley as I'm always looking for a challenge and an adventure. I love low & slow flight and don't really have a need for performance more than what a 65 will give a 645 lb plane. More like a J-3 than a super cub. I'll keep everyone informed of my adventures bringing her home and my impressions of how she flys. Sounds like I will have a lot to learn and I'm looking forward to it.Gene----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:55 PM> >> Gene> I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look > more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.> Dick N.> ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM>>> >> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just > in> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line > to> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some > idea> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm > not> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.> Thank You> Gene> Pietenpol N502R>> ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM>>>> >>>> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything >> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. >> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or >> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of >> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a >> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on >> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' >> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a >> downdraft.>>>>>>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I >> weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to >> my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. >> OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had >> enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the >> end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the >> runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on >> either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the >> ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable >> at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at >> that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>>>>>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from >> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, >> we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the >> treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at >> adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the >> weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.>>>>>>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I >> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct >> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, >> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it >> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the >> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full >> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the >> tail is providing more lift than before.>>>>>>>> Jack Phillips>>>> NX899JP>>>> Raleigh, NC>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----->> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>>>>>>> Ken Heide,>>>>>>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is >> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>>>>>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 >> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb >> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise >> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; >> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>>>>>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. >> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! >> The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise >> speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not >> by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well >> within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over >> obstacles and cope with downdrafts.>>>>>>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend >> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to >> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these >> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 >> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square >> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, >> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers >> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, >> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we >> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform >> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>>>>>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier >> these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we >> can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the >> available power (without adding too much weight, of course).>>>>>>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum >> engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and >> provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have >> a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version >> because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between >> the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this >> problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>>>>>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will >> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never >> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is >> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for >> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may >> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a >> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try >> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will >> work, but they may not be the best for your setup.>>>>>>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. >> If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as >> light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>>>>>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>>>>> _________________________________________________>>>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain >> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have >> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the>> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> http://wiki.matronics.com>>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionDick,Guess I'm going to have to adjust my thinking and my flying. My wife tells me this should be right up my alley as I'm always looking for a challenge and an adventure. I love low & slow flight and don't really have a need for performance more than what a 65 will give a 645 lb plane. More like a J-3 than a super cub. I'll keep everyone informed of my adventures bringing her home and my impressions of how she flys. Sounds like I will have a lot to learn and I'm looking forward to it.Gene----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:55 PM> >> Gene> I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look > more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.> Dick N.> ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM>>> >> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just > in> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line > to> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some > idea> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm > not> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.> Thank You> Gene> Pietenpol N502R>> ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM>>>> >>>> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything >> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. >> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or >> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of >> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a >> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on >> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' >> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a >> downdraft.>>>>>>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I >> weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to >> my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. >> OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had >> enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the >> end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the >> runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on >> either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the >> ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable >> at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at >> that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>>>>>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from >> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, >> we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the >> treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at >> adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the >> weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.>>>>>>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I >> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct >> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, >> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it >> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the >> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full >> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the >> tail is providing more lift than before.>>>>>>>> Jack Phillips>>>> NX899JP>>>> Raleigh, NC>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----->> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>>>>>>> Ken Heide,>>>>>>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is >> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>>>>>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 >> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb >> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise >> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; >> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>>>>>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. >> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! >> The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise >> speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not >> by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well >> within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over >> obstacles and cope with downdrafts.>>>>>>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend >> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to >> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these >> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 >> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square >> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, >> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers >> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, >> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we >> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform >> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>>>>>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier >> these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we >> can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the >> available power (without adding too much weight, of course).>>>>>>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum >> engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and >> provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have >> a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version >> because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between >> the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this >> problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>>>>>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will >> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never >> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is >> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for >> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may >> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a >> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try >> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will >> work, but they may not be the best for your setup.>>>>>>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. >> If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as >> light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>>>>>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>>>>> _________________________________________________>>>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain >> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have >> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the>> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> http://wiki.matronics.com>>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionThe paragraphs below come from our Canadianregulations relating to minimum permissible powerand minimum permissible rate of climb.Here's the link;http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... 109Clif(a) Piston engines: To ensure that there is a reasonable expectation of meeting the climb test requirements set out in section 549.111, the minimum permissible rated engine power shall be determined by the following equation:wherePmin = rated power of the engine(s) in kw (BHP);b = wing span in metres (ft);M (W) = declared maximum T.O. mass in kg (weight in lb);C = 0.01339 (for use with fps units = 0.018) for monoplanes (including tandem wing and canard aeroplanes); orC = 0.01711 (for use with fps units = 0.023) for biplanes or triplanes.(b) Turbine engines: The minimum permissible rated power/thrust will be evaluated on an individual basis.(Change 549-1 (93-06-30))549.111 Performance: Rate of Climb(a) In standard sea-level atmospheric conditions at the maximum approved weight, the aircraft shall demonstrate the capability of climbing, as follows:(1) Aeroplanes: 360 m (1180 ft) in 3 minutes.(2) Powered gliders: 300 m (984 ft) in 4 minutes.(b) Test in conditions other than standard sea-level may be accepted by the Minister.Information Note: (Ref. paragraph 11 of Appendix B of AMA 549/1A)> >> Gene> I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look > more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.> Dick N.> ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM>>> >> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just > in> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line > to> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some > idea> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm > not> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.> Thank You> Gene> Pietenpol N502R>> ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM>>>> >>>> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything >> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. >> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or >> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of >> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a >> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on >> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' >> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a >> downdraft.>>>>>>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I >> weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to >> my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. >> OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had >> enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the >> end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the >> runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on >> either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the >> ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable >> at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at >> that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>>>>>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from >> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, >> we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the >> treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at >> adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the >> weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.>>>>>>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I >> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct >> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, >> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it >> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the >> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full >> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the >> tail is providing more lift than before.>>>>>>>> Jack Phillips>>>> NX899JP>>>> Raleigh, NC>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----->> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>>>>>>> Ken Heide,>>>>>>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is >> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>>>>>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 >> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb >> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise >> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; >> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>>>>>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. >> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! >> The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise >> speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not >> by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well >> within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over >> obstacles and cope with downdrafts.>>>>>>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend >> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to >> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these >> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 >> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square >> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, >> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers >> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, >> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we >> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform >> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>>>>>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier >> these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we >> can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the >> available power (without adding too much weight, of course).>>>>>>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum >> engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and >> provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have >> a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version >> because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between >> the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this >> problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>>>>>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will >> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never >> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is >> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for >> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may >> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a >> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try >> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will >> work, but they may not be the best for your setup.>>>>>>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. >> If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as >> light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>>>>>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>>>>> _________________________________________________>>>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain >> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have >> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the>> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> http://wiki.matronics.com>>> Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/2bf ... __________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine selectionThe paragraphs below come from our Canadianregulations relating to minimum permissible powerand minimum permissible rate of climb.Here's the link;http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... 109Clif(a) Piston engines: To ensure that there is a reasonable expectation of meeting the climb test requirements set out in section 549.111, the minimum permissible rated engine power shall be determined by the following equation:wherePmin = rated power of the engine(s) in kw (BHP);b = wing span in metres (ft);M (W) = declared maximum T.O. mass in kg (weight in lb);C = 0.01339 (for use with fps units = 0.018) for monoplanes (including tandem wing and canard aeroplanes); orC = 0.01711 (for use with fps units = 0.023) for biplanes or triplanes.(b) Turbine engines: The minimum permissible rated power/thrust will be evaluated on an individual basis.(Change 549-1 (93-06-30))549.111 Performance: Rate of Climb(a) In standard sea-level atmospheric conditions at the maximum approved weight, the aircraft shall demonstrate the capability of climbing, as follows:(1) Aeroplanes: 360 m (1180 ft) in 3 minutes.(2) Powered gliders: 300 m (984 ft) in 4 minutes.(b) Test in conditions other than standard sea-level may be accepted by the Minister.Information Note: (Ref. paragraph 11 of Appendix B of AMA 549/1A)> >> Gene> I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look > more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.> Dick N.> ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM>>> >> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just > in> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line > to> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some > idea> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm > not> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.> Thank You> Gene> Pietenpol N502R>> ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM>>>> >>>> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything >> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. >> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or >> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of >> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a >> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on >> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' >> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a >> downdraft.>>>>>>>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I >> weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to >> my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. >> OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had >> enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the >> end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the >> runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on >> either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the >> ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable >> at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at >> that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.>>>>>>>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from >> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, >> we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the >> treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at >> adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the >> weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.>>>>>>>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I >> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct >> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, >> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it >> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the >> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full >> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the >> tail is providing more lift than before.>>>>>>>> Jack Phillips>>>> NX899JP>>>> Raleigh, NC>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----->> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM>>>>>>>> Ken Heide,>>>>>>>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is >> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.>>>>>>>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 >> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb >> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise >> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; >> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.>>>>>>>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. >> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! >> The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise >> speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not >> by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well >> within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over >> obstacles and cope with downdrafts.>>>>>>>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend >> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to >> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these >> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 >> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square >> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, >> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers >> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people, >> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we >> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform >> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.>>>>>>>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier >> these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we >> can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the >> available power (without adding too much weight, of course).>>>>>>>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum >> engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and >> provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have >> a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version >> because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between >> the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this >> problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)>>>>>>>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will >> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never >> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is >> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for >> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may >> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a >> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try >> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will >> work, but they may not be the best for your setup.>>>>>>>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. >> If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as >> light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.>>>>>>>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN>>>>>> _________________________________________________>>>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain >> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have >> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the>> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> http://wiki.matronics.com>>> Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/2bf ... __________