Original Posted By: Michael Perez
Yes, the plywood seatbacks need to be in place. They prevent the fuselage from racking laterally.-Greg C.----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Original Posted By: Jim Markle
Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage building for Continental engine
Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage building for Continental engine
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage building for Continental engine
Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
Yes, the plywood seatbacks need to be in place. They prevent the fuselage from racking laterally.Greg C. ----- Original Message -----
Yes, the plywood seatbacks need to be in place. They prevent the fuselage from racking laterally.Greg C. ----- Original Message -----
Re: [piet] Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright
> my daytime job is restoring one, the DH 98 Mosquito fighter / bomber.> Regards Mike T.Geeez, THEY pay YOU for that? Some guys just have all the luck.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:08:31 -0400
> my daytime job is restoring one, the DH 98 Mosquito fighter / bomber.> Regards Mike T.Geeez, THEY pay YOU for that? Some guys just have all the luck.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:08:31 -0400
Re: [piet] Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
Original Posted By: "Ryan Mueller"
Piper's been advertising heavily for engineers and production folks lately,ostensibly for the PiperJet... but who knows. If Mr. Beck could build ahomebuilt P-51, I'm sure that a major aircraft company could reproduce onegiven the right financial incentive. Although, I agree the Air Force willnever, ever go for it... there's a bit of a "status" issue with overseasmilitary sales as well, most nations who would need such a plane also have a(purely political) need to be seen as "advanced" and would rather buy 5modern fighters to brag about to their people and surrounding countries,than 100 Korean-era types that would actually better meet their true needsand budget.Of course (how's this for keeping it relevant) we Pieters have none of that.We know that a couple of Pietenpols can easily out-match any modern fighterin the world. They can't see the stealthy natural-composite airframe well onradar, and better, it's visually unintrusive and therefore can sneak intoenemy territory without raising any suspicion from ground-based observers.Once in the target area, we can drop incredible amounts of ordinance nearthe target... advanced versions with an experienced pilot can, as you know,reliably place up to 40 pounds of watermelons per mission, and you can counton them falling within 500 feet of the target with over 75% reliability. Thetrade-off being that you just need a very slightly longer lead time forrepositioning your strike force to the general area of the target (it rarelytakes more than 12 weeks to get to any combat zome on earth, so it's not toobig of a deal.) The F-22, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and Graf Zeppelin admittedlydo have slight speed advantages... but even counting the extra time to getthere, the Mighty Combat Piet can get fruit on target for orders ofmagnitude fewer dollars and personnel. When you factor in the rest of thelogistics of each aircraft system, the real limiting factors aren't themilitary suppply-chain bureaucracy but whether FedEx or UPS has the cheapershipping, and for major repairs, the distance to the nearest maintenanceoutlet (such as Home Depot).How could they NOT pick the Piet for this? If they don't, they're NUTS!Mike WhaleyMerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com----- Original Message -----
Piper's been advertising heavily for engineers and production folks lately,ostensibly for the PiperJet... but who knows. If Mr. Beck could build ahomebuilt P-51, I'm sure that a major aircraft company could reproduce onegiven the right financial incentive. Although, I agree the Air Force willnever, ever go for it... there's a bit of a "status" issue with overseasmilitary sales as well, most nations who would need such a plane also have a(purely political) need to be seen as "advanced" and would rather buy 5modern fighters to brag about to their people and surrounding countries,than 100 Korean-era types that would actually better meet their true needsand budget.Of course (how's this for keeping it relevant) we Pieters have none of that.We know that a couple of Pietenpols can easily out-match any modern fighterin the world. They can't see the stealthy natural-composite airframe well onradar, and better, it's visually unintrusive and therefore can sneak intoenemy territory without raising any suspicion from ground-based observers.Once in the target area, we can drop incredible amounts of ordinance nearthe target... advanced versions with an experienced pilot can, as you know,reliably place up to 40 pounds of watermelons per mission, and you can counton them falling within 500 feet of the target with over 75% reliability. Thetrade-off being that you just need a very slightly longer lead time forrepositioning your strike force to the general area of the target (it rarelytakes more than 12 weeks to get to any combat zome on earth, so it's not toobig of a deal.) The F-22, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and Graf Zeppelin admittedlydo have slight speed advantages... but even counting the extra time to getthere, the Mighty Combat Piet can get fruit on target for orders ofmagnitude fewer dollars and personnel. When you factor in the rest of thelogistics of each aircraft system, the real limiting factors aren't themilitary suppply-chain bureaucracy but whether FedEx or UPS has the cheapershipping, and for major repairs, the distance to the nearest maintenanceoutlet (such as Home Depot).How could they NOT pick the Piet for this? If they don't, they're NUTS!Mike WhaleyMerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet builders' workshop
Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright
Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Original Posted By: Robert Ray
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
RE: Pietenpol-List: Ply -V- aluminum cowlings
Original Posted By: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]"
_filtered #yiv1742377826 {font-family:Tahoma;} _filtered #yiv1742377826 {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}#yiv1742377826 P.MsoNormal {MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}#yiv1742377826 LI.MsoNormal {MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}#yiv1742377826 DIV.MsoNormal {MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}#yiv1742377826 A:link {COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}#yiv1742377826 SPAN.MsoHyperlink {COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}#yiv1742377826 A:visited {COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}#yiv1742377826 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}#yiv1742377826 PRE {MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Courier New";FONT-SIZE:10pt;}#yiv1742377826 SPAN.EmailStyle18 {FONT-FAMILY:Arial;COLOR:navy;}#yiv1742377826 DIV.Section1 {}You're right, Jack. I forgot to-include the weight of the varnish. Varnish is required for the plywood (inside and out), whereas the aluminum doesn't need it (unless you're going for the Spirit of St. Louis look). So the potential weight savings-would be-a bit less than advertised.-The plans call for aluminum.-I've personally seen one Pietenpol (that I know of) with plywood cockpit cowling. C-FAUK has plywood rather than aluminum. It's been flying for more than 20 years. Just saw it again yesterday, as a matter of fact.I also have attached a photo of a British Piet (G-ECVB) under construction, which shows the plywood before covering. Note that the plywood stops just ahead of the front cockpit, as this plane has fuel in the nose, and used a removable aluminum cover over the fuel tank. A doubler of plywood is used around the perimeter of the cockpit openings.And here's a link to a photo of the finished plane:-http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pietenpo ... 22/L/-Bill C.-________________________________________________________________________________
_filtered #yiv1742377826 {font-family:Tahoma;} _filtered #yiv1742377826 {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}#yiv1742377826 P.MsoNormal {MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}#yiv1742377826 LI.MsoNormal {MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}#yiv1742377826 DIV.MsoNormal {MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}#yiv1742377826 A:link {COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}#yiv1742377826 SPAN.MsoHyperlink {COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}#yiv1742377826 A:visited {COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}#yiv1742377826 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}#yiv1742377826 PRE {MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Courier New";FONT-SIZE:10pt;}#yiv1742377826 SPAN.EmailStyle18 {FONT-FAMILY:Arial;COLOR:navy;}#yiv1742377826 DIV.Section1 {}You're right, Jack. I forgot to-include the weight of the varnish. Varnish is required for the plywood (inside and out), whereas the aluminum doesn't need it (unless you're going for the Spirit of St. Louis look). So the potential weight savings-would be-a bit less than advertised.-The plans call for aluminum.-I've personally seen one Pietenpol (that I know of) with plywood cockpit cowling. C-FAUK has plywood rather than aluminum. It's been flying for more than 20 years. Just saw it again yesterday, as a matter of fact.I also have attached a photo of a British Piet (G-ECVB) under construction, which shows the plywood before covering. Note that the plywood stops just ahead of the front cockpit, as this plane has fuel in the nose, and used a removable aluminum cover over the fuel tank. A doubler of plywood is used around the perimeter of the cockpit openings.And here's a link to a photo of the finished plane:-http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pietenpo ... 22/L/-Bill C.-________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
RE: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?
Original Posted By: Ken Howe
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?Whoops-- misread your question Mike P. You were talking about a framed inseat bulkhead but with something else/ webbing/ etc. in the 'meat' portion, centerof it. RTFQ is in order for me !Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:15:56 -0700
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Seat back ply...structural?Whoops-- misread your question Mike P. You were talking about a framed inseat bulkhead but with something else/ webbing/ etc. in the 'meat' portion, centerof it. RTFQ is in order for me !Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:15:56 -0700
Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet builders' workshop
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
RE: Pietenpol-List: Ply -V- aluminum cowlings
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
RE: Pietenpol-List: Ply -V- aluminum cowlings
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet builders' workshop
Original Posted By: Craig Steffen
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet builders' workshop
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet builders' workshop
RE: Pietenpol-List: Ply -V- aluminum cowlings
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
Re: Pietenpol-List: Off topic, but interesting
Original Posted By: Michael Perez