Original Posted By: Rick Holland
ail.com>Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about the community. Very nice.Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the- Cub-style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself to either, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned about drag on this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two styles-1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear.I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for another day.Thanks in advance for the information.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 3#334773le, List Admin.=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:47:02 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
Chris , Thank you for the replyLarryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Chris , Thank you for the replyLarryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: shad bell
Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but I amlooking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look ofthe open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos.But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts.I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about thecommunity. Very nice.Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and I can'tchoose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the Cub-style metalgear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better wayto describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself to either,but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned about dragon this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. ButI am talking about relative drag between the two styles-1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of thespeed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have downa fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figureout someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear.I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonablymuster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is goodenough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, justthe questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for anotherday.Thanks in advance for the information.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but I amlooking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look ofthe open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos.But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts.I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about thecommunity. Very nice.Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and I can'tchoose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the Cub-style metalgear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better wayto describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself to either,but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned about dragon this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. ButI am talking about relative drag between the two styles-1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of thespeed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have downa fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figureout someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear.I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonablymuster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is goodenough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, justthe questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for anotherday.Thanks in advance for the information.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gear differencesWelcome to the LIST Terry and you're among good company with Ryan Mueller on thelist who isalso a Marine and very active in the Pietenpol community. Personally I don't thing drag reduction on a Pietenpol is something a builder shouldworry aboutbecause the design, no matter how many little details you change still has dragwritten all over it. Shad Bell's words were golden---a lightly built Pietenpol (leave out the heatedseats, radio stacks (if possible)instruments in both cockpits (what passenger really needs to see any instrumentsanyway really ?), the heavyupholstery and carpeting, the starter/generator/battery (unless needed for yourairspace requirements of course)and rig the airplane straight and true according to the excellent guidelines inEAA's Tony Bingelis set of buildersbooks. (set of four will cost you around $95 but they are worth every cent whenyou have questions of any sortduring the building process.) I say choose the landing gear that LOOKS best to you and built it. To me thewood gear and wire wheels lookfantastic and there are no toe-in, toe-out or camber issues to worry about so myairplane tracks straight and truebecause of that. When you build the steel-tube landing gear you have to makesure that your wheels are trackingtrue and straight so your axels have to come out just so when going all that gearwelding. There are shims tooI believe you can use if you're using axel stubs to get your tracking true butjust something to think about. For a wooden airplane there is way more metalworking and welding than I ever imagined. I had to learn how to weldand fabricate my own fitting which was very time consuming but little by littleyou get better and better in makingparts and getting them to fit right. You don't need a 100 horsepower engine on a Pietenpol. Many are flying today(if the airframes are built LIGHT as theyshould be) on Model A Fords and 65 hp Continentals with good two-person performance. Ken Perkin's Pietenpol is Fordpowered and gives rides all weekend long at Brodhead and many to adult sized passengers.I have a 65 hp Continental and have carried passengers close to 200 pounds butyou can't do that on an 85 F day.....keepthose heavier passengers for more dense air when the temperatures are in the high60's and low 70's. Lots depends on how much YOU weigh too as far as how heavy a passenger you cancarry. I weigh 195 lbs. and normallymy weight limit for a passenger (with about 10 gallons of avgas aboard--I hold17 gals) is around 170 lbs. NormallyI require my passengers to be attractive females as well but that isn't alwaysmandatory--it's just a personal guidlinethat I sometimes follow:) Welcome to the list and stick with it ! Don't GIVE UP EVER ! The second bestthing you'll do in your life is to buildyour own airplane....the best thing will be to COMPLETE it and FLY IT yourself!Mike C. in Ohio________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gear differencesWelcome to the LIST Terry and you're among good company with Ryan Mueller on thelist who isalso a Marine and very active in the Pietenpol community. Personally I don't thing drag reduction on a Pietenpol is something a builder shouldworry aboutbecause the design, no matter how many little details you change still has dragwritten all over it. Shad Bell's words were golden---a lightly built Pietenpol (leave out the heatedseats, radio stacks (if possible)instruments in both cockpits (what passenger really needs to see any instrumentsanyway really ?), the heavyupholstery and carpeting, the starter/generator/battery (unless needed for yourairspace requirements of course)and rig the airplane straight and true according to the excellent guidelines inEAA's Tony Bingelis set of buildersbooks. (set of four will cost you around $95 but they are worth every cent whenyou have questions of any sortduring the building process.) I say choose the landing gear that LOOKS best to you and built it. To me thewood gear and wire wheels lookfantastic and there are no toe-in, toe-out or camber issues to worry about so myairplane tracks straight and truebecause of that. When you build the steel-tube landing gear you have to makesure that your wheels are trackingtrue and straight so your axels have to come out just so when going all that gearwelding. There are shims tooI believe you can use if you're using axel stubs to get your tracking true butjust something to think about. For a wooden airplane there is way more metalworking and welding than I ever imagined. I had to learn how to weldand fabricate my own fitting which was very time consuming but little by littleyou get better and better in makingparts and getting them to fit right. You don't need a 100 horsepower engine on a Pietenpol. Many are flying today(if the airframes are built LIGHT as theyshould be) on Model A Fords and 65 hp Continentals with good two-person performance. Ken Perkin's Pietenpol is Fordpowered and gives rides all weekend long at Brodhead and many to adult sized passengers.I have a 65 hp Continental and have carried passengers close to 200 pounds butyou can't do that on an 85 F day.....keepthose heavier passengers for more dense air when the temperatures are in the high60's and low 70's. Lots depends on how much YOU weigh too as far as how heavy a passenger you cancarry. I weigh 195 lbs. and normallymy weight limit for a passenger (with about 10 gallons of avgas aboard--I hold17 gals) is around 170 lbs. NormallyI require my passengers to be attractive females as well but that isn't alwaysmandatory--it's just a personal guidlinethat I sometimes follow:) Welcome to the list and stick with it ! Don't GIVE UP EVER ! The second bestthing you'll do in your life is to buildyour own airplane....the best thing will be to COMPLETE it and FLY IT yourself!Mike C. in Ohio________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Pietenpol-List: Re: Gear differences
Original Posted By: "kevinpurtee"
I do like the "Jenny-style" landing gear, so I expect that that is what I willdo. I have a paint/design scheme similar to a Jenny or to a a DeHavilland DH-4in 1920's USMC colors. I think it would look good, but that is just me. The MarineCorps flew a lot of Close Air Support missions in those biplanes down inNicaragua in the 1920's and really developed their tactics that would later servethem well in WWII. I just would like to do something a little different alongthose lines to reflect my Marine Corps heritage as well as honor those MarineAviators of the 1920's. So the Jenny-style works for me.Thanks for the input.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Gear differences
I do like the "Jenny-style" landing gear, so I expect that that is what I willdo. I have a paint/design scheme similar to a Jenny or to a a DeHavilland DH-4in 1920's USMC colors. I think it would look good, but that is just me. The MarineCorps flew a lot of Close Air Support missions in those biplanes down inNicaragua in the 1920's and really developed their tactics that would later servethem well in WWII. I just would like to do something a little different alongthose lines to reflect my Marine Corps heritage as well as honor those MarineAviators of the 1920's. So the Jenny-style works for me.Thanks for the input.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Gear differences
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Hi Terry - I'll 2nd Mike's welcome. I like your choice of engines. The debateon this list is lots of fun regarding the pros and cons of powerplant choices.Jack Phillips (engineer, pilot & Piet builder extraordinaire) LOVES the Corvair.I can guarantee that he'll give you his unvarnished "support" on that enginechoice. I'd suggest that you get the books Mike mentioned and go ahead and order the plans.You can get started on wing ribs cheap & easy & continue your research onthe innumerable options you have building this airplane.Mike - As a highly attractive, slightly-over-170-pound male, I'm surprised I havenot been offered a ride, yet.Kevin--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:33:19 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
Hi Terry - I'll 2nd Mike's welcome. I like your choice of engines. The debateon this list is lots of fun regarding the pros and cons of powerplant choices.Jack Phillips (engineer, pilot & Piet builder extraordinaire) LOVES the Corvair.I can guarantee that he'll give you his unvarnished "support" on that enginechoice. I'd suggest that you get the books Mike mentioned and go ahead and order the plans.You can get started on wing ribs cheap & easy & continue your research onthe innumerable options you have building this airplane.Mike - As a highly attractive, slightly-over-170-pound male, I'm surprised I havenot been offered a ride, yet.Kevin--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:33:19 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
> Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wire wheels and Jenny gearYou can just about guarantee that when you take a plane with wire wheels and a Jenny type gear to anyfly-in or air show that you'll have more onlookers than and F-22 Raptor.There will be rows of RV's, and other cool homebuilts but the wire wheels and the Jenny gear are justSO unique and beauuuutiful. Nothing against the Cub type metal gear on a Piet--those are wonderful toojust that I prefer the look of the Jenny/wire wheel landing gear.Here's a nice wire wheel Piet below that was built by Jack Phillips from Raleigh, NC.>-----Original Message----->From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol->list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jarheadpilot82>Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:14 PM>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences>>>>I do like the "Jenny-style" landing gear, so I expect that that is what>I will do. I have a paint/design scheme similar to a Jenny or to a a>DeHavilland DH-4 in 1920's USMC colors. I think it would look good, but>that is just me. The Marine Corps flew a lot of Close Air Support>missions in those biplanes down in Nicaragua in the 1920's and really>developed their tactics that would later serve them well in WWII. I just>would like to do something a little different along those lines to>reflect my Marine Corps heritage as well as honor those Marine Aviators>of the 1920's. So the Jenny-style works for me.>>Thanks for the input.>>-------->Semper Fi,>>Terry>>>Read this topic online here:>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:05:54 -0500
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wire wheels and Jenny gearYou can just about guarantee that when you take a plane with wire wheels and a Jenny type gear to anyfly-in or air show that you'll have more onlookers than and F-22 Raptor.There will be rows of RV's, and other cool homebuilts but the wire wheels and the Jenny gear are justSO unique and beauuuutiful. Nothing against the Cub type metal gear on a Piet--those are wonderful toojust that I prefer the look of the Jenny/wire wheel landing gear.Here's a nice wire wheel Piet below that was built by Jack Phillips from Raleigh, NC.>-----Original Message----->From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol->list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jarheadpilot82>Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:14 PM>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences>>>>I do like the "Jenny-style" landing gear, so I expect that that is what>I will do. I have a paint/design scheme similar to a Jenny or to a a>DeHavilland DH-4 in 1920's USMC colors. I think it would look good, but>that is just me. The Marine Corps flew a lot of Close Air Support>missions in those biplanes down in Nicaragua in the 1920's and really>developed their tactics that would later serve them well in WWII. I just>would like to do something a little different along those lines to>reflect my Marine Corps heritage as well as honor those Marine Aviators>of the 1920's. So the Jenny-style works for me.>>Thanks for the input.>>-------->Semper Fi,>>Terry>>>Read this topic online here:>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:05:54 -0500
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
Original Posted By: Ken Bickers
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
Original Posted By: Ken Bickers
Dan,Thanks for the response. Actually, thanks to ALL who have responded. You are right-just do it.I was a flight instructor in Navy Flight School in Pensacola many years ago, andwe would get a student who would want to drop because they were overwhelmedby the idea that they could be flying jets off a carrier in as little as a year.They were just overwhelmed by what was ahead of them. I would tell my students,"Fly one flight at a time." Just put one foot in front of the other and eventuallyyou get there. The same applies in building this or any other plane.One foot in front of the other.By the way, I just mentioned the paint scheme/design because I find that by planning,I create a picture in my mind of the end. My picture may change but itgives me a starting vision. Besides, who wants to fly an ugly airplane, and Ihave seen a few of those!My plans are on order and I am getting ready to send off for materials to startmaking some ribs. I will let you know when I get started.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:19:34 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
Dan,Thanks for the response. Actually, thanks to ALL who have responded. You are right-just do it.I was a flight instructor in Navy Flight School in Pensacola many years ago, andwe would get a student who would want to drop because they were overwhelmedby the idea that they could be flying jets off a carrier in as little as a year.They were just overwhelmed by what was ahead of them. I would tell my students,"Fly one flight at a time." Just put one foot in front of the other and eventuallyyou get there. The same applies in building this or any other plane.One foot in front of the other.By the way, I just mentioned the paint scheme/design because I find that by planning,I create a picture in my mind of the end. My picture may change but itgives me a starting vision. Besides, who wants to fly an ugly airplane, and Ihave seen a few of those!My plans are on order and I am getting ready to send off for materials to startmaking some ribs. I will let you know when I get started.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:19:34 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gear differences
> Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By:> jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com
To add to other's comments=2C the Jenny gear looks great=2C but it is a bitch to make. Don't just start it based on written explanations or photos=2C go to someone who has built one and work through it until you understand it completely. The jenny gear DOES make a difference in the fuselage=2C so decide BEFORE you start building the fuselage. It is also heavy and draggy. That is not to say that it is too heavy=2C lots of Piets are flying with it. I understand that people who use the Cub gear are forced to pull their wing aft to make up for the weight difference. It is also very rugged and simple. It makes brakes more difficult to add=2C but not impossible.I don't think the Cub gear is much harder to make. It is lighter and more streamlined. There are more wheel choices=2C and brakes are easy to add. The Cub gear looks fine on a Piet=2C especially with wire wheels.Just a few observations=2C I hope they help. I built my Jenny gear and am happy to give any help I can. I had to make modificaitons to my fuselage because I built it before looking too closely at the gear.Gene Rambo> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
To add to other's comments=2C the Jenny gear looks great=2C but it is a bitch to make. Don't just start it based on written explanations or photos=2C go to someone who has built one and work through it until you understand it completely. The jenny gear DOES make a difference in the fuselage=2C so decide BEFORE you start building the fuselage. It is also heavy and draggy. That is not to say that it is too heavy=2C lots of Piets are flying with it. I understand that people who use the Cub gear are forced to pull their wing aft to make up for the weight difference. It is also very rugged and simple. It makes brakes more difficult to add=2C but not impossible.I don't think the Cub gear is much harder to make. It is lighter and more streamlined. There are more wheel choices=2C and brakes are easy to add. The Cub gear looks fine on a Piet=2C especially with wire wheels.Just a few observations=2C I hope they help. I built my Jenny gear and am happy to give any help I can. I had to make modificaitons to my fuselage because I built it before looking too closely at the gear.Gene Rambo> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Jarhead,Thanks for your service!Not to be contrary, but I found the building of the Jenny style gear to be asnap. All wood parts were cut to fit in less than half a day, on a tablesaw, which is the only part that troubles most. Like you, I am strong inwoodology, and week in welding. Besides that, I have little to offer toadvise you on which way to go.Happy building,Gary Boothe
Jarhead,Thanks for your service!Not to be contrary, but I found the building of the Jenny style gear to be asnap. All wood parts were cut to fit in less than half a day, on a tablesaw, which is the only part that troubles most. Like you, I am strong inwoodology, and week in welding. Besides that, I have little to offer toadvise you on which way to go.Happy building,Gary Boothe
Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "kevinpurtee"
Gene,Thanks for your thoughts. It does go back to my original question. What if anyspeed difference is there between the two. In other words, how draggy are theJenny style? What kind of mods did you have to make. Beef up the attach pointsof the fuselage? Any idea how much (approximately) the Jenny style weighs over the Cub style? Thanks again to all who have answered. My intention is to come to Brodhead thissummer. One good way to get motivated, I would think!--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Gene,Thanks for your thoughts. It does go back to my original question. What if anyspeed difference is there between the two. In other words, how draggy are theJenny style? What kind of mods did you have to make. Beef up the attach pointsof the fuselage? Any idea how much (approximately) the Jenny style weighs over the Cub style? Thanks again to all who have answered. My intention is to come to Brodhead thissummer. One good way to get motivated, I would think!--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
Terry - I'm not sure if anyone's changed their gear back and forth to check onspeed differences. It will truly not matter. It's a slow, draggy airplane nomatter what gear you use, as you mentioned in your original post. As someonealready said, you're going to cruise around 75-80 mph. (Someone will no doubtpop up with "I cruise at 110." Uh huh.)A lot of your questions are addressed in the archives. Folks don't mind answering,but you can sure learn a lot using the search feature. I'm thinking theweight difference is buried in there somewhere. You also learn a lot of otherstuff as you dig through.I've read the veteran list members message to many new folks: get your plans, starton something small (ribs - as you are), come to Brodhead (look forward toseeing you there!), search the archives, read the Bingelis books, etc. It'llall come.Kevin--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Terry - I'm not sure if anyone's changed their gear back and forth to check onspeed differences. It will truly not matter. It's a slow, draggy airplane nomatter what gear you use, as you mentioned in your original post. As someonealready said, you're going to cruise around 75-80 mph. (Someone will no doubtpop up with "I cruise at 110." Uh huh.)A lot of your questions are addressed in the archives. Folks don't mind answering,but you can sure learn a lot using the search feature. I'm thinking theweight difference is buried in there somewhere. You also learn a lot of otherstuff as you dig through.I've read the veteran list members message to many new folks: get your plans, starton something small (ribs - as you are), come to Brodhead (look forward toseeing you there!), search the archives, read the Bingelis books, etc. It'llall come.Kevin--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: airlion
Kevin,Thanks for the advice. I will take your advice. See you at Brodhead as well? Thatis a 'fur piece' from Texas.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Kevin,Thanks for the advice. I will take your advice. See you at Brodhead as well? Thatis a 'fur piece' from Texas.--------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
If I had to make a call on this one, I'd guess that the Jenny style gear wouldhave slightly LESS drag than the split Cub-style gear.One of the least aerodynamic shapes is a round cross-section. The cub-style gearis built entirely of round tube. The Jenny style gear has wood members thatare streamlined, so the main legs of the Jenny gear would induce less drag thanthe main legs of the split gear. Now, the Jenny gear does have one big roundtube that runs from one wheel to the other (the axle), and cross brace cables,while the split gear has the diagonal shock absorber bracing, so neither oneis very good in that area.Probably if you were to add streamline fairings to the cub style gear, you'd getthe least drag.In any case, neither one has any great advantage over the other, when it comesto drag. It's really more a matter of personal preference than anything.Bill C.Now, if you were to put a Sonex tailwheel on the back...Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
If I had to make a call on this one, I'd guess that the Jenny style gear wouldhave slightly LESS drag than the split Cub-style gear.One of the least aerodynamic shapes is a round cross-section. The cub-style gearis built entirely of round tube. The Jenny style gear has wood members thatare streamlined, so the main legs of the Jenny gear would induce less drag thanthe main legs of the split gear. Now, the Jenny gear does have one big roundtube that runs from one wheel to the other (the axle), and cross brace cables,while the split gear has the diagonal shock absorber bracing, so neither oneis very good in that area.Probably if you were to add streamline fairings to the cub style gear, you'd getthe least drag.In any case, neither one has any great advantage over the other, when it comesto drag. It's really more a matter of personal preference than anything.Bill C.Now, if you were to put a Sonex tailwheel on the back...Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: Terry Hand
Rick,I actually flew Hueys in the Fleet (I am a rotorhead), and flew T-34C's in theTraining Command. No tailhook for me, although I did live and fly off the shipfor 14 months.I am "just" getting my plans next week.Thanks for the motivational comments from everyone.On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:37 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:> > Dan,> > Thanks for the response. Actually, thanks to ALL who have responded. You areright- just do it.> > I was a flight instructor in Navy Flight School in Pensacola many years ago,and we would get a student who would want to drop because they were overwhelmedby the idea that they could be flying jets off a carrier in as little as ayear. They were just overwhelmed by what was ahead of them. I would tell my students,"Fly one flight at a time." Just put one foot in front of the other andeventually you get there. The same applies in building this or any other plane.One foot in front of the other.> > By the way, I just mentioned the paint scheme/design because I find that byplanning, I create a picture in my mind of the end. My picture may change butit gives me a starting vision. Besides, who wants to fly an ugly airplane, andI have seen a few of those!> > My plans are on order and I am getting ready to send off for materials to startmaking some ribs. I will let you know when I get started.> > --------> Semper Fi,> > Terry> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 797#334797 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 797#334797)> > > > > > > > ==========> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> ==========> http://forums.matronics.com> ==========> le, List Admin.> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution> ==========> > > > -- Rick HollandCastle Rock, Colorado"A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" > --------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Rick,I actually flew Hueys in the Fleet (I am a rotorhead), and flew T-34C's in theTraining Command. No tailhook for me, although I did live and fly off the shipfor 14 months.I am "just" getting my plans next week.Thanks for the motivational comments from everyone.On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:37 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:> > Dan,> > Thanks for the response. Actually, thanks to ALL who have responded. You areright- just do it.> > I was a flight instructor in Navy Flight School in Pensacola many years ago,and we would get a student who would want to drop because they were overwhelmedby the idea that they could be flying jets off a carrier in as little as ayear. They were just overwhelmed by what was ahead of them. I would tell my students,"Fly one flight at a time." Just put one foot in front of the other andeventually you get there. The same applies in building this or any other plane.One foot in front of the other.> > By the way, I just mentioned the paint scheme/design because I find that byplanning, I create a picture in my mind of the end. My picture may change butit gives me a starting vision. Besides, who wants to fly an ugly airplane, andI have seen a few of those!> > My plans are on order and I am getting ready to send off for materials to startmaking some ribs. I will let you know when I get started.> > --------> Semper Fi,> > Terry> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 797#334797 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 797#334797)> > > > > > > > ==========> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> ==========> http://forums.matronics.com> ==========> le, List Admin.> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution> ==========> > > > -- Rick HollandCastle Rock, Colorado"A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" > --------Semper Fi,TerryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By:> jarheadpilot82
I live in Athens. I flew Hueys in the Fleet. I was in 1978-1988.TerryOn Mar 23, 2011, at 5:04 PM, airlion wrote:> > Terry, where are you building your piet? I am in Lagrange ga. and flying to sun> n fun Sat. AM. I also flew draggy planes (AD6)in the Marine Corps out of Miami> Fl. Gardiner Mason.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----
I live in Athens. I flew Hueys in the Fleet. I was in 1978-1988.TerryOn Mar 23, 2011, at 5:04 PM, airlion wrote:> > Terry, where are you building your piet? I am in Lagrange ga. and flying to sun> n fun Sat. AM. I also flew draggy planes (AD6)in the Marine Corps out of Miami> Fl. Gardiner Mason.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----
RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: Gboothe5
I have to agree with you Chris. I always planned on doing the Jenny style straightaxle gear, but I was deading the construction. I followed your construstionlog and technique that you posted on you web site (westcoastpiet.com/) and itwas a snap. I didn't run into any problems. I was very happy how easy it wasto fabricate. I am like you, strong on wood construction but weak on welding.Fortunately I have a friend who helped me alot with the welding.I have finished up almost all of the airframe construction and will be moving theairframe out to the hangar for final assembly and covering in a few weeks.I am currently into the final assembly of my Corvair engine. My block and crankare ready and my OT-10 cam will arrive from Clarks tomorrow.I do plan on going to the next Corvair College to pick up some tips before I finishmy engine assembly. Fortunately the next college is close to home.Rick SchreiberValparaiso, IN----- Original Message -----
I have to agree with you Chris. I always planned on doing the Jenny style straightaxle gear, but I was deading the construction. I followed your construstionlog and technique that you posted on you web site (westcoastpiet.com/) and itwas a snap. I didn't run into any problems. I was very happy how easy it wasto fabricate. I am like you, strong on wood construction but weak on welding.Fortunately I have a friend who helped me alot with the welding.I have finished up almost all of the airframe construction and will be moving theairframe out to the hangar for final assembly and covering in a few weeks.I am currently into the final assembly of my Corvair engine. My block and crankare ready and my OT-10 cam will arrive from Clarks tomorrow.I do plan on going to the next Corvair College to pick up some tips before I finishmy engine assembly. Fortunately the next college is close to home.Rick SchreiberValparaiso, IN----- Original Message -----
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Terry that is great news, welcome to the building community! If you wouldlike to get in the Pietenpol Directory, fill out the attached file andreturn to me. I will then send you the listing which now has 100 members!Thanks,JackDSM-----Original Message-----
Terry that is great news, welcome to the building community! If you wouldlike to get in the Pietenpol Directory, fill out the attached file andreturn to me. I will then send you the listing which now has 100 members!Thanks,JackDSM-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: airlion
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
I can answer your question on the weight of the Jenny style gear.The gear on NX18235 weighs exactly 60 lbs. That includes:1. Ash struts2. 19" Aluminum rims3. 3.50 X 19 motorcyle tires4. 8 gauge stainless steel spokes5. Axle6. Spreader bars7. All metal fittings8. Bungee cords9. All bracing cables assemblies10. Brass grease cups11. NO brakesGreg CardinalMinneapolis----- Original Message -----
I can answer your question on the weight of the Jenny style gear.The gear on NX18235 weighs exactly 60 lbs. That includes:1. Ash struts2. 19" Aluminum rims3. 3.50 X 19 motorcyle tires4. 8 gauge stainless steel spokes5. Axle6. Spreader bars7. All metal fittings8. Bungee cords9. All bracing cables assemblies10. Brass grease cups11. NO brakesGreg CardinalMinneapolis----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]"
Must be one of them metric pilotes.Clif (Someone will no doubt pop up with "I cruise at 110." Uh huh.)> Kevin________________________________________________________________________________
Must be one of them metric pilotes.Clif (Someone will no doubt pop up with "I cruise at 110." Uh huh.)> Kevin________________________________________________________________________________
Original Posted By: "Gboothe5"
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> tmail.com>> > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy=2C still in the research stage but I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about the community. Very nice.> > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups=2C and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle=2C and the Cub-style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub=2C but I just couldn't figure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself to either=2C but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes=2C I know=2C if I am concerned about drag on this airplane=2C I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two styles-> > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?> > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder=2C but have down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood=2C but could figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear.> > I plan (in my mind=2C at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol=2C it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine=2C just the questions about landing gear=2C so I will save the fight over FWF for another day.> > Thanks in advance for the information.> > --------> Semper Fi=2C> > Terry> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 773#334773> > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> tmail.com>> > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy=2C still in the research stage but I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited about the community. Very nice.> > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups=2C and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle=2C and the Cub-style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub=2C but I just couldn't figure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself to either=2C but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes=2C I know=2C if I am concerned about drag on this airplane=2C I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the two styles-> > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?> > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder=2C but have down a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood=2C but could figure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear.> > I plan (in my mind=2C at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I can reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol=2C it is good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine=2C just the questions about landing gear=2C so I will save the fight over FWF for another day.> > Thanks in advance for the information.> > --------> Semper Fi=2C> > Terry> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 773#334773> > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stagebut I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is thegreat look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see inthe Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie thatI read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new peopleget excited about the community. Very nice.> > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups,and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and theCub-style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn'tfigure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I wantto use lends itself to either, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know,if I am concerned about drag on this airplane, I am probably looking in thewrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the twostyles-> > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some ideaof the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?> > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but havedown a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but couldfigure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metalgear.> > I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as Ican reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, itis good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of theengine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight overFWF for another day.> > Thanks in advance for the information.> > --------> Semper Fi,> > Terry> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 773#334773> ======================&g======> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stagebut I am looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is thegreat look of the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see inthe Youtube videos. But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie thatI read in these posts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new peopleget excited about the community. Very nice.> > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups,and I can't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and theCub-style metal gear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn'tfigure out a better way to describe it). The paint scheme and design I wantto use lends itself to either, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know,if I am concerned about drag on this airplane, I am probably looking in thewrong decade of design. But I am talking about relative drag between the twostyles-> > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some ideaof the speed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?> > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but havedown a fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but couldfigure out someone to help me with the welding and building of the metalgear.> > I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as Ican reasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, itis good enough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of theengine, just the questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight overFWF for another day.> > Thanks in advance for the information.> > --------> Semper Fi,> > Terry> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 773#334773> ======================&g======> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing Gear differences
> Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear differences
Original Posted By: "Jack"
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but Iam looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great lookof the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos.But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in theseposts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited aboutthe community. Very nice.> > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and Ican't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the Cub-style metalgear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better wayto describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself toeither, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned aboutdrag on this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. ButI am talking about relative drag between the two styles-> > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of thespeed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?> > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have downa fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figureout someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear.> > I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I canreasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is goodenough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, justthe questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for anotherday.> > Thanks in advance for the information.> > --------> Semper Fi,> > Terry> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 773#334773> ======================&g======> > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... __________
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > Hello to all on this forum. I am a new guy, still in the research stage but Iam looking with great interest in the Pietenpol. Part of it is the great lookof the open cockpit as well as the smiles on the faces I see in the Youtube videos.But another big reason is the sense of camaraderie that I read in theseposts. I see people that genuinely enjoy seeing new people get excited aboutthe community. Very nice.> > Here is my question. I am looking at the different landing gear setups, and Ican't choose between the wood gear with the long axle, and the Cub-style metalgear (I know it pre-dates the Cub, but I just couldn't figure out a better wayto describe it). The paint scheme and design I want to use lends itself toeither, but I wonder about drag penalty. Yes, I know, if I am concerned aboutdrag on this airplane, I am probably looking in the wrong decade of design. ButI am talking about relative drag between the two styles-> > 1. Has anyone gone from one style to the other and can give me some idea of thespeed difference. A lot? Some? Not much difference at all?> > 2. Was one any easier than the other to build? I am not a welder, but have downa fair amount of woodworking. I am more comfortable in wood, but could figureout someone to help me with the welding and building of the metal gear.> > I plan (in my mind, at least) to do a Corvair engine with as much HP as I canreasonably muster (~100 HP). I figure if it worked for Mr. Pietenpol, it is goodenough for me. I am not really hear to discuss the merits of the engine, justthe questions about landing gear, so I will save the fight over FWF for anotherday.> > Thanks in advance for the information.> > --------> Semper Fi,> > Terry> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 773#334773> ======================&g======> > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... __________