Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: robert hensarling
Robert,Good point about the resale thing.I've ridden in Kim Stricker's GN-1. A lot of fun and he gets a lot ofenjoyment out of owning it. However, if I was starting from scratch andputting thousands of hours and dollars into a project, I'd opt for theReal McCoy. I've never heard a Piet owner say he'd rather have a GN-1.John -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: John Greenlee
-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: John Greenlee
All welcome. PIET, GN's, Fly-Baby, Heaths, Hatz, Christavia, whatever.....I fly for FUN. Just happens to be in a piet today.Steve EldredgeSteve(at)byu.eduIT ServicesBrigham Young University-----Original Message-----hensarlingSent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 11:05 AMSubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: GN-1-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: robert hensarling
I think you misunderstand me. You are attaching much more emotion tothis issue than I am. I have made no comment about who is welcome whereor whether any airplane is better, worse, etc. Somebody asked about which route to go (I think) and I am giving myopinion that he'll be more pleased with the Pietenpol. If he or anyoneelse builds, buys, or loves a Grega, I hope you get 10,000 hours of funout of it. If you already own or have started a Grega, I am notsuggesting you go away or chainsaw it or anything like that. Lighten up a bit. I get the impression you think I have insulted youdirectly. Give me a ride in that Grega one of these days!John -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: robert hensarling
Robert,I just re-read your message. You've got only 2 grand in your ship? What a deal!John -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: John Greenlee
-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: robert hensarling
Guys; A lot of the Piets that come thru Broadhead are the GN-1version.....they are treated the same and hop as many rides as anythingelse.........The GN-1 is just another man's version of the original Pietusing (then available cheaply) Cub firewall forward and Cub gear, so onand so forth. I have talked to the GN-1 designer many times as he livesa few miles up the road here in Ohio. He didn't want to fuss with wirewheels, the Ford engine and so forth. Nostalgia aside, this is NOT a badidea! Take a solid flier and proven design and attach "off the shelf"common parts and there is the GN-1......A lot more guys are in the airthat didn't want to fuss with the Piet in it's purest form. I ambuilding a Scout, fly a Super Champ........down the road is anAircamper..........(This is really a Ford/Chevy kinda thing!) Be cool,go fly, enjoy!Earl Myers -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By:> John Greenlee
Hear, Hear...Ken BeanlandsChristavia builder. C-180 floatplane driver. Airplane lover :-)On Thu, 27 May 1999 steve(at)byu.edu wrote:> All welcome. PIET, GN's, Fly-Baby, Heaths, Hatz, Christavia, whatever.....> > I fly for FUN. Just happens to be in a piet today.> > Steve Eldredge> Steve(at)byu.edu> IT Services> Brigham Young University> > > -----Original Message-----> hensarling> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 11:05 AM> To: Pietenpol Discussion> Subject: Re: GN-1> > > > > -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Wayne and Kathy
snip a whole bunch of stuff....Robert , I can understand your appreciation for your your GN-1 and whatit means to you and how it represents a bond between you and yourfather. My dad is 72 and after 30 years of family, expense, college(for him, my sister, and me) he finally decided to partake of a dream oflearning to fly at 58. Unfortunately, he couldnt pass the medicalbecause of minor but chronic vertigo problems. But along the way he gotme interested, I got my license, and we both owned a flew a 150 for afew years. Now he's helping me (when he can) with my project. Hisinterest in flying got me stoked and now I'm four years into building -you got it- a GN1. I've heard all this Piet vs GN stuff for years -dont let it bug you. In my opinion the important thing is buildingand/or flying your own homebuilt and the comraderie you share withfriends and other builders.!I've run up on a very few people who really felt that the Piet issomehow "better" than the GN and put out an elitist air. So What! Really, So What! I have a good friend with a Piet - I've flown in it -I think its great. I also appreciate the GN1. Both are ok. Similar -but different, too. I have a ford van, but my neighbor has a chevroletso what. But out of respect for Bernard, I call it just that - a GN. For allyou Piet purists - lighten up. C-C-Cant we all j-just.... Get along ? > >________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Richard DeCosta
Steve wrote:How much does the GN-1 weigh before attaching the engine? How many ofyall are using soob direct drive engines too.SteveJes maken "WoodChips" heah in Missippippi!url= http://www2.misnet.com/~vistinemail= vistin(at)juno.com__________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "TriScout"
I rarely chime in, although I read every message on the list. But I'd like toadd something to this conversation, although, never having even been to Brodhead(yet!), perhaps I shouldn't. Still, in the interest of discussing importantissues of safety, I agree completely with that priority. No good reason totake unnecessary risks. Lots of fun to be had without doing so.And it is in the interest of safety that I have to disagree with John. I'm surewe all had precision flying stressed during training. And rightly so. Aimfor a particular spot, not a general area; plant her right down the centerline,etc. And, yes, we're taught ground reference maneuvers, and are expected tobe able to fly them with precision and regularity, and that happens so we canapply those skills while flying practical maneuvers, like landings. But thesafest pattern doesn't prioritize geometry, I don't think. If everyone is flyingthe pattern with appropriate spacing, then an arc on final presents no particularsafety hazard I can think of. And if necessary to complete the patternefficiently, an arc can be the safest route to take, and can actually make thingsbetter for those behind in the pattern by clearing faster.The pattern is very important, particularly on uncontrolled fields. Crossing mid-fieldor entering on the 45 downwind, pilots should always enter the appropriatepattern for the field at predictable spots, so other traffic knows whereto look.But I question the idea that there's something particularly safe or even alwaysappropriate about a rectangular pattern on base to final. Every landing is unique.Each landing presents different winds and conditions. Turning base isa critical decision and it won't be made in the same spot every time. But turningbase to final is, both in location and pattern, dictated by the conditionsfound once on base, I think. There are many occasions when an "arc" patternfrom base to final is the safest and best route. I try to fly base/final atidle every time. A power approach is easier, but sets one up for missing thefield entirely if the engine quits. If I am low, or the winds are pushing meslower over the ground than expected at that moment, or if I judged turn to basepoorly, then the only options are to add power in order to square the pattern,or shorten the pattern by rounding off the turn from base to final. I've seen this strategy emphasized by many instructors, by training videos, bythe AOPA. The safest pattern for base and final is the pattern that gets youto the numbers most efficiently. Everyone at the fields I fly at, both controlledand uncontrolled, expects just that on the final approach. That's how it seems to me.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1

Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Caught a good deal on a GN-1, so I bought it and UHauled her home to Dallas. Inthe market for a used (safe) C85/A65. Any Intel on a one, feel free to lemmeknow. Prefer to find one w/in a day's drive/nearby. Was starting to build Pietribs, but who knows..maybe I can make Brodhead earlier than I thought.. (willattempt a photo)LarryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscf ... ______Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:12:27 -0500

Original Posted By: "TriScout"
I agree with all that has been said which pretty well covers the differences, butwill add a couple of observations.I am building a GN-1 (completing someone elses project), but have both the plansfor a it and a Piet. I refer to both often. I think the wing attach fittingsare different on the GN-1 and the 3 piece wing is standard for the GN-1. TheGN-1s are noted for being heavier not including the engine. The airfoil isdifferent and is touted as a modified Piet airfoil. The spars are in a differentlocation which allows for a slightly deeper front spar. The leading edgeis less sharp which is supposed to allow for a gentler stall. Mine is a woodfuselage and my plans show both wood and steel. The wood plans call for plywoodclear to the tail. I flew in a GN-1 at Broadhead with a wood fuselage anda front door. My wood plans do not show a door but the steel plans do. Therudder horns attach differently on the GN-1 and it had the leaf spring tailwheelas standard using a cub tailwheel.I am making changes to mine based on the good things I find in both Piet and GN-1plans. The rear instrument panel is quite close on the GN-1 and I have modifiedthat. I am taking out weight where ever I can. Mine will have a Piet styletail wheel similar to the tail skid to lighten up the tail and move the weightforward approx. 12" I am re-routing the elev. control cables to avoid therubbing on the elevator in the full down position. I will add a front doorto mine after seeing Dale Mcclesky's at Broadhead. The structure will probablybe of my own design. Mine will fly with a corvair engine. I think Grega hadsome good ideas but a lot of his hand drawn plans are nearly a direct copyof the Piet plans. I would say it is a first cousin to the Piet.I have Grega's hand drawn plans but his son had them produced on CAD a couple ofyears ago and then completely quit selling them or supporting them. I haveheard some rumor that there were mistakes on the CAD plans and he may have backedaway because of liability. This forum is about the best support for the GN-1that there is, as there are a lot of GN-1 builders on here.Jon Coxwell--------Jon Coxwell GN-1 BuilderRecycle and preserve the planetRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: GN-1

Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Thank Guys..I've been watching Barnstormers. I'll be monitoring this site as well incase somethingcrops up. LerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 06:48:20 -0500

Original Posted By: "TriScout"
Anybody know the final disposition of N40WH, thedamaged yellow Piet with Corvair engine in Camden, AL?It was made out to be sort of a "Faker Fokker" andlast I heard, it was for sale/rebuild. Docadvertised it for sale in the newsletter maybe 2years ago.Oscar ZunigaAir Camper NX41CCSan Antonio, TXmailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.comwebsite at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: GN-1

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Thanks for the info.. Saw that one on Barnstormers..Going to look at an A-65 in pieces tomorrow that has everything (mags/carb)mostlynew parts..just have to find someone/someplace near Dallas to help me put hertogether ...if I buy it.. will see. I don't have an A&PLarryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:37:32 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: GN-1

Original Posted By: "TriScout"
Thanks guys! Pieti you were one letter short...lol! This time it hasn't bouncedback!Scotty--------ScottyTamworth, AustraliaBuilding a Corvair Powered Pietenpol Air Camperwww.scottyspietenpol.comRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: GN-1

Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright
The quicker you get the plane done the quicker we can meet for lunch somewherebetween dallas and austin. I'm just sayin...--------Kevin PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:04:47 -0400

Original Posted By: "Jack"
I'm running a Ed Sterba 72x42 on my A-65 and am getting great performance. 3min. /1000 ft @ 3200rpm and cruise at 80mph at 2000rpm.FYI- Roman Bukolt NX20795On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Ben Charvet wrote:> >>> Probably when he said smaller prop he meant with less pitch. The > extra HP in an A-75 is mostly because it turns at 2600 rpm redline, > and this is done by using less pitch. I'm running a Sensenich 72X40 > on my A-65 and find that to be about perfect. Jack Phillips has the > same prop on his Piet. This prop in actually used on the J-3 as a > climb prop.>> Ben Charvet>>>>>> Now .. he did mention that he put the bigger piston pins(but not >>> the 75 pistons)drilled something(rod's), etc, etc... in the event >>> that I convert it to 75hp later. He thinks it's safe to run at >>> higher rpm by getting smaller prop as an "experimental" if I >>> desire to do so, but me thinks me wants to play it safe and get a >>> 72x42pitch. Any thoughts on that...best prop?... especially from >>> GN-1(w/A65) folks? I would really like a wood prop...>>>>>> Ler>>>>>>>>>>>>________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
3200 Roman? Isn't that high?JackDSM-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By:> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
OOPS!Someday I'm going to read what I write before hitting the "send" button.Yeah! I meant 2300 rpm.On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Jack wrote:>> 3200 Roman? Isn't that high?> Jack> DSM>> -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: KM Heide CPO/FAAOP

Original Posted By:> Ken Beanlands
> > Here's an interesting web site for inexpensive hangars:> > http://www.cover-it-inc.com/cover_it.htm> > Here's a quote on a 40'x 25' hangar.> > Hangar with 2 sidewalls and open ends: $3,075> Front, door end (curtain style door): $1,960.> > Most people opt not to buy either end and put up something themselveslike> a stud wall. Footings are 5' on center so add in the cost of 12footings. > The building will end up being 40'x25' to get the 32'-6" wingspan through> the front opening. The 35' one is a tad too short. Door height is 7' with> a peak height of 14'. They can build them larger, smaller in anydimension> up to 60' wide and any any length in 5' incriments. Height can go to 16'> (32 'peak), I believe. > > It certainly seems pretty sturdy and I've got an e-mail into Zenith toget> thier opinion.> > Ken> > robert hensarling wrote:> > Hi List. Well, the weather didn't cooperate this weekend at all, so now> the guy flying my GN to Uvalde from Kansas will try again next Friday. > He's a corporate pilot, and has the luxury of having each Friday, Sat,and> Sun off. As luck would have it, we had very severe weather here last> night (Uvalde is located about 70 miles due West of San Antonio, and our> Springtime is always really active weather wise). The reason this is> "lucky" for me, is that the GN would have been under an open shed if it> would have been here, and could have been damaged by the high winds. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:42:57 -0700 (MST)

Original Posted By:> robert hensarling
> Subject: Re: GN-1> > Ok John, you arn't going to be able to get me in a flame war on the list,> this is a hobby, that my Dad and I enjoy very much, and quite frankly that's> the main thing that matters to me. However, I certainly respect your> opinions. But if GN-1 owners arn't welcomed on the list or at Brodhead,> someone please let me know now, and we can avoid some of the comments the> list is having to read, which isn't doing anyone any good. This is about> flying and fun, and if my GN-1 resembles a Piet except for the inside, then> it really shouldn't create a problem unless I was selling it as a true Piet.> John, this is all I'll say on this topic.> Robert Hensarling GN-1 (and proud of it, and no one can take away the pride> my Dad and I have in my airplane away) N83887> > > > Robert,> > Good point about the resale thing.> > I've ridden in Kim Stricker's GN-1. A lot of fun and he gets a lot of> enjoyment out of owning it. However, if I was starting from scratch and> putting thousands of hours and dollars into a project, I'd opt for the Real> McCoy. I've never heard a Piet owner say he'd rather have a GN-1.> > John> > > -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By:> John Greenlee
> Subject: Re: GN-1> > > > > -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
> Subject: Re: GN-1> > > I've never seen the GN-1 plans, but understand it is a totally different> airplane using the general outline and dimensions of the Piet. One of the> things is that it was supposed to use Cub gear and other stuff that was> cheap at one time.> > Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Build the Piet that others> want to imitate. It has better resale I understand.> > John> > Good advise John! I think if I were going to build another airplane,> I'd use the original plans also (I didn't build my GN-1, but traded a little> ultralight straight across for it, and didn't have but $2,000 in the> ultralight, so as you can see I'm very happy with the GN-1. When I'm in the> air enjoying myself and the world, I don't seem to worry all that much about> the Piet/GN-1 thing). Resale?? Better resale?? Yes, probably, I'm sure,> but why think about selling your Piet John? )> > Robert Hensarling GN-1 N83887> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________