Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: Gordon Brimhall
Subject: Pietenpol-List: questionsa few Questions1. Has anyone installed a trim tab on a piet elevator? and if so how?2. Looking at the Tail section plans, are the leading edges of theelevators the same cross section as the trailing edges of the horizontalstab?3. Has anyone used Douglas fir for the spars and ribs? I know it hasmore weight than spruce but it is available locally.4. Looking at the fuselage plans there is a box structure behind thefirewall. If a A65 is used, is this structure omitted?Thanks for any replies.GaryFrgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Gary Leopold
-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: walter evans
In a message dated 9/29/99 7:44:27 PM Central Daylight Time, frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net writes:>Gary........Douglas Fir is certainly acceptable...but in my opinion it is stronger and heavier than is necessary for capstrips. Awhile back on this email group there was a lot of discussion about rib capstrip materials. At the time I was choosing my capstrip material and decided to use red cedar, based on the following logic. 1. Someone had posted some test results they had conducted on a rib with red cedar and I was impressed ....not as strong as spruce....but more than 75% as strong. Weight is roughly the same as spruce. I will look for the old post...or perhaps the author (I don't remember who) may see this and revive the information for you.2. I have always had a feeling (no data to back me up) that the 1/2 X 1/4 cross section shown on the plans was slight overkill on the capstrip size. I feel this way because I have seen larger/faster type certified airplanes that have much smaller cross section on capstrips (typically around 1/4X1/4). So I figured a little less strength wouldn't be missed....except maybe the margin of safety is dropped from 3.0 to 2.0 (an out right guess). Besides, the main function of the capstrip is to form the airfoil shape of the wing....not primary structure.3. Red Cedar was readily available at the local lumber yard. I sorted through the 2X4X12' bin for over an hour and picked out several knottless/straight grained boards.4. The price was right....I bought more than twice what I needed for the ribs at a lumber yard that was going out of business....I got it for 65% 0ff...paid less than $50 for nine 2X4X12' boards. I have ripped out twice what I need into the 1/2X1/4 strips. That way I can do my quality control exercize to weed out the bad sticks that seem to have defects. I take each stick and inspect it for wavy or slanted grain...if it looks good, I play with it a little flexing it listening for crackling sounds or sometimes they'll just snap. I use the rejected sticks for rib bracing if they are not too bad.5. I had built one rib out of douglas Fir and compared its weight to a red cedar rib a friend had built....the red cedar one was more than 5 ounces lighter (Douglas Fir = 12.7 oz, red cedar = 7.6 oz). 6. Red Cedar makes the whole shop and living room smell womderful!I think people tend to use what they can afford or get their hands on. Seems like there are several different woods that people have used. Even the CAA/FAA has allowed construction from many different types of wood. Of course... Spruce is called out on the Piet plans and is the wood of choice by many manufacturers of type certified airplanes. The FAA guidance materials say Douglas fir is an acceptable repair alternative to spruce but notes the weight difference as a consideration. Some airplanes have been certified with other materials such as Cedar and poplar...and even pine in some cases. A local oldtimer here in Wichita who used to build Great Lakes airplanes says that airplane was certified with red cedar ribs. One type certified airplane I know of (1929 Parks P2A) was rebuilt by a friend of mine. He told me that the original ribs and some tail components were made of wooden crate material that still had the East Saint Louis Illinois address stamping still visible on them. Anyway....get some opinions from people and sources you can rely on and use your best judgement. Best WishesTerry B________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
his question was about spars mailsorter-102-3.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8-wtv-d/ms.dwm.v7+dul2)Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:36:47 -0400 (EDT)________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Hello all,I'm new to the list, thought I would say hello, and, of course, ask a couple ofquestions. I started flying when I was young, catching the bug, like most Isuppose, as a child. Lessons were few and far between on my grocery stockerswages as a teenager. At 19 (FAR too young) I married, and my new father-in-lawowned a 172! What a marriage, huh?! There went the lessons, flying more regularlythan ever with him. The problem came when my wife divorced me a few yearslater.Since, I've managed to slip the bonds in different ways, in hang gliders, in sailplanes,with friends, but only occasionally. All the while, I dreamt of buildingmy own plane and getting back into the air. My fondest memory of flyingwas of flying in a PT19 owned by a friend of my father-in-law. Those big ol'wings and the open cockpit. What an experience. I've always loved those oldplanes. Wood and fabric and wind. What a combination!!! As a woodworker, and as a confirmed anything old nut (I've got a complete 19thc. hand tool shop of tools that I've reconditioned and use constantly), I've beeneyeing the Piet for some time. Seeing one in the flesh at a museum in Minnesotaon vacation this summer was a treat. Anyway, having a wonderful grass airport just 10 minutes down a country road fromme, I'm ready to start. Piet builders seem to me to be a generous and friendlygroup.Now to the questions. I've perused the faqs, I promise, and haven't found theanswers. I've heard hints of problematic stall characteristics on Piets, buthaven't heard any details. Something about the flat underwing.... Also, I'mcurious about the landing behaviour and ground control. How does the Piet compare,say, to the J3 (one of which is at that grass strip available for training!!!)?The climb rate concerns me some (as does the limited payload in a two-placeplane). Does using a Franklin, or a Cont 65-85 help out on the climb?I'm in love with the slow speed envelope and slow cruise of the Piet, but wouldn'tmind better climb, especially at gross, which, with any passenger, shouldhappen a lot. I've not been able to find VNE or ultimate stress figures forthe Piet.That's enough questions, I suppose. Any info will be greatly appreciated. Ifanyone is building or flying a Piet in the Central Texas area, I'd love to hearfrom you and perhaps arrange a visit to drool and ahhhhh over your plane. :-}Phil Hopkins________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Michael King"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questionsWhere in central Texas?Corky in Shreveport________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Phil Hopkins
Phil,I am in Dallas. Give me a call at 214 905-9299for a look at my GN-1. Though not a truePIET, it is a good plane and should give someidea of what you can expect. I keep it atO'Brien's near Waxahachie.Good luck to you.Mike KingGN-177MKDallas, Texas----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Phil Hopkins"
>>Phil- If rigged properly there are no adverse stall characteristics>in a Pietenpol. >>>. Also, I'm curious about the landing behaviour and ground control. How>>does the Piet compare, say, to the J3 (one of which is at that grass strip>>available for training!!!)?>>Piets are very docile in ground handling>tracking is very honest.Tailwheel problems cause more>trouble>I second what Mike C has said. Stalls are gental & straight foward. . Minestalls at about 38mph.Ground handling is no problem. The Piet will turn just about in its ownlength. Roll outs are straight ahead. In my opinion, better that a cub.I think the tailwheel problems happen because the tailwheel springs are nottight enoughMike B Piet N6987MB ( Mr Sam )________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Ian Holland"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions>>>----- Original Message ----->From: Michael Brusilow >To: >Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 7:58 PM>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions>>> >Piets are very docile in ground handling>tracking is very>honest.>> Tailwheel problems cause more>> >trouble>>>Mike, could you put a bit more description on the type of>troubles one might experience, and how to judge when the tail>wing springs have the "right" tension?Well Ian, I have no deep enginering evidence to offer. From my observations,it sems that slack tailwheel springs makes for a tendency to ground loop.The more tension the springs the more positive control one has of thetailwheel. My springs are tight.FYI, my cables go directly to the rudder bar. They are not swaged to therudder cables.My tailwheel is modified to fit the Piet coil spring. It hasbeen working well for the past 12 years.MikeB Piet N687MB ( Mr sam )________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Michael Brusilow
----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Chris A Tracy
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: progress is good

Original Posted By: "Warren D. Shoun"

Original Posted By: Ian Holland
-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Michael Brusilow
Thanks, Mike.I am going to rethink the attachment points. It's hard to ignore12 years of experience.----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Jeffrey Wilcox"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plating butt ribs, 3 pc. wing?>--> it looks to me like the butt ribs ought to be plated so you can wrap>the top and bottom fabric and keep the overlapping seam hidden. Am Icorrect>in this?>Yep.Mike B Piet N678MB ( Mr Sam )________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Woodflier(at)aol.com
-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Kip & Beth Gardner
C'mon guys, I have been posting a number of questions on here with minimalresponses! Here is the latest:Before I put saw to ash, has anyone with a Model A powered Piet had anyreason to extend the engine mount forward? I have my engine mount bearerswhich are a couple of inches longer, and before I cut to the length given inthe plans I want to make sure.As a side story, yesterday I was at a friend's house doing some Pietwoodwork. He is doing trim work on his house (he builds wooden aircraft,too). He had some trim work he had glued together with Titebond glue. Wetook a scrap that was basically three 2" square pieces edge glued together,so the piece was 6" by 2". I tried to break it apart by hand, nothingdoing. I placed it on the floor with a block under each end and stood onit, nothing (I weigh about 200). Only when I used the edge of my shoe andjumped up and down on it did I finally make it break . . . nowhere near aglue joint. We took another scrap and placed it in a vise and hit it with ahammer. Broke the wood, never the glue joint. We also found some scrapsthat had been out in the rain for several days . . .same result.This is some stuff!Gene________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:20:26 -0400

Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: John Dilatush dilatush(at)amigo.net
I didn't mean to suggest that I am using Titebond, just that it is strongstuff, stronger than I would have thought. Name a glue that does not breakdown after several months outside without any protection. Aircraft plywooddoes not last through one good wetting without delaminating. I am,however, using titebond for small non-structural items like filler blocks. If it is well varnished, it could probably be used for everything NOT THATI AM DOING IT.GeneOriginal Message:-----------------

Original Posted By: del magsam

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
I have a name ... resorcinol. It will withstand immersion for 24 hours inboiling water (at least according to the Mil-Spec). I built most of myPietenpol with it, the rest with T-88.Jack -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: clif

Original Posted By: "clif"
Again, I was not recommending the use of Titebond, just relating aninteresting incident.As for leaving the mount long and slilding the engine, that is an excellentidea with one question, though, would it matter if the engine sat fartherforward on the mount legs if I did it that way (unless I could rig up atemporary mount and rebuild it after deciding on a length)I mostly wanted to know if any other Model A person made his mount longer.Gene----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: JOEL CARROLL
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions>>> > >> >> >----- Original Message -----> >From: Michael Brusilow > >To: > >Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 7:58 PM> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions> >> >> >Piets are very docile in ground handling>tracking is very> >honest.> >> Tailwheel problems cause more> >> >trouble>> >> >Mike, could you put a bit more description on the type of> >troubles one might experience, and how to judge when the tail> >wing springs have the "right" tension?>> Well Ian, I have no deep enginering evidence to offer. From myobservations,> it sems that slack tailwheel springs makes for a tendency toground loop.> The more tension the springs the more positive control one hasof the> tailwheel. My springs are tight.> FYI, my cables go directly to the rudder bar. They are notswaged to the> rudder cables.My tailwheel is modified to fit the Piet coilspring. It has> been working well for the past 12 years.>> MikeB Piet N687MB ( Mr sam )>>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 23:30:03 -0700 (PDT)