Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: "Gary Meadows"
Has anybody looked at the lengths for the Cabane Struts for the GN. Gregacalled for longer rear struts than front struts. Pietenpol specified alonger one for the front.Aknowledging that each uses different brackets and different sparlocations, it still seems this causes a lower angle of incidence for thewing. That in turn would(it seems) encourage the fuselage to fly a littl tail low.Has anybody else wondered this. If ya'll have already talked this to deathin the past, I apologize.... Please e-mail me with any suggestions offlist atbconoly(at)home.comThanksBest to group!Bert________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Bert, I remember when I went to see Jim Sury's beautiful GN-1 here in the Houston area, he asked me to check it out when we formed up on him to take some pictures. The pictures didn't turn out so well, but his GN-1 seemed to fly nice and level as best I could tell. Jim, are you out there? Remember askiing me this/having this concern? I think Grega must have worked all of this out in the design.Gary Meadows________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:41:42 -0400

Original Posted By: "Bert Conoly"
Bert,Nice to hear from you. You are correct, Grega's figures for the cabanes arewrong. The plans call for the rear being longer than the front. Mine areequal at 22". My plane has zero incidence and flies tail low. Pencilled inon my plans are figures that call for the rear cabane being 1" shorter thanthe front and notes that it would result in a 2 degree incidence. Ihaven't done the trig but it sounds about right. Do it now because, likeJim says, it is a bear to make all the changes later.Take care, Ted----- Original Message -----