Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuse change from plansPieters,Am asking all of you to put on you thinking caps and voice any objections to what I am about to write. I want tech reasons more than the traditional " BHP didn't do it that way". I particularly want to hear from those of you in the know aerodynamically as I would rather avoid creating a hazard.Tomorrow I begin laying out the fuse for RePiet. I will be using the drawings for the long one but will vary it somewhat. The width will be 28 instead of 24. The rear cockpit will be 4 inches longer from inst panel to seat back in rear pit than the short fuse or 1 in longer than the long fuse. I'll borrow that inch from one of the rear bays.Also, but not firm, am considering a center section of 32 inches since I will have a wing tank for those long, long trips. This will necessitate slanted cabane struts. I have computed the W&B for these changes and see no problem. A 2 in longer engine mount for the A-65 with the Hegy 7 1/2 lb wooden prop and cabanes slanted rearward 3 1/2 inches.Sure, I know you all think I nuts and your probably right but think of the fun I'm having spending all our children's inheritance.Will appreciate any and all comments on the subject but try and be nice.Corky in beautiful Louisiana________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By:
Hey CorkyIf BHP were kickin around today the Piet would be going thru some wildexperimentations. I'm not one to comment on the changes in width. But onmy second fuse I got an additional 9.5" on length in the rear cockpit bymoving the seat back 1", reclining the seat 1.5", and using the originalplan for the bridge deck between cockpits. If you want to check it out goto www.cposeminars.com/plane01.htmlThis is a bit of a deviation from the piet plan, no fence wire or gatehinges here.Dont be negitive,Dick----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Hi Corky,I see nothing wrong in what you are proposing. Bill Rewey has been sayingfor years that someone should build a SuperPiet, and it sounds like that iswhat you are doing.A couple of comments:1. I made my fuselage 1" wider than plans and am glad I did, now that it'sbuilt. It does have noticeably more room than a standard fuselage. I builtthe long fuse, but kept the seats where they were on the plans. Ifpossible, I would not move the rear seat any further aft due to CG problems.One thing to bear in mind is that a wider fuselage will cost considerablymore in plywood to build. With a 24" wide fuselage, you can get two useablepieces out of a 4'x8' sheet. With my 25" fuselage, I had to buy 2 sheetswhere I could have used one if built to the plans. And there are a goodmany pieces of plywood as wide as the fuselage (floorboards, firewall, frontseatback, rear seatback, rear seat, etc.)2. With a 32" wide centersection and a 28" wide fuselage, there is no reasonto slant the cabanes, unless you really want to. My centersection is 30"wide, sitting on top of my 25" fuselage, so I have 2-1/2" of spar stickingout beyond the cabane struts eaither side. Yours would have 2" either side.Big deal. The only problem with slanted cabanes is making the fittings toattached them to the fuselage and centersection - just a lot of angles thatall have to line up properly.Just think things through carefully and KEEP IT LIGHT.Good luck and keep us postedJack PhillipsIn North Carolina, where NX899JP now has two ailerons covered and the tailsection about to get its first piece of fabric -----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: "Richard Navratril"
Corky,My fuselage was built in accordance with the "Improved Air Camper" plans(not the F and G plans) and I made these changes:1. Widened at cockpits by 2", making for a 26" outside dimension;2. Firewall moved 6" forward (recommended by BHP himself for lighterengines);3. Plywood in cockpit area placed on inside, rather than the outside.If I were to build another (which I won't), I would still incorporate thesechanges because they have proved to be satisfactory for over 30 years. Theonly additional change I would consider is to lengthen the rear cockpit inorder to have the instrument panel a bit further from my nose. This haslikely been accomplished bythe so-called "long fuselage"---the plans of which I have not seen. At about5' 8"I don't have any trouble fitting the airplane, but don't wish to fly itmore than about 1.5 hours without stopping for a "walkabout". Therefore Iwould question the need for carrying a lot of fuel.The Pietenpol, as designed, is not overly-endowed with fixed tail surfacearea. Thedirectional and longitudinal stability of the four different "shortfuselage" Piets I have flown was only just adequate. The longer fuselageversion having a longer tail arm could show an improvement in this regard. Afuselage 28" wide could affect the airflow over the tail and require anincrease in tail area. Wind tunnel testing would be recommended, but I don'tthink you want to go there. So all I can say is that a 26" wide fuselagewill be OK; I dunno about the 28 inch version. My Piper PA17 Vagabond isreally short coupled with a wide forward fuselage, but its tailfeathers arepure J-3 and of ample size. Their effectiveness isn't compromised byturbulence from open cockpits, windscreens and the pilot's head, either.Placing the pilot further aft and the engine forward for balance could causesome "interesting" behavior in a spin.Changes from the plans are common practice, but as Volmer Jensen (thedesigner of a number of successful aircraft) put it: "Make one change andyou may have to make dozens." And these could add weight.Just my 2 cents worth. Cheers,Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Ted Brousseau"
TedFor what it's worth since mine hasn't flown yet. My first one has a 1.125 x.200 and the new one is 1.250 x .120Dick----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Graham Hansen"
Would anyone building a GN-1 be willing to share the demensions for thelanding gear set up? I am ready to build mine, but the J-3 gear issufficiently different. I really would appreciate having the demensions,especiall for the upper middle section.Thanks, Doyle Combs-----________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: clif

Original Posted By: "Les Schubert"
LesI went out and weighed it out. So far 72 lb. with the landing gear bracketsinstalled. No brake pedals in yet.Dick----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Les Schubert
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse change from plansLes,Isabelle has put her pretty little foot down HARD and said, "No, you're not flying over water to Beliese to drink rum with the fisherman nor are you going to fly over those Andies". So, I have a 9.3 alum fuel tank which will fit a Piet center section. I don't remember what I paid for it but you can have it if you want to pay the dreyage. If you can't afford it I'll pay the dreyage.YKW in YKW living positively________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:45:45 -0600

Original Posted By: "Jim Cooper"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse change from plansI'm givin' it to him not selling. Check with him, if he doesn't want it or something, let me know.Corky________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By:
If you don't sell it to him, I will buy it.Doyle Combs----- Original Message -----