Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: "w b evans"
Haven't rec'd any mail lately. What happened?Richard Gillespiemargdick(at)peoplepc.co m________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:20:25 -0500

Original Posted By: w b evans
Thanks Walt.Dick Gillespie ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: tbyh(at)aol.com

Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"

Original Posted By: Jim Lathrop

Original Posted By: "Oscar Zuniga"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel tube fulelage vs Long wood fuselageAll,I have been lurking on this group for about a year now and have startedbuilding my Piet. I have the wing ribs completed, and while I'm waiting fora shipment of spruce for the tail feathers, I got to thinking about thefuselage.I would like to go with the steel tube version because I like working withmetal more than wood and my next project after the Piet is a Bearhawk whichhas a steel tube fuselage. I know that building the steel tube will beslower due to the need to design the fittings which which aren't spelled outin the plans for the steel tube version, but I am willing to accept that.When talking to owners/pilots at Brodhead this year everyone said to go withthe long fuselage, it gives you more room.I have made the following observations about the two fuselage designs fromthe 1934 Improved Air Camper plans. Looking at the plans for both fuselagesI see that from the cross brace defining the back of the rear seat to thecross brace defining the back of the front seat is 33" on the steel tube vs.31" on the long wood. Similarly the front pit is 29" for the steel vs.28.75for the long wood. Overall from firewall to the back seat crossbrace on thesteel tube is 74.5" and 76.25" for the long wood.From all of this, I gather that space wise, I am sacrificing 1.75" of legroom for the passenger and gaining a couple of inches for the pilot with thesteel tube version. The real difference between the two is from the rearseat to the tail post. The long wood version is 9 5/8" longer than the steeltube version. I do not have my pilots license yet, and this is where myquestion comes in. Would not moving the tail feathers back nearly 10" inchesmake them much more responsive than on the short version, or is this reallynot a noticeable change? It seems to me that with a plane as light as thePietenpol, that extra leverage would be significant. Has anyone flown boththe long and short version (wood or steel) and have any input on thedifferences?Thanks,Jim LathropColumbus, OH________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"

Original Posted By: Phillips, Jack
Hi Jack, et al....Bill Beerman is from Raleigh and was building a Piet. Do youknow him? I'm wondering how he's progressing.....Carl Vought ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Jim Lathrop

Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"

Original Posted By: Jim Lathrop jlathrop(at)gmail.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Steel tube fulelage vs Long wood fuselageJim,My N-1033B has a 4130 tube fuselage. Wt came in with Aeronca wings andO-235 engine at 680 lbs. I have the wood plans but think the 4130 givesyou a lot more flexiblity when it comes to moving braces around to accountfor longer legs or broad shoulders, etc. Also you can put attachement tabsand beefed up gear support points where needed more easily than wood. 4130is easy to gas weld if you have the right equipment and good eyesight. Quasi-Piete N1033B is in the hanger down in Palatka FL if you want to takea look at a Piete re-design made from 4130, and rebuilt storebought wings.Gordon BowenOriginal Message:-----------------