Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: Jim Ash
Gene,I think BHP's idea for the landing gear/strut attach point isn't so much aboutwhether or not the struts are parallel but about where to attach the back of thefront seat. A quick look inside the cockpit of different Piets will tell youif the builder left everything as located on the plans or if he moved the ashpiece back. If the ash piece is moved back to the center of the cluster theplywood back of the front seat will come down and sit on top of the ash piece.If the ash piece is left 'as is' in the plans the seat back will glue to theback side of it. I went so far as to bevel that back edge to get a good gluejoint. With this setup the seat back is now attached to the top cross member,the front edges of the fuselage side uprights and the back edge of the ash crosspiece. (got all that!?) All very good joints. I feel this is important becausethe seat back is a stuctural member offering cross sectional strength aswell as floor stiffness.We all know there are some areas of the plans that are left to the imagination,but when you think about a 16/17 year old Orrin Hoopman taking measurements anddrawing the parts and pieces, after Mr. Pietenpol made them, so that otherscould understand them, it's really amazing they are as complete and as accurateas they are! If you question anything on the plans and are thinking aboutchanging it, make sure you really consider why he did it that way. Just aboutevery time you'll figure out and realize he was an exceptional 'eyeball engineer'!Don E.NX899DEDown with a sick magneto, hope to be flying again by the weekend!Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:35:11 -0400 (GMT-04:00)

Original Posted By: "Cinda Gadd"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: J3 lift struts on ebayCan somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Piet requires, and by how much?Jim AshI cut off about two feet when I made mine.Max DavisArlington TXNX101XW (Reserved)_Photo Display_ (http://mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDispl ... otoID=2587) ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Checked a J3 Cub on the field, lift struts are 123 inches long.My GN-1 lift struts are 84 inches long.Skip> > Can somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Pietrequires, and by how much?>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:06:41 -0400

Original Posted By: Jim Ash

Original Posted By: "Cinda Gadd"
Any way you measure it, it's cheaper and wiser to weld up your own struts. Reasons: Struts are such a critical part of the plane, used struts have rust inside them (always do, always will, just a matter of how much), many AD's have been issued on Piper struts over the last 40 years requiring fabric-type punch testing of the lower ends of struts and/or Xray analysis, each homebuilt is ever so slightly different therefore you custom size your struts to your airplane. They are not difficult to weld up or have welded. 4130 streamline tube is kinda expensive, round tube 4130 is cheap and considering the low and slow nature of the Piete design, this an option. You can always put steamline fairing around the round tube. Newly constructed custom sized struts will last your lifetime and you won't have to worry about one more thing on your homebuilt.Gordon Bowen----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy

Original Posted By: Don Emch
All of this is well and good, and I already know these things. My question remains, will someone PLEASE just tell me if their struts are parallel and whether they were conscious of that fact during construction. So far, unless someone can tell me otherwise, it looks like no one has even considered the question or noticed whether the struts were parallel or not while building their airplanes.Gene ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "walt evans"

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"

Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
Today I successfully completed the first taxi test of Pietenpol N491RH. It hasbeen a long haul to get to this point. I bought the plans from Bernie Pietenpolin August of 1969, just after I got home from the EAA Convention at Rockford.There is some wood in the plane that I cut that month. Various moves, jobresponsibilities, divorce, travel, etc. have caused starts and stops in theproject over the years, but I am finally ready to call for inspection for an AirworthynessCertificate. I picked the screen name slowbilder (misspelling intentional)for this listserve as appropriately reflecting the 37 years it hastaken to get to this point.The plane is built from the 1933 plans. The tailwheel installation is my own design.I did not move the wing back, but extended the engine mount. The CG cameout within the envelope. With the stock landing gear it is of course verylight on the tailwheel. I am using a Continental C-75-12 for power. It hasthe generator and starter. The battery is mounted on the front of the firewall.The airframe was completed before we had routine access to the internet (Maybeeven before the internet existed.) and I rarely had contact with other Piet builders,so I spent lots of nights working out the answers to questions that wecan get on-line now in a short time. It is rewarding to see that most of thesolutions I am seeing in this forum are the same that I came up with. I appreciatethe answers to my questions I have received from you folks out there. Ill keep you posted as I pass further milestones.Bob HumbertBattle Creek, MichiganN491RHToday I successfully completed thefirst taxi test of Pietenpol N491RH. It has been a long haul to get to this point.  I bought the plans from Bernie Pietenpol in August of 1969,just after I got home from the EAA Convention at Rockford. There is some wood in the plane that I cut that month.  Various moves, job responsibilities, divorce,travel, etc. have caused starts and stops in the project over the years,but I am finally ready to call for inspection for an Airworthyness Certificate.  I picked the screen name slowbilder(misspelling intentional) for this listserve as appropriately reflecting the 37 years it has taken to get to this point. The plane is built from the 1933plans.  The tailwheel installationis my own design.  I did not movethe wing back, but extended the engine mount. The CG came out within the envelope.  With the stock landing gear it is of course very light on thetailwheel.  I am using a ContinentalC-75-12 for power.  It has thegenerator and starter.  The batteryis mounted on the front of the firewall. The airframe was completed beforewe had routine access to the internet (Maybe even before the internet existed.)and I rarely had contact with other Piet builders, so I spent lots of nightsworking out the answers to questions that we can get on-line now in a shorttime.  It is rewarding to see thatmost of the solutions I am seeing in this forum are the same that I came upwith.  I appreciate the answers to my questions I have receivedfrom you folks out there.  Ill keep you posted as I pass furthermilestones. Bob HumbertBattleCreek, MichiganN491RH________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question

Original Posted By: RAMPEYBOY(at)aol.com
Gene,If the plans have a different distance at the bottom of the struts than at thetop, then they would not be parallel. I followed the plans very closely in thisarea. My struts must not be parallel then. However, when I set up the wing,to ensure my wing was where I wanted it to be, I built a fixture to hold thewing above the fuselage and made the struts to length. Don E.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By: "gcardinal"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: First Taxi TestWay to go Bob! I'm into year one of my Mustang II thinking I'm on the same schedule as you were! Nice to know there is light at the end of the tunnel!!________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Gene Rambo
During the construction of NX18235 it was neither noticed, nor considered, whether or not the lift struts were parallel. As of today I still don't know if they are parallel. It flies just fine........Greg Cardinal ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: John Egan

Original Posted By: "Jim Ash"
They are longer and by over a foot. I bought 4 at Oshkosh a couple yrs backfor $25 ea. They are not open on the ends though, but sealed both ends.Still I want to inspect them, hopefully through the fork hole in the bottomand if they are bad then cut off the bottom where they had the problems andif all right them cut off the top end.----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's questionGene,I know you are waiting for your answer, but there is not much you can do if you already have your fuselage made. You must locate the strut attach fittingsat the strongest point, and that is going to be where the ash pieces are. The stress of the up- lift on the wings needs to be transmitted across the bottom of the fuselage from side to side, through those ash pieces (and don't forget the steel strap that is shown on the gear drawing in the F & G manual). As I stated before, I was faced with this same thing. I will be making all four ofmy struts individually adjustable for length, so it will not matter whether my struts are parallel when I need to adjust the wing fore and aft. I hope someone can finally answer you that has a completed airplane.Dan HelsperPoplar Grove, IL.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:03:38 -0400

Original Posted By: "Rick Holland"
Gene Rambo,I measured the distance between the front and rear struts at the fuselage and the distance at the outboard fittings at the wing spars.The attachment points at the fuselage are 1 3/4" closer together than at the outboard spar fittings and the struts are not parallel to each other, as a result.For the 36 years I have been flying this airplane, I assumed the struts were parallel. So did everyone else. The wing has been moved fore and aft a couple of times and there never was a problem in doing so. Cheers,Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:36:30 -0700

Original Posted By: Graham Hansen
Thank You very much. I was just wondering if the plans were intended to be that way, since they are parallel on the F&G plans. I have never suggested that it would cause any trouble moving the wing. Thanks again,Gene ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"

Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"

Original Posted By: KMHeide
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's questionBill,In reference to your final question, I did not move my wheels forward at all because I don't think it is really necessary for a couple of reasons. In my case I will be going with large diameter wheels (21"), and my brake design is such that it will not have enough stopping power to worry about nose-overs.I am going with the "drum/band/cable" type brakes that Larry Williams used on his Aircamper and Dennis Hall used on his Skyscout. I like these because they look "Pietish" and old fashioned. BTW my struts will be out of parallelalso. Dan HelsperPoplar Grove, IL.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:53:57 -0700 (PDT)

Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
Bill Church,I moved my wheels forward a couple of inches, but retained the landing gear attachment points at the fuselage truss clusters. Somewhere I read that one should do this when adding brakes, but that was so long ago I cannot remember the source. My a/c has 6.00 x 6 tires/tubes and very lightweight Shinn wheels/brakes from a Taylorcraft.This setup has been entirely satisfactory.As I told Gene Rambo, my lift struts are not parallel to each other and nobody (including myself) ever noticed. I'll have to dig out the 1933 plans I used to build mine and take a look at the dimensions. I don't recall having any difficulty with the plans when I built mine, although I did make some small changes in several places (eg. the landing gear). And, if I were to build another Pietenpol, I'd make some more---mainly to save weight.Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Graham Hansen
Just let me jump in one more time in my defense . . . I never have suggested that I was worried about appearance, or that the struts not being parallel would have ANY effect on the wing placement, wash in, wash out, etc. Several people on here have noted that the '33 plans do indeed add the ash cross pieces (not in the F&G plans) and that the rear one is forward of the old (F&G) gear rear attach point. The statement was made that there must have been a reason for the change. I would agree IF, IF, the location of the cluster of side braces moved along with it. The '33 plans still show the spruce wedge filler blocks inside that cluster which are for the purpose of bolting the fitting on, because the bolts go through the filler blocks. If Bernie intended to move the rear gear attach point, why not move the cluster location as well?I have received the answer to one part of my original question. It does not appear to make a bit of difference whether the struts are parallel, as there are, apparently, plenty of airplanes out there with struts that are not parallel whether the builders were conscious of it during construction or not.I would still like to know whether this was a mistake on someone's part in the drafting, or it was intentional. I am starting to lean toward it being an error in light of the placement of the cluster and the filler blocks.Gene ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"

Original Posted By: Steve Ruse

Original Posted By: Bill Church
Awright Homer, 'splain why the spruce filler blocks are still there!!Gene ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"

Original Posted By: "walt evans"

Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elect tachIn a message dated 8/29/2006 9:05:40 AM Central Standard Time, lshutks(at)webtv.net writes:It has a small generator that mounts on the tach drive pad. It is self contained and doesn't depend on a mag or spark plug for power. I like this method Much better than something that robs power from the mags...however, I still preferr the old tach cable / driven tachs - just don't use any 90=BA angle drives...keep the cable straight, and very little bends, to the tach.Chuck G.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
I know this has been said many times before, but...if you try to follow the plansas closely as you can, you really will build a good airplane. Mine is to theplans with the exception of the A-65, nose tank, moving the wheels forward1" (geometry in the gear only) and the wing back 4". If I were to build another,(the thought has crossed my mind) I think the only changes I would make wouldbe to try to build one with a Model A straight off of the plans. I wouldnever try to force my opinion on someone else, it is just that I really like theairplane and how it flies. Sorry...I know it's been said many times.Don E.NX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By:
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's questionI measured the distance between the struts on my plane this evening. The measurements I made were between the centers of the attach bolts. At the lowerend, where the gear lugs are, they are 27 7/8" on center. At the upper end they are 28 7/8" on center. They are One Inch out of Parallel. I have never realized they were not parallel. It seems Gene has come up with an anomaly inthe plans that very few folks were aware of. Congrats, Gene !!Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's questionDate: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:56:59 -0400

Original Posted By: "Skip-Cinda Gadd"
Does this mean that if your struts are parallel, you must be flying a GN-1??;-)Mike C.Pretty Prairie, KS________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Skip-Cinda Gadd"
Hi KM,Google desser tire.They always have a big add in Trade-a-Plane.Skip----- Original Message ----- Can you list the site for the tires from Dresser. Never heard of them nor can Ifind their site.KM HeideFargo________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
Hi Mike,No, lift struts on my GN-1 are not parallel, they measure 31" at the wingend and 31 1/2" at the fuse or lower end.Skip>> Does this mean that if your struts are parallel, you must be flying aGN-1??> > Mike C.> Pretty Prairie, KS>________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:01:41 -0700