Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: PietenpolsHi Rick: Anyone who doesn't fly to Brodhead ought to drive in in pickuptrucks. We could all gather at the trees, circle the pickups, tail gatesinward, with beer coolers in the center. What a party! A bunch ofdrinking, pissing Piet builders telling lies about their constructionand flying adventures. I could bring my barrel of do-over scrapped partsas a conversation starter. Yah, I think about all of those strut worriesyou mentioned. That is why I haven't ordered any material to build themyet. Another couple of options are round steel tube with that plasticstreamline material to cover it. You would have to watch others whowould grab a strut and help you push or pull. It strikes me as kind offragile. Also something Doug Bryant did that worked quite well. He had apiece of flat steel bent in a V shape and welded to the back side of thestrut tube. He ran it by engineers at Raytheon. (Beechcraft) who gave ittheir seal of approval. It was stiff enough that he didn't use jurystruts. The V material also gave a streamlining effect. There is alwaysa way, just which one to try. Leon S. Ks.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PietenpolsIn a message dated 10/13/2006 4:25:41 PM Central Standard Time, lshutks(at)webtv.net writes:What a party! A bunch ofdrinking, pissing Piet builders telling lies about their constructionand flying adventures.Hey !! I've got a couple stories to tell !! Did I ever tell ya about the time when I was flying along, all fat dumb & happy, when all of a sudden....well, never mind...haven't had enough beer yet. :)________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpolsharvey: the airplane was once 100% finished and flying. The owner hadunregistered it and gotten rid of any paper trail to him so he wouldn'tloose his business in a law suit if a new owner flew it into a mountainin IFR weather. (deep pockets ) I was looking at the possibility ofreassembling it and reregistering it. My DAR said he would work with meon it until I couldn't show a log of it's construction for the 51% rule.He told me the owner didn't need to be the builder. As someone said,many projects pass threw several owners before they are licensed. I cantremember the last time I saw a new construction with Cub (etc.) wings.Leon S.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "walt evans"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sterba Prop & Chet Peek's address In a message dated 2/7/2007 7:44:24 AM Central Standard Time, TBYH(at)aol.com writes:I believe the Pietenpol prop drawing calls for 76 by 44 -- so maybe this one will give a bit more cruise and a little less climb -- depending on how many Wheaties I feed my Model A...Fred,The Orin Hoopman drawing, dated 3-3-33, for the Model A prop, is 76 X 48. That's what I built. It was too much prop for the stock Model A engine, exceptwith the Aluminum 6:1 head, so it would never unload in cruise, and I could never get into the horsepower / torque range for take off. I think you did good, going with a 76 X 44. If anything, a 76 X 42 would be better, which I think is what Ken Perkins suggests.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:25:49 -0500

Original Posted By: Clif Dawson