Pietenpol-List: flying qualities--Jack's comments and my thoughts
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:22 pm
Original Posted By: Gene Rambo
Subject: Pietenpol-List: flying qualities--Jack's comments and my thoughts I totally agree with Jack's comments about flying the Pietenpol. I have about800 hours tailwheel timeand to me the Pietenpol is easier to fly than a J-3 because the deck angle seemshigher on the Cub unless youput cushions under you (which I did for my recent flight review in a cub) but Itoo liked landing Ryan and Jess's Cub very much with the Cub tires. Once in the air they pretty much all fly thesame except the Model A's whichfly just like the Continental ones but pretend you're flying in semi slow flightwhere the controls aren't quiteas crisp because your air speed over the controls isn't as high. I believe that my deck angle is LOWER than Jack Phillip's Pietenpol because hehas taller wire wheels than mineand a longer nose because he's got the long fuselage and I have the short fuselage.I purposely setup my fuselage to have a lower deck angle because I wanted bettervisibility over the nose. I generallycan make smooth landings but like Jack said it isn't the kind of plane you canwrack up 3 consecutive greasers normallybut I would say overall it is a very easy airplane to land. With an adult passenger in the front seat who has WIDE SHOULDERS I always ask themto push to one side or the otheron final-----not to duck mind you but to shift to the right side (since my throttlelinkage is on the left and I don'twant them binding that with a coat or arm) and that greatly helps me see centerlineof the grass or hard surface beforethe flare begins. Another reason to just limit riders to petite ladies or youngerpeople:)) I did give a 170 pound retired gent a ride a few weeks ago and it was no problemas he listened thru the intercom to myrequest on final to shift right and I have a ritual where I takeoff on the pavedsurface, land on the sod surface when hauling rides because you get better acceleration on pavement, less drag. Onlanding you get the nice softness of theforgiving sod if you're not 100% in line with the runway upon touchdown and thedeceleration is faster than if on pavementand tailwheel steering is less sensitive on grass than pavement....still have flownrides off of hard surface with no issuesbut if there are gusty winds it is no fun to fly a Pietenpol, even alone. Mike C. (finally surfacing again somewhat)________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: flying qualities--Jack's comments and my thoughts I totally agree with Jack's comments about flying the Pietenpol. I have about800 hours tailwheel timeand to me the Pietenpol is easier to fly than a J-3 because the deck angle seemshigher on the Cub unless youput cushions under you (which I did for my recent flight review in a cub) but Itoo liked landing Ryan and Jess's Cub very much with the Cub tires. Once in the air they pretty much all fly thesame except the Model A's whichfly just like the Continental ones but pretend you're flying in semi slow flightwhere the controls aren't quiteas crisp because your air speed over the controls isn't as high. I believe that my deck angle is LOWER than Jack Phillip's Pietenpol because hehas taller wire wheels than mineand a longer nose because he's got the long fuselage and I have the short fuselage.I purposely setup my fuselage to have a lower deck angle because I wanted bettervisibility over the nose. I generallycan make smooth landings but like Jack said it isn't the kind of plane you canwrack up 3 consecutive greasers normallybut I would say overall it is a very easy airplane to land. With an adult passenger in the front seat who has WIDE SHOULDERS I always ask themto push to one side or the otheron final-----not to duck mind you but to shift to the right side (since my throttlelinkage is on the left and I don'twant them binding that with a coat or arm) and that greatly helps me see centerlineof the grass or hard surface beforethe flare begins. Another reason to just limit riders to petite ladies or youngerpeople:)) I did give a 170 pound retired gent a ride a few weeks ago and it was no problemas he listened thru the intercom to myrequest on final to shift right and I have a ritual where I takeoff on the pavedsurface, land on the sod surface when hauling rides because you get better acceleration on pavement, less drag. Onlanding you get the nice softness of theforgiving sod if you're not 100% in line with the runway upon touchdown and thedeceleration is faster than if on pavementand tailwheel steering is less sensitive on grass than pavement....still have flownrides off of hard surface with no issuesbut if there are gusty winds it is no fun to fly a Pietenpol, even alone. Mike C. (finally surfacing again somewhat)________________________________________________________________________________
.Kip GardnerOn Oct 5, 2010, at 9:50 PM, Matt Wash wrote:> I have maybe 2ish hours flying front seat in Axel's Piet, about 230hours total (95% Cessna 150/152, the rest in Cessna 172, 172RG, Piper Warrior, CJ6-A, Pular XP, Grumman Tiger). About 2-3 hours total Taildragger time: J3 cub, Pietenpol.> > Flying characteristics: I found the poweroff stall to be incredibly docile particularly if coordinated. You just kind of sink while moving forward in a quasi controlled fashion. Axel has bungees on the stick and I found the plane flew with absolutely minimal work required from me. I suppose a better test would be to try and navigate using a sectional and see how much it wanders. However, I think it would be equivalent to the likes of my 150. Slowflight was slightly more difficult in the Pietenpol than the 150, but armed with a turn/bank indicator, I think it would've been easier, but still marginally more difficult. Visibility from the front seat is incredibly unrestricted.> > I'm an incredibly wet behind the ears taildragger pilot (if I can even be called that), so take with a grain of salt. All takeoffs/landings I have done were on turf with no noticeable crosswind.> > Taxi: Sitting in the front, I have a lot more visibility than back seat. Taxiing was easy and visibility was fair. I am sure rear seat is worse. > > Takeoff: Takeoffs required constant attention. The corvair felt like it had a right turning tendency, but I believe it rotates the opposite direction of the continentals, lycomings, so this made sense. The right turning tendency was minimal and if corrected in the beginning was hardly much to think about. I felt like I was under-controlling before the tail lift off and over-controlling after the tail lift off, but this is my newness to tail-draggers. Once the tail lifted and you are going down the chute, liftoff happens more or less on its own and it wants to climb at a reasonable rate.> > Landing: =46rom the front seat, the approach seemed simple. With the power off, I felt there was good authority all the way down (crosswinds might be a different story). It sunk faster than my 150, but this was expected. I found wheel landings were difficult to kiss on and usually bounced once and then settled. I imagine with better descent control than I have in this plane (and an airspeed indicator), it would be easier to accomplish this without the bounce (or at least not as high). Once the mains were on, constant rudder was required as the tail was dropping.> > Overall, I found it a relatively simple airplane to fly. Due to the added complexity of takeoffs/landings, I would say if used for training, the student would need to be at least average otherwise you might have a toothpick factory. In my opinion, the stick/rudder nature of this plane makes it an excellent platform for building or refining the basics, especially if you have no instruments to reference (as is the case in Axel's front seat, picture attached.)> > ~Matt> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:> > I've got about 1300 hours in taildraggers and find MY Pietenpol to be> somewhat challenging on landing. I can't make 3 good landings in a row in> it. When I flew Ryan Mueller's Piet this summer I was amazed how much> easier his is to land than mine or Mike Cuy's (both mine and Mike's have big> wire wheels, and mine has a steeper deck angle than Mike's). Ryan's has the> Cub style gear and small wheels and I think that makes a big difference.> > Other than that, they are easy airplanes to fly, with good stall> characteristics. They fly like what they - a 1929 design, so they have lots> of adverse yaw and require a lot of rudder, but that's not a problem.> > Jack Phillips> NX899JP> Raleigh, NC> > -----Original Message-----