Pietenpol Air Camper....anyone flown one?

Fearless Tower

Fearless Tower

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16,541
Location
Norfolk, VA
Display Name
Display name:
Fearless Tower
Still hunting for the right 'next' airplane......One option I'm toying with is the idea of keeping my 170 and acquiring a second....cheap, but fun addition.

So, with that said....anyone flown a Pietenpol Air Camper? They look like a fun putting around the countryside kind of plane.
 
I've never flown one, but I went with my brother to look at one and sat in the cockpit. It made me a little claustrophobic. I definitely would not want one.
 
somorris said:
I've never flown one, but I went with my brother to look at one and sat in the cockpit. It made me a little claustrophobic. I definitely would not want one.
Click to expand...

Did you sit in the front or back?

I don't mind a tight fit, but looking at some photos, I am trying to figure out how in the heck anyone can even get into the front seat.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Fearless Tower said:
Did you sit in the front or back?

I don't mind a tight fit, but looking at some photos, I am trying to figure out how in the heck anyone can even get into the front seat.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
Supposedly, it's a bit of an exercise. :D
I think Pietenpols are cool, but if I were looking to build or buy something of that ilk, I'd go with a 2-seat Hatz biplane.
 
I sent a message to SteveR who owns one... He really enjoys his Piet. He'll be by shortly to share his experiences...
 
Fearless Tower said:
Still hunting for the right 'next' airplane......One option I'm toying with is the idea of keeping my 170 and acquiring a second....cheap, but fun addition.
Click to expand...

You too huh?
I did the math recently. If I bout a cub and replaced my local area flying in the 182 with cub time I could hangar and insure the cub with the fuel savings and have money left over...
 
Did you sit in the front or back?

I don't mind a tight fit, but looking at some photos, I am trying to figure out how in the heck anyone can even get into the front seat.
Click to expand...

I sat in the back. I think I am too old to get in that front seat! I would probably never be able to get back out!
 
Fearless Tower said:
Still hunting for the right 'next' airplane......One option I'm toying with is the idea of keeping my 170 and acquiring a second....cheap, but fun addition.

So, with that said....anyone flown a Pietenpol Air Camper? They look like a fun putting around the countryside kind of plane.
Click to expand...

I have flown my neighbors a few times. It has an 85 horse Continental, no electrics. Ground roll is fairly short. Cruise about 80 mph. Controls are fairly light. Slips very nicely. Not nearly as much wind in your face as you would expect. Easy to fly.

The only real negative is the cockpits are cramped. Getting into the front is a pain for larger people as well.
 
I did 3 Take offs and landings in one once. I found it to by windy. Seems like the air was coming in the front cockpit and up out of the rear. I suspect covering the front cockpit or sealing in between the cockpits would have helped a lot.

Other than that I found it slow and enjoyable to fly.

Brian
 
I admit I had to google it because I never heard of it. Holy crap, what a cool looking bird that is.
 
Fearless Tower said:
....anyone flown a Pietenpol Air Camper? They look like a fun putting around the countryside kind of plane.
Click to expand...

They are exactly that. Incredibly cheap to operate, but a ton of fun. I can fly all I want essentially for the cost of gas. I've got nearly 500 hours of flight time in mine. I've flown it from Indiana to TX, TX to Oshkosh, and all over TX/OK/AR. I can't see why I would ever not want to own one. It is just a hoot to fly. Great short field performance, and overall an entirely different flying experience. Low and slow, you see things you never see otherwise. All kinds of animals...abandoned buildings...farmland...people. Everybody everywhere waves to the pilot in an open cockpit plane. Not sure why, but it seems to be a universal truth. I can't really explain why I like it so much...if it doesn't interest you, it probably never will, but I love it.

Any questions? Please ask. There is also a very active e-mail list with some very knowledgeable people. The cockpit is tight, I'm 6'0" and 170lbs, getting in the back is easy. The front is more of a pain. Once I'm in it is pretty comfortable, just with limited elbow room. I've flown it 9hrs in one day and had a ball, but I had a big grin at the end of the day.

I've given a good number of rides to people who had never flown in a GA plane...they've all walked away thrilled. :D

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1034023950102.5256.1810538264&type=3

Pb180078.jpg


DSC_0593.JPG


DSC_0620.JPG


6140_1034038510466_1182171_n.jpg


My trip home when I bought the plane...with only about 75 hours total flight time, and about 7 tailwheel hours:
http://www.wotelectronics.com/flying/2005AprilPietTrip/

Chasing a steam engine, UP 844 across Oklahoma:
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1178734207768.21501.1810538264&type=3
 
Last edited:
The mounted squeeze bulb horn is for....?
 
I know when my neighbor goes to fly-ins his Pietenpol gets more attention than his RV-7. When people visit his hanger it is almost allways the Pietenpol that gets chosen if he offers a ride.
 
rottydaddy said:
Supposedly, it's a bit of an exercise. :D
Click to expand...
You aren't kidding...I stumbled on this video on 'how to enter the front seat of a Pietenpol':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exLPpG73BWA

Definitely not getting my wife in the thing....kids yes, wife no. But the beauty of them is that for the price, it really does look like an affordable second plane.....particularly since it looks like it will actually fit in the same T-hangar with the 170.
 
SteveR said:
They are exactly that. Incredibly cheap to operate, but a ton of fun. I can fly all I want essentially for the cost of gas. I've got nearly 500 hours of flight time in mine. I've flown it from Indiana to TX, TX to Oshkosh, and all over TX/OK/AR. I can't see why I would ever not want to own one. It is just a hoot to fly. Great short field performance, and overall an entirely different flying experience. Low and slow, you see things you never see otherwise. All kinds of animals...abandoned buildings...farmland...people. Everybody everywhere waves to the pilot in an open cockpit plane. Not sure why, but it seems to be a universal truth. I can't really explain why I like it so much...if it doesn't interest you, it probably never will, but I love it.
Click to expand...

Sounds awesome....I started looking at them after the family experienced the Travel Air ride and decided that regularly flying in an open cockpit wasn't as nice as fully enclosed.....looking at prices on Fly Babys and Pietenpols, I could probably operate both my 170 and a Fly baby or Pietenpol cheaper than it would cost to run a Waco or Travel Air.

I'm definitely going to keep them in mind once we get moved to Virginia.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You aren't kidding...I stumbled on this video on 'how to enter the front seat of a Pietenpol':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exLPpG73BWA
Click to expand...

Most are not quite that bad. Mine has retractable steps that stick out the side of the fuselage which makes things much easier. Some have an open "toe-step" built into the side of the fuselage. I don't think "busting the wood" on the side is a real concern for anyone that can fit in the plane...the fuse structure is 1"x1" wood longerons, but there is a significant amount of 1"x1" trussing, bracing, gussets and the sides are sheeted in plywood, making it all quite rigid.

A guy named Chuck Gantzer did his own study on Pietenpol accidents covering a few decades. The data is very interesting and should provide some guidance when looking at planes.
http://nx770cg.com/Accidents.html

Some Pietenpols are literally works of art, looking at the craftmanship, attention to detail and the "period-correctness" that some guys go to. Others are cobbled together using wings, cowlings and other parts from other planes. Build quality can vary of course, but it is usually not too difficult to evaluate. I prefer them to be pretty honest to the original plans, although my pretty strong preference is the Continental engine.

Dan Helsper's is pretty impressive. I really like the authentic look of the plane...though I have to admit I'd want a Continental.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiLcMV7N8r0
 
Some Pietenpols have a cut-out in the upper wing, while others have a fold up center section in the upper wing, to make getting in and out of the back seat easier. Getting into the front seat will make you healthier in all ways -- greater arm strength, increased flexibility, and encourage you to lose weight back down to the standard 170 pounds.
 
Sorry, but it looks a bit more like a WWI death trap than a GA airplane. Where in the heck do you "camp" in the Air Camper?

:D
 
i've always thought they looked like fun
 
Anthony said:
Sorry, but it looks a bit more like a WWI death trap than a GA airplane.
Click to expand...
They actually have a decent safety record it seems. While there are always fatalities from stupid pilot tricks (like low altitude maneuvering), I believe I read that there haven't been any airframe failures associated with the design or construction.
 
I'm thinking it is a definite contender.

Right now, it looks like once I get the family moved and settled in Norfolk, we are either going to sell the 170 and buy a Waco cabin biplane or keep the 170 and start looking for a good Pietenpol.
 
Fearless Tower said:
They actually have a decent safety record it seems. While there are always fatalities from stupid pilot tricks (like low altitude maneuvering), I believe I read that there haven't been any airframe failures associated with the design or construction.
Click to expand...

I don't believe there have been any structural failures when people use the original design and specified materials (and don't do stupid pilot tricks). I am aware of an exception in the 30s where a guy was flying loops in his Piet and fell out (stalled) at the top...the strut fittings don't take high negative gs. Most accidents are due to people using weird motors that are truly experimental (Geo metro motors, etc.), but it is very rare for a power failure in a Pietenpol to kill someone (only one fatality in 37 years was due to a power failure). If you are flying with an experimental powerplant you need to be flying with the attitude of a test pilot for a long, long time before it is proven. I'll stick with a Continental on mine for that reason.

Another reason for the low, low fatality rate is that there is some inherent safety due to the low speeds involved. In the event of an engine failure they give you a lot of time to plan, very small clear areas become viable landing runways (500' is plenty for an undamaged landing if the pilot is really on the ball). If you do end up hitting something, you should only be going 25 to 30mph max if you maintain control of the plane. With a little headwind you can touch down at 15-20mph without any trouble. I had worse accidents than that on a bicycle when growing up. Low speed also means very low airframe stresses (just try to pull 3gs going 65mph).

At 30mph you have 1/4th the energy to dissipate than you do at 60mph (in a Cessna, for example). That means very, very short landing rolls and more limited damage if an impact does occur...just maintain control of the airplane. I once landed on a 300' strip (intentionally) in my Pietenpol with a passenger on board (in a stiff 20-25kt headwind).

Read Chuck Gantzer's Pietenpol accident analysis. There were only 10 fatal Pietenpol accidents from 1966 to 2003. Below are the causes. Only one was due to a structural failure, the elevator pushrod broke due to fatigue. Almost certainly not built to plans. Here are the causes of fatal accidents during that period...lesson learned - don't stall:

6 - stalls
1 - GM engine quit
1 - elevator pushrod broke
1 - CFIT
1 - landing accident
 
steingar said:
You uh, er, um...

...

...

...don't get out much, do you?
Click to expand...
No, but when I do, I'm *very* well dressed... :)

I've only used the "Hollywood Knot" once in earnest. I came out to the airport and a Hispanic TV channel was doing a photo shoot with scantily-clad young ladies, posing with a Cherokee parked down the hangar row. I threw on my jacket and helmet, tied the scarf extra-nice, then taxied down the row. The photographer re-set to shoot me on the way by. Never did see the result, though. Pity.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
What would this plane be like in Denver? I'm referring to both DA and the cold weather months. Looks like fun!
 
Steve - I shot you a friend request on FB. I'd like to talk to you about flying the Piet. I a
Maybe picking one up for a friend.
 
Back when I was eaking out a living as a CFI (leeching off my parents), a couple of local guys bought a Piet...one was going to learn to fly in it, and the other wanted his tailwheel endorsement in it. But first, I got to go pick it up.

The owners picked me up for the hour-long drive to where the airplane was located. I was kind of wondering why we weren't flying out in the one owner's 182 until I saw the strip...600 feet long.:yikes:

Never having flown one, and not being able to get any pointers from the builder/previous owner (he had passed away...his wife was selling the airplane), I made as thorough a preflight as I could, checked every switch and knob in the cockpit during the runup (2, maybe 3 of them?), gave 'er the gun, and was off the ground in under 300 feet.

Quite an enjoyable flight home, although as someone mentioned, I found it slightly claustrophobic with the trailing edge of the wing right above my head.

No instruments in the front seat, but I could put my Dad in back and have him give me a normal climb, power off glide, etc., so I could mark the struts as an attitude reference.:D I ended up declining to give dual, however, because I found the front seat just too claustrophobic.

Fun little ailane, though, and if it wasn't for the claustrophobic issues (which, quite honestly, I have more of than a lot of people), I'd seriously consider one.
 
The Petey was designed in the era of normal sized men - not the "can I super size that for you" generation
It is a toy
And like all toys it is a blast when the time is right
It will not replace a cross country machine
It sure is fun though
 
I don't think you want one with the Ford Model A engine. My friend had one. He traded it away after a few flights.
 
What isthe typical useful load on one with an 85HP Continental?
 
SteveR said:
Most accidents are due to people using weird motors that are truly experimental (Geo metro motors, etc.), but it is very rare for a power failure in a Pietenpol to kill someone (only one fatality in 37 years was due to a power failure). If you are flying with an experimental powerplant you need to be flying with the attitude of a test pilot for a long, long time before it is proven. I'll stick with a Continental on mine for that reason.
Click to expand...

Of course the original Pietenpol plans were for the Model A Ford engine.

74%20MODEL%20A%20PIET2.jpg


This is exactly how my Grandfather's best friend built one during the depression in Wisconsin. The story about the time that Ned spent years building his own airplane in a barn was told many times. When it was done, he took off and flew it without any flying lessons. I guess he thought if he could build a plane by plans he could learn to fly by plans.

Of course everyone came out to watch this momentous occasion. My Grandmother described it like- "We all watched Ned drag and bounce his ass across the farm and then crash. Damn fool!" Ned was OK, but the Piet never "flew" again and was abandoned. Ned went on to a life long career as and mechanic for United Airlines. He realized he liked working on planes, but not so much the flying.

Our family has no photographs of this plane and nobody except me is a pilot. Years later when I discovered the Pietenpol, I showed pictures of one to my Grandfather and he said that was it. Sadly, the few times I met Ned, I was just a kid and not a pilot and never got to speak to him about the plane. As kids we were more impressed by the exact copy of a Colt .45 Peacemaker he made from scratch in the machine shop. He was that kind of guy.
 
Dav8or said:
This is exactly how my Grandfather's best friend built one during the depression in Wisconsin. The story about the time that Ned spent years building his own airplane in a barn was told many times. When it was done, he took off and flew it without any flying lessons. I guess he thought if he could build a plane by plans he could learn to fly by plans.
Click to expand...

He shoulda' started with a primary glider before graduating to powered flight like the rest of his generation.
 
Dav8or said:
Of course the original Pietenpol plans were for the Model A Ford engine.
Click to expand...
One of our Fly Baby guys has access to a Pietenpol, and flew it with a Model A. It was marginal at best...and he's pretty much 1930s-sized.

The airplane was eventually converted to an O-200, and it was a lot better. He wrote up a pilot report/comparison to the Fly Baby:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/piet.html

Friend of mine is building a long-fuselage, widened Piet with a Rotec Radial. That oughta be fun....

Ron Wanttaja
 
MauleSkinner said:
He shoulda' started with a primary glider before graduating to powered flight like the rest of his generation.
Click to expand...

Like I said, more of a builder than a flier. Besides they lived in some pretty flat country. I'm not sure where in the world he would have gotten glider training back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top