Talk:Pietenpol Air Camper

Please fix errors

There are a couple of problems with this article, Ahunt please fix. The yellow C-GFCU is not a Pietenpol, it's a Grega GN-1 which should have its picture on the Grega page. The GN-1 has a steel tube fuselage while the Pietenpol is wood -- a significant difference. To be properly called a Pietenpol it needs to conform to Bernie Pietenpol's plans, which call for a Ford Model A or a Corvair engine. It would be appropriate to mention the difficulties that British amateur builders have getting approval for the Pietenpol engine choice as a reason for their modifying plans to result in airplanes like G-BUCO which while clearly Pietenpol-inspired are not good examples of this American design. For some more detail on problems with this article and more references on Pietenpol, please see William Wynne's Corvair site for his comments. Altaphon (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We have to go with what the reliable sources have to say, we cannot rely on opinions or original research. So in looking up C-GFCU on the Transport Canada Civil aircraft register it says that this aircraft is:

• Mark: C-GFCU
• Common Name: Pietenpol
• Model Name: PIETENPOL AIRCAMPER GN 1
• Serial No: 198
• Basis for Eligibility for Registration: CAR Standard 549 - Amateur Built Aircraft

So there is one official reference that says it is a Pietenpol Aircamper. What references can you present that says it isn't? - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please fix errors

Altaphon is correct. The notation "GN1" at the end indicates that the aircraft in question is, in fact a Grega GN 1 design. By way of example look at the following registration info for N6383J, a Grega GN 1 Air Camper, -

Serial Number 925 Status Valid Manufacturer Name STONER CHARLES H Certificate Issue Date 05/04/2005 Model GN1 Expiration Date 04/30/2014

What you do not understand, ahunt, is that the name of the model on an experimental aircraft is at the discretion of the builder. For example I could call my aircraft a Schmuckatelli aircamper GN1 version 2, and that is what the FAA would register it as, in spite of the fact that I built it using plans purchasing from the Pietenpol family. As an experimental aircraft with no type certificate as certificated aircraft have (Piper PA11, Cessna 152, etc.)and the accompanying required model number, the name of my experimental aircraft model is at my choice. I imagine that Canadian registration standards are similar. So registration title of an experimental aircraft is not standardized, and therefore should not be the ultimate proof of design source.

It is design standards that make an aircraft a particular design. What makes it a Pietenpol, or a Grega, for that matter are certain design features that are specific to that design. For example if you look at the aft strut between each wing and the fuselage, on a Pietenpol it connects at the exact same spot on the fuselage as the aft landing gear strut, while it does not on a Grega design such as the one that you have pictured. That is one of the biggest giveaway when looking at a photo and determining whether it is aPietenpol design or a Grega design.

I have attached several photos of Pietenpol aircraft. The pictures were taken by me, therefore, I have full rights to use them and would like to donate them for uploading and correcting the discussion. Here are public links to my photos, and you may upload them and use them as you see fit-

https://app.box.com/s/p0npr5j5fqz4tqzqtmrs https://app.box.com/s/g6sw8pyawrp7860gnwxv https://app.box.com/s/2lce2ddd6qlge8r2vieq https://app.box.com/s/nj5y3ot2drvoy9dp8jbq https://app.box.com/s/cp4eo6a5ii9gtjwtwlo2

What you may find interesting is that the cream and red aircraft in photos 3 and 4 was the last aircraft to be built by the original designer, Bernard Pietenpol, before he died, it is respectfully called, "The Last Original".

jarheadpilot82 Jarheadpilot82 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No I understand perfectly that in Canada that amateur-built aircraft are registered based on the declarations of the builder. I have built and registered aircraft in this country myself, so I have been through that process. The problem is that all your interpretation of photos above requires original research, which is specifically not permitted here on Wikipedia. If you want to leave the photos of C-GFCU out of the article that is fine, but both the builder and Transport Canada consider that aircraft a Pietenpol, even if you don't.

I know several people who built Pietenpols (that photo of one under construction in the article was taken by me) and every one had changes from the original design. It is the nature of amateur-built aircraft and especially those built from plans that builders change things, even if it is only the instruments fitted. If you take a very fundamentalist view that any changes at all make it "not a Pietenpol", then there was probably only one Pietenpol ever built, as the rest vary to some degree or another. Again, as per Wikipedia policy on verifiability we are not allowed to make judgments as to which aircraft are to be included or not, that relies on reliable sources instead and what they have to say. Now if other reliable sources disagree, like the designer, then we can note that as a "a controversy" and include it in the article, presenting both sides. - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So, Ahunt, just to be clear, if Andrew Pietenpol, who is the grandson of the designer and is the current holder of the copyrighted plans and is the only one who has the right to sell Pietenpol Air Camper plans, was to state that the picture attached (G-BUCO) is not a Pietenpol, but rather a U.K. design drafted by Mr. J. K. Wills (he appears to be afraid of being sued by an attorney in the U.S. if someone were to use his design. An unfortunate view of our American legal system), that is similar to, yet not the same a,s the original Pietenpol, then you would change the photo? I just want to make sure I understand what it would take. It is hard for those of building a Pietenpol to see the example photo to be a U.K. design that Mr. Wills refuses to sell to those of us in the USA, but yet Mr. Andrew Pietenpol would gladly sell his plans to anyone in any country at any time. The pictures of the Last Original are a far better photo to include in this article than G-BUCO. No one argues the point that everyone builds them slightly different, but there are some design features (such as the lift strut/gear strut attach point) that definitely identify the design as a Pietenpol or Grega, for example. All I think that some of us are asking is that the example photo be changed to a photo of an aircraft that absolutely was built from Mr. Bernard Pietenpol's plans. Again, the Last Original would be the best example of such construction. Thanks for your consideration. 72.145.223.8 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)jarheadpilot82

I think what we need to get are reliable references that layout all those concerns (ie not forums) and then add that all to the article to explain the controversy that some people don't consider some aircraft Pietenpol Aircampers that others do. What we need to avoid as Wikipedia editors is taking sides in a dispute within the subject itself as that would go against WP:NPOV. In other words we are here to explain disputes, not take sides and especially not to advocate for one side over another. The bottom line is that some builders build an aircraft and register it as a "Pientpol Aircamper", while other people disagree that it is a "real" Aircamper. If we have reliable refs that explain that it can be added. If not then we can't mention it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)\

All I am asking you to do, ahunt, now, is to change the reference photo. If you look at what is written on the article page, it infers that G-BUCO was designed by Bernard Pietenpol. In fact, it was not. The plans from which G-BUCO was built were drawn by Mr. J.K. Wills of the U.K. as the LAA department of the U.K. government will not allow you to build a Pietenpol in the U.K. from Mr. Pietenpol's original plans. Again, the Last Original would be a totally correct photo to use as it was designed as well as built by Mr. Bernard Pietnpol and there could be no better example photo than that. Certainly not G-BUCO. 72.145.223.8 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)jarheadpilot82

Reference? - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pietenpol Air Camper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531113741/http://www.threepeakspub.com/ to http://www.threepeakspub.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)