On Aug 15, 1:48 am, cavelamb himself wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Aug 14, 5:35 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

Thanks Fred.
That detail is called out on page 48 of the manual.
But I'll note it on this drawing.
Maybe it will make my loyal opposition happy...

Now, to all parties involved in the prior ****ing contest,
"Wasn;t that easy?"

Or, as Andy Bray says he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YmEiGgwnBI

--

FF

Awright, smartie.

Now go build something!


But I'm not done yet, and so long as I have you in a good mood
I figure I might as well press my luck.

Now, I don't see a vertical dimension locating the holes in the carry-
throughs
for the bolts about which the landing gear legs pivot. But there
isn't a lot
to play with, right?

Here is where it gets interesting. The lower longerons are curved.
That
means if those holes are drilled the same for the front and back
longeron
the axes about which those legs pivot will not be colinear, nor even
parallel. I do not agree that it makes the plane unbuildable. After
all,
there are several photos that show the gear built just like it says
in
the manual.

But that does mean that if the fuselage were infinitely stiff, the
legs
would not pivot and the gear would not flex. I presume the gear does
flex, else landings would be a bit hard on the butt as well as the
plane.

So what DOES flex and how, the lower longeron, the carry-thoughs or
both? Also how, and how much and is that a good idea? (Being light
weight construction, even if those bolts were coaxial there would be
flexure at the attachment point.) Now, if you forgive me for again
raising
a much cussed and discussed issue, that also implies that as the gear
flexes the toe-in, toe-out with change, whether for better or worse is
yet
another interesting question.

So long as the subject is the Texas Parasol, are these matters worth
discussing?

--

FF