![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:14:19 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote: Such a shame, Clare, because the 4.4G upgrade is exactly what you've been asking for? Richard You want more input - you got it. OK, we are NOT engineers, but looking at this with a few more knowledgeable guys than myself the following observations and recommendations age just the beginning. The last PDF with the spar calculations is a problem. On the first page there is a basic math mistake. We did not go into the calculations to see if the rest was correct or not. 144 pounds per wing is 288 pounds total, not 244. The author then assumes that the lift distribution is equal down the length of the wing, and it is admitted that this assumption was made to simplify the math. Unfortunately this removes some of the lift load from the inner spar and makes the calculated G's quite optimistic. In real life the lift is usually assumed to center about 44% out from the root. A proper load test will have an elliptical distribution of sandbags for this very reason. The equal distribution assumption transfers a lot of sand out beyond the lift strut attach. This has two effects that give optimistic conclusions. There is less sand (lift force) at the weak point 40" out from the root. Also the equal distribution tends to straighten the inner section of spar, like a teeter totter, so that it would take more weight to get the spar to buckle between the root and the lift strut attach. The conclusion is therefore optimistic. Also it is premature to state from this spar analysis that the wing is OK. The calculation, even if correctly done, address only the strength of the front spar. The testing of the wing performed at Gary's hangar addressed this non-linear loading. Just a little more input from another more knowledgeable than myself. The material that the plans and the airplane use is 6061t6 correct? The calculations show the material or the identifier as being 6061. The problem in the shown calcs is that the numbers he is using at 68000psi tensile is higher than the ultimate strength of 2024-t4 which is given at 64000. 6061t6 is only 45,000psi ultimate and 39,900 yield. It's no wonder the wing was failing at 2g. *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com *** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Richard Lamb and the Texas Parasol Plans ...and Sirius Aviation | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 12 | August 9th 05 08:00 PM |
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 27th 05 07:50 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
Texas Soars into Aviation History | A | Piloting | 7 | December 17th 03 02:09 AM |
good book about prisoners of war | Jim Atkins | Military Aviation | 16 | August 1st 03 10:18 AM |