A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Texas Parasol Plans...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
Old February 27th 06, 07:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.