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
  #25  
Old March 1st 06, 12:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Texas Parasol Plans...

Earlier, Richard Isakson wrote:

With my quick and dirty assumptions, I found that the spar would yield at
4.4 g's at 600 pounds gross weight. That is looking at bend moment stresses
only. A betters analysis would raise that number. This includes the
inserts. Without the inserts the spar yield at 2.3 g's at 600 pounds and
2.8 g's at 500 pounds.


Interesting. When I run the moment of inertia for 2" tubing of .058"
wall, I get 0.1667 in^4. Using that number and a yield strength of 35
ksi I get a yield moment of 5833 in/lbs. Do those numbers agree with
yours? Of course, those figures disregard cripling or buckling, which
I've not seen mentioned in this thread.

I suspect that this whole thing will come down to a somewhat subjective
matter of distributions and deflections. The distribution of loads
between the forward and aft spars will make a big difference, and I
think that the wing deflection will start to look scary before the spar
tubes reach yield. But those are just more non-engineer's guesses, and
there's been plenty too much of those already.

Taking this out on a tangent, one thing about little airplanes like
this that I don't understand is why so many of them use tubular spars.
It seems to me that you can get so much better strength/weight and
stiffness/weight using a built-up I-beam or C-section spar. Yeah, it's
a bit more trouble. But the result is either better strength and
stiffness for the same weight, or the same strength for less weight.
But again, that's just my non-engineer wing developer perspective.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

 




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 09:34 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.