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

Testing On The Cheap



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15  
Old July 7th 09, 08:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Testing On The Cheap / update

On Jul 6, 5:52*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

(Lotsa stuff clipped)

Dear Peter (and the Group)

I guess I'm just a sissy but I would never use .035 for an engine
mount. In fact, I'd be leery of .049.

This isn't about calculations on a sheet of paper, it's about
incidental damage that can occur to the tubing over heaven knows how
many years of service. I'm talking about dropped wrenches and the
like -- falls down, DINGS the lower mount on its way to the bottom of
the nacelle or even clear to the ground, if you're lucky ( ...but you
seldom are, right? :-) So we fish it out and since there's no
apparent damage we assume everything is okay. But gravity sucks and
sure as the potential student always barfs on the new upholstery
(never on the old), Murphy's Law is ALWAYS waiting in the wings. Ding
round tubing and you may as well cut it out and start over; its specs
no longer apply and in nine cases out of ten the repair will cost more
than the replacement.

3/4 x .035 gottem internal dia, of ,680. Closest match is going to be
5/8ths but using it -- or even making the repair instead of doing a
replacement -- is going to depend on where the tube departed from
spec. Adjacent to a weld? Or a gradual bend across the entire length
of the member... because about the ONLY location where the repair
(using an internal sleeve of .5/8) is practical is right in the
middle of the member. Any where else, the REPLACEMENT is going to be
more practical... except for the engineering.

If you replace the failed member with the SAME SIZE tubing, you know
it's going to happen again. Indeed, the static test has done it's
job; it is telling you to use a sturdier member. But not just there,
EVERYWHERE. Because you have to assume there will be occasions when
gravity is going to be coming at you from different directions. So
that while those upper members may have done fine in the static test,
when they are being subjected to TENSION, there is a high probability
they will fail when the attitude of the aircraft makes them bear the
load in COMPRESSION... or visa versa. Indeed, the static test has
already told you so.

Are you familiar with the 'Jesus Factor'? That is the uncalculable
amount you ADD to every structure -- when ever you can -- so as to
cover the realities of serial production, Monday morning hang-overs,
Friday afternoon hurry-ups and every other thing you can thing of that
might cause the as-fabricated version to depart from the as-calculated
version. In a welded steel tube structure we're generally safe with a
Jesus Factor of 1.5 for the fuselage, 3.0 for a control surface and
5.0 for the landing gear AND ENGINE MOUNT.

Mention the Jesus Factor today and they're liable to start looking for
where you parked your bicycle. Perhaps a better tag would be the ****
Happens Factor. Call it what you will, there are those who upon
learning their engine mount is capable of withstanding 30g's when the
specs only call for six, commence to run in circles, waving their
hands and emitting tiny shrieks. And perhaps with good reason, if
we're talking about a home-built, where the builder is also the test
pilot as well as Line Captain. If the calculations call for .049 then
you can safely assume it won't be something thinner... although
thicker might appear now & then. But whatever you call it and no
matter where it is applied, from Farmington, Long Island to a garage
in San Diego, you can bet your bolly hooly it DOES exist -- and does
so for a purpose.

-R.S.Hoover
 




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
CHEAP Los Angeles C-172 Flying Club CHEAP [email protected] Aviation Marketplace 7 May 7th 09 03:32 PM
CHEAP Los Angeles C-172 Flying Club CHEAP [email protected] Owning 1 May 7th 09 03:32 PM
CHEAP Los Angeles C-172 Flying Club CHEAP Sunho Owning 2 May 7th 09 12:13 AM
CHEAP Los Angeles C-172 Flying Club CHEAP xyzzy Owning 0 April 6th 09 03:31 PM
Testing the Testing of Mogas Jay Honeck Piloting 22 July 24th 06 09:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM.


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