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

Have you guys ever noticed the void?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 11th 06, 02:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Have you guys ever noticed the void?

No sweat, just a basic misunderstanding.

We design to a 4 G _yiield_ limit.

This is where the wing, after being stressed, no longer
returns to the original shape
It has reached the "plastic" limit and has deformed.
Yes, it has failed, but it did not break.

The 1.5 G safety factor then gives a 6 G _ultimate_ limit.
THIS is where the wing breaks.

mo better?

Richard



  #2  
Old January 11th 06, 02:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Have you guys ever noticed the void?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:23:18 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

No sweat, just a basic misunderstanding.

We design to a 4 G _yiield_ limit.

This is where the wing, after being stressed, no longer
returns to the original shape
It has reached the "plastic" limit and has deformed.
Yes, it has failed, but it did not break.

The 1.5 G safety factor then gives a 6 G _ultimate_ limit.
THIS is where the wing breaks.

mo better?

Richard


your brow not mine :-)

muchos mo betta.

Stealth Pilot
  #3  
Old January 14th 06, 10:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Have you guys ever noticed the void?

Having deliberated on this for a while, I'd like to try again.


For a 4 G wing (yield limit), if you pull over 4 G's, the structure
has_been_damaged - whether it came apart or not.
That's a period.


The 1.5 G safety factor _should_ give a 6 G tolerant structure, but
as has been discussed elsewhere, that should should be considered a
"should" when working on the back of an envelope.
Our limit is 4.


Operating at a higher weight, one would reduce the G limit allowed to
stay within the design envelope.


And conversely, operating at a lighter weight, one might allow a higher
G reading on the meter without exceeding the design limits.


It's all about Limits...


Which brings us to FAR Part 23 Load Factors.
Normal, utility and aerobatics categories.

Category Limit(n)Ult(n) Composite

Normal 3.8 5.7 7.6
Utility 4.4 6.6 8.8
Acrobatic 6.0 9.0 12


Normal category is limited to "non-aerobatic" flight
with no more than 60 degree banks.

Recall that a 60 degree banked coordinated turn will impose
a 2 G load on the plane (of the 3.8 G Limit)

Utility Category allows limited aerobatics, stalls, spins, etc.
and banks greater than 60 degrees.

Aerobatic category eliminates the above restrictions.


Evans(1) makes the point that "the Utility category is a good choice
for home builders because if the project turns out overweight
(more common than not) one can fall back on the normal category".


Because if weight didn't matter, neither would strength.


We'd just build them so strong they couldn't possible break
under any conditions - regardless of what is weighed...


Pop quiz:

1) An airliner at full gross is operating in what category?

2) Why the higher limits imposed on composite structures?


Richard

(1) Lightplane Designer's Handbook - Wm. S. Evans


In an infinite universe all things are possible,
unfortunately not all things are equally probable.
  #4  
Old January 15th 06, 08:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Have you guys ever noticed the void?

Richard Lamb wrote:



Pop quiz:

1) An airliner at full gross is operating in what category?

Normal

2) Why the higher limits imposed on composite structures?


Because of more variability in the strength characteristics of a
composite structure vs alum, structural scatter factor is higher
therefore more fudge factor must be included in design allowances.

John

Montreal


 




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
Guys, guys, guys -- the party is TOMORROW night! Jay Honeck Piloting 3 July 24th 05 05:26 AM
Hi Guys. First Time Poster zachary397 Piloting 0 March 18th 05 12:32 AM
Cowardice -- has anyone noticed Americans fight from a distance Matt Wiser Military Aviation 0 September 10th 04 09:52 PM
Nice Guys in Aviation Michael 182 Piloting 9 March 11th 04 03:07 PM
Best dogfight gun? Bjørnar Bolsøy Military Aviation 317 January 24th 04 06:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 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.