Texas Parasol

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself wrote:

good bye fred


You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
asking?

You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.


What problems did they report, Jay?

Specifically?


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:15:56 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote:

On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself wrote:
good bye fred

You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
asking?

You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.


Jackson had nothing on Caveman
Stonewall's his first name.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself wrote:

good bye fred


You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
asking?

You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.


What problems did they report, Jay?

Specifically?
For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the
wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too,
from what I remember.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:15:56 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote:


On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself wrote:

good bye fred

You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
asking?

You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.



Jackson had nothing on Caveman
Stonewall's his first name.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

So be it...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:


Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself wrote:


good bye fred


You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
asking?

You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.


What problems did they report, Jay?

Specifically?

For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the
wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too,
from what I remember.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **



I got up in the middle of the night and went through the drawings again.

And I do not see anything that would prevent the wings from "fitting".

What SPECIFICALLY is the problem you think you remember?


What a pack of yowling mutts!


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

cavelamb himself wrote:
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:


Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself wrote:


good bye fred



You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering
what he's
asking?

You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the
problems
they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.



What problems did they report, Jay?

Specifically?


For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the
wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too,
from what I remember.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **




I got up in the middle of the night and went through the drawings again.

And I do not see anything that would prevent the wings from "fitting".

What SPECIFICALLY is the problem you think you remember?


What a pack of yowling mutts!




Landing gear won't fit properly?
Any clue you can offer to support this?


The good people here think you have told me all this before.


So, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!



--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

You need to learn how to deal with this situation a different way. What you
are doing makes you look like a very small person..

I'm not saying who is right or wrong, or implying anything. Believe me, my
intention is sincere.

JMHO.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
You need to learn how to deal with this situation a different way. What you
are doing makes you look like a very small person..

I'm not saying who is right or wrong, or implying anything. Believe me, my
intention is sincere.

JMHO.


You are right, Jim.

I probably should just ignore it, but it's hard.
It's a no win situation, for sure.

The plans were placed in public domain years back.
There is no longer any official support, although I try to help those
who are actually building as much as possible.

Oh well.

I'll try to do better...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

On Aug 14, 7:03*am, "Morgans" wrote:

You need to learn how to deal with this situation a different way. *What you
are doing makes you look like a very small person..

I'm not saying who is right or wrong, or implying anything. *Believe me, my
intention is sincere.

I've been staying out of this so far, but I feel the same way on all
points.

An interesting contrast is to observe how similar blueprint
discrepancies have been resolved in the Hummelbird community. In its
odd evolution from Teenie to Windwagon to Hummelbird (Hummel) to
Hummelbird (Bill Spring) to Hummelbird (enlarged, as most builders
build them), several errors and omissions have been discovered and
corrections circulated. But it seems that everybody involved
understands that the plans are a good-faith, best-effort attempt to
capture the salient points of the design, and nobody is getting bent
out of shape by it.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Aug 13, 4:30 am, cavelamb himself wrote:
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:



On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself wrote:

good bye fred

You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
asking?

You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.

What problems did they report, Jay?

Specifically?

For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the
wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too,
from what I remember.
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

I got up in the middle of the night and went through the drawings again.

And I do not see anything that would prevent the wings from "fitting".


Well I'm not Clare, nor do I see anything that would prevent the wing
from fitting, but I haven't looked for problems there either.

I do see a problem with the forward carry-thru as dimensioned on
drawing DLG03 Landing Gear and Lift Strut Carry-Throughs

There are two (2) different holes called out as 2 1/8" from the
end of the carry-through. One of those is for attaching the
forward gear leg to the follow-though, the other is for attaching
the follow-through to the fuselage. However, since the fuselage
is only 22" wide and the follow-through is 26" long that puts
the center of that hole only 1/8" from the outside edge of the
fuselage.

I think THAT dimension is wrong. It appears to be the CAD
equivalent of a typo. I suggest it should be 2 3/8". Please
check that.

If you go to the Yahoo Texas Parasol Group and look at the first
photo of Jim's TP in the photos section you will see that the bolt
attaching the carry-though is indeed inboard of the bolt attaching
the gear.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic but I don't think the situation
is as dire as Mr Hoover indicated It looks to me that all that
is needed to to properly locate the hole for attaching the
carry-throughs to the fuselage and then maybe bend the
angles of one follow-through slightly away from 90 degrees
to compensate for the curvature of the lower longeron.

Then it looks like everything will fit together, I don't know
about edge clearances though.

As for the lower gear cluster weldment, I agree that the
drawings, like every homebuilt aircraft drawings i have
seen, are inadequate as compared to REAL weldment
drawings (e.g. no weld symbols are shown). I suppose
the builder would have to figure out for himself to hold
the tubing in its proper orientation while welding, (Or
is that addressed in the manual?)

--

FF