sitka spruce

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:17:52 GMT, (Badwater
Bill) wrote:




I have no idea what species these spruce were either. The forest is
completely repopulated with younger trees now and in 100 years it will
all look the same. I'll bet anyone could use these for airplane
building. All you'd have to do is have a mill cut some raw stock and
simply test it for bending moments, shear, compressibility and tensile
strength.


bill you need to add impact strength to that list of characteristics.
you know, the impact test done in an Izod tester with a notched
sample.
many of the alternative timbers have all the rest of the
characteristics matched but are too brittle for safe use.
Stealth Pilot

A most excellent post Del. I agree with everything in your response.
It's high time to get this overbearing, out-of-control federal
government out of the business of micro-managing states for the
betterment of the mother country or the party... Do they work for us,
or do we work for them? The current monster is five times the size
it should be (I favor a very weak central gov.) So the environmental
druids won on the North Slope and the Fed has banned any energy
development there. Instead we're open pit mining in the Rockies on
new tracts as a result. The unintended consequences of these
do-gooders will be the ruin of us all. If they want to save stands of
old timber, then they need to quit producing excess babies who grow up
to live in wood houses. I bet a hundred years from now there will
be a thriving black market in forest products. And federal taxes will
shoot up to pay for "the war on woodworking."

All this proves to me that the Federal Government is an incompetent
custodian of U.S. lands. Much of the BLM stuff where I grew up should
be auctioned off to U.S. citizens who would take care of the land far
better than any big corporation in a federal lease program.

And then there's these Sierra Club fanatics that in CA continually
strive to prevent over flights by GA aircraft. And for what reason?
The noise. No, it doesn't pollute the environment in any measurable
form. They just want a sterile re-creation of the 1800's for
*themselves* to go hiking in. Somebody stop them. They caused the
Southern California wildfires that everybody as far as Vegas had to
breath for three months. Who are these morons who would implore the
state to prevent landowners from clearing dangerous scrub brush
against their properties? All to save a handful of rare plants
(weeds, that by their logic, must be immune to fire ;-) Please tell
me an anti-sierra club I can join to fight them.

pacplyer – out


Del Rawlins wrote in message ...
In Veeduber wrote:

Japanese manufacturers expect to have depleated all of the easily
raped stands of the Tongas National Forest within the next ten years
or so and are already working on deals to do the same in Siberia.
Presently they pay US taxpayers an average of $1.70 PER TREE and clear-
cutting is their preferred method of logging.

**** the US taxpayers. Those are Alaskan trees that belong to Alaskans
and it is Alaskans who make their living harvesting them. You wanna
whine about the evil forest service, the timber industry, and the japs
cutting down trees look no further than the wooden house that you
probably live in, the wooden airplanes you build, the newspaper/
magazines you read or the t.p. that you wipe yourself with every day.
If you are gonna cast stones take a good look in the mirror first.

Furthermore, I submit that $1.70 a tree is a hell of a deal for the
federal government. Standing timber in and of itself is worth not a
whole lot, particularly in Alaska. It is expensive to harvest and
expensive to get out, as compared to other places in the world. It
takes loggers, engineers, pilots, mechanics, heavy equipment operators,
etc. ad nauseum in addition to the businesses and individuals who supply
them. All of these people pay taxes to the federal government in
comparison to which the $1.70/tree pales. Development of natural
resources helps to lower your taxes, boosts the local and national
economy, and makes available the products we all use in our daily lives.

One of the reasons clearcutting is usually the method or choice is
because it is one of the most ecologically sound methods when promoting
the long term health of the forest is a priority. The selective cutting
practices that are currently being advocated are beneficial from an
aesthetic standpoint only. The best timber is systematically removed,
leaving only the sick, genetically inferior, and the damaged (which are
now vulnerable to disease) trees in their place. When a tree is felled
among other, standing trees it inevitably damages everything in its path,
often leaving hanging widowmakers which can be deadly for weeks or even
years into the future. But, the forest still looks pretty which is all
that the self proclaimed environmental types really care about. By
contrast, in a properly done clearcut, whichever species do grow back
will have a more normal genetic diversity making them less susceptible
to disease, they will harbor a broader variety of wildlife than an old
growth forest. And the new trees will be available for re-harvest in
decades, rather than in centuries. Yeah, it is ugly visually for the
first few years after harvest. I would rather my kids and grandkids see
the forest healthy again in their day, rather than eventually stunted by
the spread of disease and the removal of the best stock.

Finally, I reject the notion that Alaska should somehow be locked up
like some sort of demented national park where no development is allowed.
Those of us who are here have to make a living in spite of the fact that
it would be more convenient to the Sierra Club et al if we just went
away to live in some city in the 48 and quit filling up their playground.
Resource development in Alaska has benefitted from 200+ years of
experience down south and elsewhere, and for the most part we do it
better and we do it cleaner than it has ever been done before. The
national forests are just that; they are not parks. They exist to be
used beneficially and timber sales are an important part of that use.
There are millions of acres of old growth forest set aside in national
parks that will NEVER be touched and that is as it should be.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- son and grandson of loggers

Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

I think the reason why the Wrights, Chanute, Herring, Avery, etc. prefered
spruce, aside from obvious factors, was that it was very impact resistant. In
the pioneer era, it was considered normal to smack wingtips, chaw turf,
noseplant, WHACK, and otherwise "crash" on a routine basis. For example, the
landing gear on my 1902 glider consists of twin 6" high x 1" wide skids...
that's it. Ya wanna land? You're gonna smack the sand with some part of the
plane.

Later, my best guess is that the availability of good spruce, and its cost
relative to aluminum, made it the defacto standard until aircraft speed, size,
and power dictated switching to all-aluminum. Of course, in small aircraft
if you don't have a reason to change, why change? Now that most of the good
spruce is gone, we have a reason to start looking again. Either that, or a
good excuse to drive to Highland. (No Grandma, I really came here to see you!
Oh that lumber on top of my car... oh, that's um.. uh...that's uh... I'm
building a pipe organ... yeah, that's it... a pipe organ)

Harry

In pacplyer wrote:

And then there's these Sierra Club fanatics that in CA continually
strive to prevent over flights by GA aircraft. And for what reason?
The noise. No, it doesn't pollute the environment in any measurable
form. They just want a sterile re-creation of the 1800's for
*themselves* to go hiking in. Somebody stop them.

I am all in favor of setting aside periods of time free of aircraft
noise for the Sierra Clubbers to enjoy their 1800s experience, so long
as it also includes hostile indians and encounters with the grizzly
bears and wolves which they are bent on reintroducing to areas where
they were wiped out for good reasons.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

On 23 Feb 2004 20:50:37 GMT, (Wright1902Glider)
wrote:

I think the reason why the Wrights, Chanute, Herring, Avery, etc. prefered
spruce, aside from obvious factors, was that it was very impact resistant. In
the pioneer era, it was considered normal to smack wingtips, chaw turf,
noseplant, WHACK, and otherwise "crash" on a routine basis. For example, the
landing gear on my 1902 glider consists of twin 6" high x 1" wide skids...
that's it. Ya wanna land? You're gonna smack the sand with some part of the
plane.

You might be on to something there, Harry. The wingtips of the Fly Baby
are made of laminated spruce, and they're incredibly hell-for-stout. One
of our number had an engine fail on takeoff about a year ago, and the
airplane cartwheeled. The spruce wing bows are intact. I couldn't believe
it, even questioned the guy's son (pilot hurt, recovered OK). He swears it
cartwheeled.

I've got a writeup on the case (including photos of the wings) at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/horsten.html

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

You might be on to something there, Harry. The wingtips of the Fly Baby
are made of laminated spruce, and they're incredibly hell-for-stout. One
of our number had an engine fail on takeoff about a year ago, and the
airplane cartwheeled. The spruce wing bows are intact. I couldn't believe
it, even questioned the guy's son (pilot hurt, recovered OK). He swears it
cartwheeled.

I've got a writeup on the case (including photos of the wings) at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/horsten.html

Ron Wanttaja
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmmm.

Perhaps you just need more power, weight, speed... or a professional.
I could break spruce wingtip bows on 235 hp Pawnees with relative
ease. However, since it was not good for business, I eventually
ceased the unprofitable behavior.


Barnyard BOb -

All the wood that went into my stick built new house came from Canada, not Alaska. Get your facts straight.

If what I hear is true, there is very little american wood left in Alaska, it is all deeded to the JApanese. I think the
primary concern is that our federal 'government' sold out.

In Blueskies wrote:
All the wood that went into my stick built new house came from Canada,
not Alaska. Get your facts straight.

The point is you live in a wood house and that wood had to come from
somewhere. Bemoaning the harvest of trees while you sit in your nice
new house made from harvested trees is hypocrisy, plain and simple. It
stands to reason that Canadian loggers gotta make a living too, eh?

If what I hear is true, there is very little american wood left in
Alaska, it is all deeded to the JApanese. I think the primary concern
is that our federal 'government' sold out.

I've never seen a Japanese logger in Alaska. They probably exist, but
those that I have met are all Americans, they buy stuff from the local
businesses where they work, and they pay taxes to the federal government,
just like you and I. The Japanese happen to be willing to pay more for
a quality product, which is a good attribute for a customer to have in
whatever business you are involved in, not just logging. This helps
make the expensive logging operations possible and it helps reduce the
trade deficit with Japan. Most of the nice old growth spruce isn't used
in the US simply because aside from a few specialty industries, there
just isn't much need for it here.

I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect the reason your house is
built from Canadian trees has a lot to do with the value of the canadian
dollar as compared to our own, which makes it possible to harvest the
timber at a cost that Americans are willing to pay.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

If what I hear is true, there is very little american wood left in Alaska

Son...you haven't got a clue! And you have been listening to NPR for too
long ;^{

The loggable area in the Tongass ALONE is the size on Conneticut, and the
hoopla is over a few square miles...

Look at the following text copied from one of the environmentalist web
sites.

""
A surprising amount of the Tongass National Forest isn't forest at all.
Actually, two-thirds of the 17-million acre Tongass is rock, ice, muskeg
(wetlands), and scrub timber. While one-third of the Tongass is considered
commercial forest, the biggest stands of old-growth forest make up only 4%
of the National Forest. These lush valley-bottom and beach fringe areas are
most in demand--they provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife and are
the most lucrative forest for logging. In the past 50 years, over half of
this habitat has been clearcut.
"

Has 17 million acres been clearcut? Well No...
Has 30% (the part covered with huge trees) been cut? Well no...
Has 4% been cut? Well No...
Has 2% been cut? Yea, OK - But that took 50 years! And that's using THEIR
numbers.

When I was in engineering school, we had a whole semester on "engineering
economics". The last half turned into a course on "How to LIE with
statistics". These people seem to have used most of the methods.

Ron Webb wrote:

When I was in engineering school, we had a whole semester on "engineering
economics". The last half turned into a course on "How to LIE with
statistics". These people seem to have used most of the methods.

Statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is interesting, but what they
conceal is vital.
[paraphrase of Aaron Levenstein]

Russell Kent