Have you guys ever noticed the void?

With everything I have read in this posting, it leads me to one
question
Has anyone ever asked for the calculation?
After all not posting is not the same as refusing the request.
Lou

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message


Which is probably one reasons designers don't provide the equations.
Many hate
it when folks make changes.


And if the modified A/c has the same name as the original, the
designer and/or company can lose in the "court of public opinion", without
ever getting the truth out.

Al

Stealth Pilot wrote:
(veeduber wrote
And if that sounds slightly fey, as I'm sure it will to most of the
kit-assemblers, consider the other side of the coin: If the designer
provided you with detailed data, how would you know they were correct
without duplicating his calculations?

my point exactly. I want to verify the calculations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then flip that puppy over and start stacking on the cement sacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the aircraft I am
building is aerobatted by some and declared by others to have a 3.8g
ultimate wing. only access to the designers numbers will allow me to
sort the bs from the advertised claims and see what the actual
situation was when designed and now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well... I hate to tell you this but the numbers alone won't give you
the Ultimate Answer. Load it to the max, turn it inside out whilst
upside down and you're liable to fail some itsy-bitsy part that was
never included in the calculations... but causes the wing to fall off
anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stealth (working on it and I'm eaa712250 ) Pilot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-R.S.Hoover
-EAA 58400
-(Been there; did that. Got the T-shirt)

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:43:22 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On 9 Jan 2006 12:16:29 -0800, "Lou" wrote:

I have to admit he does bring up a good point. I have often wondered
what the difference in strength's and weakness would be if I used
different wood in my plane, or enlarged the components for a larger
pilot.

Which is probably one reasons designers don't provide the equations. Many
hate
it when folks make changes.

Ron Wanttaja

your honour I sold the guy the plans, I provided him with the worked
design calculations showing how the design was arrived at. the
comments in the calculations show how the material sizes were arrived
at. he has made changes to the aircraft which are neither in the
original designs nor show any validating calculations so my conclusion
is that he just guessed at the changes and proceeded blindly.
I cannot see how I can be held responsible for the stupidly
incompetent actions of others.

sounds like a defense to me.

Stealth Pilot

Sorry. In our courts you are not held responsible for the stupidly
incompetent actions of others. However, if their stupid incompetent act
hurts someone and you have lots of money or they THINK you have lots of
money you ARE held responsible. For example, a fellow flew his Beech
Debonair into a mountain. When he hit the mountain a fuel line broke and
the wreck caught fire. Continental lost the suit for something like 100
million in punitive damages for building engines with fuel lines that can
break when you fly into a mountain. Incidently the lawyer who did the song
and dance for the jury to win that award was almost incinerated himself when
he crashed the jet he bought with his proceeds on takeoff and it caught
fire.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

Highflyer wrote:
"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:43:22 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On 9 Jan 2006 12:16:29 -0800, "Lou" wrote:

I have to admit he does bring up a good point. I have often wondered
what the difference in strength's and weakness would be if I used
different wood in my plane, or enlarged the components for a larger
pilot.
Which is probably one reasons designers don't provide the equations. Many
hate
it when folks make changes.

Ron Wanttaja
your honour I sold the guy the plans, I provided him with the worked
design calculations showing how the design was arrived at. the
comments in the calculations show how the material sizes were arrived
at. he has made changes to the aircraft which are neither in the
original designs nor show any validating calculations so my conclusion
is that he just guessed at the changes and proceeded blindly.
I cannot see how I can be held responsible for the stupidly
incompetent actions of others.

sounds like a defense to me.

Stealth Pilot

Sorry. In our courts you are not held responsible for the stupidly
incompetent actions of others. However, if their stupid incompetent act
hurts someone and you have lots of money or they THINK you have lots of
money you ARE held responsible. For example, a fellow flew his Beech
Debonair into a mountain. When he hit the mountain a fuel line broke and
the wreck caught fire. Continental lost the suit for something like 100
million in punitive damages for building engines with fuel lines that can
break when you fly into a mountain. Incidently the lawyer who did the song
and dance for the jury to win that award was almost incinerated himself when
he crashed the jet he bought with his proceeds on takeoff and it caught
fire.

What a waste of a good jet!

wrote in message
oups.com...

Stealth Pilot wrote:
(veeduber wrote
And if that sounds slightly fey, as I'm sure it will to most of the
kit-assemblers, consider the other side of the coin: If the designer
provided you with detailed data, how would you know they were correct
without duplicating his calculations?

my point exactly. I want to verify the calculations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then flip that puppy over and start stacking on the cement sacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the aircraft I am
building is aerobatted by some and declared by others to have a 3.8g
ultimate wing. only access to the designers numbers will allow me to
sort the bs from the advertised claims and see what the actual
situation was when designed and now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well... I hate to tell you this but the numbers alone won't give you
the Ultimate Answer. Load it to the max, turn it inside out whilst
upside down and you're liable to fail some itsy-bitsy part that was
never included in the calculations... but causes the wing to fall off
anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stealth (working on it and I'm eaa712250 ) Pilot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-R.S.Hoover
-EAA 58400
-(Been there; did that. Got the T-shirt)

For example, How many negative G's will your battery box take before it
releases the battery to depart the airplane in whatever manner it may
choose?

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

Hey, start planning now --- 10th annual Pinckneyville rec.aviation flyin is
coming up May 19, 20, and 21. The motel is filling up fast! :-)

"Highflyer" wrote

For example, How many negative G's will your battery box take before it
releases the battery to depart the airplane in whatever manner it may
choose?

Is there a story in that, HF? Have you bee doing some secret battery box
testing, without telling us about it?

Remember, confession is good for the soul! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:19:51 -0600, "Highflyer" wrote:



Sorry. In our courts you are not held responsible for the stupidly
incompetent actions of others. However, if their stupid incompetent act
hurts someone and you have lots of money or they THINK you have lots of
money you ARE held responsible. For example, a fellow flew his Beech
Debonair into a mountain. When he hit the mountain a fuel line broke and
the wreck caught fire. Continental lost the suit for something like 100
million in punitive damages for building engines with fuel lines that can
break when you fly into a mountain. Incidently the lawyer who did the song
and dance for the jury to win that award was almost incinerated himself when
he crashed the jet he bought with his proceeds on takeoff and it caught
fire.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )


HF that is the closest to a proof that there is a god I have ever
seen.
you nearly had me turn religious ...but not quite :-)
Stealth Pilot

Highflyer wrote:

Hey, start planning now --- 10th annual Pinckneyville rec.aviation flyin is
coming up May 19, 20, and 21. The motel is filling up fast! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

WOW, has it really been ten years? Why it seems like I've personally
known some of you clowns damn near forever.

- John Ousterhout -

Unofficial Pinckneyville Fly-In
http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html

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.