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 » Aviation Marketplace
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 24th 08, 10:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jay Maynard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

On 2008-06-24, Victor Bravo wrote:
The stabilizer mounting system on the 601 and possibly the 701 is in
my opinion not rigid enough.


I will point out, however, that you slammed the 601's accident record based
on inflight wing structural failures, and in none of them has the horizontal
stabilizer done anything but remain firmly attached. Whatever the cause of
the accidents is (and I believe it's going to turn out to be pilot or
builder related), it's not that.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)
  #32  
Old June 25th 08, 03:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
wrote:

On Jun 24, 6:32 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Jay, he's full of crap. The Horz Stab has four attach points. It doesn't
move at all unless you count the fact that the entire airplane moves
when you move it.


I am indeed full of crap sometimes, but not this time. The four attach
points that Dr. Einstein here was referring to are the exact parts
that moved slightly when I pulled on the stabilizer tip.

Here's a graphic visual example for the mechanically challenged:

Imagine that the four stabilizer mounting tabs on top of the fuselage
were all 12 inches tall, instead of the one or two inches tall that
they actually are... So the horizontal tail would be mounted a foot
above the top of the fuselage.

Under this example, when you tried to move one stabilizer tip forward
and the other one aft, it would move easily, and the four foot-long
imaginary mounting tabs would all move back and forth a little as you
twist the tail left and right (looking from above).

In order to prevent this type of movement, you would have to rivet
sheets of aluminum between these tall stabilizer supports to make the
system "torsionally stable". You would be riveting "shear webs"
between the stab supports, to oppose the shearing (and then twisting)
relative motion.

Now of course the mounting tabs are not a foot tall, so you cannot
swing the stabilizer tip fore and aft with one finger like you could
if it was a foot tall. But the stabilizer mounting tabs ARE an inch or
two above the fuselage, and this distance is NOT braced in shear or
twisting. So you CAN move it fore and aft a little, and when you do
this you CAN see the mounting tabs move relative to each other a
little.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you CANNOT move the stabilizer back and forth
this way on an undamaged Cessna, Taylorcraft, Champ, or Beech. You
cannot do it on a Luscombe, you cannot do it on an undamaged Piper
Cherokee, and you cannot do it on a Maule and you cannot do it on a
Grumman Yankee. I can go on if I have not made the point clearly
enough.

The stabilizer mounting system on the 601 and possibly the 701 is in
my opinion not rigid enough. The tabs are not braced against shearing
or twisting. There is no reason you should be able to move the
stabilizer back and forth on a standard configuration light aircraft
like that. When you move it like this, you are slightly bending the
stabilizer mounting tabs (and the attach structure on the fuselage)
back and forth a little bit each time.



Build a 2000 lb 601.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
  #33  
Old June 25th 08, 03:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gig 601Xl Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 683
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

Victor Bravo wrote:
On Jun 24, 6:32 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Jay, he's full of crap. The Horz Stab has four attach points. It doesn't
move at all unless you count the fact that the entire airplane moves
when you move it.


I am indeed full of crap sometimes, but not this time. The four attach
points that Dr. Einstein here was referring to are the exact parts
that moved slightly when I pulled on the stabilizer tip.


You said 3 inches. I went out to the airport last night and checked this
just to be sure. On my unfinished 601XL (but the tail is attached per
specs) I was able to get 1/2 inch. of total movement. So either you got
you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
of crap.

But let's say you were correct, and I am most certainly not saying that
you are, what possible in-flight stress could take advantage of such a
condition to cause damage or failure of the plane? I can't think of any
force acting on the airframe in flight that would do what you are doing
with your hand.

Now I'm not saying you couldn't bend the attach points enough to make it
move 3" but you'd only get to do that once on my plane before I hit you
with a baseball bat.


  #34  
Old June 26th 08, 03:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:01:34 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Now I'm not saying you couldn't bend the attach points enough to make it
move 3" but you'd only get to do that once on my plane before I hit you
with a baseball bat.


Here's a Piper with a bit too much play in the vertical stabilizer:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/wire1.JPG

:-)

Ron Wanttaja
  #35  
Old June 26th 08, 03:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Paul M. Anton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

with a baseball bat.

Here's a Piper with a bit too much play in the vertical stabilizer:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/wire1.JPG

:-)

That's the one that the Auburn Power Company uses to turn off the power when
they work on a line isn't it??

Cheers:


Paul
N1431A
KPLU


  #36  
Old July 7th 08, 08:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Victor Bravo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

On Jun 25, 7:01 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

So either you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
of crap.


Sorry to ruin your day, I'm not full or crap this time. The aircraft
was inspected by myself and two other people from our EAA chapter. I
did not measure the movement, and I rough guessed three inches total
movement, which would be 1.5 each way. I could be wrong and it may
have only been 1 inch... but it was more than a half inch I assure
you. Now Gig, why do you think that anyone who says they found XYZ on
another airplane is automatically full of crap because it's not that
way on your airplane?

I can't think of any
force acting on the airframe in flight that would do what you are doing
with your hand.


A combination of any-all of: vibration, asymmetrical loads from
slipstream swirling back on the fuselage, sideslip angle, gusts,
rudder input slightly moving the fuselage, etc. etc. If you ever did
"slow flight" in a Piper Tomahawk, and the instructor told you to turn
around and look at the tail, you would damn well know how much a tail
can shake back and forth from just air loads!

Now I'm not saying you couldn't bend the attach points enough to make it
move 3" but you'd only get to do that once on my plane before I hit you
with a baseball bat.


You can come out and try to move the stab tips of my T-craft back and
forth all you want... and it won't move... and I won' even threaten to
whack you with a bat much less actually do it. Your comment shows me
that you know your stabilizer can be moved, and you know it's not good
for the airplane.

  #37  
Old July 7th 08, 08:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Victor Bravo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

On Jun 24, 2:22 pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:

I will point out, however, that you slammed the 601's accident record based
on inflight wing structural failures, and in none of them has the horizontal
stabilizer done anything but remain firmly attached.


You are correct, my comment about the tail has nothing to do with my
comments about the wing problems. My reasoning for discussing the tail
flexibility was (believe it or not) not meant to inflame or upset
anyone, it was meant to point out that the 601 appears to me to be
built a little too lightly in many areas, in an attempt to make the
LSA weight class. Regardless of what any of you mugs think, I'm old
enough to be more concerned about flight safety than most anything
else, and my motives were as pure as Captain Zoom's ego. My intent was
to make people take notice of a POSSIBLE flexibility issue in the 601
and 701 tail and simply be an informed owner. Once again I invite any
real live engineers to look at the issue I raised and let all of us
know how much of a big deal (if any) it was.
  #38  
Old July 7th 08, 08:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Victor Bravo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

On Jun 24, 7:27 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

Build a 2000 lb 601.


Do you have any idea of how much strength, stiffness, redundancy, and
flight safety can be gained from an additional ONE POUND of aluminum
designed into the right places on a light aircraft? My friend, you
need to spend some quality time building balsa wood free flight models
and learning how aircraft structure works.

  #39  
Old July 7th 08, 10:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
cavelamb himself[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 474
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

Victor Bravo wrote:

On Jun 24, 7:27 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:


Build a 2000 lb 601.



Do you have any idea of how much strength, stiffness, redundancy, and
flight safety can be gained from an additional ONE POUND of aluminum
designed into the right places on a light aircraft? My friend, you
need to spend some quality time building balsa wood free flight models
and learning how aircraft structure works.


You are coming off pretty snotty, VB.

Show and tell time.

Let's see the airplanes you have designed and built...
  #40  
Old July 7th 08, 02:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gig 601Xl Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 683
Default Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

Victor Bravo wrote:
On Jun 25, 7:01 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

So either you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
of crap.


Sorry to ruin your day, I'm not full or crap this time. The aircraft
was inspected by myself and two other people from our EAA chapter. I
did not measure the movement, and I rough guessed three inches total
movement, which would be 1.5 each way. I could be wrong and it may
have only been 1 inch... but it was more than a half inch I assure
you. Now Gig, why do you think that anyone who says they found XYZ on
another airplane is automatically full of crap because it's not that
way on your airplane?


Well my plane is being built according to the plans. And you can rest
assured there that the Horz Stab can't be moved 3 inches without bending
the attach points past the point where they have been damaged.
 




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
Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS Victor Bravo Home Built 56 August 10th 08 11:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.