The new Fork Tailed Doctor Killer

"Roger" wrote

As it's fully healed over I'm only wearing a Band-Aid over it to help
reduce the sensitivity IOW The Band-Aid is fro cleanliness and does
little to reduce the sensation when "bumping" things, but the amount
of swearing has been greatly reduced.

I did the deed, and used one of the metal splints to protect it, too.

One of the best other things I found were tube gauze bandages. Imagine a
mesh made like a tube sock. Put a gauze pad on the wound, then a tube
bandage over it, twist it a couple times at the end, then cut it long enough
to push back over it all again. It beats a bunch of tape, putting too much
pressure on it and making it throb!

I had a clean saw blade kerfs, right in the middle of the last joint of my
thumb. Seems the saw leaves mangled flesh that has to be clipped away, so
it will heal properly.

That was the worst I have ever done with a power tool, and I hope it stays
that way! (knock on wood)

Now, my hint on keeping from doing this again? ALWAYS have a couple fingers
hooked over top of the rip fence as you hand passes beside the blade, unless
the piece you are cutting is over a foot and a half wide. If the wood ever
kicks, or you slip, or ........., having a positive lock with you had will
keep from having it drawn into the blade before you could have a chance to
react. Plus, you always know where your hand is without looking at it. It
also does not cut down on your efficiency, at all, once you are used to
doing things that way.
--
Jim in NC

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

So, was it changed at some time in the recent past?

To my knowledge, the Citabria's certification hasn't changed since the
initial FAA certification tests.


Yeah, looked it up. It was always +5 and -2.3 The Univair manuals I got
for it are copies of the originals and they say the same thing. It's
Airworthiness cert says it's licenced in the normal and aerobatic
category. It also gives load limits for a lighter operating weight whihc
are obviously higher, but still wel under 6G.
There's no mention in the old '75 manual I have about any kind of
limitations on the aerobatics, either. Strange. It's not like the FAA to
do things like that, in my experience.


Me too. It's pretty obvious that it has always had limited aerobatic
capability. that;'s just the kind of airplane it is. But I don't
remember the G restriction on it. Maybe it's a concession due to the
spar AD.

The g restriction actually IS the limited aerobatic cert. 6/3 is the
full category, and the Citabria is reduced to 5/2 which defines the
limited category.

OK, is this a recognised category? I've never come across it before.




Our's has wood spars, which I prefer anyway, but they're new and
STC'd with several mods provided by a guy in Oregon who has thickend
them up in both thickness and height. and they have improved,
feathered, doubler plates, so the psar issues should be no problem
with this airplane. Also there will be only three of us flying it so
it shouldn't get any knocks that we don;t know about.

Sounds like a good setup. Just tell everybody to get the nose well up
before rolling it and you'll keep the nose low rolling pullouts with
that added g under control :-))


Yes, the extra 16th inchches in thickness and and height adds up to a
substantial increase in mass. The feathered doublers aren't in the
original and together they should provide a substantial increase in the
safety margin.
The wing mounting brackets on the fuselage are amazingly light, though!
If I were welding something up to hold a potted plant I'd make somethign
heavier!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

So, was it changed at some time in the recent past?
To my knowledge, the Citabria's certification hasn't changed since the
initial FAA certification tests.


Yeah, looked it up. It was always +5 and -2.3 The Univair manuals I got
for it are copies of the originals and they say the same thing. It's
Airworthiness cert says it's licenced in the normal and aerobatic
category. It also gives load limits for a lighter operating weight whihc
are obviously higher, but still wel under 6G.
There's no mention in the old '75 manual I have about any kind of
limitations on the aerobatics, either. Strange. It's not like the FAA to
do things like that, in my experience.

Me too. It's pretty obvious that it has always had limited aerobatic
capability. that;'s just the kind of airplane it is. But I don't
remember the G restriction on it. Maybe it's a concession due to the
spar AD.
The g restriction actually IS the limited aerobatic cert. 6/3 is the
full category, and the Citabria is reduced to 5/2 which defines the
limited category.

OK, is this a recognised category? I've never come across it before.



Our's has wood spars, which I prefer anyway, but they're new and
STC'd with several mods provided by a guy in Oregon who has thickend
them up in both thickness and height. and they have improved,
feathered, doubler plates, so the psar issues should be no problem
with this airplane. Also there will be only three of us flying it so
it shouldn't get any knocks that we don;t know about.
Sounds like a good setup. Just tell everybody to get the nose well up
before rolling it and you'll keep the nose low rolling pullouts with
that added g under control :-))

Yes, the extra 16th inchches in thickness and and height adds up to a
substantial increase in mass. The feathered doublers aren't in the
original and together they should provide a substantial increase in the
safety margin.
The wing mounting brackets on the fuselage are amazingly light, though!
If I were welding something up to hold a potted plant I'd make somethign
heavier!

Bertie

On the Limited Aerobatic issue. I don't have my FAR's here, but if you
check 21 and 23 when you get a free moment and access, I think the
technical answer is there.

--
Dudley Henriques