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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
What was the resolution of the supposed dimensional discrepency discussed he http://www.airtalk.org/next-vt20548....r=asc&start=15 Or has that been addressed over on the Yahoo TP group? -- FF And, since you butted in here... I don't see you listed as an active builder. So what do you want? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol
On Aug 11, 11:01 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: What was the resolution of the supposed dimensional discrepency discussed he http://www.airtalk.org/next-vt20548....torder=asc&sta... Or has that been addressed over on the Yahoo TP group? ... Fred, Do YOU know what he's talking about? Not to the extent that Mr Hoover does, so if you are unclear as to the details of points he has raised I suggest you ask him to clarify. I've just never seen anyone else including yourself, agree or dispute the errors or suggest they have been resolved. That seems peculiar. IMHE in the nuclear industry I have never seen a drawing package that size executed by one designer without numerous errors. That is why we employed checkers. FWIW, the 'designer' was typically not the person who actually designed the systems. He/she was the person who executed the formal top-level drawings based on one or more engineers' sketches and descriptions. -- FF |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol
On Aug 12, 12:45 am, cavelamb himself wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: What was the resolution of the supposed dimensional discrepency discussed he http://www.airtalk.org/next-vt20548....torder=asc&sta... Or has that been addressed over on the Yahoo TP group? ... And, since you butted in here... I don't see you listed as an active builder. So what do you want? Discussion -- FF |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Fred the Red Discusses...???
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
And, since you butted in here... I don't see you listed as an active builder. So what do you want? Discussion -- FF Ok, talk to us. This being rec.aviation.homebuilt, why don't we start on topic? What are YOU building? What have you BUILT? -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Fred the Red Discusses...???
On Aug 12, 1:59 am, cavelamb himself wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: And, since you butted in here... I don't see you listed as an active builder. So what do you want? Discussion ... Ok, talk to us. This being rec.aviation.homebuilt, why don't we start on topic? Good. Have you identified any errors in the plans that should be corrected? An addendum of corrections would be a welcome adjunct to the CD I bought from you a couple of years ago. It was money well-spent regardless. -- FF |
#26
August 12th 08, 01:23 PM
posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,[email protected]
|
|||
|
|||
Fred the Red Discusses...???
Ok Fred. I guess I may owe you an apology for being a wee but suspicious of your motives. The one thing a man can never defend himself from is the mongrels snapping at his heals. But you kinda skipped over _MY_ questions: What are YOU building? What have you BUILT? I'd still like to know. Ok, Did you happen to notice the date on the rant you referenced up-thread? This referenced stuff from five years ago. Intentional or not, you are perpetuating an old and very tired vendetta. Regardless of all the noise you have heard here, (and will continue to hear) there really aren't any serious corrections to be made. MISSION: The airplane is not intended to be a high-tech, close tolerance, aero- space machine. It is a low and slow fair weather baby buggy. It was intended to be as inexpensive and simple to build as possible while retaining good flying qualities. It is not to "go places" in. It's for fun flying in the local area. That's our Dreaded Mission Statement(tm) and I think we fulfilled those requirements pretty darned well. PLANS: In the first printing... I had left out the drawing for landing gear setup, but that was added years ago. Check your copy and see if it's there. There was one incorrect dimension of a vertical member back in the aft fuselage. That was corrected years ago also. It was really obvious if you actually laid the fuselage truss out on a table to build it. I'm measuring to about 1/16" - not .001" ± a tenth. I've had people write and ask if I could provide the drawings in DXF format so they could have the CNC guys cut out all the parts for them. That is absolutely NOT the way this thing is built. Hacksaw and file and trim to fit are the orders for the day. (Although a chop saw and belt sander make the job go a lot faster!) This is not intended to be a high tech, close tolerance, aero-space structure. It's basically South Texas farm technology. It can be built by a single person who is handy with tools in something like 6 to 8 weeks. First time builders usually take a LOT longer. Chuck and I had them down to TWO weeks each for the kits. That was complete all controls hooked up, no engine, gauges, or cover. Two Weeks... Lastly, on this particular subject, if you think my plans suck, take a look at the late Graham Lee's plans for the Neiuport 11 Bebe. I paid $145 for my copy. It was well worth the money too. His work motic\vated me to try my project. (Neither one of us meet Nuclear Regulatory standards though!) FIT: There are a few pointers I've described on the Texas Parasol group at Yahoo Group. For instance, some people were thinking that the verticals in the aft fuselage were suppose to be riveted to the laterals as well as the longerons. But he verticals are at a non-square angle that far back and the laterals don't fit flat on the faces. If you try to rivet the verticals to the laterals, IT WON'T FIT. That seems to upset some people. But that's the way we build them. I thought I had mentioned that pretty well in the manual, but it kept coming up, so we posted some pictures to show how its supposed to go together there. (A picture really is worth a thousand words) BAD MODS: One of the detail issues that self appointed experts want to change is the cabane mounting brackets. Per plans, there are 8 little brackets cut from 1"x1" angle and bolted to the top of the top longeron. The cabane struts fit between each pair and are pinned with an AN-3 bolt running longitudinally (fore/aft). But the rule of thumb in aircraft design says thou shalt not put bolts in tension. We violated that one intentionally because it simplifies the construction - and puts the pin through the bottom end of the cabane in double shear (stronger!) One of the proposed "corrections" was to bolt a strap to the outside of the vertical member near the mount point and bend it to meet the slope of the cabane. The cabane tube is then bolted to the strap. Problem with that: First and foremost, the cabane tube would be bolted in single shear. That would create a serious moment trying to bend the mount bolt and rip out (twist?) the end of the cabane tube (1" x .058 6061-T6). This so-called "correction" to our original "mistake" is down right dangerous and I resent the hell out of it being offered at all. GOOD MODS: Wing Strut fittings. Yes, a wrap around fitting would be technically superior to the through bolted bracket. But if one were to go that route, by the time he had all four brackets made, he'd understand why we did it a simpler way. There is currently a BAD MOD sketch on the Yahoo Group. It's a wrapper, but so poorly designed as to be of questionable safety. I'd like to have it removed, but I don't run the group. WING SPARS: Replacing the 2" spar tubes with 2-1/4" diameter tubes would be pretty straight forward simple (if one can find 2-1/8" tube for the internal sleeves). One clown claimed that would spoil the stall characteristics. For two seat versions this is going to be absolutely necessary - but NO we don't offer any help for building a Two. You want to do that, you are designing your own project. At your own risk. A better solution here is to simply keep the weight down and use the wing as drawn. A Rotax 503 (NOT a VW) is the preferred power plant. FLYING: This is the kind of flying these very light airplanes are for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0z...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrH...eature=related EVIDENCE: Excluding the Canadian two seater that crashed recently (not heard anything more about it yet) - NO airplane built as drawn has had ANY structural failures. So help me out here, Fred. What's my motivation for making a bunch of untested changes???? Or caving in to vindictive demands? Not going to happen, folks. FUTURE PLANS: I'd really like to travel now. Visit some foreign countries with interesting cultural hermitages and bitch slap a couple of the Queen's subjects. -- Richard (remove the X to email) * |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Background and experience (almost none for me)
I'll edit the subject line again, to make it a but more general.
Note also that Google handles the copy to yahoogroups differently from your newsreader. On Aug 12, 8:23 am, cavelamb himself wrote: Ok Fred. I guess I may owe you an apology for being a wee but suspicious of your motives. The one thing a man can never defend himself from is the mongrels snapping at his heals. But you kinda skipped over _MY_ questions: Of course. I was staying on-topic. What are YOU building? What have you BUILT? I'd still like to know. Cool. I had always had a casual interest in aviation. Back a few years ago a cow-orker who is a pilot and a member of a local flying club mentioned to me that they were working on a replica of the Wright Flyer. The project was actually building two wings for display purposes only at Kitty Hawk. Being a woodworker, I found the construction techniques to be quite interesting and, from my engineering background had a minor epiphany, a wing is a beam. Since then I have been studying homebuilts, primarily in regard to construction technology. It is fascinating that so many diverse technologies can be used to produce airframes, given the rather extreme demands on the design. As to overall design, aircraft may be second only to spacecraft design in terms of multidisciplinary demands on the designer. Aircraft design is also fascinating from the aspect of optimization. There is no one design that does all things well, which leads to a wonderful variety of approaches. The TP fuselage is of interest as it appears to be one of the easiest/quickest/cheapest to build, and the basic technique can be adapted to other designs. -- FF |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol
On Aug 12, 8:23 am, cavelamb himself wrote:
Did you happen to notice the date on the rant you referenced up-thread? This referenced stuff from five years ago. Yes. Did you notice that I participated in it, in a very minor way? Intentional or not, you are perpetuating an old and very tired vendetta. Actually, you posted the link to the aformentioned rant first. I just copied it from your article. Further, I would like to help resolve the issue, not perpetuate it. Regardless of all the noise you have heard here, (and will continue to hear) there really aren't any serious corrections to be made. But wouldn't making thos less serious corrections be helpful to future builders? Would it not save them the trouble of re- making a couple of parts after finding that they don't fit? That is all that Mr Hoover is talking about here, he's not making any accusations of inadequacy in the design, he wants to resolve what the design is, for the common meaning of 'is'. ... There was one incorrect dimension of a vertical member back in the aft fuselage. That was corrected years ago also. It was really obvious if you actually laid the fuselage truss out on a table to build it. That is the sort of thing being discussed. This is not intended to be a high tech, close tolerance, aero-space structure. It's basically South Texas farm technology. ... So help me out here, Fred. What's my motivation for making a bunch of untested changes???? If I understand the issue correctly the motivation to changing the plans is to correct errors in the drawings, not in the design. IIUC the design in the published plans is untested and untestable because a discrepency in the dimensions makes it unbuildable to the plans. These sound to be mostly minor changes in dimensions, possibly due to typos As you will recall, back in http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...n&dmode=source You wrote, regarding how your planes were built: " Because no two have been exactly alike" Which kind of implies that the _exact_ design has never been built by you. I never build anything exactly to plans nor any two exactly a like either. That is not really a criticism. But it certainly can explain why on the plans the dimensions for two different sub-assemblies don't match. IF it is true that they do not. But back to the issue of dimensional discrepencies: That is a situation that is frequently encountered in the field or during assembly. Whenever possible the drawings are revised to reflect the as-built condition. As you know, the major nagging issue is the claim that the dimensions for the carry through do not match the dimensions for the fuselage so that if both are fabricated according to the plans they won't fit together. As you also know, this is entirely independent of the claims from up North regarding the wing. Perhaps a photo of that area would help? Or would it be that hard to check the drawings for that area against at least one (1) of the planes you built? -- FF |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol
good bye fred
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Parasol
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. -- 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!) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heath Parasol plans, 103 trimmable? | Chris Wells | Home Built | 2 | July 1st 07 12:36 AM |
Texas Parasol and 1/2 VW Engine...... | WC | Home Built | 11 | June 4th 07 09:39 PM |
Looking for a good set of parasol plans | Mike Gaskins | Home Built | 11 | January 24th 07 04:10 AM |
Texas Parasol Plans... | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 82 | March 12th 06 07:19 AM |
Richard Lamb and the Texas Parasol Plans ...and Sirius Aviation | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 12 | August 9th 05 08:00 PM |