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

wood species question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old July 31st 05, 11:21 PM
Jean-Paul Roy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gordon Arnaut" wrote in message
...
Ha, ha, ha...another chestnut from the avionics Hemingway of Kitplanes.

Regards,

Gordon.

PS: For anyone out there that might still be interested in serious
discussion of wood, I want to just add a little about compressive strength
and tensile strength as it relates to wood species substitution.

Using the same FPL data I used earlier, we see that spruce has a maximum
crushing strenght of 5,650 psi, while pine is 4840 psi, which makes pine
exactly 85 percent as strong in compression. This is nearly the same
difference as in bending -- and as I noted earlier, most of the other
measures will be similarly in line.

But just to see if my statement that 7/8' pine will adequately substitute
for 3/4 spruce, let's calculate. Since stress is force per area, we can

see
that a 3/4" spruce member will be able to withstand a maximum compressive
stress of 0.75(squared) x 5650 = 3178 psi.

How big would our pine member have to be? Well by rearranging the formula
3178 divided by 4840 will give us the dimension squared, which is 0.81

inch,
again somewhat less than 7/8".

So just as in the bending moment calculation we see that substituting 7/8'
pine for 3/4" spruce gives us a member that is actually a little bit
stronger. It is also a tiny bit heavier, but this is negligible.

However I should point out that going through the exercise we just did is
not proper methodology. I am only doing it to prove a point.

The proper method is to first identify the structural member we are
interested in analyzing, like I did with the wing spar. Next we have to

know
how much load this member is expected to carry. Only then does it make

sense
to determine the size of the member.

But like I said, let's see if Mouth-Foamer can tell us which pieces of the
plane are under pure compression or tension. (Since he is so concerned

aobut
that and is basing his whole character assassination on me on that stupid
notion).

In the meantime, I hope Mr. Personality is getting the couch-time he so
desperately needs. And I hope he doesn't forget to remind his analyst,
"first do no harm."


And,,,,,, who gives a f***ck



 




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
Sensenich Wood Prop Question [email protected] Owning 3 April 4th 05 03:32 PM
wood grain question. Fred the Red Shirt Home Built 1 December 6th 04 03:13 PM
Metal Prop vs. Wood Prop Larry Smith Home Built 21 September 26th 03 08:45 PM
Wood questions - Public Lumber Company, determining species at the lumberyard Corrie Home Built 17 September 17th 03 07:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.