![]() |
| 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 |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
good bye fred
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!) |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Maynard wrote:
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. What problems did they report, Jay? Specifically? -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote: Jay Maynard wrote: 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. What problems did they report, Jay? Specifically? For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too, from what I remember. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself wrote: Jay Maynard wrote: 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. What problems did they report, Jay? Specifically? For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too, from what I remember. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** I got up in the middle of the night and went through the drawings again. And I do not see anything that would prevent the wings from "fitting". What SPECIFICALLY is the problem you think you remember? What a pack of yowling mutts! -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
cavelamb himself wrote:
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself wrote: Jay Maynard wrote: 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. What problems did they report, Jay? Specifically? For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too, from what I remember. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** I got up in the middle of the night and went through the drawings again. And I do not see anything that would prevent the wings from "fitting". What SPECIFICALLY is the problem you think you remember? What a pack of yowling mutts! Landing gear won't fit properly? Any clue you can offer to support this? The good people here think you have told me all this before. So, PUT UP OR SHUT UP! -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
You need to learn how to deal with this situation a different way. What you
are doing makes you look like a very small person.. I'm not saying who is right or wrong, or implying anything. Believe me, my intention is sincere. JMHO. -- Jim in NC |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Aug 13, 4:30 am, cavelamb himself wrote:
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself wrote: Jay Maynard wrote: 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. What problems did they report, Jay? Specifically? For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too, from what I remember. ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** I got up in the middle of the night and went through the drawings again. And I do not see anything that would prevent the wings from "fitting". Well I'm not Clare, nor do I see anything that would prevent the wing from fitting, but I haven't looked for problems there either. I do see a problem with the forward carry-thru as dimensioned on drawing DLG03 Landing Gear and Lift Strut Carry-Throughs There are two (2) different holes called out as 2 1/8" from the end of the carry-through. One of those is for attaching the forward gear leg to the follow-though, the other is for attaching the follow-through to the fuselage. However, since the fuselage is only 22" wide and the follow-through is 26" long that puts the center of that hole only 1/8" from the outside edge of the fuselage. I think THAT dimension is wrong. It appears to be the CAD equivalent of a typo. I suggest it should be 2 3/8". Please check that. If you go to the Yahoo Texas Parasol Group and look at the first photo of Jim's TP in the photos section you will see that the bolt attaching the carry-though is indeed inboard of the bolt attaching the gear. Perhaps I am overly optimistic but I don't think the situation is as dire as Mr Hoover indicated It looks to me that all that is needed to to properly locate the hole for attaching the carry-throughs to the fuselage and then maybe bend the angles of one follow-through slightly away from 90 degrees to compensate for the curvature of the lower longeron. Then it looks like everything will fit together, I don't know about edge clearances though. As for the lower gear cluster weldment, I agree that the drawings, like every homebuilt aircraft drawings i have seen, are inadequate as compared to REAL weldment drawings (e.g. no weld symbols are shown). I suppose the builder would have to figure out for himself to hold the tubing in its proper orientation while welding, (Or is that addressed in the manual?) -- FF |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Aug 14, 2:53 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote: ... I do see a problem with the forward carry-thru as dimensioned on drawing DLG03 Landing Gear and Lift Strut Carry-Throughs There are two (2) different holes called out as 2 1/8" from the end of the carry-through. One of those is for attaching the forward gear leg to the follow-though, the other is for attaching the follow-through to the fuselage. However, since the fuselage is only 22" wide and the follow-through is 26" long that puts the center of that hole only 1/8" from the outside edge of the fuselage. I think THAT dimension is wrong. It appears to be the CAD equivalent of a typo. I suggest it should be 2 3/8". Please check that. Oh, the manual (p 49) suggests drilling through the longerons first and then drilling the follow-through to match. That works, right? ... ... I suppose the builder would have to figure out for himself to hold the tubing in its proper orientation while welding, (Or is that addressed in the manual?) Indeed, that is addressed in the manual, though it looks to sort of gloss over the question of how you check to see that the axles are going to be aligned properly. -- FF |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
Well I'm not Clare, nor do I see anything that would prevent the wing from fitting, but I haven't looked for problems there either. I do see a problem with the forward carry-thru as dimensioned on drawing DLG03 Landing Gear and Lift Strut Carry-Throughs There are two (2) different holes called out as 2 1/8" from the end of the carry-through. One of those is for attaching the forward gear leg to the follow-though, the other is for attaching the follow-through to the fuselage. However, since the fuselage is only 22" wide and the follow-through is 26" long that puts the center of that hole only 1/8" from the outside edge of the fuselage. I think THAT dimension is wrong. It appears to be the CAD equivalent of a typo. I suggest it should be 2 3/8". Please check that. If you go to the Yahoo Texas Parasol Group and look at the first photo of Jim's TP in the photos section you will see that the bolt attaching the carry-though is indeed inboard of the bolt attaching the gear. Perhaps I am overly optimistic but I don't think the situation is as dire as Mr Hoover indicated It looks to me that all that is needed to to properly locate the hole for attaching the carry-throughs to the fuselage and then maybe bend the angles of one follow-through slightly away from 90 degrees to compensate for the curvature of the lower longeron. Then it looks like everything will fit together, I don't know about edge clearances though. As for the lower gear cluster weldment, I agree that the drawings, like every homebuilt aircraft drawings i have seen, are inadequate as compared to REAL weldment drawings (e.g. no weld symbols are shown). I suppose the builder would have to figure out for himself to hold the tubing in its proper orientation while welding, (Or is that addressed in the manual?) -- FF Thanks Fred. That detail is called out on page 48 of the manual. But I'll note it on this drawing. Maybe it will make my loyal opposition happy... There is a photo essay on "how to" clusters http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasp...anding%20Gear/ -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
|
| 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 01:36 AM |
| Texas Parasol and 1/2 VW Engine...... | WC | Home Built | 11 | June 4th 07 10:39 PM |
| Looking for a good set of parasol plans | Mike Gaskins | Home Built | 11 | January 24th 07 05:10 AM |
| Texas Parasol Plans... | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 82 | March 12th 06 08:19 AM |
| Richard Lamb and the Texas Parasol Plans ...and Sirius Aviation | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 12 | August 9th 05 09:00 PM |