|
Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jaybannist(at)cs.com Guest
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: XL rear spar |
|
|
Let's put this hole in the rear spar in perspective. See attached pdf. Comments??
Jay Bannister
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
Description: |
|
Download |
Filename: |
XL_RearSpar.pdf |
Filesize: |
7.87 KB |
Downloaded: |
720 Time(s) |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ter_turn(at)yahoo.com Guest
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:43 am Post subject: XL rear spar |
|
|
Another approach might be to use .032 instead of .025.
Terry Turnquist
From: "jaybannist(at)cs.com" <jaybannist(at)cs.com>
To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sat, October 31, 2009 11:53:56 AM
Subject: XL rear spar
Let's put this hole in the rear spar in perspective. See attached pdf. Comments??
Jay Bannister
[quote][b]
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c Guest
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: XL rear spar |
|
|
I realize that castellated beams and truss structures are common in
architecture, but I would not personally use either one for a spar. Someone
else might.
If I remember correctly, a truss uses cross members for bracing, and is trying
to make the overall structure stronger. When a hole is cut in a solid piece
of metal for an aircraft, I seem to recall that the loads must flow around
the hole, and the hole must neither be too big, nor too close to the edge of
the material for this to work as intended.
If the hole in your spar came out - to scale - no bigger than your sketch, I'm
glad for you. It would still be too close to the edge for my comfort. I think
my spar hole for aileron pushrod access, when cut to the size shown on the
plans, is proportionally bigger.
I could probably go dig up the data on hole size vs material width, edge
distance, etc, but I'd bet the hole in the Zenith spar (at least on my
aircraft) wouldn't meet the criteria. Before my bird flies, I want to take a
hard look at this. I'm not about to ground the bird, hoping for engineering
changes that may or may not come, but I am going to fix anything I establisdh
to my own satisfaction is wrong.
Obviously, everybody is entitled to their own view. This is mine.
On Saturday 31 October 2009 11:53, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
Quote: | Let's put this hole in the rear spar in perspective. See attached pdf.
Comments??
Jay Bannister
|
--
=============================================
Do not archive.
=============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
=============================================
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jaybannist(at)cs.com Guest
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: XL rear spar |
|
|
Jim,
I do respect your opinion. I didn't intend to start something, nor to agitate anyone. I am obviously defending the design, but I am not an aeronautical engineer. However, I want to point out that structures answer to the same laws of physics, whether in a bridge, a building or an airplane. The compressive and tensile loads in a beam are primarily carried by the flanges. The web primarily locates the flanges and resists horizontal shear, which is minimal, as evidenced by the configuration of a bar joist. That is the load you say "must flow around the hole", and it must not be close to the flange to work right. But look at how large the "holes" are and how close to the flange they are in a bar joist. Additionally, the flanges must be stabilized to resist buckling, which in this case is done by the wing skins; and the way they are fastened, they also contribute to the compressive and tensile strength of the flanges. That is why I am not at all concerned by this hole in the rear spar.
And BTW, there are many, many examples of trusses used in aircraft construction; especially in fuselages, but also in wing spars.
My drawing of the rear spar is to scale - though not the same scale as the beam or the truss.
Jay Bannister
Quote: | --> Zenith601-List message posted by: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com (z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com)>
I realize that castellated beams and truss structures are common in
architecture, but I would not personally use either one for a spar. Someone
else might.
If I remember correctly, a truss uses cross members for bracing, and is trying
to make the overall structure stronger. When a hole is cut in a solid piece
of metal for an aircraft, I seem to recall that the loads must flow around
the hole, and the hole must neither be too big, nor too close to the edge of
the material for this to work as intended.
If the hole in your spar came out - to scale - no bigger than your sketch, I'm
glad for you. It would still be too close to the edge for my comfort. I think
my spar hole for aileron pushrod access, when cut to the size shown on the
plans, is proportionally bigger.
I could probably go dig up the data on hole size vs material width, edge
distance, etc, but I'd bet the hole in the Zenith spar (at least on my
aircraft) wouldn't meet the criteria. Before my bird flies, I want to take a
hard look at this. I'm not about to ground the bird, hoping for engineering
changes that may or may not come, but I am going to fix anything I establisdh
to my own satisfaction is wrong.
Obviously, everybody is entitled to their own view. This is mine.
|
[quote][b]
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c Guest
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: XL rear spar |
|
|
On Saturday 31 October 2009 13:39, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
Quote: | Jim,
I do respect your opinion. I didn't intend to start something, nor to
agitate anyone.
|
Jay, I'm neither offended nor agitated. You asked for comments; you got 'em. I
feel the design is a compromise at this point, and needs some beef up. I'd
love to have Chris Heintz take on this, and possibly his beef up.
But barring that information, I intend to do a bit of research, and see what
is allowable in this case. I suspect this exceeds the allowable. I seem to
remember having some tables somewhere that address this issue.
I deeply respect Chris' abilities. But he is human, and not beyond error. A
problem I've sometimes seen in one-man designs is that there is no oversight,
and no one verifying the design on a step by step basis. Whether that is true
here or not, I cannot say. But I wonder.
=============================================
Do not archive.
=============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
=============================================
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c Guest
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:00 am Post subject: XL rear spar |
|
|
On Saturday 31 October 2009 11:53, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
Quote: | Let's put this hole in the rear spar in perspective. See attached pdf.
Comments??
|
Jay -
In re-reading yesterday's mail., I feel I failed, in my reply to you, to
correctly address the issue. I may (I hope not) have given the impression I
was just being diagreeable, and flipping off the question. I thought some on
the truss vs hole in the spar issue, and why I felt as I did. Here's what I
came up with:
A truss is usually made by adding triangular bracing to a pair of parallel
supports. The advantage over just using a solid piece of wood, metal, or
whatever, is that the brace is lighter. As I recall, it can never be as
strong as a solid piece of the same material of the same general size, but it
can be lighter and cheaper.
But a major difference between it and a solid piece of material is that one
determines the strength needed, and either designs or has built an
appropriate truss. That's a design to requirement process.
Conversely, when one has a solid piece of metal, like a spar, or perhaps a
wood stud in a wall, there is sometimes a need to have a hole penetrate the
material. Of course, round holes are generally used, so that the stress is
more equally distributed. The question then becomes, “how big a hole, and how
close to the edge can the hole be, before impacting the strength of the
material?”
That, I believe, is the question in the case of the hole in the 601XL rear
spar. I see the truss as being a question of how we make it strong enough,
and the hole a question of how we not impact the strength. Similar issues,
but not quite the same.
--
=============================================
Do not archive.
=============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
=============================================
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jaybannist(at)cs.com Guest
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:51 am Post subject: XL rear spar |
|
|
Jim,
As far as I am concerned, we are sharing points of view, not arguing.
On reading your last post, I think you are overlooking the fact that the spar is not like a rectangular wood beam or a stud; it has top and bottom flanges. What you say would be absolutely true if there were no flanges. Edge distance would certainly be critical. But there are flanges; double flanges when you count the skins. That makes the vertical part of the spar a web, not a stand-alone beam. It would be more like a metal stud than a wood stud. Those guys are pretty light weight, full of holes in the web and they are very "floppy" until you stabilize and reinforce the flanges with gypsum wallboard. Then they are as strong, or stronger than a solid wood stud. The same with that spar. It is very "floppy" until the flanges are stabilized and reinforced by the skins. And again, that web, where the hole is, primarily serves to locate the flanges, not to carry bending loads. Once again, look at the size and location of the "holes" in a truss. That hole in the spar can be practically flange to flange and not effect the strength of the structural system. I say "practically", because from a durability point, the hole should obviously not touch the radius between the web and the flange.
Yes, a truss does save weight, but it absolutely can be as strong as a solid beam. All structural members contribute to dead load. Given two structural members of the same strength, the lighter one always wins because it allows more live load; and carrying the live load is why we have the structure in the first place.
Jay
-
Quote: | --> Zenith601-List message posted by: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com (z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com)>
Jay -
In re-reading yesterday's mail., I feel I failed, in my reply to you, to
correctly address the issue. I may (I hope not) have given the impression I
was just being diagreeable, and flipping off the question. I thought some on
the truss vs hole in the spar issue, and why I felt as I did. Here's what I
came up with:
A truss is usually made by adding triangular bracing to a pair of parallel
supports. The advantage over just using a solid piece of wood, metal, or
whatever, is that the brace is lighter. As I recall, it can never be as
strong as a solid piece of the same material of the same general size, but it
can be lighter and cheaper.
But a major difference between it and a solid piece of material is that one
determines the strength needed, and either designs or has built an
appropriate truss. That's a design to requirement process.
Conversely, when one has a solid piece of metal, like a spar, or perhaps a
wood stud in a wall, there is sometimes a need to have a hole penetrate the
material. Of course, round holes are generally used, so that the stress is
more equally distributed. The question then becomes, “how big a hole, and how
close to the edge can the hole be, before impacting the strength of the
material?”
That, I believe, is the question in the case of the hole in the 601XL rear
spar. I see the truss as being a question of how we make it strong enough,
and the hole a question of how we not impact the strength. Similar issues,
but not quite the same.
|
[quote][b]
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ron Lendon
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 685 Location: Clinton Twp., MI
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: XL rear spar |
|
|
I have attached a Microsoft Word document which shows a fix for this weak area. It was created by an aerospace engineer. You might wanna give it a look.
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
Description: |
|
Download |
Filename: |
rearspar.doc |
Filesize: |
28.5 KB |
Downloaded: |
643 Time(s) |
Description: |
Here is a PDF file of the Word File |
|
Download |
Filename: |
rearspar.pdf |
Filesize: |
150.81 KB |
Downloaded: |
530 Time(s) |
_________________ Ron Lendon
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
CH 601 XLB
N601LT - Flying
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
https://sites.google.com/site/corvairenginedata/
Last edited by Ron Lendon on Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BobTezyk
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 38 Location: Midlothian, TX
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: XL rear spar |
|
|
Ron,
For some reason, the pictures are not displaying for me in your Word document. Could you see if you can post a PDF doucment?
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ron Lendon
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 685 Location: Clinton Twp., MI
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: XL rear spar |
|
|
BobTezyk wrote: | Ron,
For some reason, the pictures are not displaying for me in your Word document. Could you see if you can post a PDF doucment? |
Done, find it on the forum.
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
_________________ Ron Lendon
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
CH 601 XLB
N601LT - Flying
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
https://sites.google.com/site/corvairenginedata/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Iberplanes
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 174 Location: Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject: XL rear spar |
|
|
Hi Ron.
Pictures are missing. Post it as a PDF file. You can download a free PDF converter from www.cutepdf.com
bye,
2009/11/3 Ron Lendon <rlendon(at)comcast.net (rlendon(at)comcast.net)>
--
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Started
Engine: Jabiru 3300
[quote][b]
| - The Matronics Zenith601-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List |
|
_________________ Alberto Martin
601 XL - Jabiru 3300
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|