 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Michael Valentine
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 108
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders |
 |
|
Though I generally believe in CH and the design of the 601XL, I do hope the testing he has done and continues to do factors in true "amateur" building in some way. I was just looking back through the archives and noticed David Downey's observation (for which I imagine he has the credentials to back up) that we amateurs may sometimes make potentially dangerous gouges along the rivet line using the file deburring method. Deburring is just a pet peeve of mine. I understand the goal, but I really believe I have no way of practically achieving it. (BTW, it simply makes no logical sense that one can use a drill bit or countersink to deburr a whole without slightly angling the edge or leaving a slight ridge. My chances of using an angle to cut away excess material and leave a 90 deg. corner are one in a million in my book.) So what is worse, a scratch, an angle, or a ridge?
Anyway, to get to the point. I hope that some testing has been done on an airframe built by some Joe like me. Perhaps he has tested one of the planes built in 7 days at an airshow; maybe he has had some yahoo off the street build something to test. I don't know. But I would like to hear that he is not solely testing a "professionally" built airframe that someone with decades of experience carefully constructed.
My $.02.
Michael in NH
do not archive
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-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?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rsq2424(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders |
|
|
| Quote: | >I hope that some testing has been done on an airframe built by some >Joe like me.
|
Not sure where I read this, but my understanding is that a long time ago ZAC intentionally built a shoddy airplane, leaving out a bunch of rivets, not using anything to measure accurately, etc just to see if the plane would still function. The results were that it apparently flew just fine. Again, since I can't recall the source, and maybe I'm just hoping it's true, so take this for what it's worth. But if true, then hopefully there's enough slop built into the design so that morons like me can build something that will actually get off the ground without falling apart. That is, if I can ever finish the damn thing. 
Mike F.
601XL, Jab 3300
do not archive
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
[url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow]Play Monopoly Here and Now[/url] (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-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?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders |
|
|
Well, there was that 601HDS they built and flew at SnF in a week with volunteer labor. I wonder where it is now?
http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/7dw.html
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:04 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders
| Quote: | >I hope that some testing has been done on an airframe built by some >Joe like me.
|
Not sure where I read this, but my understanding is that a long time ago ZAC intentionally built a shoddy airplane, leaving out a bunch of rivets, not using anything to measure accurately, etc just to see if the plane would still function. The results were that it apparently flew just fine. Again, since I can't recall the source, and maybe I'm just hoping it's true, so take this for what it's worth. But if true, then hopefully there's enough slop built into the design so that morons like me can build something that will actually get off the ground without falling apart. That is, if I can ever finish the damn thing.
Mike F.
601XL, Jab 3300
do not archive
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
[url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow]Play Monopoly Here and Now[/url] (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. [quote]
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
[b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-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?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:23 am Post subject: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders |
|
|
Since you used my name in vain I thought I would mention something relevant in passing.
Back in the 70s we did a lot of testing to determine the effects on fastener behavior with regard to burrs, etc.
The ideal deburring tool would be a (very sharp) 170-175° included piloted countersink bit in a microstop. With that you could remove the burr and set the depth to avoid cutting past the hole/surface point. With such a bit you could even mount it in a hand held (in my case, the center shaft of an old worn out microstop) and get better results that with other methods.
I have been looking into redesigning a fluteless countersink to do the above but have no results to report yet.
The single most important steps to minimize the effects of hole defects and bad fastening practice is keep tools sharp, sharp, sharp... use beeswax or similar lubricant, ALWAYS drill/ream to net in steps to minimize the burr formation in the first place. Using roughly double the Cleco count recommended is never a bad idea - and they can be sold without losing a cent on eBay when you are done with them (although you.will develop a love relationship with them and never want to part with them). Drill out all patterns from the center of the assembly progressively and Cleco aggressively as you go.
With the XL, there are a large number of assemblies that are poorly sequenced so that you cannot deburr all faces of all components in an assembly. Think through every step to allow maximum cleanout at each step size and consider reaming the rivet holes from .125 to #30 for example. The mors Clecos you use, the tighter the assembly faying faces will fit and the less burr formation at the interfaces.
(Just my .02, .02, .02...!)
Michael Valentine <mgvalentine(at)gmail.com> wrote:[quote] Though I generally believe in CH and the design of the 601XL, I do hope the testing he has done and continues to do factors in true "amateur" building in some way. I was just looking back through the archives and noticed David Downey's observation (for which I imagine he has the credentials to back up) that we amateurs may sometimes make potentially dangerous gouges along the rivet line using the file deburring method. Deburring is just a pet peeve of mine. I understand the goal, but I really believe I have no way of practically achieving it. (BTW, it simply makes no logical sense that one can use a drill bit or countersink to deburr a whole without slightly angling the edge or leaving a slight ridge. My chances of using an angle to cut away excess material and leave a 90 deg. corner are one in a million in my book.) So what is worse, a scratch, an angle, or a ridge?
Anyway, to get to the point. I hope that some testing has been done on an airframe built by some [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48226/*http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php]Get the free Yahoo! toolbar[/url] and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-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?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:56 am Post subject: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders |
|
|
I forgot one of the most important aspects of the question: is it better to have a vestigial burr on mating faces or a (very slight) countersink? Since a large part of the load transfer function of riveted or bolted structure occurs through frictional shear transfer between the clamped faces, it is critical to ensure that those faces are sheared up at the periphery of the fastener hole. Therefore, my choice would be the (very slight) countersink.
David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> wrote: [quote]Since you used my name in vain I thought I would mention something relevant in passing.
Back in the 70s we did a lot of testing to determine the effects on fastener behavior with regard to burrs, etc.
The ideal deburring tool would be a (very sharp) 170-175° included piloted countersink bit in a microstop. With that you could remove the burr and set the depth to avoid cutting past the hole/surface point. With such a bit you could even mount it in a hand held (in my case, the center shaft of an old worn out microstop) and get better results that with other methods.
I have been looking into redesigning a fluteless countersink to do the above but have no results to report yet.
The single most important steps to minimize the effects of hole defects and bad fastening practice is keep tools sharp, sharp, sharp... use beeswax or similar lubricant, ALWAYS drill/ream to net in steps to minimize the burr formation in the first place. Using roughly double the Cleco count recommended is never a bad idea - and they can be sold without losing a cent on eBay when you are done with them (although you.will develop a love relationship with them and never want to part with them). Drill out all patterns from the center of the assembly progressively and Cleco aggressively as you go.
With the XL, there are a large number of assemblies that are poorly sequenced so that you cannot deburr all faces of all components in an assembly. Think through every step to allow maximum cleanout at each step size and consider reaming the rivet holes from .125 to #30 for example. The mors Clecos you use, the tighter the assembly faying faces will fit and the less burr formation at the interfaces.
(Just my .02, .02, .02...!)
Michael Valentine <mgvalentine(at)gmail.com> wrote: [quote]Though I generally believe in CH and the design of the 601XL, I do hope the testing he has done and continues to do factors in true "amateur" building in some way. I was just looking back through the archives and noticed David Downey's observation (for which I imagine he has the credentials to back up) that we amateurs may sometimes make potentially dangerous gouges along the rivet line Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48249/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz] gifts for grads[/url] at Yahoo! Search. [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-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?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Valentine
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:46 am Post subject: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders |
|
|
I know they can fly (and I'm sure mine will as well), but I think the general concerns about inflight failures goes well beyond that characteristic! I would hope that my joe-built plane still withstands the rated g forces and doesn't prematurely age because I used a file to deburr or because I nicked something or because I only had 5.5mm in one spot instead of the "absolute" minimum 6mm or because .... You get the picture!
Michael
do not archive
On 5/17/07, Craig Payne <craig(at)craigandjean.com (craig(at)craigandjean.com)> wrote:[quote] Well, there was that 601HDS they built and flew at SnF in a week with volunteer labor. I wonder where it is now?
http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/7dw.html
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:04 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com (zenith-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders
| Quote: | >I hope that some testing has been done on an airframe built by some >Joe like me.
|
Not sure where I read this, but my understanding is that a long time ago ZAC intentionally built a shoddy airplane, leaving out a bunch of rivets, not using anything to measure accurately, etc just to see if the plane would still function. The results were that it apparently flew just fine. Again, since I can't recall the source, and maybe I'm just hoping it's true, so take this for what it's worth. But if true, then hopefully there's enough slop built into the design so that morons like me can build something that will actually get off the ground without falling apart. That is, if I can ever finish the damn thing.
Mike F.
601XL, Jab 3300
[b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-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?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ashontz
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:48 am Post subject: Re: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders |
|
|
ZAC actually recommends using a large drill bit for deburring. I used one for my tail sections. However, a fellow builder recommended using the round Scotch Brite pads on a die grinder. Works nice and it's fast and no gouging of the hole. I intend to ream all of the holes from here on out too, especially on the wings. Seeing as how the #20 drill bit is .161", my final hole size is with a .156" drill bit, I'll ream to .161". In the future I'll probably drill at .150 - .152 and ream to maybe .158, which is the exact size of an A5 rivet. An A5 is supposed to be .156, but only about 60% of them actually fit in a hole that size. The solid rivets are more accurate. I reamed the holes on my spar for the A5 solids to .156 and they all slipped right in. I also reamed the A6s to within a thou or two of the size of an A6, which I can't remember off the top of my head, .187 - .188, something like that. I think I used a .1875 reamer on them. Sounds familiar.
[quote="Michael Valentine"]Though I generally believe in CH and the design of the 601XL, I do hope the testing he has done and continues to do factors in true "amateur" building in some way. I was just looking back through the archives and noticed David Downey's observation (for which I imagine he has the credentials to back up) that we amateurs may sometimes make potentially dangerous gouges along the rivet line using the file deburring method. Deburring is just a pet peeve of mine. I understand the goal, but I really believe I have no way of practically achieving it. (BTW, it simply makes no logical sense that one can use a drill bit or countersink to deburr a whole without slightly angling the edge or leaving a slight ridge. My chances of using an angle to cut away excess material and leave a 90 deg. corner are one in a million in my book.) So what is worse, a scratch, an angle, or a ridge?
Anyway, to get to the point. I hope that some testing has been done on an airframe built by some Joe like me. Perhaps he has tested one of the planes built in 7 days at an airshow; maybe he has had some yahoo off the street build something to test. I don't know. But I would like to hear that he is not solely testing a "professionally" built airframe that someone with decades of experience carefully constructed.
My $.02.
Michael in NH
do not archive
| | - The Matronics Zenith-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?Zenith-List |
|
Last edited by ashontz on Thu May 17, 2007 5:54 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EROC(at)bright.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 7:51 am Post subject: New Wing Testing - Amateur Builders |
|
|
Also, there was a 601XL kit at SnF in 05 under construction
in the sheet metal tent supervised by Flight Crafters
that was being assembled by volunteer's .
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-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?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| 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
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
