Testing On The Cheap
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Veeduber - 02 Jul 2009 08:37 GMT So... how strong is your wing?
The only sure way to know is to TEST it.
How do we do that? We roll the airframe over on it's nose, support the main spar with a structure of some sort... Douglas Fir 2x4's works okay... then we stack a known weight onto the wing.
Still confused? No problem; just follow me through. We already know what the bird weighs., thanks to all those imaginary flights out to Catalina and back. Empty weight is 318 pounds.. Nine gallons of gasoline is 54 pounds and one sorta-skinny pilot is 155 pounds, so we've got 318 + 54 + 155 = 527 pounds... and we wanna see if the wing will support 527 pounds. (Yeah, I know... lemme work up to it.)
Start by removing the spinner and the prop, then bolt-on a wooden bolster that weighs exactly the same as the spinner & prop. Now we whistle-up some help and we ever to gently roll the plane forward, first onto the bolster and then onto the support structure that pokes up into the cockpit and bears against the main spar about where my legs would go. The structure is kinda high because we dont want the vertical stabilizer to touch the driveway. But we finally get it rolled over and supported on the structure we've made (now THERE was a fun project). Is it level? We check it out. Then we position a couple of yard-sticks just off each wing tip. Now we cover the wing with cardboard and start stacking on the weight.
What kinda weight?
Well... back in the Good Ol' Days, whenever that was, our local EAA chapter would have a couple thousand pounds of lead weights all neatly marked in matching pairs, and they'd deliver it and bust their backs helping you do the Static Test (which doesn't have anything to do with radio). Nowadays your best bet is probably bags of Portland cement or other building material ( ...such as Plaster Sand... ) available in bags, each marked with the weight of the contents. ( Anywhere outside of the USA it'll probably be marked in kilograms instead of pounds. Not a probelm; just work it out. )
Now you lay the weights onto the protected surface of the upside-down wing, starting in the middle and working your way out toward the tips. Five hundred and twenty-seven pounds is about six bags of Portland cement so you'd have three bags per side.
Out at the wing tips, the marker aligned with your yard-sticks (meter sticks across the pond) probably won't show any deflection at all. Five hundred and sixty-four pounds ( that is, six times 94 ) equals one g, which means you are cruizing along in level flight.
So what's your plane rated for? If it's non-aerobatic it's probably rated for Utility Class, which is about 3.3g, Which means 3.3 times 517 or about 1706 pounds. Which happens to be about 18 bags of Portland cement, so that's what you stack on, starting at the middle and working your way out toward the tips, keeping an eye on those yard sticks.
Odds are, you won't have any problem at 3.3g's -- the wing probably won't deflect at all. Now all you've got to do is take a buncha pictures and get everyone to sign the log. Or you could keep piling on the weight until something breaks. That would indicate the Ultimate Load for that particular structure but you gotta be careful dealing with that amount of weight, especially if you're working in somebody elses hangar, because when something fails it's liable to flip those bags of cement around like a frisbee. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of times you aren't working with a finished airframe; lots of times you'll only be working with a part of an airplane, such as it's horizontal stabilizer, or perhaps an engine mount., That's when things can get interesting, because you may be trying to achieve 8 or 9 g's. That's when you'll want to have a couple of video cameras running, because when the failure occurs it's liable to happen fast.
Sometimes you may be testing nothing more than a main spar, probably bolted to a fixture you've designed to support it. If the main spar is made of wood there's a good chance that you've fabricated this sample out of something less expensive than Sitka Spruce and aviation plywood.
Or you could be testing the strength of a part with the wood at a different orientation. (Which is what this message was all about to begin with.) :-)
Gravity and persistence can teach you a good deal about aeronautics without ever leaving the ground. You'll have to fabricate your supporting structure and line-up a suitable supply of weight, but having done so you may find there is more to aeronautics than you realized...
I'll leave the next step up to you because when you get right down to it, YOU are the mechanic-in-charge.
-R.S.Hoover
rattlesnake - 02 Jul 2009 15:08 GMT Static load testing this way is a big nonsense. Why? Firstly you support the spar center section. So you do NOT test the wingbolts and the airframe attachments, but these are the locations where things can go terribly wrong.
Secondly even if you support your airframe (maybe at the seats, the sidewalls etc) then you do NOT simulate real load situations during flight. Still worse you may damage some structures which werde designed for flight loads but NOT for sandbags.
I'ts just a silly idea (which has to be carried out anway in some countries for -each- new experimental to be registered). I know what I say because I have to do it this Saturday and the heaps of bricks are already stacked up ready to break my lovely aircraft :-(((
> So... how strong is your wing? > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > -R.S.Hoover Brian Whatcott - 03 Jul 2009 00:05 GMT Be brave! If you want a shotgun, a rifle or a pistol that won't blow up in your face, the first thing you do is stuff that modern saying "You can't test quality into a product" where it belongs, and submit the weapon to a proof load, greater than the user will thereafter apply.
And whaddaya know: a small proportion of weapons fail with bursts and cracks. Too bad! Better in a proof-house, than up against your face.
And it is much the same with airframes: you know where the heavy point loads are applied, [engine mount, seats??] so if you support at those points, and load the wing, then you are going to live a long happy life. It's not just experimentals - when the big boys get serious, they shake airframe panels through a forest of swingle-trees or the like, to check fatigue life etc.
Brian W
> Static load testing this way is a big nonsense. Why? > Firstly you support the spar center section. So you do NOT test the [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] >> >> -R.S.Hoover rattlesnake - 03 Jul 2009 17:49 GMT ....
> And it is much the same with airframes: you know where the heavy point > loads are applied, [engine mount, seats??] so if you support at those > points, and load the wing, > then you are going to live a long happy life. absolutely not so! the seats are designed to carry max passenger weight times safe G-load times 1.5 (usually). This is way less than the 2 tons you will pack on the wings. Same with the engine mount. I don't like to know how many guys flying around in a pre-damaged structure caused by stupid static load testing.
Brian Whatcott - 03 Jul 2009 18:28 GMT >> And it is much the same with airframes: you know where the heavy point >> loads are applied, [engine mount, seats??] so if you support at those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > absolutely not so! the seats are designed to carry max passenger weight > times safe G-load times 1.5 (usually). Well, how about that! And I thought seat belts were often specified at 29 g's. Silly me!
:-) Brian W
rattlesnake - 03 Jul 2009 18:37 GMT .....
> Well, how about that! > And I thought seat belts were often specified at 29 g's. Silly me! we talk about seats, not seat belts. How many G's do you think will your C-150, -172 **seats** be good for?
Brian Whatcott - 03 Jul 2009 19:25 GMT > ..... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > we talk about seats, not seat belts. How many G's do you think will your > C-150, -172 **seats** be good for? Well, anonymous poster, you don't need my opinion. And I don't have a demonstrated load case on those seats. But take a look at that test case you mentioned: 2 tons on the wings. Let's say you were demonstrating a 4 g load capability. That would imply the gross wt is 1000 lbs. If the engine weighs 220 lb (for a 100 HP) and the two seats can carry 200 lb wetware each - that would amount to 620 lb. Then the airframe would weigh say 380 lb.
If you were a clueful designer interested in proving a test article, you might want to ENSURE that a support on the seats, the engine mount and a the empennage could react the wing proof loads. That would be a smart thing to do, don't you think?
Do you really, really think an airframe designer hasn't thought it through? Shouldn't you?
Brian W
rattlesnake - 03 Jul 2009 19:48 GMT ....
> Do you really, really think an airframe designer hasn't thought it > through? > Shouldn't you? The airframe designer hasn't thought it through, at least of my plans-build 'kitplane'. This aircraft was designed to fly nicely and it shows it really does. But it absolutely was not designed for static load testing (which in my view was a smart decision, because designing-in hardpoints which are completely useless in flight is just adding dead weight). Besides - you can't just add up the support capability of seats and engine mount by ignoring the moment arms of your construction.
Jerry Wass - 03 Jul 2009 19:56 GMT > .... >> Do you really, really think an airframe designer hasn't thought it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > can't just add up the support capability of seats and engine mount by > ignoring the moment arms of your construction. And the moment legs, moment feet, etc....
Brian Whatcott - 03 Jul 2009 21:43 GMT >> .... >>> Do you really, really think an airframe designer hasn't thought it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > And the moment legs, moment feet, etc.... Hehe....yes, indeed. But hopefully in a static test (if it IS a static test) the clockwise moments equal the anticlock moments. Guess what? If they don't add to zero, the thing rotates. No special hardpoints called for - just spread the reaction for test loads proportionate to the mass involved. The design MUST be able to react the loads due to the limit stresses on the aircraft mass as is, else it's not a load test! And a last thought for the anonymous poster: if an experimental design has not been static tested at least once, you take your life in your hands. And that's the great beauty of this free society - if you want to risk killing yourself, you can. (But not in Germany under German rules, only FAA rules)
Brian W
rattlesnake - 04 Jul 2009 07:47 GMT ....
> And the moment legs, moment feet, etc.... EOD
Morgans - 04 Jul 2009 09:47 GMT > .... >> And the moment legs, moment feet, etc.... > > EOD EOD ???
 Signature Jim in NC
Dan - 05 Jul 2009 20:36 GMT >> .... >>> And the moment legs, moment feet, etc.... >> >> EOD > > EOD ??? Explosive ordinance disposal?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
jan olieslagers - 05 Jul 2009 20:59 GMT Dan schreef:
>>> .... >>>> And the moment legs, moment feet, etc.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Explosive ordinance disposal? To simple-minded IT'ers like yours truly, it only means End Of Data
Dan - 05 Jul 2009 21:03 GMT > Dan schreef: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > To simple-minded IT'ers like yours truly, it only means End Of Data I have also seen it used as end of discussion.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Stealth Pilot - 21 Jul 2009 05:09 GMT >.... >> And the moment legs, moment feet, etc.... > >EOD for what it is worth I think rattlesnake was correct in his comments. he was talking about point loads between the test supports and the structure being a problem but not really demonstrating anything.
Stealth Pilot
Dan - 05 Jul 2009 20:35 GMT >> .... >>> Do you really, really think an airframe designer hasn't thought it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > And the moment legs, moment feet, etc.... But just momentarily.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
gorgon - 05 Jul 2009 15:36 GMT Destruct static testing done in a non-silly and relevant manner. Kind of cool to see that they predicted the failure mode and location. The wing was designed within a couple of percent of the goal. No weight sacrificed here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o
rattlesnake - 05 Jul 2009 16:27 GMT performed static testing on Saturday. Went well except engine mount broke (§&%!?$ one of the few parts I didn't fabricate by myself) So far about testing.....
www.ph21.de/guest/Pict0035.jpg
On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "rattlesnake" <d...@t-online.de> wrote:
Destruct static testing done in a non-silly and relevant manner. Kind of cool to see that they predicted the failure mode and location. The wing was designed within a couple of percent of the goal. No weight sacrificed here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o
jan olieslagers - 05 Jul 2009 19:44 GMT rattlesnake schreef: (§&%!?$
You are strong at foreign languages, mein lieber Herr! Bravo! But then, cursing is always learnt first, isnt'it...?
rattlesnake - 05 Jul 2009 19:53 GMT if you just scrapped a $1000 item wouldn't you, mon ami?
> rattlesnake schreef: > (§&%!?$ > > You are strong at foreign languages, mein lieber Herr! Bravo! > But then, cursing is always learnt first, isnt'it...? Brian Whatcott - 06 Jul 2009 03:51 GMT Ouch, glad THAT didn't happen in the air.
Seeing an engine depart must be on about the same excitement level as seeing aeroelastic vibration in the wing tips. Makes me think of a reason why I sometimes see a wire cable tether round a couple of engine fixings back to a bulkhead. A loose engine has a better CofG that a missing engine, no doubt!
Brian W
> performed static testing on Saturday. Went well except engine mount broke > (§&%!?$ one of the few parts I didn't fabricate by myself) So far about [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o rattlesnake - 06 Jul 2009 08:22 GMT > Ouch, > glad THAT didn't happen in the air. wouldn't happen in the air. Was caused by stupid static load testing.....
Brian Whatcott - 06 Jul 2009 18:06 GMT >> Ouch, >> glad THAT didn't happen in the air. > > wouldn't happen in the air. Was caused by stupid static load testing..... I'm thinking it would be stupid, or at least careless, if the load were reacted through just one or two mount fixings. Is that how the test was rigged? (I noticed there seemed to be a steel strip perhaps 3/16 X 1 inch welded into the cluster which seemed to provide a rather abrupt section change.) Is that the way the plans were drawn?
Brian W
rattlesnake - 06 Jul 2009 18:41 GMT ...
> I'm thinking it would be stupid, or at least careless, if the load > were reacted through just one or two mount fixings. > Is that how the test was rigged? roughly the setup was like this: - plane upright - tail and elevator loaded by about 430 lbs of bricks - ailerons and flaps loaded by about 290 lbs of bricks - both wings supported by 1.5 ton car jacks - engine pushed down by about 1.100 lbs at position of the four attachment points
I got a bad feeling before the test, but I have only two choices in my country: 1: do this silly static test 2: reject it and never receive the permit to fly
I think the lower attach points can be repaired. Probably solid 3/4" rond bars will be welded into the remaining tubes. However I lost some of my confidence in this flying machine because I don't know what (invisible) secondary damage may have occured.
Peter Dohm - 07 Jul 2009 01:52 GMT > ... >> I'm thinking it would be stupid, or at least careless, if the load [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > confidence in this flying machine because I don't know what (invisible) > secondary damage may have occured. While it is really tempting to brag about my father's prescience, in his decision to leave your country many decades ago, this really does not sound like it should be an outrageous or damaging test it done correctly.
Assuming that the "engine" was simulated with a rigid fixture that mounted is essentially the same manner as the engine and about 4 time the weight of the engine was suspended from the CG point of the engine, or alternatively that the engine was mounted and that about 3 more time the weight of the engine was suspended below the CG point of the engine, it would appear that you simply need a new engine mount which is free of defect. In that case, the test was well designed and appears to have accomplished its purpose.
OTOH, if this was a "dynafocal" mount, and also if the test procedure failed to maintain the relative orientation of the four engine mounting points, then the test procedure would appear to be at fault. It that case, you will probably ned to perform the test again with a new engine mount.
Peter (Damm)
Bob - 07 Jul 2009 20:28 GMT (Lotsa stuff clipped)
Dear Peter (and the Group)
I guess I'm just a sissy but I would never use .035 for an engine mount. In fact, I'd be leery of .049.
This isn't about calculations on a sheet of paper, it's about incidental damage that can occur to the tubing over heaven knows how many years of service. I'm talking about dropped wrenches and the like -- falls down, DINGS the lower mount on its way to the bottom of the nacelle or even clear to the ground, if you're lucky ( ...but you seldom are, right? :-) So we fish it out and since there's no apparent damage we assume everything is okay. But gravity sucks and sure as the potential student always barfs on the new upholstery (never on the old), Murphy's Law is ALWAYS waiting in the wings. Ding round tubing and you may as well cut it out and start over; its specs no longer apply and in nine cases out of ten the repair will cost more than the replacement.
3/4 x .035 gottem internal dia, of ,680. Closest match is going to be 5/8ths but using it -- or even making the repair instead of doing a replacement -- is going to depend on where the tube departed from spec. Adjacent to a weld? Or a gradual bend across the entire length of the member... because about the ONLY location where the repair (using an internal sleeve of .5/8) is practical is right in the middle of the member. Any where else, the REPLACEMENT is going to be more practical... except for the engineering.
If you replace the failed member with the SAME SIZE tubing, you know it's going to happen again. Indeed, the static test has done it's job; it is telling you to use a sturdier member. But not just there, EVERYWHERE. Because you have to assume there will be occasions when gravity is going to be coming at you from different directions. So that while those upper members may have done fine in the static test, when they are being subjected to TENSION, there is a high probability they will fail when the attitude of the aircraft makes them bear the load in COMPRESSION... or visa versa. Indeed, the static test has already told you so.
Are you familiar with the 'Jesus Factor'? That is the uncalculable amount you ADD to every structure -- when ever you can -- so as to cover the realities of serial production, Monday morning hang-overs, Friday afternoon hurry-ups and every other thing you can thing of that might cause the as-fabricated version to depart from the as-calculated version. In a welded steel tube structure we're generally safe with a Jesus Factor of 1.5 for the fuselage, 3.0 for a control surface and 5.0 for the landing gear AND ENGINE MOUNT.
Mention the Jesus Factor today and they're liable to start looking for where you parked your bicycle. Perhaps a better tag would be the sh.t Happens Factor. Call it what you will, there are those who upon learning their engine mount is capable of withstanding 30g's when the specs only call for six, commence to run in circles, waving their hands and emitting tiny shrieks. And perhaps with good reason, if we're talking about a home-built, where the builder is also the test pilot as well as Line Captain. If the calculations call for .049 then you can safely assume it won't be something thinner... although thicker might appear now & then. But whatever you call it and no matter where it is applied, from Farmington, Long Island to a garage in San Diego, you can bet your bolly hooly it DOES exist -- and does so for a purpose.
-R.S.Hoover
Brian Whatcott - 07 Jul 2009 02:51 GMT ...
> roughly the setup was like this: > - plane upright [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > confidence in this flying machine because I don't know what (invisible) > secondary damage may have occurred. Let me ask you this: how do feel about a tube that was loaded with 275 lb (if the loading was equal and local) that failed? Pulling numbers out of the air, lets say the failing tube was 3/4 inch diameter and the material was 30 ton steel - how thick would it be? There's something evidently very wrong with my numbers, or your loading conditions: the tube wall thickness would have been (using 30 ton sq in = 60000 psi steel) 275 lb force = 60000 X pi X 0.75 X wall thickness So wall thickness = 275 / (60000 X pi X 0.75 ) = about 2 thousandth inch?? Certainly not! Perhaps it was light alloy tube rated at 20000 psi? That leads to a wall thickness of 6 thousandth inch? Certainly not!
So maybe they loaded the engine itself though its centroid. The tube did not fail in crushing, it looked like it failed in shear?? That's the weakest modulus - but not THAT weak - so I am missing something about the geometry: a long long engine mount over a narrow area bulkhead?? I just don't get it!
It should not be possible to weld up an engine mount WEAK enough to fail at the load you mentioned..... But inserting a solid rod into a thin tube is an unfavorable fix - the stress concentration is inviting another failure just past the end of the rod insert.....
Perhaps you might let someone look at the engine mount drawing. There's something strange about it. At the very least, there was no post weld heat treat ?? Critical structure should ALWAYS yield (if its metal) not crack destructively.
Good luck
Brian W p.s. If the designer was an absolute genius, and the materials all produced exactly on specification, at the load test, if the engine mount was just 2% stronger, then one or several other parts would have yielded (but NEVER cracked) before the engine mount YIELDED. You can take it for granted that nobody is that good!
rattlesnake - 07 Jul 2009 06:49 GMT Peter, Brian,
thanks for the bright thoughts. Think I know what caused the problem. Per the plans my engine requires about 1.5" long spacers between the mount's attach points and the engine itself. This creates an extra bending moment which may have triggered the failure.
The mount is made of 3/4" 4130 tube with 0.035" wall thickness.
My current idea of repair is to weld a short round bar into the remaining tube and so rebuilding the attach points. Maybe I'll shorten the spacers a bit and bring some ballast further forward instead (battery).
Brian Whatcott - 07 Jul 2009 12:45 GMT > Peter, Brian, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > tube and so rebuilding the attach points. Maybe I'll shorten the spacers a > bit and bring some ballast further forward instead (battery). See if you can find some tube that will fit inside or outside the failed tube. perhaps 50 thou wall. fish mouth the ends. Rossette and end weld. Take a look at CAM18. It gives specific instructions on repairing tubes.
Brian W
rattlesnake - 07 Jul 2009 13:22 GMT hmmm....
found a tube which fits inside the faild tube, but how can I weld it in then - just asking
>> Peter, Brian, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Brian W Brian Whatcott - 07 Jul 2009 17:36 GMT > hmmm.... > > found a tube which fits inside the failed tube, but how can I weld it in > then - just asking ... The ends of the insert are tapered. Holes are drilled in the failed tube to allow rosette welds of the interior tube, which have much the same effect as through bolts, but rather lighter and stronger, if well done.
Brian W
rattlesnake - 07 Jul 2009 18:38 GMT hmmm.....
my idea was to take out about 1" of the failed tube and fishmouth(spelling?) both open ends. Inserted tube (with about twice wall thickness) is visible and can be welded in. How's about this?
>> hmmm.... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Brian W cavelamb - 08 Jul 2009 03:49 GMT > hmmm..... > > my idea was to take out about 1" of the failed tube and fishmouth(spelling?) > both open ends. Inserted tube (with about twice wall thickness) is visible > and can be welded in. How's about this? I wouldn't even consider it, snake.
This mount BROKE.
It's either too light, or has a stress riser at the break - or both. (I'm guessing both from the pic)
Consider yourself lucky (you dodged a big bad bullet) and build it again.
Better this time.
Richard
PS: Read Bob's Jesus Factor post again. And take it to heart...
Brian Whatcott - 08 Jul 2009 12:35 GMT >> hmmm..... >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > PS: Read Bob's Jesus Factor post again. > And take it to heart... It would be helpful to know if there are any more samples of this airplane design flying, and in particular, are there any more examples of this engine mount in existence? If there ARE, then that would focus the debate onto material defect or construction defect or test rig defect. Richard reminds us that you didn't see a permanent distortion of the mount - which is the desired failure mode (supposing that any failure is desirable) but a clean break - presumably two clean breaks. That should not happen, ever on a test.
Brian W
rattlesnake - 08 Jul 2009 13:32 GMT ...
> It would be helpful to know if there are any more samples of this airplane > design flying, yes there are and no engine mounts broke (in normal flight) until now (as far as I know)
> and in particular, are there any more examples of this engine mount in > existence? yes, several
> If there ARE, then that would focus the debate onto material defect or > construction defect or test rig defect. I suppose a testrig issue. Load concentrations build up which do -not- happen in real flight scenarios (my various previous posts about static load testing)
> Richard reminds us that you didn't see a permanent distortion of the > mount - which is the desired failure mode (supposing that any failure is > desirable) but a clean break - presumably two clean breaks. That should > not happen, ever on a test. interesting aspect.
Note: because of legal coniderations I will not mention company names, people's names or types or designations of aircraft here.
-- P.S. what me -really-surprised is the fact that for about a minute the mount held the engine more or less in place even with this two severe cracks! 4130 is really good stuff...
Brian Whatcott - 09 Jul 2009 01:27 GMT >>...are there any more examples of this engine mount in >> existence? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the engine more or less in place even with this two severe cracks! 4130 is > really good stuff... - - 4130 low alloy chrome molybdenum steel is preferred for engine mounts, for its strength as annealed (not just 30 ton but 45 ton ) and extended tenacity in yield.
Some ways I can think of, to break this excellent alloy:
1) chrome-plate it carelessly (or cadmium, nickel, some others too) or 2) quench it rapidly from bright yellow, to get that brittle 90 ton strength. or 3) Decide that it's OK to MIG weld it on a cold day, and there's no need to normalize or anneal afterwards. or 4) Buy an engine mount, then leave it standing in the garage for 15 years while the project goes together - without an internal coat of linseed or waxy film like Boeshield somethingorother. Oh, let the rain get in it a time or two or 5) decide that those tubes look really really thin and weedy, and add a bar or two to "beef it up". or 6) Decide you will mount a nice powerful 110 HP Subaru up front, with engine controller, fuel injection, water cooling with the original radiator etc.
THEN, load it to the worst case design load, but allow untriangulated tubes of the mount to load up in bending.
(If there are other similarly equipped examples flying, then you can be pretty sure they HAVE passed a load test.)
Hope this is food for thought anyway though I am aware that what I am doing here, is just one step better than making pronouncements on exactly why the AirFrance liner went down recently....
Good Luck Brian W
rattlesnake - 09 Jul 2009 05:50 GMT thanks, Brian your comments are much appreciated
>>>...are there any more examples of this engine mount in existence? >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Good Luck > Brian W rattlesnake - 07 Jul 2009 13:26 GMT oh, think I got it now with rossettes and fishmouths :-))
>> Peter, Brian, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Brian W bildan - 02 Jul 2009 16:41 GMT > So... how strong is your wing? > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > -R.S.Hoover Been there, done that. It answers a lot of nagging questions.
Story:
Brand new (at the time) fiberglass sailplane wing design gets bolted to the massive hangar corner I-beam where special root fitting adapter has been welded. Wing extends horizontally at shoulder height with the lower surface up. Shot bags are added spaced according to the span-wise lift distribution. Wing tip touches ground at 1.8G Crap!
No room for back hoe so dig pit by hand with shovels. Pit under wing tip now at grade - 2'. Add shot bags to 2.6G when tip touches bottom of pit. Crap!
Four more hours of digging and pit is grade - 5'. Shot bags to 3.9G. Tip touches pit bottom Crap!
It starts raining. Must remove shot bags and wing to interior of hangar. Removing wing in the rain is BIG problem since there is now a pit where the tip man would have to stand. Rain continues - pit is under roof drain so it fills with water. Crap!
Rethink. It may be strong enough but is it stiff enough? Decision - wing needs to be stiffer. Project dies. Better it than the test pilot.
Brian Whatcott - 03 Jul 2009 00:11 GMT >> So... how strong is your wing? >> [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > wing needs to be stiffer. Project dies. Better it than the test > pilot. A striking comment in a wonderful book on engineering design disasters mentioned casually that the proof load on a particular aluminum airliner wing would bend it to the vertical at the tips [if buckling did not occur long before....] Perhaps you were too hasty to scrub the project?? I have looked out the window in bumpy conditions to see wingtips flapping a yard or two....
Brian W
cavelamb - 03 Jul 2009 00:36 GMT > A striking comment in a wonderful book on engineering design disasters > mentioned casually that the proof load on a particular aluminum airliner [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Brian W I've seen them do that in a 747.
Stealth Pilot - 21 Jul 2009 05:13 GMT >> A striking comment in a wonderful book on engineering design disasters >> mentioned casually that the proof load on a particular aluminum airliner [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I've seen them do that in a 747. ...and here I was expecting you to post "I've seen them do that in the texas taildragger"
Stealth :-) Pilot
RST Engineering - JIm - 21 Jul 2009 14:59 GMT >>> A striking comment in a wonderful book on engineering design disasters >>> mentioned casually that the proof load on a particular aluminum airliner >>> wing would bend it to the vertical at the tips [if buckling did not >>> occur long before....] When I went through 727 fixit school, they showed us a video of the static test of that bird. THe wingtips came within about a yard of each other before the whole thing let go, but when it did it looked like an aluminum blizzard.
Jim
bildan - 03 Jul 2009 01:31 GMT > >> So... how strong is your wing? > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > > Brian W Nope. A 10'+ tip deflection meant the aileron push rods wouldn't work. Then there was the worry about flutter. The 1st generation glass sailplanes were built to ~ +-20G just so they would be stiff enough to avoid flutter. It took the introduction of carbon fiber composite to finally make the strength and stiffness come out right.
Dan - 05 Jul 2009 20:32 GMT >>> So... how strong is your wing? >>> [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > > Brian W If memory serves the B-707 wig tips had something on the order of 14 feet of flex designed in. I wonder how much flex a B-777 has.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
jan olieslagers - 05 Jul 2009 20:58 GMT Dan schreef: B-707 wig tips
Hm. Tad out of period, no? Gay parades only since 1980's or thereabout?
Dan - 05 Jul 2009 21:03 GMT > Dan schreef: > B-707 wig tips > > Hm. Tad out of period, no? Gay parades only since 1980's or thereabout? I know how old B-707 is, but it was the only figure I could think of off the top of my head. Senility, nicht wahr?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Tim - 08 Jul 2009 00:57 GMT > If memory serves the B-707 wig tips had something on the order of 14 > feet of flex designed in. I wonder how much flex a B-777 has. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o
Charlie - 04 Jul 2009 22:41 GMT > So... how strong is your wing? > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > -R.S.Hoover Load testing a new design is a good thing, but simply stacking the load across the wing evenly will likely break even a properly designed & built wing. The load needs to be distributed to match the lift distribution, which isn't linear. The wing should also be tilted to match its angle of attack near stall so the load is angled toward the leading edge, because the loaded wing is actually trying to swing up and forward (relative to the fuselage) under load.
The next thing is that if something breaks, it can cause a lot of shrapnel, and the multi-ton load/wing can head in who knows which direction. If you look at the procedures used by manufacturers & reputable kit makers, at each step in loading they support the wing, load it up, slowly release the supports for the specified number of seconds and immediately re-support the wing.
I did it once the way you describe on a Dragonfly canard I didn't trust (previously repaired damage) but in retrospect, I could have killed myself just testing the wing.
Here are a couple of links to Van's A/C testing that hint at what I'm trying to describe.
http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int3.htm
http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/12_NOVEMBER_UPDATE.pdf
Charlie
|
|
|