Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC:

Re: Carbon Dragon structural limits 10 Dec 2013 22:01 #517

Hi Kenny and all CD Friends,

carbon pultrussion rods with ribs of Jim Marske design or foam ribs are good idea to solve problem of load limit - btw Carbon Monarch has with much larger wing and heavier fuselage almost same weight. Maybe we should think about splitting wing as is on Archaeopteryx - main centerpiece with connecting of wingtips some similar on XXtherm.
btw Marske technology should lower building time.

What should be solved different way is CD heavy to nose problem of heavier pilots - me including :-) and limited visibility, where making tail boom longer and placing under wing aren´t right solutions. Better way is to look on Marske Pioneer and Genesis where is wing swept forward, up to 3.5 degrees and is at shoulder level. It is not giving any performance loses or stability problems.

Please, does any knows where to find info about Manque built by Alejandro in Chile and his CD airfoils analysis ? Link seems doesn´t working.

Best Regards,
Jeri

--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Kenny Andersen wrote:
>
> Karl,If the old construction method could be loaded to 5gs, then the rods should have no problem boosting that up significantly. The other problem is that 5gs at what pilot weight? So, that's why Phil and I were working on the calculations for using the rods. I'll probably never be below about 185 and often float upwards of 200. Using a pilot weight of 200-220 really doesn't make much difference with regard to the structural weight, especially with the carbon rods, so why not? It would be interesting to look at the original test though... I think with the increased pilot weight, the tail boom ought to be a little longer to give it a bit more authority... That;'s why I didn't want to change the design so much. If you sale the wing dimension up about 7% (*which isn't so much) the area goes up around 14%, which will increase payload significantly. Also, the root gets a little deeper, so the increased moment doesn't mean SO much to the spar cap and attach fitting loads. I don't think it should bee too big a deal to do, and I would do that if I built one (since I'd want to actually fly it!).
>
> --- On Sun, 2/5/12, KarlS <kschneider@...> wrote:
>
> From: KarlS <kschneider@...>
> Subject: Re: Carbon Dragon structural limits
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Date: Sunday, February 5, 2012, 6:47 PM
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., russell wilson wrote:
> >
> > hi kenny Hi all,
>
> For what it is worth the actual load tests were done on the full wing.
> I have an article from Kitplane Magazine May of 1993. There is a photo of them loading the wing. The caption stated load tested to 5g's. I'll scan the article and upload it within a few days if any one would like to see it.
>
> And Steve's post of the CD video's contained a video of the ULF-1. No big deal but I am the author of that video. I was going to build an ULF-1. Still may one day but not out of wood. Still pondering building the carbon dragon also.
>
> Sincerely,
> Schnka Or Schneider, Karl

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Page:
  • 1