The carbon boom I understand completely. Your Dragon is a much more "modern" interpretation of the design and looks great. I hope that mine turns out as good.
--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "akahori" wrote:
>
> Dear Dewey
>
> If I thought, the designer would grope for the use of the then carbon in
> various ways.
> Because the carbon rod was not commercially available at the time of a
> design, is not there no help for it?
> The produced carbon dragon includes all, the present technique and is
> remodeled now.
> As for my dragon, the Web is glass fiber, and a spar cap is a carbon rod.
> However, it is a very interesting thing to create a pipe of the carbon by.
> I devise it in various ways, and please make a modern carbon dragon.
>
>
> Sorry broken english by yahoo translate. have fun.
>
>
> Yasushi Akahori from Japan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Original Message
> From: Dewey
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:35 AM
> Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] "Carbon" Dragon?
>
>
>
> First of all let me say that I am looking for edification and information,
> I am NOT looking to offend anyone. With that said, here goes.
> I own a set of Dragon plans and construction manual and there are a couple
> of things that I wonder about. The first is this, except for the tailboom is
> there really a point to the carbon roving that is incorporated into the
> airframe ostensibly for structural reinforcement?
> The roving can not possibly develop anywhere near its theoretical
> strength, mainly because it's impossible to keep all of the fibers straight
> and under consistent tension. would not omitting all of the roving and
> making the sparcaps of solid or laminated Spruce result in a structure that
> is just as strong at very close to the same weight? The carbon roving in the
> flaperon ribs and trailing ribs seems a bit gimmicky also. The flaperons
> already seem sufficiently robust in construction without the carbon. Lastly
> is the control parts that made of carbon like the torque tube, etc. Is this
> really needed? Why not aluminum? The ULF-1 uses no carbon, is it weaker than
> the Dragon? The Dragon's design seems quite normal for a wooden sailplane of
> its weight except for the roving.
