|
In article <1162050795.167998.207430@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"shrike@cyberspace.org" <shrike@cyberspace.org> wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> > "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote
> >
> > > The hard part would be to come up with a reasonable replacement for the
> > > spars
> > > in the wings. To avoid the big expensive spruce planks, one might have to
> > > consider an engineered product like Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)...
> >
> > Have you ever used those? They are HEAVY, with a capital "H".
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Jenny Craig strikes again :-)
>
> I'm still very intriqued by filament winding. Spars would probably be
> most obvious use of this technology. Take a look at the pictures on
> this page to get an idea why.
>
> http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=93d9524a4eec4011160b889f2560
> 2fba&t=1774&page=2
>
> Doesn't that kindof suggest the ability to make a whole spar, wing,
> fueselage or control surface in one shot? I'm presuming scaled
> composites uses something similar but bigger. I have seen pictures of the
> system NASA uses for booster casings, they stand about 20 ft. tall if
> I remember correctly.
>
> I'll be checking the local yellow pages to see if there are any
> mast-makers where I live. I would like to take a closing look at a system
> like this.
>
>
> -Matt
Actually, filament winding would be a poor choice for spars, as the
filaments should run primarily parallel to the spar and be concentrated
at the top and bottom. You do need some in the webs, to handle shear
loads, but an "I" section is the most efficient. A tubular spar for a
wing is also a poor choice, as it concentrates a lot of its tensile
strength at its center, where it doesn't get much loading.
A mast is a different story, as it is expected to take similar bending
loads in all directions; a spar does not.
|
|
Re: Why no plywood monocoque homebuilts?
