Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:04 PM - Re: Bicycle Tubing as a Source for Aircraft? (BruceClemens)
2. 04:51 PM - Re: Re: Bicycle Tubing as a Source for Aircraft? (Glen Schweizer)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Bicycle Tubing as a Source for Aircraft? |
gerry.vandyk(at)eastlink. wrote:
> What parts would you consider to be 'non-critical'? I have only my own
> project to judge by, but I can't think of anything off hand that I would
> consider replacing with 'other' material. Then again, I had plenty of
> off cuts from building the primary structure, it covered pretty much all
> the other parts anyway.
>
> Gerry
>
> ----
Thank you, Gerry. You make much sense. With regard to "non-critical", I am thinking
of things that do not deal with aerodynamic loads, or are load bearing components
of the structure of the aircraft, of course.
You make perfect sense saying that one who builds a tubular airframe will have
plenty of off-cuts to make ancillary components.
But, in my case, I am building an all-wood Peit. There are few metal tubes. Most
seem to be in what I would call less-critical (e.g. non load bearing) uses,
such as the control group including the sticks, the tube they connect to and the
rudder bars.
I agree, I would never use unknown metal in the other metal parts such as engine
mount, landing gear, gussets, or control hinges.
But in an Experimental aircraft is there really a need to use and pay for specific
metals in parts that will perform flawlessly with at least as much certainty
as the expensive stuff?
I just finished reading and saving a treatise about using used motorcycle wheels
on a Piet landing gear. This, I think, is representative of the spirit of homebuilt
experimental aircraft.
Some folks say that they would never fly with someone who used non aircraft-specific
components on their product. But that would preclude them from flying with
many very good homebuilders.
Thanks!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481177#481177
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Bicycle Tubing as a Source for Aircraft? |
All I can add is food for thought. No one can say that substitution does work.
Do you really want to be the first mouse? Id rather b the second mouse
> On Jun 24, 2018, at 4:04 PM, BruceClemens <clemensfam3@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> gerry.vandyk(at)eastlink. wrote:
>> What parts would you consider to be 'non-critical'? I have only my own
>> project to judge by, but I can't think of anything off hand that I would
>> consider replacing with 'other' material. Then again, I had plenty of
>> off cuts from building the primary structure, it covered pretty much all
>> the other parts anyway.
>>
>> Gerry
>>
>> ----
>
>
> Thank you, Gerry. You make much sense. With regard to "non-critical", I am thinking
of things that do not deal with aerodynamic loads, or are load bearing
components of the structure of the aircraft, of course.
>
> You make perfect sense saying that one who builds a tubular airframe will have
plenty of off-cuts to make ancillary components.
>
> But, in my case, I am building an all-wood Peit. There are few metal tubes. Most
seem to be in what I would call less-critical (e.g. non load bearing) uses,
such as the control group including the sticks, the tube they connect to and
the rudder bars.
>
> I agree, I would never use unknown metal in the other metal parts such as engine
mount, landing gear, gussets, or control hinges.
>
> But in an Experimental aircraft is there really a need to use and pay for specific
metals in parts that will perform flawlessly with at least as much certainty
as the expensive stuff?
>
> I just finished reading and saving a treatise about using used motorcycle wheels
on a Piet landing gear. This, I think, is representative of the spirit of
homebuilt experimental aircraft.
>
> Some folks say that they would never fly with someone who used non aircraft-specific
components on their product. But that would preclude them from flying
with many very good homebuilders.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481177#481177
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|