Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:02 AM - Pulsar List request. (Matthew Brock)
2. 03:03 AM - Pulsar weights and engine choices. (mjb777)
3. 05:28 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (GREGSMI@aol.com)
4. 08:34 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Keith Palmer)
5. 09:13 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Gose, Eddie)
6. 09:22 AM - Re: Pulsar List request. (Larry Wheat)
7. 11:30 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (GREGSMI@aol.com)
8. 11:40 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (GREGSMI@aol.com)
9. 12:20 PM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Barry J Edwards)
10. 12:20 PM - Leaking fuel tanks (barrynorman@comcast.net)
11. 11:10 PM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Alex Kozloff)
12. 11:47 PM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (mjb777)
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: | Pulsar List request. |
Hi,
My name is Matthew Brock and I am building a Pulsar Kitplane.
I'd really like to join your list for Pulsar Builders.
Regards,
Matt.
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: | Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Hi guys,
I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the
interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance,
(hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences
with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.
I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and
the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582
90 series engine.
I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built
it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have
some experience with friends kits then its better off with me.
I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and
after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through
any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think
it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals
and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am
Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to cover
and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the
time.
I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used
the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full
length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more
who have done the same.
I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of
times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs
about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same
SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.
I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it,
even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental
category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft
into any Airport in Australia.
Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......
On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars,
weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.
If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine
weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax
582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for
a bed style mount.
The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit
is 900Lbs.
If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure
that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural
components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the
original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.
I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if
i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs
say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl
for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for
the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.
I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs
mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass
strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with
the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor
of 2 is 1736Lb!!!
Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax
582 configuration at +6g.
It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative
limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative
than reducing the original +6 to +4.
So.......
If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on,
do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at
a design limit of +4g/-2g?
Regards,
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889
Message 3
| 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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you
before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues.
The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the
molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582
fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount
an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you
intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when
the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds
gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip.
I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the
Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10
pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for
this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine.
I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this
airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the
Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe.
Greg
In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mattbrock777@gmail.com writes:
--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" _mattbrock777@gmail.com_
(mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com)
I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you
for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in
advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from
your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.
I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length
spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old),
Rotax 582 90 series engine.
I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he
hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A and P),
and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me.
I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax
582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible
corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle
bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled for at
least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying
with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some
large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the
cards when we have the time.
I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have
used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the
original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure there
were more who have done the same.
I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a
couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It
weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty
much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.
I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue
with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur
built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly
the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.
Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......
On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite
spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.
If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra
engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over
the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar
amount for a bed style mount.
The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load
limit is 900Lbs.
If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I
figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL
structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way
beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.
I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower
cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine
installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load
on
the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is
792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT
+4g.
I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where
Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond
and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability
of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g
with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!
Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the
Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.
It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g
negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more
conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.
So.......
If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and
so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee
conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g?
Regards,
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889
Message 4
| 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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Hi Matt,
Greg is quiet right - you are only reduceing your safty factor
by over 33%
Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "mjb777" <mattbrock777@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:02 PM
Subject: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices.
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you
> for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in
> advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from
> your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.
>
> I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length
> spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years
> old), Rotax 582 90 series engine.
>
> I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he
> hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A
> and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off
> with me.
>
> I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax
> 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible
> corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle
> bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled
> for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife
> flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we
> have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips
> will be on the cards when we have the time.
>
> I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have
> used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the
> original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure
> there were more who have done the same.
>
> I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a
> couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this
> engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and
> has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.
>
> I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue
> with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur
> built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can
> fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.
>
> Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......
>
> On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite
> spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.
>
> If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra
> engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over
> the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar
> amount for a bed style mount.
>
> The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load
> limit is 900Lbs.
>
> If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I
> figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by
> ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is
> way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.
>
> I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower
> cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine
> installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the
> load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight
> at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb
> difference AT +4g.
>
> I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where
> Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage
> bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load
> capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee
> configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!
>
> Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the
> Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.
>
> It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g
> negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more
> conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.
>
> So.......
>
> If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and
> so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee
> conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g?
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt.
>
> --------
> Pulsar 1 Kit.
> Captain B777.
> Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889
>
>
>
Message 5
| 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: | Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Greg:
Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is
currently for sale. It is advertised as a "XP" but seller claims it has
wood spars. The current owner says that the airframe is set up for a
912. The photos show a bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass
wing skins and wing tanks. My question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with
wood spars? Seems to me the wood spars/912 would limit pay load
some...your thoughts?
Eddie
From: owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GREGSMI@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices.
Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you
before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues.
The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the
molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582
fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting
to mount an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582
fuselage. Are you intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was
moved to the wings when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have
limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard
edge of the wing tip.
I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but
the Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs
10 pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good
candidate for this application, if you want to go with a four stroke
engine.
I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this
airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use
the Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe.
Greg
In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mattbrock777@gmail.com writes:
mattbrock777@gmail.com
I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank
all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me
with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I
can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you
may have built.
I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full
length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 -
20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine.
I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that
if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME
, (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better
off with me.
I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the
Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no
visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big
end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully
overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would
take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it
against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of
around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time.
I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1
builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One
of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no
issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same.
I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this
engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of
this engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the
cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul
it.
I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have
no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the
"VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which
means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.
Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with
me!)......
On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and
composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.
If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine
mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/
66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount
and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount.
The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a
+6g load limit is 900Lbs.
If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit,
then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be
experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of
1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the
Aerovee conversion.
I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on
the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the
engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!),
then the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb
engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That
is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.
I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2
where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/
fuselage bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an
ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The
Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!
Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS
than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.
It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios
as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is
even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.
So.......
If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G
limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of
the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g?
Regards,
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889
Message 6
| 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: Pulsar List request. |
Matt, welcome aboard. I have just finished a Pulsar III and am now in
flight test. Any help you need there is an abundance of knowledge
available. Cheers, Larry N852LW
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Matthew Brock <mattbrock777@gmail.com>wrot
e:
> Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> My name is Matthew Brock and I am building a Pulsar Kitplane.****
>
> ** **
>
> I=92d really like to join your list for Pulsar Builders.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Matt.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
--
Larry Wheat
Message 7
| 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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
You are limited to 900 pounds gross with the wood spars. There may have
been a few shipped with wood spars, you should ask to see the cowling, if i
t
has a hump in the middle for spark plugs, it is a 582 cowl.
It has been so long now it is going to be difficult to know what you are
getting. If the cowl is 582 you can bet the fuselage is six oz. glass and n
ot
XP. Also, if there are no wing tanks, it will not accommodate a 912.
In a message dated 8/14/2012 11:13:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
E-Gose@tamus.edu writes:
Greg:
Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is
currently for sale. It is advertised as a =9CXP=9D but seller
claims it has
wood spars. The current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912.
The
photos show a bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins
and wing tanks. My question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars?
Seems to me the wood spars/912 would limit pay load someyour thou
ghts?
Eddie
From: owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GREGSMI@aol.c
om
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices.
Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you
before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues.
The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the
molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582
fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to
mount
an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are yo
u
intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings
when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds
gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip.
I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the
Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10
pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate
for
this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine.
I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this
airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use t
he
Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe.
Greg
In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
_mattbrock777@gmail.com_ (mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com) writes:
--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" _mattbrock777@gmail.com_
(mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com)
I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you
for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in
advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from
your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.
I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length
spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years
old),
Rotax 582 90 series engine.
I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he
hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A an
d P),
and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me.
I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax
582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible
corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle
bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled f
or
at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flyin
g
with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have
some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be
on
the cards when we have the time.
I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have
used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the
original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure th
ere
were more who have done the same.
I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a
couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engin
e. It
weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty
much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.
I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue
with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur
built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fl
y
the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.
Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......
On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite
spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.
If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra
engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over
the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar
amount for a bed style mount.
The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load
limit is 900Lbs.
If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I
figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by
ALL
structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way
beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.
I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower
cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine
installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the
load on
the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g
is
792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT
+4g.
I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where
Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bo
nd
and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capabili
ty
of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g
with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!
Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the
Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.
It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g
negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more
conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.
So.......
If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and
so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee
conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g?
Regards,
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
Message 8
| 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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Eddy, just remembered, I saw the same Pulsar. I know the original builder
and have tried to contact him in the past to get an idea of what it is all
about. It is possible he has an early XP, before they went to glass spars.
If the kit was bought piece meal, it could be anything. Wing tanks and the
bed mount 912 suggest an early XP but without talking to the builder, I do
not know what it is. In any event, the wood spars limit the aircraft to 90
0
pounds gross, and only if it has extended spar caps.
In a message dated 8/14/2012 11:13:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
E-Gose@tamus.edu writes:
Greg:
Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is
currently for sale. It is advertised as a =9CXP=9D but seller
claims it has
wood spars. The current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912.
The
photos show a bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins
and wing tanks. My question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars?
Seems to me the wood spars/912 would limit pay load someyour thou
ghts?
Eddie
From: owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GREGSMI@aol.c
om
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices.
Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you
before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues.
The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the
molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582
fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to
mount
an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are yo
u
intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings
when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds
gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip.
I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the
Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10
pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate
for
this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine.
I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this
airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use t
he
Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe.
Greg
In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
_mattbrock777@gmail.com_ (mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com) writes:
--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" _mattbrock777@gmail.com_
(mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com)
I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you
for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in
advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from
your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.
I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length
spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years
old),
Rotax 582 90 series engine.
I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he
hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A an
d P),
and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me.
I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax
582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible
corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle
bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled f
or at
least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying
with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have som
e
large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on th
e
cards when we have the time.
I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have
used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the
original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure th
ere
were more who have done the same.
I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a
couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engin
e. It
weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty
much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.
I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue
with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur
built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fl
y
the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.
Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......
On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite
spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.
If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra
engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over
the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar
amount for a bed style mount.
The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load
limit is 900Lbs.
If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I
figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by
ALL
structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way
beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.
I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower
cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine
installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the
load on
the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g
is
792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT
+4g.
I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where
Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bo
nd
and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capabili
ty
of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g
with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!
Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the
Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.
It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g
negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more
conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.
So.......
If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and
so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee
conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g?
Regards,
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
Message 9
| 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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Hi Eddie,
I have a fairly early Pulsar XP with the 912 engine (actually the 1st XP
tail-dragger ever to fly). Mine has wood spars but which also had a
layer of 9oz glass cloth bonded on each side (as per the AD manual), it
also has the plywood skins. The gross weight is 960lbs. It=99s
been flying for over 1000hrs now in the space of 20 years. If yours has
wing tanks it is almost certainly an XP, but yes, do check the cowl. To
take the extra engine weight, the uni-glass =98straps=99
were doubled up as well as the fuselage glass being slightly heavier.
Hope this helps you.
Barry
G-XPXP Tail-dragger UK, 1020hrs.
From: Gose, Eddie
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices.
Greg:
Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is
currently for sale. It is advertised as a =9CXP=9D but
seller claims it has wood spars. The current owner says that the
airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a bed mount configuration.
The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My question is did
Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood spars/912
would limit pay load someyour thoughts?
Eddie
From: owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GREGSMI@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Pulsar weights and engine choices.
Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you
before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues.
The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the
molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582
fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting
to mount an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582
fuselage. Are you intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was
moved to the wings when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have
limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard
edge of the wing tip.
I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but
the Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs
10 pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good
candidate for this application, if you want to go with a four stroke
engine.
I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this
airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use
the Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe.
Greg
In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mattbrock777@gmail.com writes:
I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of
you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with,
and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can
gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may
have built.
I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length
spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20
years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine.
I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he
hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A
and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off
with me.
I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax
582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible
corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end
needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully
overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would
take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it
against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of
around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time.
I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who
have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept
the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am
sure there were more who have done the same.
I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a
couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this
engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost
and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.
I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no
issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH"
Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which
means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.
Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......
On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and
composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.
If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting,
extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb
increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and
probably a similar amount for a bed style mount.
The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g
load limit is 900Lbs.
If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then
I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced
by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs
which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee
conversion.
I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the
lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the
engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!),
then the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb
engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That
is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.
I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where
Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage
bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load
capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee
configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!
Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than
the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.
It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at
-2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even
more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.
So.......
If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits
and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the
Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g?
Regards,
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 10
| 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: | Leaking fuel tanks |
This is an update on the fuel tank issue. After getting the right wing home
and filling it with fuel it was obvious it was leaking from the end plate
at the top if the wing next to the spar. Once I removed the end plate, I al
so noticed that the epoxy tank sealer around the flap return spring eyelet
had cracked and exposing the spar to fuel in a area about the size of a hal
f dollar. I cleaned that area up and the spar looked fine so I coated the a
rea with polysulfide sealant. I also built a wedge much like the one Jim di
d for his plane but I did it out of Hysol mixed with some flox that incorpo
rated the fiberglass angle, the spar and the edges of the tank flange. Once
it was curred I coated it with polysulfide sealant. The wedge appears to r
eally tie that area where leaks are prone together and greatly reduces flex
. After putting the end plate back on it's been filled with fuel for about
2 weeks with no leaks or seepage.=C2-Thanks to Jim for the details=C2-t
his fix.
=C2-
Now I just need to finish=C2-repainting this wing and get the other one d
one.
=C2-
Barry
Message 11
| 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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Matt:
I have Pulsar I kit #190 with the Rotax 582 that I bought in 1990.
I finished the plane in 2004 (I can explain the delay if you really
want me to); but before I flew it, I had the engine overhauled with new
gaskets, an added thermostat, and most importantly, a stouter crankshaft
that required cageless needle bearings on the ends to bring it up to the
newer "Blue Head" specifications.
I've got about 650 hours on the plane to date and went for an
additional engine rebuild during the past Eight (8) years.
My only problems to date are two (2) rectifier failures that prevented
the battery from charging.
Luckily, in each case, I had a backup battery for the Dynon EFIS that
allowed me to land safely.
Using Jim Schmitt's suggestion, I had the GSC propeller thinned down
and I now cruse at 100K using 4 gph at lower altitudes.
Some time ago, Greg Smith, the Guru of all things Pulsar related,
pointed out that the fuselage laminate for the 582 powered Pulsar I was
lighter than the succeeding models and that larger engines than 66 HP were
not recommended. (Someone put a BMW motorcycle engine in one and ended up
breaking the fuselage, as I recollect).
Good luck on your project, I'm sure you are going to enjoy building
and flying this delightful and agile aircraft.
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:02:41 -0700, mjb777 <mattbrock777@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of
> you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with,
> and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can
> gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may
> have built.
>
> I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length
> spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20
> years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine.
>
> I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he
> hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A
> and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off
> with me.
>
> I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax
> 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible
> corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end
> needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully
> overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would
> take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it
> against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of
> around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time.
>
> I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who
> have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept
> the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am
> sure there were more who have done the same.
>
> I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a
> couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this
> engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost
> and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.
>
> I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue
> with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH"
> Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which
> means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.
>
> Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......
>
> On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and
> composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.
>
> If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting,
> extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb
> increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and
> probably a similar amount for a bed style mount.
>
> The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load
> limit is 900Lbs.
>
> If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I
> figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced
> by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs
> which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee
> conversion.
>
> I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower
> cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine
> installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then
> the load on the lower cowl for the original 582 at approx 132Lb engine
> weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a
> 76Lb difference AT +4g.
>
> I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where
> Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage
> bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load
> capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee
> configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!
>
> Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the
> Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.
>
> It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at
> -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even
> more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.
>
> So.......
>
> If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and
> so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee
> conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g?
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt.
>
> --------
> Pulsar 1 Kit.
> Captain B777.
> Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889
>
>
> Alex Kozloff
P.O. Box 866
Santa Paula, CA 93061(USPS)
416 East Santa Maria Street Hangar # 31
Santa Paula, CA 93060 (UPS & FedEx)
(805) 525-1415
(949) 400-6364 Cell
Message 12
| 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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Thanks for all the input so far guys I really appreciate it.
I'd be very interested to learn more about the structural failure of the BMW conversion.
I believe it was a landing incident and who knows what sort of strut
type engine mount, or fuselage anchor points had been 'engineered'. If anyone
has pictures or a website link that would be great.
Can someone explain to me why, if the weight of the hypothetical Aerovee converted
Pulsar at +4g is LESS than the 582 configuration at +6g, then why is there
disaster looming with the wood spars?
MTOW limits in this class of aircraft are only for the design limit G and safety
factor after all.
My spars have the Bi caps and I am aware that there are XP's out there with the
spruce spar at 960lb WITH A +6g LIMIT AT THIS WEIGHT.
So if I carry out a suitable strengthening of the forward fuselage to carry and
distribute the extra loads at +4g with a factor of 2, (about 150lbs) ...........whats
the problem?
I know I am playing devils advocate here but the History books are loaded with
stuff that we 'couldn't do'!! [Wink]
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380945#380945
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! --
|