Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:11 AM - Re: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (GREGSMI@aol.com)
2. 03:23 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (mjb777)
3. 06:38 AM - Re: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Bob)
4. 07:29 AM - Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (mjb777)
5. 08:12 AM - Re: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Sonja Englert)
6. 08:22 AM - Re: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. (Bernard Wilder)
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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
The ultimate load is 6G. FAR part 23 requires one and half G safety margin
which puts the operating limit load at 4 G. The operating limit is derived
from the ultimate load limit. When it says tested, Aerodesigns was stating
6G is the point of failure. On many occasions, Aerodesigns had talked about
testing, and in dealing with composites, how any damage would be
cumulative. It was always stressed that the Pulsar is not an acrobatic aircraft
which is where you might see the higher G loads.
In a message dated 8/16/2012 1:24:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mattbrock777@gmail.com writes:
--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" <mattbrock777@gmail.com>
Thanks for your insight Greg and I very much appreciate the following and
pride of the Pulsar guys out there. I haven't heard a bad word about the
aeroplane other than some of the negative experiences that guys have had with
2 strokes over time.
A quick question with your last comment. I have numerous official Aero
Designs pulications that state the "G-Limits (Tested) +6.0/-4.0". There is
never a mention in any of these brochures or my construction and operation
Manuals, (that I can see anyway), that mentions +4.0G?
Could you provide me with a reference as even if I proceed to the original
design specifications then this is very important.
Regards and thanks again for your input.
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381005#381005
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: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
Thanks Greg, I understand.
I had another look at my Operating manual and see that +4/-2 is in there.
Without holding you to it, would you be more positive with my Pulsar 1 being modified
with the Jabiru conversion?
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381011#381011
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. |
I recall seeing pictures many years ago purporting to be a 6 g ultimate
load test of a Pulsar wing. Believe it was conducted at NAU as part of
a student design senior project. I do not remember if it was a wood or
glass spar, but I do recall the test went to the full
=9C6g=9D value....ie sandbags almost to the ceiling, wing
tips drooped to the floor. The aviation program at NAU is pretty much
gone now, but you might be able to find a report on the web or maybe
AIAA archives.
Bob
From: GREGSMI@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices.
The ultimate load is 6G. FAR part 23 requires one and half G safety
margin which puts the operating limit load at 4 G. The operating limit
is derived from the ultimate load limit. When it says tested,
Aerodesigns was stating 6G is the point of failure. On many occasions,
Aerodesigns had talked about testing, and in dealing with composites,
how any damage would be cumulative. It was always stressed that the
Pulsar is not an acrobatic aircraft which is where you might see the
higher G loads.
In a message dated 8/16/2012 1:24:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mattbrock777@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for your insight Greg and I very much appreciate the following
and pride of the Pulsar guys out there. I haven't heard a bad word about
the aeroplane other than some of the negative experiences that guys have
had with 2 strokes over time.
A quick question with your last comment. I have numerous official Aero
Designs pulications that state the "G-Limits (Tested) +6.0/-4.0". There
is never a mention in any of these brochures or my construction and
operation Manuals, (that I can see anyway), that mentions +4.0G?
Could you provide me with a reference as even if I proceed to the
original design specifications then this is very important.
Regards and thanks again for your input.
Matt.
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381005#381005
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. |
Interesting and I think I may have come across something similar however, as many
have said on this, lets say 'inspirational' post of mine is that they think
that at 4G at the design weight, the elastic limit may be exceeded and permanent
cumulative damage may start to occur.
That right Greg?
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381024#381024
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: | Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices. |
With composite airplanes, there is little fatigue damage accumulating,
unlike with metal airplanes. If you exceed the limit load, it is not
likely to yield or get bent, but if you exceed ultimate load, it will
break all of a sudden.
Sonja
On 8/16/12, mjb777 <mattbrock777@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting and I think I may have come across something similar however, as
> many have said on this, lets say 'inspirational' post of mine is that they
> think that at 4G at the design weight, the elastic limit may be exceeded and
> permanent cumulative damage may start to occur.
>
> That right Greg?
>
> --------
> Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
> Captain B777.
> Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381024#381024
>
>
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 weights and engine choices. |
There was also static test done in Europe,,, Germany, I think.
Bernie Wilder
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Bob <rmurrill@cox.net> wrote:
> I recall seeing pictures many years ago purporting to be a 6 g ultimate
> load test of a Pulsar wing. Believe it was conducted at NAU as part of a
> student design senior project. I do not remember if it was a wood or gla
ss
> spar, but I do recall the test went to the full =936g=94 value....ie sand
bags
> almost to the ceiling, wing tips drooped to the floor. The aviation
> program at NAU is pretty much gone now, but you might be able to find a
> report on the web or maybe AIAA archives.
>
> Bob
>
>
> *From:* GREGSMI@aol.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:10 AM
> *To:* pulsar-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pulsar-List: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices.
> The ultimate load is 6G. FAR part 23 requires one and half G safety
> margin which puts the operating limit load at 4 G. The operating limit is
> derived from the ultimate load limit. When it says tested, Aerodesigns wa
s
> stating 6G is the point of failure. On many occasions, Aerodesigns had
> talked about testing, and in dealing with composites, how any damage woul
d
> be cumulative. It was always stressed that the Pulsar is not an acrobatic
> aircraft which is where you might see the higher G loads.
>
>
> In a message dated 8/16/2012 1:24:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> mattbrock777@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> Thanks for your insight Greg and I very much appreciate the following and
> pride of the Pulsar guys out there. I haven't heard a bad word about the
> aeroplane other than some of the negative experiences that guys have had
> with 2 strokes over time.
>
> A quick question with your last comment. I have numerous official Aero
> Designs pulications that state the "G-Limits (Tested) +6.0/-4.0". There i
s
> never a mention in any of these brochures or my construction and operatio
n
> Manuals, (that I can see anyway), that mentions +4.0G?
>
> Could you provide me with a reference as even if I proceed to the origina
l
> design specifications then this is very important.
>
> Regards and thanks again for your input.
>
> Matt.
>
> --------
> Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
> Captain B777.
> Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381005#381005**
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
*
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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! --
|