Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:29 AM - Re: Pulsar Airfoil Note (Sonja Englert)
2. 06:27 PM - Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (mjb777)
3. 07:25 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (GREGSMI@aol.com)
4. 07:56 PM - Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (mjb777)
5. 08:03 PM - Anyone have Pulsar XP Manuals? (mjb777)
6. 09:08 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (GREGSMI@aol.com)
7. 10:19 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (Brian Anderson)
8. 10:19 PM - Re: Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... (Keith Palmer)
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 Airfoil Note |
A small correction to what you wrote:
The airfoil still has camber, otherwise it would be symmetric. What
was done was straightening out the lower surface. This has the
advantage for easier manufacturing for the control surfaces and lower
aileron forces, important with the short stick.
Sonja
On 5/21/13, Everett Collier <everettmcollier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The Pulsar was originally going to have a cambered airfoil (MS(1)-0313) but
> Mark took out the camber for the wing after the fuselage molds were made.
> If you want to see the original airfoil you can look at the wing shape on
> the fuselage wing root.
>
> I plotted the airfoil section (MS(1)-0313) out over 20 years ago when it was
> first published, probably in the newsletter. If you draw a streight line
> accross the bottom of the section that eliminates the camber you will get
> what I believe Mark did. Removing the camber has a couple of advantages for
> the builder. Not having the camber might make skinning the lower surface
> easier (no camber in the ailerons or flaps)!
>
> Everett Collier
> N167EC
> (Currently out of commision due to a broken front wheel fork.)
>
>
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: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... |
Thanks for that information Greg,
I have started an analysis on wing, wing/ gear mounting and fuselage loads and
reinforcement. (I commenced this a while ago using the Aerovee VW engine). Once
loads are calculated, I'll be looking at reinforcing the inside surfaces of
the fuselage shells with uni-directional tape which would allow me to distribute
loads more specifically and accurately, to give the same or greater strength
as the additional 6 Oz of glass used in th XP, but use a lot less material
and therefore result in less weight. It would look like a 2D composite version
of a steel truss type structure projected onto the shells. (Same theory as the
load bearing structure created by the tape used to reinforce the lower engine
cowling/ mount).
the Landing gear and wing "box" structure will be reinforced accordingly after
analysis and design, and the fuselage and tail analysis goes from there. It also
starts at the engine mounts (bed at this stage) and load paths are also developed
and combined. I have been looking into either a pure carbon or aluminium
horizontal stab tube and would be interested to know the wall thickness of the
XP horizontal stab aluminium tube as it would help to be able to compare my
calculated required strengths and modulus to what was originally used with the
XP there also.
As far as the fuel tank problem is concerned, I have a copy of the wing tank supplement
and at this stage my intention is to make fully molded wing tanks which
mount the same way as the XP wooden spar version, but will have less joins
and fiberglass ribs to remove/ reduce the likelihood of foam rib and leakage issues.
I'll also be using ethanol resistant resin. (Of course I wont bother if
the C of G element of the analysis works with the "header" style tank, it's a
"Plan B" thing).
I can assure you that all of my calculations will be checked by an aeronautical
engineer prior to construction. Components, the entire airframe and flying surfaces
will be static load tested. Standard stuff and a lot more thought and testing
than most re engined/ modified homebuilt aircraft get, (Probably Pulsars
included!). I'm not looking to go faster or make it aerobatic.
I have seen pictures of Pulsar 1's converted to Jabiru 2200 engines using a bed
mount and with the header tank, and it has been recommended to me to use the
Jabiru engine previously, it appears to have a very similar weight to the 912?
I'm guessing these aircraft wouldn't have been structurally improved and probably
only had the 900lb spar at maximum? (See Pictures of one example).
My AC is a Tail dragger so the nose gear failure issue isn't a concern. We will
use the Grove aluminium gear. (The original fiberglass/ foam gear is still available
if someone needs it, but its not worth my job trying to "sneak" it along
for a ride in the 777. The guys I fly for don't have much of a sense of humor!).
Why would I bother going through this instead of disposing of my kit and doing
it the easy way? I have the kit, it is a great Aircraft with loads of potential,
and this is what sport aviation is all about when done properly! (.......And
Sonex's don't have the curves!).
So........... do you have the XP manuals available? [Wink]
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401159#401159
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/5920_4_pulengine_162.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/5920_6_pulintake_453.jpg
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: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... |
Your assumption on the Jabiru weights is wrong. The 2200 Jabiru is 15
pounds heavier than the installed wet weight of the 582, making it a good swap.
Do not forget, the gross weight is limited by the wood spars.
I am sorry Matt, I cannot support you in this endeavor. You are using a
proven design to make a new airplane. When you are done, it may look like a
Pulsar, but with all of the modifications, it will become your own design. If
you want a 912 Pulsar there are plenty of those out there and I am sure
you can find one for sale. There is one on Barnstormers.
Greg
In a message dated 5/22/2013 8:27:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
mattbrock777@gmail.com writes:
--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" _mattbrock777@gmail.com_
(mailto:mattbrock777@gmail.com)
Thanks for that information Greg,
I have started an analysis on wing, wing/ gear mounting and fuselage loads
and reinforcement. (I commenced this a while ago using the Aerovee VW
engine). Once loads are calculated, I'll be looking at reinforcing the inside
surfaces of the fuselage shells with uni-directional tape which would allow
me to distribute loads more specifically and accurately, to give the same
or greater strength as the additional 6 Oz of glass used in th XP, but use
a lot less material and therefore result in less weight. It would look like
a 2D composite version of a steel truss type structure projected onto the
shells. (Same theory as the load bearing structure created by the tape used
to reinforce the lower engine cowling/ mount).
the Landing gear and wing "box" structure will be reinforced accordingly
after analysis and design, and the fuselage and tail analysis goes from
there. It also starts at the engine mounts (bed at this stage) and load paths
are also developed and combined. I have been looking into either a pure
carbon or aluminium horizontal stab tube and would be interested to know the
wall thickness of the XP horizontal stab aluminium tube as it would help to
be able to compare my calculated required strengths and modulus to what was
originally used with the XP there also.
As far as the fuel tank problem is concerned, I have a copy of the wing
tank supplement and at this stage my intention is to make fully molded wing
tanks which mount the same way as the XP wooden spar version, but will have
less joins and fiberglass ribs to remove/ reduce the likelihood of foam rib
and leakage issues. I'll also be using ethanol resistant resin. (Of course
I wont bother if the C of G element of the analysis works with the
"header" style tank, it's a "Plan B" thing).
I can assure you that all of my calculations will be checked by an
aeronautical engineer prior to construction. Components, the entire airframe and
flying surfaces will be static load tested. Standard stuff and a lot more
thought and testing than most re engined/ modified homebuilt aircraft get,
(Probably Pulsars included!). I'm not looking to go faster or make it
aerobatic.
I have seen pictures of Pulsar 1's converted to Jabiru 2200 engines using
a bed mount and with the header tank, and it has been recommended to me to
use the Jabiru engine previously, it appears to have a very similar weight
to the 912? I'm guessing these aircraft wouldn't have been structurally
improved and probably only had the 900lb spar at maximum? (See Pictures of one
example).
My AC is a Tail dragger so the nose gear failure issue isn't a concern. We
will use the Grove aluminium gear. (The original fiberglass/ foam gear is
still available if someone needs it, but its not worth my job trying to
"sneak" it along for a ride in the 777. The guys I fly for don't have much of
a sense of humor!).
Why would I bother going through this instead of disposing of my kit and
doing it the easy way? I have the kit, it is a great Aircraft with loads of
potential, and this is what sport aviation is all about when done properly!
(.......And Sonex's don't have the curves!).
So........... do you have the XP manuals available? [Wink]
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401159#401159
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/5920_4_pulengine_162.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/5920_6_pulintake_453.jpg
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: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... |
No assumptions Greg, the Rotax and Jabiru websites have the weights with exhaust
etc and they are pretty much the same, so I'd like to hear your opinion on that?
I fully understand the wood spar limitation and am not intending to exceed it?
At the end of the day all I am requesting is a copy of the XP manuals for reference.
If anyone has a set that I can get a hard or electronic copy of then please let
me know. I am happy to pay.
mattbrock777(at)gmail(dot)com
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401167#401167
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: | Anyone have Pulsar XP Manuals? |
Hi everyone,
I am looking for a hard or electronic copy of the Pulsar XP Manuals.
no liability or responsibility!
I'll happily pay a reasonable price for them.
mattbrock777(at)gmail(dot)com
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401169#401169
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: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... |
Matt, you are making some bad assumptions on weight. The web sights do not
give you install weight.
In a message dated 5/22/2013 9:56:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
mattbrock777@gmail.com writes:
--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" <mattbrock777@gmail.com>
No assumptions Greg, the Rotax and Jabiru websites have the weights with
exhaust etc and they are pretty much the same, so I'd like to hear your
opinion on that?
I fully understand the wood spar limitation and am not intending to exceed
it?
At the end of the day all I am requesting is a copy of the XP manuals for
reference.
If anyone has a set that I can get a hard or electronic copy of then
please let me know. I am happy to pay.
mattbrock777(at)gmail(dot)com
--------
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401167#401167
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: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... |
Matt,
I have a 912 in a Pulsar XP. I also have a Jabiru in my new Flitzer. I can assure
you that there is a significant difference in the installed weight.
FWIW, the installed weight that I used for determine the engine mount measurements
for my Flitzer was about 140lbs, everything included. The CofG turned out
to be exactly correct. The specified "ramp weight" in the manual says 134lbs.
Close enough considering mine has a heavier exhaust system.
On the other hand, the manual for the Rotax 912 lists the dry weight, plus a lot
of components separately, and then you have to add the oil tank, radiator, oil
cooler etc etc and the fluids. By the time everything is included you will
be over 160lbs.
Why are you aiming to re-engineer a perfectly good design - - - one that we know
works already. Having installed the Jabiru I can't imagine how one could be
fitted to a "bed" mount of the type used for the 912 in the Pulsar XP.
I can only reinforce Greg's point of view. Those of us who have built Pulsars,
in accordance with the manuals, know that everything works well, and I'm sure
we have a deal of admiration for the designer. The resulting performance is brilliant.
There have been many changes as the design evolved over the years, all
for good reasons.
Of course you are free to do whatever you want, but please don't call the result
a Pulsar. It won't be. It will be a new experimental that looks like a Pulsar.
Think also about the approval process for a new design. Oh, and where are the
manuals that came with the kit ? The XP manuals tell you how to bold the kit.
They don't give you all the dimensions and specifications for all the components.
I think that most of my fellow Pulsar builders would be horrified at what you are
planning to do.
Regards,
Brian
On 23/05/2013, at 1:24 PM, mjb777 <mattbrock777@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that information Greg,
>
> I have started an analysis on wing, wing/ gear mounting and fuselage loads and
reinforcement. (I commenced this a while ago using the Aerovee VW engine). Once
loads are calculated, I'll be looking at reinforcing the inside surfaces of
the fuselage shells with uni-directional tape which would allow me to distribute
loads more specifically and accurately, to give the same or greater strength
as the additional 6 Oz of glass used in th XP, but use a lot less material
and therefore result in less weight. It would look like a 2D composite version
of a steel truss type structure projected onto the shells. (Same theory as
the load bearing structure created by the tape used to reinforce the lower engine
cowling/ mount).
>
> the Landing gear and wing "box" structure will be reinforced accordingly after
analysis and design, and the fuselage and tail analysis goes from there. It
also starts at the engine mounts (bed at this stage) and load paths are also developed
and combined. I have been looking into either a pure carbon or aluminium
horizontal stab tube and would be interested to know the wall thickness of
the XP horizontal stab aluminium tube as it would help to be able to compare
my calculated required strengths and modulus to what was originally used with
the XP there also.
>
> As far as the fuel tank problem is concerned, I have a copy of the wing tank
supplement and at this stage my intention is to make fully molded wing tanks which
mount the same way as the XP wooden spar version, but will have less joins
and fiberglass ribs to remove/ reduce the likelihood of foam rib and leakage
issues. I'll also be using ethanol resistant resin. (Of course I wont bother
if the C of G element of the analysis works with the "header" style tank, it's
a "Plan B" thing).
>
> I can assure you that all of my calculations will be checked by an aeronautical
engineer prior to construction. Components, the entire airframe and flying
surfaces will be static load tested. Standard stuff and a lot more thought and
testing than most re engined/ modified homebuilt aircraft get, (Probably Pulsars
included!). I'm not looking to go faster or make it aerobatic.
>
> I have seen pictures of Pulsar 1's converted to Jabiru 2200 engines using a bed
mount and with the header tank, and it has been recommended to me to use the
Jabiru engine previously, it appears to have a very similar weight to the 912?
I'm guessing these aircraft wouldn't have been structurally improved and probably
only had the 900lb spar at maximum? (See Pictures of one example).
>
> My AC is a Tail dragger so the nose gear failure issue isn't a concern. We will
use the Grove aluminium gear. (The original fiberglass/ foam gear is still
available if someone needs it, but its not worth my job trying to "sneak" it along
for a ride in the 777. The guys I fly for don't have much of a sense of humor!).
>
> Why would I bother going through this instead of disposing of my kit and doing
it the easy way? I have the kit, it is a great Aircraft with loads of potential,
and this is what sport aviation is all about when done properly! (.......And
Sonex's don't have the curves!).
>
> So........... do you have the XP manuals available? [Wink]
>
> --------
> Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
> Captain B777.
> Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401159#401159
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/5920_4_pulengine_162.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/5920_6_pulintake_453.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Rotax 912 mounting options?.... |
Matt,
The failure in an aircraft is based on it's weakest point, do you
know where the Pulsars weakest point is based on it's current construction -
NO
K'd
----- Original Message -----
From: "mjb777" <mattbrock777@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:53 AM
Subject: Pulsar-List: Re: Rotax 912 mounting options?....
>
> No assumptions Greg, the Rotax and Jabiru websites have the weights with
> exhaust etc and they are pretty much the same, so I'd like to hear your
> opinion on that?
>
> I fully understand the wood spar limitation and am not intending to exceed
> it?
>
> At the end of the day all I am requesting is a copy of the XP manuals for
> reference.
>
> If anyone has a set that I can get a hard or electronic copy of then
> please let me know. I am happy to pay.
>
> mattbrock777(at)gmail(dot)com
>
> --------
> Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
> Captain B777.
> Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401167#401167
>
>
>
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! --
|