Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:27 AM - Re: "Beefing Up" (Yellowhammer)
2. 07:36 AM - Pulsar i Single Seat Conversion (Yellowhammer)
3. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: "Beefing Up" (Greg Smith)
4. 08:45 AM - Re: Re: "Beefing Up" (Bernard Wilder)
5. 10:01 AM - Re: Re: "Beefing Up" (N3300P)
6. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: "Beefing Up" (N3300P)
7. 10:20 AM - Re: Re: "Beefing Up" (Michael Cowan)
8. 11:51 AM - Re: "Beefing Up" (Yellowhammer)
9. 11:52 AM - Re: "Beefing Up" (Yellowhammer)
10. 12:16 PM - Re: "Beefing Up" (Yellowhammer)
11. 12:25 PM - Re: "Beefing Up" (Yellowhammer)
12. 05:52 PM - Re: Re: "Beefing Up" (David Weaver)
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: "Beefing Up" |
Mike,
Thanks for your input. I am certainly building my by the book. I was just curious
to learn what, if any, added areas of strength builders have used other than
those already discussed.
With an aircraft that has been in service as long as the Pulsar has, I was wondering
what, if any , areas were strengthened.
As I am progressing through my build, I keep finding certain places that could
have some extra strength.
Thanks,
Yellowhammer "Clyde"
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752
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 i Single Seat Conversion |
Greetings Everyone,
I was wondering if anyone has ever converted their Pulsar's to a single seat application?
Thanks for your input in advance.
Sincerely,
Clyde Oyler
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498753#498753
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: "Beefing Up" |
If you follow the build manuals the Pulsar seems very strong for the type
of flying it was designed for. Beefing up or adding extra glass will add si
gnificant weight which will reduce load capacity. It will not change the de
sign weight limitations. When I was building, I would call the factory and
was always told deviations in one area always had consequences in another a
rea. Mark would have to do analysis to ferret out the proposed changes, emp
hasizing that the plane is a system and changes in any area have compound a
ffects in other areas. In some cases, adding more glass to a layup just add
s weight because the structure you are glassing to has not change.
We do not have the designer for that support today so be very careful about
any deviations. After 1500 hours of Pulsar flying, over 24 years, I am not
disappointed in the aircraft.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Yellowhammer <coyler@sthpk-12.net>
Sent: Mon, Oct 12, 2020 9:26 am
Subject: Pulsar-List: Re: "Beefing Up"
Mike,
Thanks for your input. I am certainly building my by the book. I was just c
urious to learn what, if any, added areas of strength builders have used ot
her than those already discussed.
With an aircraft that has been in service as long as the Pulsar has, I was
wondering what, if any , areas were strengthened.
As I am progressing through my build, I keep finding certain places that co
uld have some extra strength.
Thanks,
Yellowhammer "Clyde"
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: "Beefing Up" |
I doubled the rear brackets where the landing gear attaches to the lower
fire wall. When building, some other owners had them crack or fail.
I attached angle aluminum supports to the bottom of the rear engine mount
where the nose gear shock absorber attaches to the bottom of the mount.
This is the element that transverses the engine compartment. Some had bent
when the nose wheel was used as part of the landing gear.
I closed off about 60% of the front cowl openings. I faired in the
closure. Too much air comes in the original openings that were designed to
provide air to the two radiators used with the 481. One chap had an oil
leak and the oil exited the front left cowl opening. Also the rear of the
top cowl puffed up due to the pressure under the cowl from the large
openings. Further, the increased pressure under the cowl fools the carbs
into thinking they are at a lower altitude then they really are. Never had
a cooling problem while significantly reducing the drag.
I filleted the horizontal stab to the fuselage. Yes,, it is no longer
removable by just pulling the two pins and disconnecting the push rod, but
who cares ? ? ? ? ? ME ! ! ! ! ! When I moth balled my girl I had to
get out the dremel again and cut the fillet away. No problem.
I doubled the uniweave glass in the bed mount side supports. Just on
general principles.
I put three extra attach screws on the rear of the top cowl where it
attaches to the fuselage. Because p[eople were reporting that the top of
the cowl raised up when in the air. (( Due to too much air pressure under
the cowl, again, from too large openings in the front cowl.))
I often put an extra layer of glass on joints that looked crucially
structural. Did I add weight ? ? ? Sure,, but not much. Besides I was
on a diet and lost weight personally so I figured I came out even..
My bird survived a 325 MPH dive with no damage other than a little paint
peeled off the leading edges here and there. I obviously don't regret the
extra weight and strength that came with the weight. But what really saved
me was that my control surfaces were well balanced and I got no flutter.
On your second flight you want to carefully but aggressively check for
flutter.
Good Luck.
Bernie Wilder
XP 390XP
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:29 AM Yellowhammer <coyler@sthpk-12.net> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your input. I am certainly building my by the book. I was just
> curious to learn what, if any, added areas of strength builders have used
> other than those already discussed.
>
> With an aircraft that has been in service as long as the Pulsar has, I was
> wondering what, if any , areas were strengthened.
>
> As I am progressing through my build, I keep finding certain places that
> could have some extra strength.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yellowhammer "Clyde"
>
> --------
> J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752
>
>
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: "Beefing Up" |
Hi Clyde,
I was looking for my notes before responding but could not find them yet. I do
recall taking them when I decided to sell my wood wing XP project and purchase
the Pulsar II. I recall that each time horsepower was increased there were structural
additions. With the upgrade from the 582 to the 912 it seems that additional
layer or layers of fiberglass were laid into the mold of the upper fuselage
and there was additional unidirectional to be placed in the roll bar behind
the cockpit lip and of course the bed mount uni. The spars were upgraded
with different caps and fiberglass and then to complete fiberglass and then different
thickness of caps over the years. The fuel tank move to the wings was
actually a good thing from a structural requirement of the wings and eventually
brought with it the red foam ribs that were more fuel proof than the blue. The
wing skins went from a light fiberglass covered wood to complete fiberglass
and the vertical spar went from attaching to the fuselage top only to extending
through the fuselage top all the way to the floor. Also, I think additional
plies were added to where the vertical attached to the top of the fuselage when
it was determined that the starting torque of the 912 was so much more than
the 582 that the vertical stab was countering the torque so much that cracking
was occurring there on the fuselage top. Thats all from memory of some 20+ years
ago. so I may have said some things not quite correct.... Ill keep looking
for notes and post what I can find.
Best regards,
Your Fellow Pulsar Enthusiast,
Ned
On Oct 12, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Yellowhammer <coyler@sthpk-12.net> wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for your input. I am certainly building my by the book. I was just curious
to learn what, if any, added areas of strength builders have used other than
those already discussed.
With an aircraft that has been in service as long as the Pulsar has, I was wondering
what, if any , areas were strengthened.
As I am progressing through my build, I keep finding certain places that could
have some extra strength.
Thanks,
Yellowhammer "Clyde"
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752
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: "Beefing Up" |
One thing I meant to mention is that the original Pulsar design was done by an
aerospace structural engineer by the name of Mark Brown. My Dad worked at AeroCommander
with Mark in Norman, OK many years ago before Mark moved to San Antonio.
Mark has an excellent reputation for certified structural engineering so
when you think you have found an area that needs beefed up it is a good idea to
do as you have here and ask the group about it. Sometimes beefing up something
has unintended consequences that defeat the design.
On Oct 12, 2020, at 11:57 AM, N3300P <n3300p@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Clyde,
I was looking for my notes before responding but could not find them yet. I do
recall taking them when I decided to sell my wood wing XP project and purchase
the Pulsar II. I recall that each time horsepower was increased there were structural
additions. With the upgrade from the 582 to the 912 it seems that additional
layer or layers of fiberglass were laid into the mold of the upper fuselage
and there was additional unidirectional to be placed in the roll bar behind
the cockpit lip and of course the bed mount uni. The spars were upgraded
with different caps and fiberglass and then to complete fiberglass and then different
thickness of caps over the years. The fuel tank move to the wings was
actually a good thing from a structural requirement of the wings and eventually
brought with it the red foam ribs that were more fuel proof than the blue. The
wing skins went from a light fiberglass covered wood to complete fiberglass
and the vertical spar went from attaching to the fuselage top only to extending
through the fuselage top all the way to the floor. Also, I think additional
plies were added to where the vertical attached to the top of the fuselage when
it was determined that the starting torque of the 912 was so much more than
the 582 that the vertical stab was countering the torque so much that cracking
was occurring there on the fuselage top. Thats all from memory of some 20+ years
ago. so I may have said some things not quite correct.... Ill keep looking
for notes and post what I can find.
Best regards,
Your Fellow Pulsar Enthusiast,
Ned
On Oct 12, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Yellowhammer <coyler@sthpk-12.net> wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for your input. I am certainly building my by the book. I was just curious
to learn what, if any, added areas of strength builders have used other than
those already discussed.
With an aircraft that has been in service as long as the Pulsar has, I was wondering
what, if any , areas were strengthened.
As I am progressing through my build, I keep finding certain places that could
have some extra strength.
Thanks,
Yellowhammer "Clyde"
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752
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: "Beefing Up" |
Clyde,
Fleetwide experience has highlighted the need for attention to the nosegear
fork assy. There=99s consensus agreement on that (not a factor for
taildraggers).
Some builders have beefed up the vertical stab spar. Others have added
plies to the main gear near the axle attach area. If you have blue foam
ribs, you may want to replace those. The kit-supplied exhaust left a lot
to be desired. Offhand, I can=99t think of anything else.
That said, there are lots of Pulsars flying around with none of those
mods. As the builder, it=99s your call. I would emphasize, though,
that
nearly any modification is going to add weight - the enemy of performance.
I think your plan to stick with the baseline design is sound. You=99
ll
likely have opportunities to =9Cfix=9D problems as they arise.
My 2 cents.
MikeyC
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:29 AM Yellowhammer <coyler@sthpk-12.net> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your input. I am certainly building my by the book. I was just
> curious to learn what, if any, added areas of strength builders have used
> other than those already discussed.
>
> With an aircraft that has been in service as long as the Pulsar has, I wa
s
> wondering what, if any , areas were strengthened.
>
> As I am progressing through my build, I keep finding certain places that
> could have some extra strength.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yellowhammer "Clyde"
>
> --------
> J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: "Beefing Up" |
In regards to the nose wheel fork and strut. I have had a few issues. I dry fitted
the fork onto the strut and I could not get it off. Due to the brass sleeve
that was press fitted into the fork.
I had to heat it up to get it off and even then the brass sleeve stayed on the
strut. I then had to grind the sleeve off. When I had everything together it was
so tight I couldn't even move the nose wheel. I am going to get another sleeve
to press fit in the fork hole.
Also, The fork itself looks like it was very poorly cast. I have found small pitting
many areas I am certain it will cause a stress fracture at some point.
I am about to start looking for an alternative and will most likely end up taking
it to my machine shop and have them make my another one.
My fork is made of aluminum. I wonder if anyone switched theirs to a steel version
along with drilling lightening holes.
I appreciate all the feedback on my "beefed up " questions.
So far, I have not done any thing extra in the way of strengthening my plane I
am planning on doing a few things others have done and that have been proven wise.
I wonder if I should convert it to a single seat because of how small the cockpit
is?
I am 6 'feet tall and weigh around 200 pounds and each time I sit in it I cant
even imagine a passenger being comfortable.
Anyway, thanks for the insight as it is much appreciated. I know I will have some
more questions before long.
I am building away as hard and steady as I can.
Wont be long now.
Thanks,
Clyde
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498771#498771
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: "Beefing Up" |
In regards to the nose wheel fork and strut. I have had a few issues. I dry fitted
the fork onto the strut and I could not get it off. Due to the brass sleeve
that was press fitted into the fork.
I had to heat it up to get it off and even then the brass sleeve stayed on the
strut. I then had to grind the sleeve off. When I had everything together it was
so tight I couldn't even move the nose wheel. I am going to get another sleeve
to press fit in the fork hole.
Also, The fork itself looks like it was very poorly cast. I have found small pitting
many areas I am certain it will cause a stress fracture at some point.
I am about to start looking for an alternative and will most likely end up taking
it to my machine shop and have them make my another one.
My fork is made of aluminum. I wonder if anyone switched theirs to a steel version
along with drilling lightening holes.
I appreciate all the feedback on my "beefed up " questions.
So far, I have not done any thing extra in the way of strengthening my plane I
am planning on doing a few things others have done and that have been proven wise.
I wonder if I should convert it to a single seat because of how small the cockpit
is?
I am 6 'feet tall and weigh around 200 pounds and each time I sit in it I cant
even imagine a passenger being comfortable.
Anyway, thanks for the insight as it is much appreciated. I know I will have some
more questions before long.
I am building away as hard and steady as I can.
Wont be long now.
Thanks,
Clyde
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498772#498772
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: | Re: "Beefing Up" |
DiscoverPulsar wrote:
> Hi Clyde,
> I was looking for my notes before responding but could not find them yet. I
do recall taking them when I decided to sell my wood wing XP project and purchase
the Pulsar II. I recall that each time horsepower was increased there were
structural additions. With the upgrade from the 582 to the 912 it seems that
additional layer or layers of fiberglass were laid into the mold of the upper
fuselage and there was additional unidirectional to be placed in the roll bar
behind the cockpit lip and of course the bed mount uni. The spars were upgraded
with different caps and fiberglass and then to complete fiberglass and then
different thickness of caps over the years. The fuel tank move to the wings was
actually a good thing from a structural requirement of the wings and eventually
brought with it the red foam ribs that were more fuel proof than the blue.
The wing skins went from a light fiberglass covered wood to complete fiberglass
and the vertical spar went from attaching to the fuselage top only to extending
through the fuselage top all the way to the floor. Also, I think additional
plies were added to where the vertical attached to the top of the fuselage
when it was determined that the starting torque of the 912 was so much more than
the 582 that the vertical stab was countering the torque so much that cracking
was occurring there on the fuselage top. Thats all from memory of some 20+
years ago. so I may have said some things not quite correct.... Ill keep looking
for notes and post what I can find.
> Best regards,
> Your Fellow Pulsar Enthusiast,
> Ned
>
> On Oct 12, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Yellowhammer wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your input. I am certainly building my by the book. I was just curious
to learn what, if any, added areas of strength builders have used other than
those already discussed.
>
> With an aircraft that has been in service as long as the Pulsar has, I was wondering
what, if any , areas were strengthened.
>
> As I am progressing through my build, I keep finding certain places that could
have some extra strength.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yellowhammer "Clyde"
>
> --------
> J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE AND INPUT. IT IS VALUED AND APPREIATTED.
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498774#498774
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: "Beefing Up" |
MikeyC wrote:
> Clyde,
> Fleetwide experience has highlighted the need for attention to the nosegear fork
assy. Theres consensus agreement on that (not a factor for taildraggers).
> Some builders have beefed up the vertical stab spar. Others have added plies
to the main gear near the axle attach area. If you have blue foam ribs, you may
want to replace those. The kit-supplied exhaust left a lot to be desired. Offhand,
I cant think of anything else.
>
> That said, there are lots of Pulsars flying around with none of those mods. As
the builder, its your call. I would emphasize, though, that nearly any modification
is going to add weight - the enemy of performance. I think your plan to
stick with the baseline design is sound. Youll likely have opportunities to
fix problems as they arise.
> My 2 cents.
> MikeyC
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:29 AM Yellowhammer wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for your input. I am certainly building my by the book. I was just
curious to learn what, if any, added areas of strength builders have used other
than those already discussed.
> >
> > With an aircraft that has been in service as long as the Pulsar has, I was
wondering what, if any , areas were strengthened.
> >
> > As I am progressing through my build, I keep finding certain places that could
have some extra strength.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Yellowhammer "Clyde"
> >
> > --------
> > J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
> >
> >
> >
> > Mikey,
> >
> > I have already installed my blue foam ribs. I will not have fuel in the wings
so will it still be an issue??
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498752#498752)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > ar-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List
> > ==========
> > FORUMS -
> > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> > ==========
> > WIKI -
> > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> > ==========
> > b Site -
> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498777#498777
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: "Beefing Up" |
I built a replacement nose wheel for a Pulsar XP after breaking the cast aluminum
fork. It was a copy of the 4130 steel fork that Sky Star sold as an upgrade
for Pulsar owners. After cutting out the parts and using a heavy vise secured
to workbench. Bending of fork tangs was then completed. After TIG welding
was finished, the fork was then professionally cleaned and powder coat finish
applied. No special tools required. A saber saw was used to cut the flat steel
parts out of steel sheet material ordered from Air Spruce. IF you are interested,
I will look for the drawing I made that shows dimensions and material
thickness.
Dave Weaver
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 12, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Yellowhammer <coyler@sthpk-12.net> wrote:
>
>
> In regards to the nose wheel fork and strut. I have had a few issues. I dry fitted
the fork onto the strut and I could not get it off. Due to the brass sleeve
that was press fitted into the fork.
>
> I had to heat it up to get it off and even then the brass sleeve stayed on the
strut. I then had to grind the sleeve off. When I had everything together it
was so tight I couldn't even move the nose wheel. I am going to get another
sleeve to press fit in the fork hole.
>
> Also, The fork itself looks like it was very poorly cast. I have found small
pitting many areas I am certain it will cause a stress fracture at some point.
>
> I am about to start looking for an alternative and will most likely end up taking
it to my machine shop and have them make my another one.
>
> My fork is made of aluminum. I wonder if anyone switched theirs to a steel version
along with drilling lightening holes.
>
> I appreciate all the feedback on my "beefed up " questions.
>
> So far, I have not done any thing extra in the way of strengthening my plane
I am planning on doing a few things others have done and that have been proven
wise.
>
> I wonder if I should convert it to a single seat because of how small the cockpit
is?
>
> I am 6 'feet tall and weigh around 200 pounds and each time I sit in it I cant
even imagine a passenger being comfortable.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the insight as it is much appreciated. I know I will have
some more questions before long.
>
> I am building away as hard and steady as I can.
>
> Wont be long now.
>
> Thanks,
> Clyde
>
> --------
> J.M. Oyler "Clyde"
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498772#498772
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|