---------------------------------------------------------- Pulsar-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 10/12/20: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:27:33 AM PST US Subject: Pulsar-List: Re: "Beefing Up" From: "Yellowhammer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:36:23 AM PST US Subject: Pulsar-List: Pulsar i Single Seat Conversion From: "Yellowhammer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:11 AM PST US From: Greg Smith Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:45:26 AM PST US From: Bernard Wilder Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:01:26 AM PST US From: N3300P Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:06:50 AM PST US From: N3300P Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: 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 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 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:20:16 AM PST US From: Michael Cowan Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:51:15 AM PST US Subject: Pulsar-List: Re: "Beefing Up" From: "Yellowhammer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:52:32 AM PST US Subject: Pulsar-List: Re: "Beefing Up" From: "Yellowhammer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:16:33 PM PST US Subject: Pulsar-List: Re: "Beefing Up" From: "Yellowhammer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:25:08 PM PST US Subject: Pulsar-List: Re: "Beefing Up" From: "Yellowhammer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:52:11 PM PST US From: David Weaver Subject: Re: Pulsar-List: 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 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pulsar-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pulsar-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pulsar-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pulsar-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.