Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:54 AM - main fuel tank width and material thickness (Eric Schlanser)
2. 06:07 AM - Re: main fuel tank width and material thickness (Jim and Donna Clement)
3. 06:08 AM - Re: main fuel tank width and material thickness (Dave Conrad)
4. 05:41 PM - Re: Tailwheel, any one? (Richard Lamb)
5. 05:56 PM - Re: Tailwheel, any one? (Jim and Donna Clement)
6. 07:51 PM - Re: Tailwheel, any one? (Richard Lamb)
7. 09:17 PM - Re: Tailwheel, any one? (dmagaw@att.net)
8. 09:22 PM - Re: Tailwheel, any one? (Richard Lamb)
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: | main fuel tank width and material thickness |
Various references to main fuel tank width and material have been listed here,
on the yahoo TW forum and in the Tailwind Times.
1. The recommendations for fuel tank width range from 34 to 36 inches. I have built
a standard width W-10 fuselage, and 34 inches of width would allow 1/2 inch
clearance on each side at the bottom of the tank and one inch clearance at
the top of the tank due to the angling out at the top of the first bay fuselage
sides. What would be best for ease of tank removal? 34? 35? 36?
2. I have been delivered 5052 H32 in .064 inch thickness instead of .050 inch.
It will end up 2.7 lbs heavier than if using .050 inch thickness material as the
plans call for. Besides hurting my climb by 5-8 feet per minute, what other
problems and/or advantages are there in using the thicker material?
Eric Schlanser, Kalamazoo, MI
---------------------------------
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: main fuel tank width and material thickness |
Eric, 1/2" on the sides is ok, no less. The .064 will also be fine. Check for clearance
of the upper engine mount bolts. Jim C
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Schlanser
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:54 AM
Subject: Tailwind-List: main fuel tank width and material thickness
Various references to main fuel tank width and material have been listed here,
on the yahoo TW forum and in the Tailwind Times.
1. The recommendations for fuel tank width range from 34 to 36 inches. I have
built a standard width W-10 fuselage, and 34 inches of width would allow 1/2
inch clearance on each side at the bottom of the tank and one inch clearance at
the top of the tank due to the angling out at the top of the first bay fuselage
sides. What would be best for ease of tank removal? 34? 35? 36?
2. I have been delivered 5052 H32 in .064 inch thickness instead of .050 inch.
It will end up 2.7 lbs heavier than if using .050 inch thickness material as
the plans call for. Besides hurting my climb by 5-8 feet per minute, what other
problems and/or advantages are there in using the thicker material?
Eric Schlanser, Kalamazoo, MI
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: main fuel tank width and material thickness |
Eric, You should run that climb performance loss through a computer at
different density altitudes. It might be more like 3-4 fpm. or maybe
10-11 fpm! HaHaHaHaHaHa just kidding. Weav, what do you think? Dave
Conrad
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 07:54 AM, Eric Schlanser wrote:
> Various references to main fuel tank width and material have been
> listed here, on the yahoo TW forum and in the Tailwind Times.
>
> 1.=A0The recommendations for fuel tank width range from 34 to 36 inches.
> I have built=A0a standard width W-10 fuselage, and 34 inches of width
> would allow 1/2 inch clearance on each side=A0at the bottom of the tank
> and one inch=A0clearance at=A0the top of the tank due to the angling out
> at the top of the first bay fuselage sides. What would be best for
> ease of tank removal? 34? 35? 36?
>
> 2.=A0I have been delivered 5052 H32 in .064 inch thickness instead of
> .050 inch. It will end up 2.7 lbs heavier than if using .050 inch
> thickness material as the plans call for. Besides hurting my climb
> by=A05-8 feet per minute, what other problems and/or advantages are
> there in using the thicker material?
>
> Eric Schlanser, Kalamazoo, MI
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
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: Tailwheel, any one? |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
>
> This is a smaller knock off of Jim C's design.
>
> Step by step pics.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/twheel.htm
>
> Richard
>
Hey!
Did anybody check out this project?
Or did everybody skip past because the pictures were not embedded?
click on the address...
http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/twheel.htm
Richard
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: Tailwheel, any one? |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Jim and Donna Clement" <168x@merr.com>
Looked OK to me Richard. Jim C
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Lamb" <n6228l@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Tailwheel, any one?
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
>
> Richard Lamb wrote:
> >
> > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
> >
> > This is a smaller knock off of Jim C's design.
> >
> > Step by step pics.
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/twheel.htm
> >
> > Richard
> >
>
> Hey!
> Did anybody check out this project?
> Or did everybody skip past because the pictures were not embedded?
>
> click on the address...
> http://home.earthlink.net/~n6228l/twheel.htm
>
> Richard
>
>
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: Tailwheel, any one? |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
Jim and Donna Clement wrote:
>
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Jim and Donna Clement" <168x@merr.com>
>
> Looked OK to me Richard. Jim C
>
It was a pretty straight forward job, Jim.
A littel smaller than yours, but the same basic design.
It works just fine too, which is always nice.
Richard
I guess I was feeling left out and wanted some attention.
:
)
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: Tailwheel, any one? |
Richard:
How well does your parasol fly--it looks like a lot of fun. You probably can
keep up with or go faster than Fred's new plane!!
Dave
N168A
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<style type='text/css'>
p {
margin: 0px;
}
</style>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
Richard:
How well does your parasol fly--it looks like a lot of fun. You probably can keep
up with or go faster than Fred's new plane!!
Dave
N168A
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
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: Tailwheel, any one? |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
Richard:
How well does your parasol fly--it looks like a lot of fun.
You probably can keep up with or go faster than Fred's new plane!!
Dave
N168A
I doubt THAT, Dave.
But I'll betcha I can play leap frog with him.
The first FULL power standing-stop-to-lift-off test took
three seconds flat! I gave it a passing grade.
VBG!
Richard
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! --
|