X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [216.8.74.12] (HELO mail.hansoninfosys.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with SMTP id 1321294 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:50:03 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.8.74.12; envelope-from=dvanwinkle@royell.net Received: (qmail 22748 invoked by uid 89); 14 Aug 2006 01:49:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sempron3000) (216.8.89.123) by 0 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2006 01:49:19 -0000 Message-ID: <006501c6bf43$db3d75b0$800010ac@sempron3000> From: "Dean Van Winkle" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: DoorOpenLside.jpg Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:49:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0062_01C6BF19.F213F680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C6BF19.F213F680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed You are probably way ahead of me on this, but if your 9-10 foot pipes = are strong enough to support the door well, it would allow you to = relieve the hydraulic pressure as long as the door is up. Dean Van Winkle ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ben Schneider=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:25 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: DoorOpenLside.jpg Ed, A question out of curiosity, Do you have the hydraulics set up so = that the door is power up, and power down, or is it just gravity down? = Reason I ask is in the event of a hose or pipe break, that the door does = not come crashing down. That it would stay in place, or at least a = restrictor so as to let the door down very gently. Because, if your = luck is anything like mine, the airplane would likely be passing under = it at the time. Not to mention the safety issue. Just curious. = Personally, I think the hydraulic single panel door is the only way to = go, provided it is done safely. Just my opinion. Ed Anderson wrote: Hi David, You are right on all counts, fortunately- it is not a timber beam. = Its=20 actually a engineered box beam very similar to wooden spars built = for=20 aircraft. But, without quite as much attention to weight savings = {:>). I=20 used Liquid Nails Subfloor adhesive after discussing my = project/needs with=20 their technical staff (learned a bit about wood glues/adhesives) and = deck=20 screws to build the beam. It weighs around 180 lbs. Its basically a warren truss enclosed in plywood. It just took less = work=20 (more lumber, but less work), to have the building material store = cut me 16"=20 wide strips of plywood (4 to a sheet) and then use those as the webs = rather=20 than cutting out the gussets necessary for each brace/flange = interface to=20 build an wooden open warren or Pratt truss. It would be interesting = to see=20 how light the beam could be made, but I've been working on building = hangars=20 and doors since around March and wanted to see the light at the end = of the=20 tunnel {:>). Besides, I can't fly until the door is finished as my = aircraft=20 is trapped inside!!! Appreciate your comments Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "david mccandless"=20 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft"=20 Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 6:23 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: DoorOpenLside.jpg > Hi Ed, > I do not need a door nor a hangar, but as the discussion = progresses I am=20 > becoming more interested. > I would have thought that a Warren type truss, fabricated from, = say, 3=20 > inch channel for chords and 2 inch angle for webs, would have been = a=20 > better and lighter solution than a timber beam. > Is that big center beam a laminated truss or a plywood fabricated = beam? > I am an old structural engineer from 40 years ago, I have a = lifelong love=20 > of bridges, and have never loss my interest in beams etc, so this = is not=20 > meant to be criticism but rather to satisfy my own curiosity. > BR, Dave McC > > On 14, Aug , at 5:51 AM, Ed Anderson wrote: > >> I am convinced (but have not done a comparative analysis) that = this=20 >> arrangement does produce less outward force on the top of the = door=20 >> frame/hanger than a bi-fold. The hydraulic ram ends up at a 47 = deg angle=20 >> to the ground and so supports approx 70.7 % of the door weight. = If the=20 >> door weighed 600 lbs finished then I estimate the door frame = would=20 >> support approx 200 lbs and the ram 400 lbs. Since the "balance" = point of=20 >> the door is along the axis of the beam this should mean very = small=20 >> outward forces once the beam is raised. > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >=20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C6BF19.F213F680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ed
 
You are probably way ahead of me on = this, but if=20 your 9-10 foot pipes are strong enough to support the door well, it = would allow=20 you to relieve the hydraulic pressure as long as the door is = up.
 
Dean Van Winkle
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ben=20 Schneider
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 = 7:25=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Emailing:=20 DoorOpenLside.jpg

Ed,

   A question out of curiosity, Do = you=20 have the hydraulics set up so that the door is power up, and power = down, or is=20 it just gravity down? Reason I ask is in the event of a hose or pipe = break,=20 that the door does not come crashing down. That it would stay in = place, or at=20 least a restrictor so as to let the door down very gently.  = Because, if=20 your luck is anything like mine, the airplane would likely be passing = under it=20 at the time. Not to mention the safety issue.  Just curious. = Personally,=20 I think the hydraulic single panel door is the only way to go, = provided it is=20 done safely. Just my opinion.

Ed Anderson=20 <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
Hi=20 David,

You are right on all counts, fortunately- it is not a = timber=20 beam. Its
actually a engineered box beam very similar to wooden = spars=20 built for
aircraft. But, without quite as much attention to = weight=20 savings {:>). I
used Liquid Nails Subfloor adhesive after = discussing=20 my project/needs with
their technical staff (learned a bit about = wood=20 glues/adhesives) and deck
screws to build the beam. It weighs = around 180=20 lbs.

Its basically a warren truss enclosed in plywood. It = just took=20 less work
(more lumber, but less work), to have the building = material=20 store cut me 16"
wide strips of plywood (4 to a sheet) and then = use=20 those as the webs rather
than cutting out the gussets necessary = for each=20 brace/flange interface to
build an wooden open warren or Pratt = truss. It=20 would be interesting to see
how light the beam could be made, = but I've=20 been working on building hangars
and doors since around March = and wanted=20 to see the light at the end of the
tunnel {:>). Besides, I = can't fly=20 until the door is finished as my aircraft
is trapped=20 inside!!!

Appreciate your comments

Ed

----- = Original=20 Message -----
From: "david mccandless"
To:=20 "Rotary motors in aircraft"
Sent:=20 Sunday, August 13, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Emailing:=20 DoorOpenLside.jpg


> Hi Ed,
> I do not need a = door nor a=20 hangar, but as the discussion progresses I am
> becoming more = interested.
> I would have thought that a Warren type truss,=20 fabricated from, say, 3
> inch channel for chords and 2 inch = angle=20 for webs, would have been a
> better and lighter solution = than a=20 timber beam.
> Is that big center beam a laminated truss or a = plywood=20 fabricated beam?
> I am an old structural engineer from 40 = years ago,=20 I have a lifelong love
> of bridges, and have never loss my = interest=20 in beams etc, so this is not
> meant to be criticism but = rather to=20 satisfy my own curiosity.
> BR, Dave McC
>
> On = 14, Aug ,=20 at 5:51 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>> I am convinced = (but have=20 not done a comparative analysis) that this
>> arrangement = does=20 produce less outward force on the top of the door
>> = frame/hanger=20 than a bi-fold. The hydraulic ram ends up at a 47 deg angle =
>> to=20 the ground and so supports approx 70.7 % of the door weight. If the=20
>> door weighed 600 lbs finished then I estimate the door = frame=20 would
>> support approx 200 lbs and the ram 400 lbs. Since = the=20 "balance" point of
>> the door is along the axis of the = beam this=20 should mean very small
>> outward forces once the beam is=20 raised.
>
>
> --
> Homepage:=20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>=20



--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive = and=20 UnSub:=20 = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/

------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C6BF19.F213F680--