X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.101] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1321350 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:03:36 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-111-186.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.111.186]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k7E32n1g005176 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:02:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c6bf4e$92819d00$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: DoorOpenLside.jpg Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:06:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C6BF2D.0B1580F0" 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 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C6BF2D.0B1580F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Not a bad idea, Ben. They would slow down the opening a bit, but would = probably slow down the closing even more. I'll check into it. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ben Schneider=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 10:03 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: DoorOpenLside.jpg A possible solution might be to put restrictors directly on the = cylinders. Thus lowering the risk by eliminating the hose as a factor. = (would still be a factor, but should not slam shut in the event of a = hose break) Just a thought. Ben Schneider Ed Anderson wrote: Hi Ben, good question concerning safety. The door hydraulic = cylinders are single acting push-only. A restrictor valve holds the = door open and a push of a button opens the value to let the fluid back = into the tank thereby lowering the doors. The doors do not slam down = but do come down within 10-15 seconds (will have to time and see exactly = how long it takes). But, regardless of double acting or single acting if a hose breaks = you could be in trouble as you suggest. I intend to have 9-10 foot = pipes attached to main beam that when the door is open, I can pull down = and set to hold the door up. That way should a hose fail the door won't = slam down. These are 4000 psi bursting lines with 450 psi maximum = pressure - so hopefully I am not over stressing them. It could certainly ruin your day to have that door come down on you. Thanks for mentioning it - safety is always a high concern. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ben Schneider=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:25 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:=20 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_0006_01C6BF2D.0B1580F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not a bad idea, Ben.  They would slow down = the=20 opening a bit, but would probably slow down the closing even more.  = I'll=20 check into it.
 
Ed
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ben=20 Schneider
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 = 10:03=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Emailing:=20 DoorOpenLside.jpg

A possible solution might be to put restrictors = directly on the=20 cylinders. Thus lowering the risk by eliminating the hose as a factor. = (would=20 still be a factor, but should not slam shut in the event of a hose = break) Just=20 a thought.

Ben Schneider

Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com&g= t;=20 wrote:
Hi Ben, good question concerning = safety.  =20 The door hydraulic cylinders are single acting push-only.  A = restrictor=20 valve holds the door open and a push of a button opens the value to = let the=20 fluid back into the tank thereby lowering the doors.  The doors = do not=20 slam down but do come down within 10-15 seconds (will have to time = and see=20 exactly how long it takes).
 
But, regardless of double acting or single = acting if a=20 hose breaks you could be in trouble as you suggest.  I intend = to have=20 9-10 foot pipes attached to main beam that when the door is open, I = can pull=20 down and set to hold the door up.  That way should a hose fail = the door=20 won't slam down.  These are 4000 psi bursting lines with 450 = psi=20 maximum pressure - so hopefully I am not over stressing = them.
 
It could certainly ruin your day to have = that door=20 come down on you.
 
Thanks for mentioning it - safety is always = a high=20 concern.
 
Ed
-----=20 Original Message ----- From:=20 Ben=20 Schneider To:=20 Rotary motors in = aircraft=20 Sent:=20 Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:25 PM Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: 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,=20 or is it just gravity down? Reason I ask is in the event of a hose = or pipe=20 break, that the door does not come crashing down. That it would = stay in=20 place, or at least a restrictor so as to let the door down very=20 gently.  Because, if your luck is anything like mine, the = airplane=20 would likely be passing under it at the time. Not to mention the = safety=20 issue.  Just curious. Personally, I think the hydraulic = single panel=20 door is the only way to go, provided it is done safely. Just my=20 opinion.

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

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

Its basically a = warren=20 truss enclosed in plywood. It just took less work
(more = lumber, but=20 less work), to have the building material store cut me 16" =
wide=20 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
build an wooden open warren or Pratt truss. It = would be=20 interesting to see
how light the beam could be made, but = I've been=20 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=20 fly until the door is finished as my aircraft
is trapped=20 inside!!!

Appreciate your comments

Ed

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


> Hi Ed,
> I do not need a = door=20 nor a hangar, but as the discussion progresses I am
> = becoming=20 more interested.
> I would have thought that a Warren type = truss,=20 fabricated from, say, 3
> inch channel for chords and 2 = inch=20 angle for webs, would have been a
> better and lighter = solution=20 than a timber beam.
> Is that big center beam a laminated = truss or=20 a plywood fabricated beam?
> I am an old structural = engineer from=20 40 years ago, I have a lifelong love
> of bridges, and = have never=20 loss my interest in beams etc, so this is not
> meant to = be=20 criticism but rather to satisfy my own curiosity.
> BR, = Dave=20 McC
>
> On 14, Aug , at 5:51 AM, Ed Anderson=20 wrote:
>
>> I am convinced (but have not done a=20 comparative analysis) that this
>> arrangement does = produce=20 less outward force on the top of the door
>> = frame/hanger than=20 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=20 frame would
>> support approx 200 lbs and the ram 400 = lbs.=20 Since the "balance" point of
>> the door is along the = axis of=20 the beam this should mean very small
>> outward forces = once=20 the beam is raised.
>
>
> --
> Homepage: = 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_0006_01C6BF2D.0B1580F0--