Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:48:44 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b1) with ESMTP id 3135806 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:12:53 -0500 Received: from steve (c-67-166-133-229.client.comcast.net[67.166.133.229]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20040330071249015007hlk1e>; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 07:12:49 +0000 From: "the colwells" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: Re: e-glass vs carbon fiber X-Original-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:13:06 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: <000001c41626$7314fc60$e585a643@steve> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C415E3.64F34300" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C415E3.64F34300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been thinking about reinforcing the firewall of my Legacy so this discussion has been interesting. The reason is to address two issues. The first is flex caused by the canopy strut pressure. The second is vibration observed during the CAFE Foundation test of N199L. This vibration only occurs during a manifold pressure/RPM combination that would not be used in normal operation. I followed the logic that carbon fiber would offer more strength for it's weight so it would be the obvious choice. Now I am not so sure. I don't want to introduce failure points at worst or make the wrong choice of material and that still leaves the design. I wanted to run this by Martin Holman or Carsten the next time I saw them but this could be a good place to start. Ideas, comments?? Steve Colwell ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C415E3.64F34300 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I have been thinking about = reinforcing the=20 firewall of my Legacy so this discussion has been interesting.  The = reason=20 is to address two issues.
 
The first is flex caused by the = canopy strut=20 pressure.  The second is vibration observed during  the = CAFE=20 Foundation test of N199L.  This vibration only occurs during a = manifold=20 pressure/RPM combination that would not be used in normal=20 operation.   I followed the logic that carbon fiber would = offer=20 more strength for it's weight so it would be the obvious=20 choice.   Now I am not so sure. 
 
I don't want to introduce failure = points at=20 worst or make the wrong choice of material and that still leaves the=20 design.  I wanted to run this by Martin Holman or Carsten the next = time I=20 saw them but this could be a good place to start.  Ideas,=20 comments??
 
Steve Colwell

 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C415E3.64F34300--