Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #52672
From: Mark Ravinski <mjrav@comcast.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Strength vs. stiffness
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:32:39 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Hi Gary,
I suggest you make your aft fuselage a full cone shape by closing the vertical tail opening.
And I agree to use glass for this work.
I (and several others)  found this was needed after cracks formed near the top of the fuselage at the tail.
It's a bugger of a place to work.  It would be easier with the plane inverted.
I'll send some pics if you need them.
 
Mark Ravinski
360  1470 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Casey
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:24 AM
Subject: [LML] Strength vs. stiffness

I lost the original question on this, but someone asked about the wisdom of adding stiffness to the fuselage and whether that would make it more likely to break.  Good question, but the answer is not straightforward.  Generally, stiffness and strength go together, but they are actually different things:  A nylon rope might be strong, but not stiff while a clay pot is stiff but not strong.  Yes, if you make one element in a complex system stiffer than the others it will absorb a disproportionate amount of load and might be subject to failure.  For instance, I added unidirectional Kevlar "straps" to my aft fuselage and they are probably stiffer than the glass fabric under them.  They will absorb more of the force exerted and yes, they might break first or possible de-bond from the substrate during an overload condition.  It would have been better to design the whole system out of Kevlar, but I suspect the straps do increase the overall strength and especially stiffness.  Why do we want the fuselage to be stiff, especially in torsion?  Everything that has stiffness and weight has a resonant frequency - the frequency at which it will tend to vibrate.  The tail will torsionally vibrate at some frequency and this frequency is lower than it could be because of all the lead weights at the tips.  If that frequency is too low it could be excited by any number of things, one being aerodynamic loads, possibly resulting in destructive flutter.  Since all three control surfaces are overbalanced it will not likely be excited by a control surface itself.  When I studied the shimmy issue  I looked for things that could have a resonant frequency in the range of the observed shimmy.  Three obvious ones came to mind.  There is the resonance created by the combination of nose strut/mount stiffness and the gyroscopic precession forces of the wheel tire, a very complex system.  Another is the resonant frequency of the engine in its isolators.  The third is torsional resonant frequency of the tail, which isn't has high as you might think.  To demonstrate, take you fist and pound on the tip of the horizontal stabilizer - I haven't measured it, but it appears to be 10 Hz or less.  That is in the same range as the engine.  What would happen if the excitation (the nose wheel turning side to side) was the same frequency as one of the other major resonant frequencies?  It might trigger a catastrophic shimmy event.  Why would a shimmy trigger a torsional vibration of the tail?  To start with the shimmy puts a torsional load into the fuselage and besides inputs a lateral, or steering load.  The CG of the tail is above the neutral axis in torsion and therefore when the tail goes side to side it generates a twist.  The two forces actually add together, increasing the effect.  The resonant frequency of the nose gear changes with speed, but what happens if the two other large masses, the tail and the engine have the same resonant frequency?  When the resonant frequency of the nose gear matches the other two the vibration could get severe.  One basic goal of elastic design is to separate the various resonances so no two  can be excited at the same time.

Skip all that - I assume the tail is strong enough (I think), but it could always be stiffer and I like stiffer.  The graceful curve of the aft fuselage maybe impart slightly less drag and certainly looks good, but a simple conical shape (Piper Cherokee) is probably more structurally sound.
Gary

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster