Doug Fir vs: Sitka Spruce

[Lou Parker]

Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is 23%
stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
got a handle on this?
Lou

[Morgans]

"Lou Parker" > wrote in message
om...
> Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
> difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is 23%
> stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
> got a handle on this?
> Lou

You need to download and read the publication in this link. It is the bible
of wood knowledge. The information you seek (and more) is there.
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/FPLGTR/fplgtr113/fplgtr113.htm
--
Jim in NC

[guynoir]

Douglas Fir, Modulus of rupture 12.4ksi SpGr: .48
Sitka Spruce: Modulus of rupture: 10.2ksi SpGr: .36

Thus, Douglas Fir is about 22% stronger than Sitka Spruce, with about
4/3rds the density.

From The Wood Handbook, CH 4, Mechanical Properties
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/FPLGTR/fplgtr113/fplgtr113.htm

Lou Parker wrote:

> Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
> difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is 23%
> stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
> got a handle on this?
> Lou

--
John Kimmel















In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter -- bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

[Del Rawlins]

On 26 Oct 2003 06:24 PM, Lou Parker posted the following:
> Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
> difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is 23%
> stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
> got a handle on this?

The difference between the two, is that sitka spruce will often forgive
less than perfect technique, while doug fir will split if you so much as
think the wrong thoughts about it. Sometimes even if you don't. Spruce,
on the other hand, is a joy to work with. A few years ago I turned some
unairworthy citabria spars into parts for a canoe. Still hoarding the
one leftover spar for future use. 8^)

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Stealth Pilot]

On 27 Oct 2003 06:30:14 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>On 26 Oct 2003 06:24 PM, Lou Parker posted the following:
>> Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
>> difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is 23%
>> stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
>> got a handle on this?
>
>The difference between the two, is that sitka spruce will often forgive
>less than perfect technique, while doug fir will split if you so much as
>think the wrong thoughts about it. Sometimes even if you don't. Spruce,
>on the other hand, is a joy to work with. A few years ago I turned some
>unairworthy citabria spars into parts for a canoe. Still hoarding the
>one leftover spar for future use. 8^)
>
agree with del.
douglas fir will splinter along the arris while working it. pays to
wear gloves because of this. (ask dave king in canada about his corby
starlet experience)

had the dregs of a crashed corby starlet once. the main landing gear
beam is a composite of ash and spruce across the lower fuselage that
the two landing gear springs bolt to.
on the crashed aircraft douglas fir and ash had been used.
had no problems in use for about 5 years.
in the crash the part was shattered, much in the way that you would
split a block down with a tommahawk into kindling wood for starting a
fire.

in australia the jodel has been redesigned locally to use douglas fir
(oregon pine) in place of spruce and the examples I know of have no
serviceability problems due to the wood.

resorcinol formaldehyde glues it ok as will epoxy.
Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Lou Parker]

Del Rawlins > wrote in message >...
> On 26 Oct 2003 06:24 PM, Lou Parker posted the following:
> > Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
> > difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is 23%
> > stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
> > got a handle on this?
>
> The difference between the two, is that sitka spruce will often forgive
> less than perfect technique, while doug fir will split if you so much as
> think the wrong thoughts about it. Sometimes even if you don't. Spruce,
> on the other hand, is a joy to work with. A few years ago I turned some
> unairworthy citabria spars into parts for a canoe. Still hoarding the
> one leftover spar for future use. 8^)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins-
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/


Does that mean that after building my plane with fir instead of spruce
that I should be able to up my cruise speed, max speed and everything
else by 20%?
Lou

[Scott Correa]

">
> Does that mean that after building my plane with fir instead of spruce
> that I should be able to up my cruise speed, max speed and everything
> else by 20%?
> Lou

No.

Scott

[Jerry Wass]

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
AMEN!!
<p>Morgans wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Lou Parker" > wrote in message
<br><a om</a>...
<br>> Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
<br>> difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is
23%
<br>> stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
<br>> got a handle on this?
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Lou
<p>You need to download and read the publication in this link.&nbsp; It
is the bible
<br>of wood knowledge.&nbsp; The information you seek (and more) is there.
<br><a href="http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/FPLGTR/fplgtr113/fplgtr113.htm">http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/FPLGTR/fplgtr113/fplgtr113.htm</a>
<br>--
<br>Jim in NC</blockquote>
</html>

[Del Rawlins]

On 27 Oct 2003 03:23 AM, Lou Parker posted the following:

> Does that mean that after building my plane with fir instead of spruce
> that I should be able to up my cruise speed, max speed and everything
> else by 20%?

Why settle for a mere 20% when you can go faster? Once you reach the
"normal" cruising speed, point the nose down, and then give a big yank.
Ought to pick up at least a few more knots that way.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Model Flyer]

"Del Rawlins" > wrote in
message ...
> On 27 Oct 2003 03:23 AM, Lou Parker posted the following:
>
> > Does that mean that after building my plane with fir instead of
spruce
> > that I should be able to up my cruise speed, max speed and
everything
> > else by 20%?
>
> Why settle for a mere 20% when you can go faster? Once you reach
the
> "normal" cruising speed, point the nose down, and then give a big
yank.
> Ought to pick up at least a few more knots that way.
>

One advantage of Douglas Fir here in Ireland is that it's got lot's
of knots to start with, you don't have to fly the thing to have at
least 100 knots.:-)
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place


> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins-
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[D Reid]

You cant increase your speed by 20%...but you CAN DECREASE your useful load
by about 12% (if I have my numbers right). Fir is a little heavier than
Spruce.
Dave...D as in "Duh"...A...V...E
"Lou Parker" > wrote in message
om...
> Del Rawlins > wrote in message
>...
> > On 26 Oct 2003 06:24 PM, Lou Parker posted the following:
> > > Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
> > > difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is 23%
> > > stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
> > > got a handle on this?
> >
> > The difference between the two, is that sitka spruce will often forgive
> > less than perfect technique, while doug fir will split if you so much as
> > think the wrong thoughts about it. Sometimes even if you don't.
Spruce,
> > on the other hand, is a joy to work with. A few years ago I turned some
> > unairworthy citabria spars into parts for a canoe. Still hoarding the
> > one leftover spar for future use. 8^)
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Del Rawlins-
> > Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> > Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> > http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>
>
> Does that mean that after building my plane with fir instead of spruce
> that I should be able to up my cruise speed, max speed and everything
> else by 20%?
> Lou

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:17:15 -0500, "D Reid" > wrote:

>You cant increase your speed by 20%...but you CAN DECREASE your useful load
>by about 12% (if I have my numbers right). Fir is a little heavier than
>Spruce.

I just finished a new battery box for my Fly Baby. Actually TWO battery
boxes, after the first one (made of oak) got laughed out of my EAA chapter.

(Hey, I do a bit of non-aviation carpentry. I *love* working with oak!)

FWIW, the poplar one weighed 1.25 pounds. The nearly-identical oak one
weighed a half-pound more... a 40% weight penalty.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bob U.]

>>You cant increase your speed by 20%...but you CAN DECREASE your useful load
>>by about 12% (if I have my numbers right). Fir is a little heavier than
>>Spruce.
>
>I just finished a new battery box for my Fly Baby. Actually TWO battery
>boxes, after the first one (made of oak) got laughed out of my EAA chapter.
>
>(Hey, I do a bit of non-aviation carpentry. I *love* working with oak!)
>
>FWIW, the poplar one weighed 1.25 pounds. The nearly-identical oak one
>weighed a half-pound more... a 40% weight penalty.
>
>Ron Wanttaja
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SO?????

Won't your Fly Baby carry a half-pound?
If not, fly barefoot and save 300% or more. <g>


Barnyard BOb --
If flying is the most fun you can have with your clothes on...
How much fun can flying naked be?

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> I just finished a new battery box for my Fly Baby. Actually TWO battery
> boxes, after the first one (made of oak) got laughed out of my EAA chapter.
>
> (Hey, I do a bit of non-aviation carpentry. I *love* working with oak!)
>
> FWIW, the poplar one weighed 1.25 pounds. The nearly-identical oak one
> weighed a half-pound more... a 40% weight penalty.

I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)

Ed Wischmeyer

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...

I kinda like either Black Walnut or Balsa :-) But I also think the subtle hues
of Cherry can blend into a harmony of tones that are a feast to the senses....
I really liked the use of Oak tho' it was a nice touch.

Chuck S

>
>I just finished a new battery box for my Fly Baby. Actually TWO battery
>boxes, after the first one (made of oak) got laughed out of my EAA chapter.
>
>(Hey, I do a bit of non-aviation carpentry. I *love* working with oak!)
>
>FWIW, the poplar one weighed 1.25 pounds. The nearly-identical oak one
>weighed a half-pound more... a 40% weight penalty.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

I wrote:
>>FWIW, the poplar one weighed 1.25 pounds. The nearly-identical oak one
>>weighed a half-pound more... a 40% weight penalty.

[Answering three responses to this message]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 05:53:13 -0600, Bob U. > wrote:
>
>SO?????
>
>Won't your Fly Baby carry a half-pound?
>If not, fly barefoot and save 300% or more. <g>

Ah, BOb, it's one of them engineering things. Like to get things as
efficient as I can.

However, I did provide the worst-case view of the actual numbers. The
half-pound difference above was just for the wood that went into the basic
structure of the new battery box. By the time the removable bottom,
various anchor nuts, aluminum mounting flanges, mounting bolts, etc. were
factored in, the difference wasn't as strong. With poplar as the basic
structure, the all-up, ready-to-use box weighed 2.5 pounds. So if I'd used
the oak, the penalty would have really been only 20%.

The box I replaced (the old box was for a standard aircraft battery, the
new one was for an Odyssey drycell) weighed five pounds. So even with oak,
I would have had a 2-pound savings.

FWIW, here's the numbers for my conversion from a Gill G-25 to the Odyssey
PC680:

Battery:
Gill G-25: 20 lbs
Odyssey: 14 lbs, including metal case
Battery Box:
For Gill: 5 lbs
For Odyssey: 2.5 lbs

Total weight savings was 8.5 pounds...less than I expected, because I had
anticipated the Gill battery was heavier. Still, the weight saving was a
secondary reason for the conversion. The old battery box and the large
battery only allowed access from above, and a box containing most of my
avionics actually mounted atop the battery. This meant that I had to
disassemble my electrical system *live* to access the battery far enough to
disconnect the cables. Ron didn't like that.

New, flatter battery is mounted on its side, accessible (and
disconnectible!) from below the aircraft. To get access to it, I cut a
1'x3' hole in the belly fabric and install an access panel. But then, I
had to do fabric work anyway because I had to glue down the loose edges of
the fabric on the rudder when I cut away the gaps seals to remove it to fix
the dry rot in the tailpost, which I discovered when I started to install a
modified tailwheel spring support bracket.

Let's just say I've had a busy two months.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 05:57:32 -0700, Ed Wischmeyer >
wrote:

]I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
]
]Ed Wischmeyer

Poplar was oakay fir my purposes. Besides, they don't sell spruce at Home
Depot Aerospace. :-)

Chuck S. posted:
}I kinda like either Black Walnut or Balsa :-) But I also think the
}subtle hues of Cherry can blend into a harmony of tones that are a
}feast to the senses....

Last year, I noticed that my wing "arrows" (wooden dowels tied to the wing
bracing wires to damp vibration) were a bit dry-looking and needed
revarnishing. I have a ton of stuff from various wood projects sitting
around, so I used some cherry stain on the arrows before varnishing them.
I like the effect, but it gets a few strange looks at fly-ins....

Actually, a buddy of mine says my old box was made out of Beech. Ed will
probably get a lot of mileage out of that one....

Ron Wanttaja

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
[[.. munch ..[[
>
>Actually, a buddy of mine says my old box was made out of Beech. Ed will
>probably get a lot of mileage out of that one....

Obviously, then, the new box is a son of a beech.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:49:01 GMT, ()
wrote:

>In article >,
>Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>>
>[[.. munch ..[[
>>
>>Actually, a buddy of mine says my old box was made out of Beech. Ed will
>>probably get a lot of mileage out of that one....
>
>Obviously, then, the new box is a son of a beech.
>
>
his old one was a beechcraft battery box :-)
Stealth Pilot

[Tim Ward]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
<snippage>
> Actually, a buddy of mine says my old box was made out of Beech. Ed will
> probably get a lot of mileage out of that one....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

So is the new box "Son of the beech"?

Tim Ward

[B2431]

>From: Ed Wischmeyer
>Date: 11/4/2003 6:57 AM Central Standard Time

<snip>

>> FWIW, the poplar one weighed 1.25 pounds. The nearly-identical oak one
>> weighed a half-pound more... a 40% weight penalty.
>
>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
>
>Ed Wischmeyer

Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Kyle Boatright]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Ed Wischmeyer
> >Date: 11/4/2003 6:57 AM Central Standard Time
>
> <snip>
>
> >> FWIW, the poplar one weighed 1.25 pounds. The nearly-identical oak one
> >> weighed a half-pound more... a 40% weight penalty.
> >
> >I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
> >
> >Ed Wischmeyer
>
> Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Where there's a willow, there's a way...

KB

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, B2431 says...


>>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
>>
>>Ed Wischmeyer
>
>Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember there's always
the larch :-)

See ya

Chuck S

[Del Rawlins]

On 06 Nov 2003 09:06 PM, Morgans posted the following:
>
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in
> message ...
>> In article >, B2431 says...
>>
>>
>> >>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
>> >>
>> >>Ed Wischmeyer
>> >
>> >Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.
>> >
>> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember
>> there's
> always
>> the larch :-)
>>
>> See ya
>>
>> Chuck S
>>
> You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.

Any of those are easy to find... I had to hunt all over town before I
found an establishment where I could buy a nice piece of ash.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, B2431 says...
> >
> >
> > >>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
> > >>
> > >>Ed Wischmeyer
> > >
> > >Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.
> > >
> > >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember there's
> always
> > the larch :-)
> >
> > See ya
> >
> > Chuck S
> >
> You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
> --
> Jim in NC

Nobody ashed yew!!!

Rich S.

[Morgans]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, B2431 says...
>
>
> >>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
> >>
> >>Ed Wischmeyer
> >
> >Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.
> >
> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember there's
always
> the larch :-)
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S
>
You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
--
Jim in NC

[Model Flyer]

"Morgans" > wrote in message

> >
> > Chuck S
> >
> You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
> --

Ahh, that would be 'little chip', lives down in
'woodfield'.................
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place


> Jim in NC
>
>

[Model Flyer]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in
message
> > ...

> > > Chuck S
> > >
> > You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Nobody ashed yew!!!
>

I know that but Douglas Firswood should know.......

--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place

> Rich S.
>
>

[Tim Ward]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, B2431
says...
> > >
> > >
> > > >>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
> > > >>
> > > >>Ed Wischmeyer
> > > >
> > > >Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.
> > > >
> > > >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > >
> > > Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember
there's
> > always
> > > the larch :-)
> > >
> > > See ya
> > >
> > > Chuck S
> > >
> > You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Nobody ashed yew!!!
>
> Rich S.

You guys are gonna make me sycamore puns.

Tim Ward

[Ernest Christley]

Tim Ward wrote:
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>In article >, B2431
>>>
> says...
>
>>>>
>>>>>>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed Wischmeyer
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>>Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember
>>>
> there's
>
>>>always
>>>
>>>>the larch :-)
>>>>
>>>>See ya
>>>>
>>>>Chuck S
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
>>>--
>>>Jim in NC
>>
>>Nobody ashed yew!!!
>>
>>Rich S.
>
>
> You guys are gonna make me sycamore puns.
>
> Tim Ward
>
>

Aah, quit yer gummin!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[B2431]

>From: Del Rawlins
uckSlusarczyk" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> In article >, B2431 says...
>>>
>>> >>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
>>> >>
>>> >>Ed Wischmeyer
>>> >
>>> >Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your comment.
>>> >
>>> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>> Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember there's
>> always the larch :-)
>>>
>>> See ya
>>>
>>> Chuck S
>>>
>> You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
>
>Any of those are easy to find... I had to hunt all over town before I found
an establishment where I could buy a nice piece of ash.
>
>Del Rawlins-

It seems Del is trying to branch out. I'll leaf it at that.

Dan, U. S. U. S. Air Force, retired

[Jerry Springer]

Morgans wrote:

> "Tim Ward" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in
>
> message
>
...
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, B2431
>>
>>says...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ed Wischmeyer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your
>
> comment.
>
>>>>>>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>
>>>>>Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember
>>
>>there's
>>
>>>>always
>>>>
>>>>>the larch :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>See ya
>>>>>
>>>>>Chuck S
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
>>>>--
>>>>Jim in NC
>>>
>>>Nobody ashed yew!!!
>>>
>>>Rich S.
>>
>>You guys are gonna make me sycamore puns.
>>
>>Tim Ward
>>
>>
>
> Who gives a Buck-eye?

This is becoming a Burl under my saddle.
Jerry

[Morgans]

"Tim Ward" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Morgans" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in
message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, B2431
> says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>I'd have thought you'd use spruce, it's even more poplar... :-)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Ed Wischmeyer
> > > > >
> > > > >Ed, you know a bunch of people are going to birch about your
comment.
> > > > >
> > > > >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > > >
> > > > Just don't pine over using birch instead of spruce.But remember
> there's
> > > always
> > > > the larch :-)
> > > >
> > > > See ya
> > > >
> > > > Chuck S
> > > >
> > > You are all acting like stoopid sons of beeches.
> > > --
> > > Jim in NC
> >
> > Nobody ashed yew!!!
> >
> > Rich S.
>
> You guys are gonna make me sycamore puns.
>
> Tim Ward
>
>
Who gives a Buck-eye?
--
Jim in NC

[Doug]

I think he's barking up the wrong tree

Doug


>
> It seems Del is trying to branch out. I'll leaf it at that.
>
> Dan, U. S. U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Doug"
>Date: 11/8/2003 8:08 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: ers.com>
>
>
>
>I think he's barking up the wrong tree
>
>Doug
>
>
>>
>> It seems Del is trying to branch out. I'll leaf it at that.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. U. S. Air Force, retired
>
When I was in elementary school I had to play a dog in a school play. I ran
across the stage yelling "oak, oak, oak." You see it was the only bark I knew.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Isakson]

"B2431" <wrote ...
> When I was in elementary school I had to play a dog in a school play. I
ran
> across the stage yelling "oak, oak, oak." You see it was the only bark I
knew.

Wouldn't it have been better to bark as your dogwood?

Rich

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Lou Parker) wrote in message >...
> Can anyone tell me the truth? When I read articles about the
> difference between the two woods, the information says that fir is 23%
> stronger than spruce. When I talk to people they say only 10%. Anyone
> got a handle on this?
> Lou

You need to know that Douglas Fir is not fir. That may be the source
of the confusion here. Douglas Fir is also known as Oregon Pine and
it is not a pine either. Douglas Fir is its own genus, I forget the
Latin name but understand that it translates to 'pseudo-hemlock' and
no, it's not a hemlock either.

Softwood lumber is often classified in 'species groups' with minimum
standards for tensile strength for each group. The cheapest is usually
S-P-F which stands for spruce, pine or fir. Another category is
'Hem-Fir' which may be hemlock or (true) fir. Doug Fir is usually
either grouped by itself, or with Larch. Southern Yellow Pine also
is usually grouped by itself.

Fir, pine, spruce, and hemlock are genuses. THere are several species
within each genus and many will also hybridize in the wild. I think
there is only one species of Douglas Fir.

But there are also significant differences within Douglas Fir depending
on where it is grown and whether it is old growth or second growth.

If the wood you are buying or reading about is just called fir, it
probably is NOT Douglas Fir.

Hope this helps.

--

FF

[Frank Stutzman]

Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
[ generally good description regarding how Doug fir is not a true fir and
other things ]

> If the wood you are buying or reading about is just called fir, it
> probably is NOT Douglas Fir.

I think this depends upon where you are buying it. Here in Oregon 80% or so
(warning: unsubstantiated number) of the evergreens are Doug fir. I think
its pretty safe that the "fir" at my local lumber yard is indeed Doug fir.

Now, it is also second growth Doug fir and is hardly suitable for a dog
house much less an airplane.

They just don't make trees like they used to.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[D.W. Taylor]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
> [ generally good description regarding how Doug fir is not a true fir and
> other things ]
>
>
>>If the wood you are buying or reading about is just called fir, it
>>probably is NOT Douglas Fir.
>
>
> I think this depends upon where you are buying it. Here in Oregon 80% or so
> (warning: unsubstantiated number) of the evergreens are Doug fir. I think
> its pretty safe that the "fir" at my local lumber yard is indeed Doug fir.
>
> Now, it is also second growth Doug fir and is hardly suitable for a dog
> house much less an airplane.
>
> They just don't make trees like they used to.
>

FYI only a small fraction of the wood in any store in oregon comes from
here. And Doug fir only makes up a small part of our forest, Hemlock,
Pine and various hardwoods make up the bigger part. MOst of whats sold
aaround the country as "fir" is actually Hemlock and a lot of it
comes from Canada...

There are small millworks in Oregon that will make sure you get
what you ewwant for a fairly small premium. Even Sitka Spruce
is available if you do some looking.

Dave
Oregon Native and Forest service brat.

[Frank Stutzman]

D.W. Taylor > wrote:

> FYI only a small fraction of the wood in any store in oregon comes from
> here.

I could be biased by my location. I don't buy wood in any metro area as I
don't live there. I am currently having a house built and everything that
has been delivered has had a stamp or tag on it that said either SDS (a mill
in Bingen WA, which is barely accross the Columbia) or Warm Springs (which I
assume means it comes from the Warm Springs Indians).

Now, on the other hand, I had a pole barn built last spring. It was a kit
and the outfit that put it togather was from Canby (greater Portland area).
Every stick of that building came from Canada. I was told it was "Canadian
Pine." It was good looking wood, too. Much tighter grain, less knots than
what I can get locally.

> Oregon Native and Forest service brat.

Also an Oregon Native. I'm also the first of my family NOT to be making a
living in the timber industry. Put myself through college setting chokers
on some mighty big Douglas fir.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"D.W. Taylor" > wrote in message >...
> Frank Stutzman wrote:
> > Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
> > [ generally good description regarding how Doug fir is not a true fir and
> > other things ]
> >
> >
> >>If the wood you are buying or reading about is just called fir, it
> >>probably is NOT Douglas Fir.
> >
> >
> > I think this depends upon where you are buying it. Here in Oregon 80% or so
> > (warning: unsubstantiated number) of the evergreens are Doug fir. I think
> > its pretty safe that the "fir" at my local lumber yard is indeed Doug fir.

I was
remiss in not explaining more. There is an industry standards
organisation, the American Softwood Lumber Association that sets
standards for softwood lumber. They establish standards for species
groups, dimensions for standard lumber sizes etc.

There is a standard for Douglas Fir and a different standard for
Hem-Fir. A higher minimum strength is required for Doug Fir than
for Hem-Fir. If the lumber is just labeled 'Fir' and it really is
Doug fir then it is mislabeled as an inferior product. If it isn't
Doug Fir it almost certainly isn't as strong as Doug Fir.

Now, there is no requirement that anyone use the standards set by
the ASLA. Home Depot certainly does not. A friend in S.Cal had
a deck made with Doug Fir timbers. THere were paper tags with
bar codes on the lumber that said 'GRN FIR' (Green Fir) but the
inked stamp from the actual lumber company that milled the
lumber was the trademark triangle with 'DF' in it. IOW,
Home Depot was relabeling the lumber as an inferior product,
no doubt through ignorance or indifference.

I think Hem-Fir, S-P-F and few other designations are trademarked
by the ASLA, but a commonly used word or phrase cannot be a trademark
so 'Douglas Fir', or just 'Fir' cannot eb tardemarked and that's
why there are special symbols. I think there is a trade group
just for Douglas Fir, a Google search should turn them up.

So you may be right but you certainly shouldn't count on the
lumber having the properties of Douglas Fir unless it is clearly
waranteed as such.

....

>
> FYI only a small fraction of the wood in any store in oregon comes from
> here. And Doug fir only makes up a small part of our forest, Hemlock,
> Pine and various hardwoods make up the bigger part. MOst of whats sold
> aaround the country as "fir" is actually Hemlock and a lot of it
> comes from Canada...

It ought to be labeled Hem-Fir. But maybe it isn't because the
supplier does not want to warantee that it meets the ASLA standard
for Hem-Fir. I've seen a lot of 'oak' furniture (without the
quotemarks around the oak) that is made from rubber wood. A fair
bit of 'maple' furniture is being made from beech these days and
it has often been a common practice to substitute ash for oak w
in places where the former is cheaper.

>
> There are small millworks in Oregon that will make sure you get
> what you ewwant for a fairly small premium. Even Sitka Spruce
> is available if you do some looking.
>

Yep. The best (and cheapest) wood is bought direct from the
sawyer.

--

FF

[D. Grunloh]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> "D.W. Taylor" > wrote in message >...
> > Frank Stutzman wrote:
> > > Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
> > > [ generally good description regarding how Doug fir is not a true fir and
> > > other things ]
> > >
> > >
> > >>If the wood you are buying or reading about is just called fir, it
> > >>probably is NOT Douglas Fir.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this depends upon where you are buying it. Here in Oregon 80% or so
> > > (warning: unsubstantiated number) of the evergreens are Doug fir. I think
> > > its pretty safe that the "fir" at my local lumber yard is indeed Doug fir.
>

Thanks Fred for those details. I once built an ultralight (SkyPup)
which was all Doug Fir. Here in the midwest you have to search for it
and it will always be more expensive than the other softwoods.
It is still used for wood scafolding and in stair construction.
The lumber yards around here know exactly which bins are
Doug Fir. We find mostly 2x4 and 2x6 up to 18 feet long.

Avoid any Doug Fir with conspicious pitch exuding out the ends.
Doug Fir can have hidden pitch pockets. Discard any board
which shows evidence. It should not be used in thick sections
such as solid spars for this reason. Use of laminates in thick
sections is preferable.

--dan grunloh





>
> I was
> remiss in not explaining more. There is an industry standards
> organisation, the American Softwood Lumber Association that sets
> standards for softwood lumber. They establish standards for species
> groups, dimensions for standard lumber sizes etc.
>
> There is a standard for Douglas Fir and a different standard for
> Hem-Fir. A higher minimum strength is required for Doug Fir than
> for Hem-Fir. If the lumber is just labeled 'Fir' and it really is
> Doug fir then it is mislabeled as an inferior product. If it isn't
> Doug Fir it almost certainly isn't as strong as Doug Fir.
>
> Now, there is no requirement that anyone use the standards set by
> the ASLA. Home Depot certainly does not. A friend in S.Cal had
> a deck made with Doug Fir timbers. THere were paper tags with
> bar codes on the lumber that said 'GRN FIR' (Green Fir) but the
> inked stamp from the actual lumber company that milled the
> lumber was the trademark triangle with 'DF' in it. IOW,
> Home Depot was relabeling the lumber as an inferior product,
> no doubt through ignorance or indifference.
>
> I think Hem-Fir, S-P-F and few other designations are trademarked
> by the ASLA, but a commonly used word or phrase cannot be a trademark
> so 'Douglas Fir', or just 'Fir' cannot eb tardemarked and that's
> why there are special symbols. I think there is a trade group
> just for Douglas Fir, a Google search should turn them up.
>
> So you may be right but you certainly shouldn't count on the
> lumber having the properties of Douglas Fir unless it is clearly
> waranteed as such.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > FYI only a small fraction of the wood in any store in oregon comes from
> > here. And Doug fir only makes up a small part of our forest, Hemlock,
> > Pine and various hardwoods make up the bigger part. MOst of whats sold
> > aaround the country as "fir" is actually Hemlock and a lot of it
> > comes from Canada...
>
> It ought to be labeled Hem-Fir. But maybe it isn't because the
> supplier does not want to warantee that it meets the ASLA standard
> for Hem-Fir. I've seen a lot of 'oak' furniture (without the
> quotemarks around the oak) that is made from rubber wood. A fair
> bit of 'maple' furniture is being made from beech these days and
> it has often been a common practice to substitute ash for oak w
> in places where the former is cheaper.
>
> >
> > There are small millworks in Oregon that will make sure you get
> > what you ewwant for a fairly small premium. Even Sitka Spruce
> > is available if you do some looking.
> >
>
> Yep. The best (and cheapest) wood is bought direct from the
> sawyer.
>
> --
>
> FF