sitka spruce

[al pernell]

anyone know of good sources for spruce stock other than Wicks and Aircraft Spruce

[John Ammeter]

On 19 Feb 2004 13:28:10 -0800, (al
pernell) wrote:

>anyone know of good sources for spruce stock other than Wicks and Aircraft Spruce


I seem to recall Ron Wantajaa mentioning a spruce supplier
near Aberdeen, WA. They supplied spruce to piano/organ
manufacturers, I believe.

John

[Badwater Bill]

On 19 Feb 2004 13:28:10 -0800, (al pernell) wrote:

>anyone know of good sources for spruce stock other than Wicks and Aircraft Spruce

Man, that's a good question. Almost every spruce tree that is cut
down on the North American Continent goes to Japan at a premium price
that we'd never pay.

BWB

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:47:36 GMT, John Ammeter
> wrote:

>On 19 Feb 2004 13:28:10 -0800, (al
>pernell) wrote:
>
>>anyone know of good sources for spruce stock other than Wicks and Aircraft Spruce
>
>I seem to recall Ron Wantajaa mentioning a spruce supplier
>near Aberdeen, WA. They supplied spruce to piano/organ
>manufacturers, I believe.

Wasn't me, but I may have mentioned B&D in Tacoma a few times in the past.
However, looking at their web page, they don't seem to stock anything but
plywood.

I've got links to a few wood suppliers at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/#supply

Ron Wanttaja

[Dude]

BB,

Do you know what varieties of spruce will make good airplane parts?

I am planning to plant a bunch of trees, and I might as well do something
good for the future of aviation while I am at it. It would be a shame if
there were know pretty biplanes decorating the sky.

Besides, they don't pay anything for pine here anymore. If your lucky, you
can get it clear cut for free. Thinning will likely cost you!

"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On 19 Feb 2004 13:28:10 -0800, (al pernell) wrote:
>
> >anyone know of good sources for spruce stock other than Wicks and
Aircraft Spruce
>
> Man, that's a good question. Almost every spruce tree that is cut
> down on the North American Continent goes to Japan at a premium price
> that we'd never pay.
>
> BWB
>
>

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:17:10 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>BB,
>
>Do you know what varieties of spruce will make good airplane parts?
>
>I am planning to plant a bunch of trees, and I might as well do something
>good for the future of aviation while I am at it. It would be a shame if
>there were know pretty biplanes decorating the sky.
>
>Besides, they don't pay anything for pine here anymore. If your lucky, you
>can get it clear cut for free. Thinning will likely cost you!
>
>"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>> On 19 Feb 2004 13:28:10 -0800, (al pernell) wrote:
>>
>> >anyone know of good sources for spruce stock other than Wicks and
>Aircraft Spruce
>>
>> Man, that's a good question. Almost every spruce tree that is cut
>> down on the North American Continent goes to Japan at a premium price
>> that we'd never pay.
>>
>> BWB

Sorry Dude, planting trees now won't make them available for
harvesting in your lifetime. Sitka Spruce isn't unique as a wood
suitable for use in airplanes, many trees qualify. It's just that
sitka spruce is an easy to use wood that grows tall and straight and
has adaquate strength for it's weight. The problem is the only sitka
that qualifies is found in old growth trees that have grown slowly so
that the growth rings are all fairly dense.

Once you cut them down, it's hundreds of years before anything that is
replanted is ready for harvesting again.

Sitka spruce became the wood of choice during WWI when virtually all
airplanes were built with wood. It was plentiful and easily worked.
It's strength properties were known so aeronautical engineers knew how
to design with it. It made it easier to design when you had just one
wood to think about.

That was then, this is now. Sitka spruce is getting to be hard to
find. You might be well advised to think about using a plywood type
spar instead of solid wood, and either aluminum for ribs, or go
aluminum all the way. You can substitute Douglas Fir for Spruce
anywhere on a one to one basis. Douglas fir is a little stronger but
a bit heavier. It also splits more easily so it's a little harder to
work with.

Corky Scott

[Ron Webb]

> Do you know what varieties of spruce will make good airplane parts?

Tha NACA report server has several good reports on the subject. Here is one

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1931/naca-report-354/

The upshot is that Sitka Spruce is not magic. There are several other
varieties that would work as well. It was originally settled on mainly
because it was cheap, back in the '30s. But the value of a "standard" is
such that even though the stuff is now up to $1000 per spar, we keep
insisting on it.

I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. Up here there are literally 10's of thousands
of square miles of old growth black spruce forests. Really slow growing,
tight grained wood that HAS to be tougher'n HELL. I've often wondered if
there might be a market for it.

[Del Rawlins]

In > Ron Webb wrote:

> I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. Up here there are literally 10's of
> thousands of square miles of old growth black spruce forests. Really
> slow growing, tight grained wood that HAS to be tougher'n HELL. I've
> often wondered if there might be a market for it.

Those are also tiny little things covered with branches (read: knots).
I shudder at the thought of how many pieces you would have to scarf
together to make anything useable. Another reason why the old growth
sitka spruce and doug fir make good aircraft structure is fewer branches
on the lower part of the trunk, which is more likely to develop under a
high canopy.

Wood is a great building material and I've enjoyed using it to make a
couple boats. For my airplane I'd rather have all metal structure just
for the consistency of the material.

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

[Ron Webb]

> Those are also tiny little things covered with branches (read: knots).
> I shudder at the thought of how many pieces you would have to scarf
> together to make anything useable.

Well...a lot of them are. I have 3 acres on Harding lake where the average
diameter is maybe 6 inches, exactly as you describe.

There are some areas, though where the growth is not so dense, and they grow
bigger. I know many stands of 2 foot diameter trees (3 in my front yard)
where the bottom 20ft or so look like they might yield a spar or 2 if cut
carefully.

They still don't get VERY big though. I wonder how big they need to be to
yield a proper spar.

[Prglgw]

call Rob at raven aircraft
604 597 9296, in British Columbia.
He usually has a good supply of clear spruce, in good spar lengths and
thickness.

[Jerry Wass]

Alaska has a lot of "Alaskan Yellow Cedar" --lookitup--it is about 10%
heavier,
stronger all properties right across the board--This is a beautiful wood, I
have
built boats out of it, They call it "yellow" because ,even though it is
white when worked, if you seal it it turns a pale yellow.. there are
thousands of them dead
and still standing plus some live--but they are scattered about & you would
either have to boat, chopper or blimp them to the mill---The dead wood is
every bit as good as the growing, sometimes slightly better. Sumbody up
there otta look
into it..Jerry

Del Rawlins wrote:

> In > Ron Webb wrote:
>
> > I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. Up here there are literally 10's of
> > thousands of square miles of old growth black spruce forests. Really
> > slow growing, tight grained wood that HAS to be tougher'n HELL. I've
> > often wondered if there might be a market for it.
>
> Those are also tiny little things covered with branches (read: knots).
> I shudder at the thought of how many pieces you would have to scarf
> together to make anything useable. Another reason why the old growth
> sitka spruce and doug fir make good aircraft structure is fewer branches
> on the lower part of the trunk, which is more likely to develop under a
> high canopy.
>
> Wood is a great building material and I've enjoyed using it to make a
> couple boats. For my airplane I'd rather have all metal structure just
> for the consistency of the material.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins-
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:17:10 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>Do you know what varieties of spruce will make good airplane parts?
>
>I am planning to plant a bunch of trees, and I might as well do something
>good for the future of aviation while I am at it. It would be a shame if
>there were know pretty biplanes decorating the sky.

There once was a British admiral who, legend has it, always carried a
pocketful of acorns with him to plant the trees for the ships the next
generation would be sailing....

Ron Wanttaja

[Dude]

....
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:17:10 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
> >Do you know what varieties of spruce will make good airplane parts?
> >
> >I am planning to plant a bunch of trees, and I might as well do something
> >good for the future of aviation while I am at it. It would be a shame if
> >there were know pretty biplanes decorating the sky.
>
> There once was a British admiral who, legend has it, always carried a
> pocketful of acorns with him to plant the trees for the ships the next
> generation would be sailing....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

That's the sort of thinking we need!

Will that Sitka grow in SE Texas, there is no snow here, and the summers are
hell, but there is LOTS of water.

[Morgans]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> ...
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:17:10 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
> >
> > >Do you know what varieties of spruce will make good airplane parts?
> > >
> > >I am planning to plant a bunch of trees, and I might as well do
something
> > >good for the future of aviation while I am at it. It would be a shame
if
> > >there were know pretty biplanes decorating the sky.
> >
> > There once was a British admiral who, legend has it, always carried a
> > pocketful of acorns with him to plant the trees for the ships the next
> > generation would be sailing....
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> That's the sort of thinking we need!
>
> Will that Sitka grow in SE Texas, there is no snow here, and the summers
are
> hell, but there is LOTS of water.
>

Nope. They like cool, can't do hot. They also like the rain forest
temperate climate. And "cool" is something you all don't do well. <g>
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/04

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:17:43 -0900, "Ron Webb"
> wrote:

>> Do you know what varieties of spruce will make good airplane parts?
>
>Tha NACA report server has several good reports on the subject. Here is one
>
>http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1931/naca-report-354/
>
>The upshot is that Sitka Spruce is not magic. There are several other
>varieties that would work as well. It was originally settled on mainly
>because it was cheap, back in the '30s. But the value of a "standard" is
>such that even though the stuff is now up to $1000 per spar, we keep
>insisting on it.
>
>I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. Up here there are literally 10's of thousands
>of square miles of old growth black spruce forests. Really slow growing,
>tight grained wood that HAS to be tougher'n HELL. I've often wondered if
>there might be a market for it.
>

Ron
when the spruce is dried to 12% moisture content you are looking for
20 lb per cubic ft for A grade and 24 lb per cubic ft for B grade.
(among all the other criteria)
your stuff would probably be too dense. it might just be ok for
propellors if you can get knot free lengths though.

I have a similar problem in Australia. all the Queensland Hoop Pine
that I can lay my hands on comes in at 34 to 36 lbs per cubic ft. It
is just too heavy for aircraft work.
I've been looking at a single seat Corby Starlet and the difference is
enough to turn a limited aerobatic aircraft into a curvature of the
earth climb out dog.

Frank Rodgers in Australia reworked the french Jodel D18 to use oregon
pine (douglas fir) instead of spruce and I believe this entailed a
complete redesign.

......ohhhh drat.
Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:58:12 -0900, "Ron Webb"
> wrote:


>
>There are some areas, though where the growth is not so dense, and they grow
>bigger. I know many stands of 2 foot diameter trees (3 in my front yard)
>where the bottom 20ft or so look like they might yield a spar or 2 if cut
>carefully.
>

If you read the old australian wartime specs for spruce they make
mention of not using the bottom 15ft of a tree because of the
increased problems with fungal attack later in the life of the
component.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:42:30 -0600, Jerry Wass >
wrote:

>Alaska has a lot of "Alaskan Yellow Cedar" --lookitup--it is about 10%
>heavier,
>stronger all properties right across the board--This is a beautiful wood, I
>have
>built boats out of it, They call it "yellow" because ,even though it is
>white when worked, if you seal it it turns a pale yellow.. there are
>thousands of them dead
>and still standing plus some live--but they are scattered about & you would
>either have to boat, chopper or blimp them to the mill---The dead wood is
>every bit as good as the growing, sometimes slightly better. Sumbody up
>there otta look
>into it..Jerry
>

I think people are looking. you can now buy alaskan yellow cedar in
bunnings here in western australia. only noticed it available this
year.
looked promising but a bit knotty.

(bunnings is our Home Depot Clone)

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Ebby]

Just out of curiosity, what are the Japanese using all the sitka spruce for?

Ebby
Soon in search of sitka.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:03:29 GMT, "Ebby" > wrote:

>Just out of curiosity, what are the Japanese using all the sitka spruce for?

Skewers for whale steaks. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Daniel]

Ron Wanttaja wrote...
> > There once was a British admiral who, legend has it, always carried a
> > pocketful of acorns with him to plant the trees for the ships the next
> > generation would be sailing....

"Dude" wrote ...
> Will that Sitka grow in SE Texas, [?]


A friend of mine (also in SE Texas] loves to grow things. She & her
husband once took a trip to Colorado where she was struck by the
beauty of of the spruce trees up there. Nothing like 'em back home.
She decided then & there that she had to have some planted around the
ranchette. Started pestering her husband about it. After a couple
days of nagging, they'd stopped at a scenic overlook & she brought the
subject up for the 37th time. He looked down on the ground beneath
one of the subject trees & informed her that there was a large
quantity of seeds just laying there for the taking. She starts
picking them up & stuffing them in her pockets. He was tickled pink,
smiling from ear to ear and made sure that she understood the need to
keep the seeds warm. Something about the tree having evolved at
higher elevations where the sun is more intense. So she kept them in
her pockets. Kind of a nuisance, having to dig through them every
time she wanted her chapstick or something, but she really liked those
spruce trees & figured they were just what Texas needed. She was
happy, he was happy.

Couple days later, heading home & passing through Waco he could no
longer contain himself. Had to ask. "Honey, do you know the
difference between spruce seeds and rabbit turds?"

Daniel

[Badwater Bill]

On 19 Feb 2004 13:28:10 -0800, (al pernell) wrote:

>anyone know of good sources for spruce stock other than Wicks and Aircraft Spruce


I just read this entire thread and found it interesting. The last
airplane I built was made out of Canadian White Pine, which nobody
here mentions. The white pine in northern Canada (where it's cold)
grows very slowly and has very dense ring structure. It is almost as
strong as Sitka Spruce with just a slight weight penalty.

It worked real well. I flew the airplane for 5 years with absolutely
no problems. The planking was of birch and mahogany ply, but the
main load bearing portions of the structure were Canadian white pine.

BWB

[Veeduber]

>Just out of curiosity, what are the Japanese using all the sitka spruce for?

--------------------------------------------------------

The Good Stuff goes into musical instruments. (Sitka Spruce is one of the most
resonant woods.) The remainder is used for a number of traditionally oriental
applications such as hashi (ie, throw-away chop-sticks), fast food containers,
bath tubs (ie, ofuro), buckets and so forth.

Japanese manufacturers expect to have depleated all of the easily raped stands
of the Tongas National Forest within the next ten years or so and are already
working on deals to do the same in Siberia. Presently they pay US taxpayers an
average of $1.70 PER TREE and clear-cutting is their preferred method of
logging.

Yeah, I know -- that can't be right.

Pick your wx, fly over the islands they've clear-cut and see for yourself.
Wonderful education.

As a point of interest, the new laws pushed through following the disasterous
fires in southern California -- laws that fast-track the clear-cutting of
forests deemed a threat to populated area -- was used to issue special permits
for additional logging in the Tongas National Forest.

Further proof that America has the best government money can buy :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[Richard Lamb]

Veeduber wrote:
>
> >Just out of curiosity, what are the Japanese using all the sitka spruce for?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Good Stuff goes into musical instruments. (Sitka Spruce is one of the most
> resonant woods.) The remainder is used for a number of traditionally oriental
> applications such as hashi (ie, throw-away chop-sticks), fast food containers,
> bath tubs (ie, ofuro), buckets and so forth.
>
> Japanese manufacturers expect to have depleated all of the easily raped stands
> of the Tongas National Forest within the next ten years or so and are already
> working on deals to do the same in Siberia. Presently they pay US taxpayers an
> average of $1.70 PER TREE and clear-cutting is their preferred method of
> logging.
>
> Yeah, I know -- that can't be right.
>
> Pick your wx, fly over the islands they've clear-cut and see for yourself.
> Wonderful education.
>
> As a point of interest, the new laws pushed through following the disasterous
> fires in southern California -- laws that fast-track the clear-cutting of
> forests deemed a threat to populated area -- was used to issue special permits
> for additional logging in the Tongas National Forest.
>
> Further proof that America has the best government money can buy :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover

You know Bob, I love my country.

But I do fear my government.


Richard

[Richard Lamb]

Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2004 13:28:10 -0800, (al pernell) wrote:
>
> >anyone know of good sources for spruce stock other than Wicks and Aircraft Spruce
>
> I just read this entire thread and found it interesting. The last
> airplane I built was made out of Canadian White Pine, which nobody
> here mentions. The white pine in northern Canada (where it's cold)
> grows very slowly and has very dense ring structure. It is almost as
> strong as Sitka Spruce with just a slight weight penalty.
>
> It worked real well. I flew the airplane for 5 years with absolutely
> no problems. The planking was of birch and mahogany ply, but the
> main load bearing portions of the structure were Canadian white pine.
>
> BWB

Sounds perfect!
You think they'd take $1.70 a tree?

Richard

[Ron Webb]

> Presently they pay US taxpayers an average of $1.70 PER TREE ...

If anybody is interested, here is the rest of this story:

http://www.holysmoke.org/wb/wb0116.htm

The upshot is that it seems to be more a combination of Congressional
stupidity (spelled ANILCA), Forest Service buracratic stupidity, and history
conspiring against us.

[Del Rawlins]

In > Veeduber wrote:

> Japanese manufacturers expect to have depleated all of the easily
> raped stands of the Tongas National Forest within the next ten years
> or so and are already working on deals to do the same in Siberia.
> Presently they pay US taxpayers an average of $1.70 PER TREE and clear-
> cutting is their preferred method of logging.

**** the US taxpayers. Those are Alaskan trees that belong to Alaskans
and it is Alaskans who make their living harvesting them. You wanna
whine about the evil forest service, the timber industry, and the japs
cutting down trees look no further than the wooden house that you
probably live in, the wooden airplanes you build, the newspaper/
magazines you read or the t.p. that you wipe yourself with every day.
If you are gonna cast stones take a good look in the mirror first.

Furthermore, I submit that $1.70 a tree is a hell of a deal for the
federal government. Standing timber in and of itself is worth not a
whole lot, particularly in Alaska. It is expensive to harvest and
expensive to get out, as compared to other places in the world. It
takes loggers, engineers, pilots, mechanics, heavy equipment operators,
etc. ad nauseum in addition to the businesses and individuals who supply
them. All of these people pay taxes to the federal government in
comparison to which the $1.70/tree pales. Development of natural
resources helps to lower your taxes, boosts the local and national
economy, and makes available the products we all use in our daily lives.

One of the reasons clearcutting is usually the method or choice is
because it is one of the most ecologically sound methods when promoting
the long term health of the forest is a priority. The selective cutting
practices that are currently being advocated are beneficial from an
aesthetic standpoint only. The best timber is systematically removed,
leaving only the sick, genetically inferior, and the damaged (which are
now vulnerable to disease) trees in their place. When a tree is felled
among other, standing trees it inevitably damages everything in its path,
often leaving hanging widowmakers which can be deadly for weeks or even
years into the future. But, the forest still looks pretty which is all
that the self proclaimed environmental types really care about. By
contrast, in a properly done clearcut, whichever species do grow back
will have a more normal genetic diversity making them less susceptible
to disease, they will harbor a broader variety of wildlife than an old
growth forest. And the new trees will be available for re-harvest in
decades, rather than in centuries. Yeah, it is ugly visually for the
first few years after harvest. I would rather my kids and grandkids see
the forest healthy again in their day, rather than eventually stunted by
the spread of disease and the removal of the best stock.

Finally, I reject the notion that Alaska should somehow be locked up
like some sort of demented national park where no development is allowed.
Those of us who are here have to make a living in spite of the fact that
it would be more convenient to the Sierra Club et al if we just went
away to live in some city in the 48 and quit filling up their playground.
Resource development in Alaska has benefitted from 200+ years of
experience down south and elsewhere, and for the most part we do it
better and we do it cleaner than it has ever been done before. The
national forests are just that; they are not parks. They exist to be
used beneficially and timber sales are an important part of that use.
There are millions of acres of old growth forest set aside in national
parks that will NEVER be touched and that is as it should be.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- son and grandson of loggers

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

[Harry Burns]

Nobody seems to have mentioned yellow poplar. Last time I checked the specs. I
remember it came in at about 5% over spruce in strength-to-weight. However, I
have never been able to find a grading standard for it. As of yet, I have no
idea if the sticks they sell at Lowe's and Home Cheap-O would get the job
done... even for an unpowered glider. No way to know how many rings per inch,
straightness varaiations, etc. are acceptable. Ditto on the Doug. Fir that is
stocked in the same bins. If anyone knows what these standards are, please
e-mail me.

I went with Sitka spruce in my Wright machine because of historical accuracy...
but even then, the Wrights used West Virginia Silver Spruce, not Sitka. I
still havn't figured out exactly which species that is, but it seemed work well
for them.
On a side note, Wilbur and Orville also made use of white pine twice. Once in
the1900 glider, and again in the 1904 Flyer. It worked OK for the very limited
performances of 1900, but in the 1904 machine, it was all eventually replaced.
Seems that pine had a tendancy to shatter when the plane crashed, while spruce
was much more resiliant.

Harry

[Badwater Bill]

On 22 Feb 2004 14:42:05 GMT, (Harry Burns) wrote:

>Nobody seems to have mentioned yellow poplar. Last time I checked the specs. I
>remember it came in at about 5% over spruce in strength-to-weight. However, I
>have never been able to find a grading standard for it. As of yet, I have no
>idea if the sticks they sell at Lowe's and Home Cheap-O would get the job
>done... even for an unpowered glider. No way to know how many rings per inch,
>straightness varaiations, etc. are acceptable. Ditto on the Doug. Fir that is
>stocked in the same bins. If anyone knows what these standards are, please
>e-mail me.
>
>I went with Sitka spruce in my Wright machine because of historical accuracy...
>but even then, the Wrights used West Virginia Silver Spruce, not Sitka. I
>still havn't figured out exactly which species that is, but it seemed work well
>for them.
>On a side note, Wilbur and Orville also made use of white pine twice. Once in
>the1900 glider, and again in the 1904 Flyer. It worked OK for the very limited
>performances of 1900, but in the 1904 machine, it was all eventually replaced.
>Seems that pine had a tendancy to shatter when the plane crashed, while spruce
>was much more resiliant.
>
>Harry


I was interested in working with the spruce that grows in the Wasatch
range of southern Utah two summers ago. A bark-beetle killed all the
old 200 year old trees three years ago and devastated the forest. I
took a chain saw and cut a 10 foot section of a downed tree into some
ATV loading ramps that are about 3 inches thick by 12 inches wide and
10 feet long. They dried out in a couple months and I still use them.
It's amazing how light they are and how strong. I often demonstrate
to people who are with me when I use them how light they are. People
are amazed. They seem almost like balsa. They are roughly 2.5 cubic
feet of wood but even a small woman can lift them and put them into
place on my pick up real easy. Yet, I can drive an 800 pound ATV with
me on it, full of fuel and it only bends a bit.

Strong stuff.

I have no idea what species these spruce were either. The forest is
completely repopulated with younger trees now and in 100 years it will
all look the same. I'll bet anyone could use these for airplane
building. All you'd have to do is have a mill cut some raw stock and
simply test it for bending moments, shear, compressibility and tensile
strength.

Harry:

Did you participate on that team who built the Wright Flier they tried
to fly on the anniversary of the Wright's flight?

BWB

[Ron Webb]

"Del Rawlins" > wrote

> **** the US taxpayers. Those are Alaskan trees that belong to Alaskans
> and it is Alaskans who make their living harvesting them.


Well said Del!

The lower 48 thinks of Alaska as their own personal wilderness preserve.
It's OK to build another few condos in California, so long as Alaska is
locked up to assuage their sins. This place belongs to US! Anyone not
willing to endure the winters, should have no say here.

Still seems a shame to grind up old growth Sitka Spruce and use them for
paper diapers though. We've tried to do the "value added" thing before, but
this is just too obvious.

[dann mann]

The Minimax line of kits use mostly pine. I didnt get any spruce in
mine. Good clear pine and Douglas fir is very adequate for airplanes.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:17:52 GMT, (Badwater
Bill) wrote:



>
>I have no idea what species these spruce were either. The forest is
>completely repopulated with younger trees now and in 100 years it will
>all look the same. I'll bet anyone could use these for airplane
>building. All you'd have to do is have a mill cut some raw stock and
>simply test it for bending moments, shear, compressibility and tensile
>strength.
>

bill you need to add impact strength to that list of characteristics.
you know, the impact test done in an Izod tester with a notched
sample.
many of the alternative timbers have all the rest of the
characteristics matched but are too brittle for safe use.
Stealth Pilot

[pacplyer]

A most excellent post Del. I agree with everything in your response.
It's high time to get this overbearing, out-of-control federal
government out of the business of micro-managing states for the
betterment of the mother country or the party... Do they work for us,
or do we work for them? The current monster is five times the size
it should be (I favor a very weak central gov.) So the environmental
druids won on the North Slope and the Fed has banned any energy
development there. Instead we're open pit mining in the Rockies on
new tracts as a result. The unintended consequences of these
do-gooders will be the ruin of us all. If they want to save stands of
old timber, then they need to quit producing excess babies who grow up
to live in wood houses. I bet a hundred years from now there will
be a thriving black market in forest products. And federal taxes will
shoot up to pay for "the war on woodworking."

All this proves to me that the Federal Government is an incompetent
custodian of U.S. lands. Much of the BLM stuff where I grew up should
be auctioned off to U.S. citizens who would take care of the land far
better than any big corporation in a federal lease program.

And then there's these Sierra Club fanatics that in CA continually
strive to prevent over flights by GA aircraft. And for what reason?
The noise. No, it doesn't pollute the environment in any measurable
form. They just want a sterile re-creation of the 1800's for
*themselves* to go hiking in. Somebody stop them. They caused the
Southern California wildfires that everybody as far as Vegas had to
breath for three months. Who are these morons who would implore the
state to prevent landowners from clearing dangerous scrub brush
against their properties? All to save a handful of rare plants
(weeds, that by their logic, must be immune to fire ;-) Please tell
me an anti-sierra club I can join to fight them.

pacplyer – out


Del Rawlins > wrote in message >...
> In > Veeduber wrote:
>
> > Japanese manufacturers expect to have depleated all of the easily
> > raped stands of the Tongas National Forest within the next ten years
> > or so and are already working on deals to do the same in Siberia.
> > Presently they pay US taxpayers an average of $1.70 PER TREE and clear-
> > cutting is their preferred method of logging.
>
> **** the US taxpayers. Those are Alaskan trees that belong to Alaskans
> and it is Alaskans who make their living harvesting them. You wanna
> whine about the evil forest service, the timber industry, and the japs
> cutting down trees look no further than the wooden house that you
> probably live in, the wooden airplanes you build, the newspaper/
> magazines you read or the t.p. that you wipe yourself with every day.
> If you are gonna cast stones take a good look in the mirror first.
>
> Furthermore, I submit that $1.70 a tree is a hell of a deal for the
> federal government. Standing timber in and of itself is worth not a
> whole lot, particularly in Alaska. It is expensive to harvest and
> expensive to get out, as compared to other places in the world. It
> takes loggers, engineers, pilots, mechanics, heavy equipment operators,
> etc. ad nauseum in addition to the businesses and individuals who supply
> them. All of these people pay taxes to the federal government in
> comparison to which the $1.70/tree pales. Development of natural
> resources helps to lower your taxes, boosts the local and national
> economy, and makes available the products we all use in our daily lives.
>
> One of the reasons clearcutting is usually the method or choice is
> because it is one of the most ecologically sound methods when promoting
> the long term health of the forest is a priority. The selective cutting
> practices that are currently being advocated are beneficial from an
> aesthetic standpoint only. The best timber is systematically removed,
> leaving only the sick, genetically inferior, and the damaged (which are
> now vulnerable to disease) trees in their place. When a tree is felled
> among other, standing trees it inevitably damages everything in its path,
> often leaving hanging widowmakers which can be deadly for weeks or even
> years into the future. But, the forest still looks pretty which is all
> that the self proclaimed environmental types really care about. By
> contrast, in a properly done clearcut, whichever species do grow back
> will have a more normal genetic diversity making them less susceptible
> to disease, they will harbor a broader variety of wildlife than an old
> growth forest. And the new trees will be available for re-harvest in
> decades, rather than in centuries. Yeah, it is ugly visually for the
> first few years after harvest. I would rather my kids and grandkids see
> the forest healthy again in their day, rather than eventually stunted by
> the spread of disease and the removal of the best stock.
>
> Finally, I reject the notion that Alaska should somehow be locked up
> like some sort of demented national park where no development is allowed.
> Those of us who are here have to make a living in spite of the fact that
> it would be more convenient to the Sierra Club et al if we just went
> away to live in some city in the 48 and quit filling up their playground.
> Resource development in Alaska has benefitted from 200+ years of
> experience down south and elsewhere, and for the most part we do it
> better and we do it cleaner than it has ever been done before. The
> national forests are just that; they are not parks. They exist to be
> used beneficially and timber sales are an important part of that use.
> There are millions of acres of old growth forest set aside in national
> parks that will NEVER be touched and that is as it should be.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- son and grandson of loggers
>
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Wright1902Glider]

I think the reason why the Wrights, Chanute, Herring, Avery, etc. prefered
spruce, aside from obvious factors, was that it was very impact resistant. In
the pioneer era, it was considered normal to smack wingtips, chaw turf,
noseplant, WHACK, and otherwise "crash" on a routine basis. For example, the
landing gear on my 1902 glider consists of twin 6" high x 1" wide skids...
that's it. Ya wanna land? You're gonna smack the sand with some part of the
plane.

Later, my best guess is that the availability of good spruce, and its cost
relative to aluminum, made it the defacto standard until aircraft speed, size,
and power dictated switching to all-aluminum. Of course, in small aircraft
if you don't have a reason to change, why change? Now that most of the good
spruce is gone, we have a reason to start looking again. Either that, or a
good excuse to drive to Highland. (No Grandma, I really came here to see you!
Oh that lumber on top of my car... oh, that's um.. uh...that's uh... I'm
building a pipe organ... yeah, that's it... a pipe organ)

Harry

[Del Rawlins]

In > pacplyer wrote:

> And then there's these Sierra Club fanatics that in CA continually
> strive to prevent over flights by GA aircraft. And for what reason?
> The noise. No, it doesn't pollute the environment in any measurable
> form. They just want a sterile re-creation of the 1800's for
> *themselves* to go hiking in. Somebody stop them.

I am all in favor of setting aside periods of time free of aircraft
noise for the Sierra Clubbers to enjoy their 1800s experience, so long
as it also includes hostile indians and encounters with the grizzly
bears and wolves which they are bent on reintroducing to areas where
they were wiped out for good reasons.

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

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 23 Feb 2004 20:50:37 GMT, (Wright1902Glider)
wrote:

>I think the reason why the Wrights, Chanute, Herring, Avery, etc. prefered
>spruce, aside from obvious factors, was that it was very impact resistant. In
>the pioneer era, it was considered normal to smack wingtips, chaw turf,
>noseplant, WHACK, and otherwise "crash" on a routine basis. For example, the
>landing gear on my 1902 glider consists of twin 6" high x 1" wide skids...
>that's it. Ya wanna land? You're gonna smack the sand with some part of the
>plane.

You might be on to something there, Harry. The wingtips of the Fly Baby
are made of laminated spruce, and they're incredibly hell-for-stout. One
of our number had an engine fail on takeoff about a year ago, and the
airplane cartwheeled. The spruce wing bows are intact. I couldn't believe
it, even questioned the guy's son (pilot hurt, recovered OK). He swears it
cartwheeled.

I've got a writeup on the case (including photos of the wings) at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/horsten.html

Ron Wanttaja

[RU ok]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>You might be on to something there, Harry. The wingtips of the Fly Baby
>are made of laminated spruce, and they're incredibly hell-for-stout. One
>of our number had an engine fail on takeoff about a year ago, and the
>airplane cartwheeled. The spruce wing bows are intact. I couldn't believe
>it, even questioned the guy's son (pilot hurt, recovered OK). He swears it
>cartwheeled.
>
>I've got a writeup on the case (including photos of the wings) at:
>
>http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/horsten.html
>
>Ron Wanttaja
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmmm.

Perhaps you just need more power, weight, speed... or a professional.
I could break spruce wingtip bows on 235 hp Pawnees with relative
ease. However, since it was not good for business, I eventually
ceased the unprofitable behavior.


Barnyard BOb -

[Blueskies]

All the wood that went into my stick built new house came from Canada, not Alaska. Get your facts straight.

If what I hear is true, there is very little american wood left in Alaska, it is all deeded to the JApanese. I think the
primary concern is that our federal 'government' sold out.

[Del Rawlins]

In > Blueskies wrote:
> All the wood that went into my stick built new house came from Canada,
> not Alaska. Get your facts straight.

The point is you live in a wood house and that wood had to come from
somewhere. Bemoaning the harvest of trees while you sit in your nice
new house made from harvested trees is hypocrisy, plain and simple. It
stands to reason that Canadian loggers gotta make a living too, eh?

> If what I hear is true, there is very little american wood left in
> Alaska, it is all deeded to the JApanese. I think the primary concern
> is that our federal 'government' sold out.

I've never seen a Japanese logger in Alaska. They probably exist, but
those that I have met are all Americans, they buy stuff from the local
businesses where they work, and they pay taxes to the federal government,
just like you and I. The Japanese happen to be willing to pay more for
a quality product, which is a good attribute for a customer to have in
whatever business you are involved in, not just logging. This helps
make the expensive logging operations possible and it helps reduce the
trade deficit with Japan. Most of the nice old growth spruce isn't used
in the US simply because aside from a few specialty industries, there
just isn't much need for it here.

I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect the reason your house is
built from Canadian trees has a lot to do with the value of the canadian
dollar as compared to our own, which makes it possible to harvest the
timber at a cost that Americans are willing to pay.

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

[Ron Webb]

>>If what I hear is true, there is very little american wood left in Alaska

Son...you haven't got a clue! And you have been listening to NPR for too
long ;^{

The loggable area in the Tongass ALONE is the size on Conneticut, and the
hoopla is over a few square miles...

Look at the following text copied from one of the environmentalist web
sites.

""
A surprising amount of the Tongass National Forest isn't forest at all.
Actually, two-thirds of the 17-million acre Tongass is rock, ice, muskeg
(wetlands), and scrub timber. While one-third of the Tongass is considered
commercial forest, the biggest stands of old-growth forest make up only 4%
of the National Forest. These lush valley-bottom and beach fringe areas are
most in demand--they provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife and are
the most lucrative forest for logging. In the past 50 years, over half of
this habitat has been clearcut.
"

Has 17 million acres been clearcut? Well No...
Has 30% (the part covered with huge trees) been cut? Well no...
Has 4% been cut? Well No...
Has 2% been cut? Yea, OK - But that took 50 years! And that's using THEIR
numbers.

When I was in engineering school, we had a whole semester on "engineering
economics". The last half turned into a course on "How to LIE with
statistics". These people seem to have used most of the methods.

[Russell Kent]

Ron Webb wrote:

> When I was in engineering school, we had a whole semester on "engineering
> economics". The last half turned into a course on "How to LIE with
> statistics". These people seem to have used most of the methods.

Statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is interesting, but what they
conceal is vital.
[paraphrase of Aaron Levenstein]

Russell Kent

[Blueskies]

The point is there is very little american wood in alaska, not deeded wood obligated to foreign nations. I know there
are a lot of trees standing.
--
Dan D.



..
"Ron Webb" > wrote in message ...
> >>If what I hear is true, there is very little american wood left in Alaska
>
> Son...you haven't got a clue! And you have been listening to NPR for too
> long ;^{
>
> The loggable area in the Tongass ALONE is the size on Conneticut, and the
> hoopla is over a few square miles...
>
> Look at the following text copied from one of the environmentalist web
> sites.
>
> ""
> A surprising amount of the Tongass National Forest isn't forest at all.
> Actually, two-thirds of the 17-million acre Tongass is rock, ice, muskeg
> (wetlands), and scrub timber. While one-third of the Tongass is considered
> commercial forest, the biggest stands of old-growth forest make up only 4%
> of the National Forest. These lush valley-bottom and beach fringe areas are
> most in demand--they provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife and are
> the most lucrative forest for logging. In the past 50 years, over half of
> this habitat has been clearcut.
> "
>
> Has 17 million acres been clearcut? Well No...
> Has 30% (the part covered with huge trees) been cut? Well no...
> Has 4% been cut? Well No...
> Has 2% been cut? Yea, OK - But that took 50 years! And that's using THEIR
> numbers.
>
> When I was in engineering school, we had a whole semester on "engineering
> economics". The last half turned into a course on "How to LIE with
> statistics". These people seem to have used most of the methods.
>
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"RU ok" wrote in message > I could break spruce wingtip bows on 235 hp
>Pawnees with relative
> ease. However, since it was not good for business, I eventually
> ceased the unprofitable behavior.

You quit landing?

D. (couldn't resist)

[Wright1902Glider]

Blah, blah, logging, blah... getting back to the point of this thread...

Wow! Ron, the flybaby seems to have taken a very serious hit. I'd say the
pilot was lucky to get out like he did. Stall-turn or turn-stall?

I've been watching videos of a friend-of-mine's Wright gliders flying at
Jockey's Ridge. (Still waiting on funds for my own trip up there with my
1902.) His glider seems to flex about the same way mine does when it smacks
something. Almost like its made of rubber! I've had a few moments over the
past two years that "should" have broken a spar, but never did.

Here's an interesting side-note though. Many of the undercarrage parts, and
certainly all of the wingtips on Wright machines are made of laminated white
ash. The early gliders also used steam-bent white ash ribs. This wood is
extremely strong, but also very heavy. Fortunately for me, its fairly cheap!

I havn't tried laminating any speuce yet. Could it be used to make 4" radius
bends when ripped into 1" wide x 3/32" thick strips? Early Wright wingtips
have a nearly rectangular " [ " shape. I'm also currently debating the
constructon material used in the hip-cradle of the '02. I used a 2 piece
design made from laminated ash. Since then, I've descovered that this design
is prone to failure and should have been laminated into a 1-piece shape.

Harry

[RU ok]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote:

>>"RU ok" wrote in message > I could break spruce wingtip bows on 235 hp
>>Pawnees with relative
>> ease. However, since it was not good for business, I eventually
>> ceased the unprofitable behavior.
>
>You quit landing?
>
>D. (couldn't resist)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yep....
along with Pawnee take-offs.


Barnyard BOb