Dave Nadler \YO\
September 20th 03, 04:39 PM
Thanks Robert for the nice summary. Also one should mention the shrinkage
that will normally follow with the broad areas of bonding paste, which
(depending
on post-cure handling) may lead to expensive refinish for a relatively new
glider...
Best Regards, Dave
"Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
...
> There are two commonly used ways to get a spar into a composite glider
wing.
> There are several variations to either method.
>
> Method 1.
> Build up the spar, shear web and cap, separately of the wing. This is done
by
> laying up the web and cap all at once, there are several variations to
this
> step also. Lay up the wing skin and cure it.
> Bond the spar onto one of the skins. This bond line is easy to control as
you
> can see it going together. The next step is to pick up one of the wing
molds
> and place it on top of the other. The bonding paste between the cap and
the
> skin is squeezed out and controlled by the dams as the wing is closed.
When the
> spar and it adhesive mixture comes in contact with the second skin the
bonding
> is done. This side is much more difficult to inspect. Very careful
preparation
> is needed and foam or composite dams are helpful to control the squeeze
out of
> the bonding paste. Typically there is a good fit of the spar cap to the
skin on
> the first skin. The second spar/skin bond line is much thicker, mostly to
> insure that everything fits and there is enough room for lost of bonding
paste.
>
>
> Method 2.
> Lay up the wing skins and lay in the rovings for the spar cap at the same
time,
> (several variations of this exist). The shear web is made separately and
its
> top and bottom edges have a broad V flange that will act as a dam to
control
> bonding paste flow. Once the wing and its cap are cured the shear web can
be
> bonded to one skin. This bond is again fairly easy to control. Next, just
as in
> method 1. One of the wing molds is lifted up and placed on top of the
other and
> the bonding paste between the top of the shear web and the cap is squeezed
out
> and controlled by the dams as the wing is closed.
>
> Either way involves the bonding of long, relatively wide areas, thus
opening
> both methods to the same potential for bonding problems. From a
manufacturing
> point of view I do not see an advantage of one method over the other.
There may
> be other considerations but both methods can work equally well and both
are
> equally open to problems stemming from lack of correct procedures and
quality
> control. Obviously wings using either method are able to pass the strength
> requirements of the JARs.
>
> There are pros and cons to each method. The method used mostly depends on
the
> chief designer's experience and beliefs, i.e. what University Flying Group
did
> he/she belong to, or what is the current method used in the factory. The
> problem, I suspect, is not in the method but in the process and quality
control
> existent in the Czech factory. I have seen indications of other quality
> problems from this factory. I am sure SH will correct the problems and
keep a
> closer watch on them. The Czechs have a proud history of manufacturing and
> technical development, however a lot of that was beaten out of them by the
> oppressive Soviet system.
>
> You can easily tell which skin, wing or fuselage, had the spar, rib or
bulkhead
> bonded to it first. The bond line will be much thinner and neater looking
that
> the one on the opposite side. The bond line that is formed when mold
halves are
> put together is thicker and may have drips associated with it.
>
> Robert Mudd
that will normally follow with the broad areas of bonding paste, which
(depending
on post-cure handling) may lead to expensive refinish for a relatively new
glider...
Best Regards, Dave
"Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
...
> There are two commonly used ways to get a spar into a composite glider
wing.
> There are several variations to either method.
>
> Method 1.
> Build up the spar, shear web and cap, separately of the wing. This is done
by
> laying up the web and cap all at once, there are several variations to
this
> step also. Lay up the wing skin and cure it.
> Bond the spar onto one of the skins. This bond line is easy to control as
you
> can see it going together. The next step is to pick up one of the wing
molds
> and place it on top of the other. The bonding paste between the cap and
the
> skin is squeezed out and controlled by the dams as the wing is closed.
When the
> spar and it adhesive mixture comes in contact with the second skin the
bonding
> is done. This side is much more difficult to inspect. Very careful
preparation
> is needed and foam or composite dams are helpful to control the squeeze
out of
> the bonding paste. Typically there is a good fit of the spar cap to the
skin on
> the first skin. The second spar/skin bond line is much thicker, mostly to
> insure that everything fits and there is enough room for lost of bonding
paste.
>
>
> Method 2.
> Lay up the wing skins and lay in the rovings for the spar cap at the same
time,
> (several variations of this exist). The shear web is made separately and
its
> top and bottom edges have a broad V flange that will act as a dam to
control
> bonding paste flow. Once the wing and its cap are cured the shear web can
be
> bonded to one skin. This bond is again fairly easy to control. Next, just
as in
> method 1. One of the wing molds is lifted up and placed on top of the
other and
> the bonding paste between the top of the shear web and the cap is squeezed
out
> and controlled by the dams as the wing is closed.
>
> Either way involves the bonding of long, relatively wide areas, thus
opening
> both methods to the same potential for bonding problems. From a
manufacturing
> point of view I do not see an advantage of one method over the other.
There may
> be other considerations but both methods can work equally well and both
are
> equally open to problems stemming from lack of correct procedures and
quality
> control. Obviously wings using either method are able to pass the strength
> requirements of the JARs.
>
> There are pros and cons to each method. The method used mostly depends on
the
> chief designer's experience and beliefs, i.e. what University Flying Group
did
> he/she belong to, or what is the current method used in the factory. The
> problem, I suspect, is not in the method but in the process and quality
control
> existent in the Czech factory. I have seen indications of other quality
> problems from this factory. I am sure SH will correct the problems and
keep a
> closer watch on them. The Czechs have a proud history of manufacturing and
> technical development, however a lot of that was beaten out of them by the
> oppressive Soviet system.
>
> You can easily tell which skin, wing or fuselage, had the spar, rib or
bulkhead
> bonded to it first. The bond line will be much thinner and neater looking
that
> the one on the opposite side. The bond line that is formed when mold
halves are
> put together is thicker and may have drips associated with it.
>
> Robert Mudd