wood species question

[Stewart Glenn]

I'm looking to start a home built aircraft. Does anyone have any suggestions on which type of lumber to use that's a good alternative for sitka spruce?

Thanks

[Rich S.]

Stewart Glenn" > wrote in message
om...
I'm looking to start a home built aircraft. Does anyone have any suggestions
on which type of lumber to use that's a good alternative for sitka spruce?

Thanks

Stewart............

While there are several alternatives to Spruce, each has specific
differences, usually on the downside. I must ask, what is the point? While
you may save 50% over the cost of Sitka Spruce, you have to figure that the
cost of the wood is perhaps 20% of the cost of the total aircraft. A little
math reveals that using an alternative wood may save you 10 % of the total
cost.

Even in these days where Spruce is not nearly as plentiful, there are
wholesalers with piles of Spruce 200' long and 100' high and 100' wide. Not
all of it is aircraft quality, but there is plenty for a few more airplanes.
The fun of working with the real stuff is worth the extra few bucks!

Rich S.

[W P Dixon]

I just wish I could find some decent stuff locally, even when you find a
good price that freight shipping just kills ya! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> Stewart Glenn" > wrote in message
> om...
> I'm looking to start a home built aircraft. Does anyone have any
> suggestions on which type of lumber to use that's a good alternative for
> sitka spruce?
>
> Thanks
>
> Stewart............
>
> While there are several alternatives to Spruce, each has specific
> differences, usually on the downside. I must ask, what is the point? While
> you may save 50% over the cost of Sitka Spruce, you have to figure that
> the cost of the wood is perhaps 20% of the cost of the total aircraft. A
> little math reveals that using an alternative wood may save you 10 % of
> the total cost.
>
> Even in these days where Spruce is not nearly as plentiful, there are
> wholesalers with piles of Spruce 200' long and 100' high and 100' wide.
> Not all of it is aircraft quality, but there is plenty for a few more
> airplanes. The fun of working with the real stuff is worth the extra few
> bucks!
>
> Rich S.
>

[Joe Camp]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:30:13 GMT, "Stewart Glenn"
> wrote:

>I'm looking to start a home built aircraft. Does anyone have any suggestions on which type of lumber to use that's a good alternative for sitka spruce?
>
>Thanks

I fly an all-wood airplane, so I've become educated on it somewhat.
The most often mention replacement for aircraft quality spruce is
Douglas Fir. But I've not found any of the aircraft wood suppliers
that sell it. They all have spruce. The Hughes HK-1 was made from
Douglas Fir, not spruce, even though it has always been called the
Spruce Goose. Even if the aircraft suppliers carried Douglas Fir, it
would probably be priced close to spruce. It's 23% heavier, but is
stronger. So after you reduce it's size the weight penalty is only
around 6%. When I grew up in Miami, several of the local builders
used to go to a local lumber yard and select aircraft quality pieces
of Spruce, and used it in their Pitts Special projects. So if you
trust your ability to choose wood of aircraft quality, you should be
able to obtain it locally. The builders I knew were in Homestead, and
built their projects with an occasional visit from Curtiss Pitts. Whom
I'm sure would have pointed out sub-aircraft quality wood if he saw it
in their projects. You might find someone at the local lumber yard
that could select aircraft quality pieces of wood for you.

[Joe Camp]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:12:24 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:24:25 -0400, Joe Camp > wrote:
>
>:On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:30:13 GMT, "Stewart Glenn"
> wrote:
>:
>:The Hughes HK-1 was made from
>:Douglas Fir, not spruce, even though it has always been called the
>:Spruce Goose.
>
>There's some spruce in the HK-1, along with some maple, poplar and
>even balsa. But most of it is birch.
>http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_artifacts/Aircraft/PostWarYears/HK-1.htm

Interesting, I have only encountered birch in plywood. I hadn't heard
of using it in aircraft in it's pure form. But with all the different
woods used in the HK-1, it does show the different options for wood
use in aircraft. But for the homebuilder, obtaining aircraft quality
pieces is the challenge. It's so much easier to just buy aircraft
quality spruce from an aircraft wood supplier. In the USA, it seems
Aircraft Spruce and Wicks are the main suppliers. But Canada has some
aircraft wood suppliers also, and they may have more variety.

[Ed Sullivan]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:12:24 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:24:25 -0400, Joe Camp > wrote:
>
>:On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:30:13 GMT, "Stewart Glenn"
> wrote:
>:
>:The Hughes HK-1 was made from
>:Douglas Fir, not spruce, even though it has always been called the
>:Spruce Goose.
>
>There's some spruce in the HK-1, along with some maple, poplar and
>even balsa. But most of it is birch.
>http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_artifacts/Aircraft/PostWarYears/HK-1.htm

Well it really wouldn't do to call it the Birch Bitch

[Morgans]

"Joe Camp" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:12:24 -0700, Richard Riley

> Interesting, I have only encountered birch in plywood. I hadn't heard
> of using it in aircraft in it's pure form.

Most of it *is* plywood, not sticks of wood.

It is a stressed skin design, with the plywood cold molded into the complex
curves. The bulkheads are also cut from plywood.

The floor was end grain balsa, then covered with plywood. Modern airliners
used balsa covered with aluminum, not long ago.
--
Jim in NC

[Gordon Arnaut]

There are many types of wood that can be used in constructing a proper airframe, as per AC-43.13b.

I happen to like northern white pine, which has nearly the same strength-to-weight ratio as spruce -- and better than that of Douglas fir. NWP is about 15 percent lighter and about 15 percent less strong than spruce, so if your plans specify spruce you will want to increase the dimensions by about 15 percent.

Buying aircraft-certified spruce is certainly the easy route, but it is expensive. I think the savings of selecting good lumber from a lumber yard are well worth the effort. In my area, the Great Lakes region, there is lots of good clear white pine. I can go to any number of lumber yards in the area and select excellent boards that will make lovely longerons, ribs, etc.

For a single-seat Minimax-type airplane, I could probably buy all the wood I need (excluding plywood) for about $100. If you buy certified wood you will pay ten times as much, plus shipping. I don't think that's insignificant. For a two-seat airplane the total cost of lumber and plywood can easily exceed a couple of thousand dollars. Using alternative wood sources you can get started on building the airframe with a minimum layout up front -- if you find that building an airplane is not for you, you will not have paid a lot of money to learn that lesson.

Plywood is a similar story. I can buy excellent Lloyd's approved okoume ply at a marine supplier for a fraction of what I would pay for certified aricraft birch ply. In fact I have more faith in marine ply becasue there is a robust market for it worldwide. Aircrft ply is a nearly extinct market -- it is the lowest priority for the plywood manufacturers, so not much attention is paid to how good the product actually is.



What is really important is to learn as much as you can about wood and how to grade it, in order to properly select lumber from a pile (or plywood for that matter). There are a number of good sources of info, including chapter one of AC-43.13b. Ther are many more source of info, including a good littel book from the EAA.

Once you have selected your lumber it is important to know how to work it and glue it. You have to develop an understanding of grain and how best to orient it. End grain will soak up a lot of glue, for example; yet most of the joints on wood airframes are end-grain butted against face grain.



Also, since most of the lumber you will find at the lumberyard is flat-sawn, you will not be able to use such boards where the plans call for quarter-sawn, such as in solid-plank wing spars. However, you can laminate your spars from several pieces of 1x1 with the grain oriented the correct way. (If you cut a flat sawn 1x6 board into six pieces of 1x1s, you will have the same thing as quarter sawn wood and can use it for longerons, stringers, rib stock, etc.)

Scarfing is another issue that has its subleties.

So you see just buying aircraft-certified wood is no guarantee of a properly constructed wood airframe. It is simply assurance that the wood has been graded properly, which is something you can do yourself at a lumberyard if you learn how.

There is much skill in building with wood, as can be seen in wooden boat building. A good boatbuilder will build a lovely craft from a pile of floorboards salvaged from a an old farmhouse, while others will not do nearly as well even with the best materials money can buy.

When it comes to working with wood, there is no sbustitute for knowledge.

Regards,

Gordon Arnaut.





"Stewart Glenn" > wrote in message om...
I'm looking to start a home built aircraft. Does anyone have any suggestions on which type of lumber to use that's a good alternative for sitka spruce?

Thanks

[Lou]

I have been building my plane out of Doug Fir. Although there are times
that the wood splits, after a while you learn how to keep that at a
minimum. Good Doug fir is not hard to find but you do have to go
through some stock to find what your looking for. I milled my pieces
out of 4x4's from Home Depot. When it came time to get longer good
pieces, I contacted a company in Oregon to ship me rough sawn stock. I
got lucky that the saleman was interested in what I was doing and hand
picked the grain for me. Also I found that the rough sawn was a better
way to go when milling your own. I wish I would have started there
instead of ending there.

As for Sitka Spruce, stay away from the advertised companies and look
in the phone book for specialty lumber companies. I found a place in
norhtern Illinois that has good quality straight grain sitka at half
the price. They just don't advertise it as aircraft, no liability.
Also, don't tell them that your building a plane.
Lou

[Rich S.]

"Lou" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> As for Sitka Spruce, stay away from the advertised companies and look
> in the phone book for specialty lumber companies.

One thing I would add to this. If you buy wood from a Canadian outfit, there
was (and still may be) a prohibitive tariff. If they label it "Aircraft
Parts", no tariff. I know this goes against the advice of not telling them
what your going to use it for. Mebbe you could tell them your going to use
it for a boat, but want it labeled "Aircraft"????

Oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

Rich S.

[Matt Whiting]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:

> There are many types of wood that can be used in constructing a proper
> airframe, as per AC-43.13b.
>
> I happen to like northern white pine, which has nearly the same
> strength-to-weight ratio as spruce -- and better than that of Douglas
> fir. NWP is about 15 percent lighter and about 15 percent less strong
> than spruce, so if your plans specify spruce you will want to increase
> the dimensions by about 15 percent.

Trouble is it isn't that simple. Strength of many load bearing members
(those loaded in bending or torsion, for example), is a linear function
of size. It would take virtually a re-engineering of the structure to
change species in most cases.


Matt

[Ernest Christley]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>
>> There are many types of wood that can be used in constructing a proper
>> airframe, as per AC-43.13b.
>>
>> I happen to like northern white pine, which has nearly the same
>> strength-to-weight ratio as spruce -- and better than that of Douglas
>> fir. NWP is about 15 percent lighter and about 15 percent less strong
>> than spruce, so if your plans specify spruce you will want to increase
>> the dimensions by about 15 percent.
>
>
> Trouble is it isn't that simple. Strength of many load bearing members
> (those loaded in bending or torsion, for example), is a linear function
> of size. It would take virtually a re-engineering of the structure to
> change species in most cases.
>
>
> Matt

Matt, did you mean to say that it is NOT a linear function of size.

Take a cantilevered beam. Regardless of the thickness, it's bending
strength is the square of the thickness times the tensile strength. Say
the beam as designed is 1" thick and can hold 1000lbs. You substitute a
material twice as strong. Make it 1" thick and it can hold 2000lbs.
Cut it in half (because it's twice as strong) and it can only hold

(.5")^2 * 2000lbs = 500lbs.

I'm not a mechanical engineer, and I've learned just enough to know that
I don't know enough, so I may be wrong on the particulars; but I know
for a fact that twice as strong but half as thick doesn't get you to
where you started.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Matt Whiting]

Ernest Christley wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>>
>>> There are many types of wood that can be used in constructing a
>>> proper airframe, as per AC-43.13b.
>>>
>>> I happen to like northern white pine, which has nearly the same
>>> strength-to-weight ratio as spruce -- and better than that of Douglas
>>> fir. NWP is about 15 percent lighter and about 15 percent less strong
>>> than spruce, so if your plans specify spruce you will want to
>>> increase the dimensions by about 15 percent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Trouble is it isn't that simple. Strength of many load bearing
>> members (those loaded in bending or torsion, for example), is a linear
>> function of size. It would take virtually a re-engineering of the
>> structure to change species in most cases.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Matt, did you mean to say that it is NOT a linear function of size.
>
> Take a cantilevered beam. Regardless of the thickness, it's bending
> strength is the square of the thickness times the tensile strength. Say
> the beam as designed is 1" thick and can hold 1000lbs. You substitute a
> material twice as strong. Make it 1" thick and it can hold 2000lbs. Cut
> it in half (because it's twice as strong) and it can only hold
>
> (.5")^2 * 2000lbs = 500lbs.
>
> I'm not a mechanical engineer, and I've learned just enough to know that
> I don't know enough, so I may be wrong on the particulars; but I know
> for a fact that twice as strong but half as thick doesn't get you to
> where you started.
>

Yes, that is what I meant to say. Too bad my fingers aren't always
connected to my brain. Hopefully, the context of the rest of what I
wrote made the typo obvious.


Matt

[Gordon Arnaut]

Matt,

You are correct that resizing structural members is not as simple as simply
increasing size by the same percentage amount that the substitute wood
varies in strength.

Yes, you do have to recalculate the structural stresses, but this is not
that difficult. You can do this by applying the bending stress formula. This
will give you the exact dimensions that you will need of the substitute
material, in order to carry the same loads.

There is an old Sport Aviation article that works through this, called
"Selection and Evaluation of Wood," by Noel J. Becar. It is included in the
EAA book, "Wood: Aircraft Building Tecniques."

Regards,

Gordon Arnaut.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are many types of wood that can be used in constructing a proper
>>>> airframe, as per AC-43.13b.
>>>>
>>>> I happen to like northern white pine, which has nearly the same
>>>> strength-to-weight ratio as spruce -- and better than that of Douglas
>>>> fir. NWP is about 15 percent lighter and about 15 percent less strong
>>>> than spruce, so if your plans specify spruce you will want to increase
>>>> the dimensions by about 15 percent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Trouble is it isn't that simple. Strength of many load bearing members
>>> (those loaded in bending or torsion, for example), is a linear function
>>> of size. It would take virtually a re-engineering of the structure to
>>> change species in most cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>> Matt, did you mean to say that it is NOT a linear function of size.
>>
>> Take a cantilevered beam. Regardless of the thickness, it's bending
>> strength is the square of the thickness times the tensile strength. Say
>> the beam as designed is 1" thick and can hold 1000lbs. You substitute a
>> material twice as strong. Make it 1" thick and it can hold 2000lbs. Cut
>> it in half (because it's twice as strong) and it can only hold
>>
>> (.5")^2 * 2000lbs = 500lbs.
>>
>> I'm not a mechanical engineer, and I've learned just enough to know that
>> I don't know enough, so I may be wrong on the particulars; but I know
>> for a fact that twice as strong but half as thick doesn't get you to
>> where you started.
>>
>
> Yes, that is what I meant to say. Too bad my fingers aren't always
> connected to my brain. Hopefully, the context of the rest of what I wrote
> made the typo obvious.
>
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> Matt,
>
> You are correct that resizing structural members is not as simple as simply
> increasing size by the same percentage amount that the substitute wood
> varies in strength.
>
> Yes, you do have to recalculate the structural stresses, but this is not
> that difficult. You can do this by applying the bending stress formula. This
> will give you the exact dimensions that you will need of the substitute
> material, in order to carry the same loads.
>
> There is an old Sport Aviation article that works through this, called
> "Selection and Evaluation of Wood," by Noel J. Becar. It is included in the
> EAA book, "Wood: Aircraft Building Tecniques."

Yes, not that difficult, but definitely tedious and time consuming. I'd
rather spend a little more time locating quality wood of the species
specified by the designer than recalculating the sizes of all of the
stressed members of the structure - which is a lot of calculation even
on simple airframes.

And then you may have to adjust a lot of other items (brackets, etc.) to
accomodate the different dimensions. All in all, a lot of work and the
increased chance of a miscalculation that could cause problems later.

If someone was planning to make many airplanes using the new wood, then
it would be worthwhile, but for a single airplane, it seems to me that
the work would greatly outweight any benefit of using a different specie.


Matt

[Gordon Arnaut]

Matt,

You are right that resizing creates complications with brackets and other
hardware. But this will take only a little time and effort to address.

The calculations for the structural sizing are not that time consuming
either.

Let's take a Baby Ace spar for example which is made of sitka spruce, and
for which we want to substitute white pine.

The first thing is to calculate the moment of inertia (I) of the spar: I =
width x height (cubed) divided by 12.

So for the 3/4" wide by 5-1/8" high Baby Ace spar, the moment of inertia
calculates to 0.75 x 5.125(cubed) / 12 = 8.41.

Now we simply look up the modulus of rupture (Fbu), which is the strength in
bending, for spruce and pine: 10,100psi for sitka and 8,800psi for pine
(according to Forest Products Laboratory data).

By plugging in the moment of inertia into the bending stress formula, we
arrive at the maximum load this spar is capable of carrying: My = Fbu x I

Where M = bending moment in inch pounds
y = distance of neutral axis of spar to outer surface on
compression side
I = 8.41 (as we just calculated)

So to arrive at the ultimate strength of the Baby ace spar we simply
multiply I (8.41) x modulus of rupture of sitka (10,100). The answer is
84,941 inch pounds. This figure is the amount of load the spar was designed
to carry, using sitka spruce.

Now to subsitute pine all we have to do is rearrange the bending stress
formula using the slightly lower modulus of rupture (Fbu) of pine.

So first we want to solve for bending moment (I) using the substitute wood:
I = My / Fbu = 84,941 / 8,800 = 9.65

Now that we know the moment of inertia we can solve for the increased width
of the spar using pine:
w = I x 12 / h(cubed) = 9.65 x 12 / 134.61 = 0.860

So the new width (thickness) of the pine spar is 0.860 inch, a little less
than 7/8" (0.875).

So we would only need to increase the thickness of the spar by a mere 1/8".
Remember the stock Baby Ace sitka spar is 3/4", so our 7/8" pine spar would
actually be a little stronger.

That's all the calculation you would need to do for the whole airplane if
most of the structure is made of 3/4" stock. If the longerons were specified
as 3/4" sitka, you would again simply substitute 7/8" pine.

I don't think this is a lot of work, because now I can go down to Home Depot
and pick out some nice clear pine, bring it right home and start building an
airplane.

I think this is so much better than sending hundreds of dollars to some
mail-order outfit and wondering what kind of beating the boards took in
transit.

One of the biggest dangers in using wood as a structural material is
compression failures that are almost invisible to the naked eye. A piece of
wood that has been severely stressed (such as sitting under some big heavy
boxes on the UPS truck) may look perfectly good, but its fibers may be have
completely lost their strength. A small amount of load and it will now snap
like a twig.

That's one of the reasons I don't like mail-order wood. That's also why you
need to test a sample from each board you buy and look very carefully for
compression failures or wood "crush." The EAA book I mentioned previously
has a good article on this, written by Sam Evans, the designer of the
Volksplane.

Regards,

Gordon.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> You are correct that resizing structural members is not as simple as
>> simply increasing size by the same percentage amount that the substitute
>> wood varies in strength.
>>
>> Yes, you do have to recalculate the structural stresses, but this is not
>> that difficult. You can do this by applying the bending stress formula.
>> This will give you the exact dimensions that you will need of the
>> substitute material, in order to carry the same loads.
>>
>> There is an old Sport Aviation article that works through this, called
>> "Selection and Evaluation of Wood," by Noel J. Becar. It is included in
>> the EAA book, "Wood: Aircraft Building Tecniques."
>
> Yes, not that difficult, but definitely tedious and time consuming. I'd
> rather spend a little more time locating quality wood of the species
> specified by the designer than recalculating the sizes of all of the
> stressed members of the structure - which is a lot of calculation even on
> simple airframes.
>
> And then you may have to adjust a lot of other items (brackets, etc.) to
> accomodate the different dimensions. All in all, a lot of work and the
> increased chance of a miscalculation that could cause problems later.
>
> If someone was planning to make many airplanes using the new wood, then it
> would be worthwhile, but for a single airplane, it seems to me that the
> work would greatly outweight any benefit of using a different specie.
>
>
> Matt

[Morgans]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote

> One of the biggest dangers in using wood as a structural material is
> compression failures that are almost invisible to the naked eye. A piece
of
> wood that has been severely stressed (such as sitting under some big heavy
> boxes on the UPS truck) may look perfectly good, but its fibers may be
have
> completely lost their strength.
???????????????????????????????????/

You HAVE to be totally kidding. Unless that wood was sitting under a 10,000
lbs box on the UPS truck, it WILL NOT get compressive failure like that.

Most compressive fractures take place when the tree is felled, and lands
across a swag, or on another log.

You had a pretty good writing going, but you lost all credibility, with that
last line of crap.

Also, rupture is not the only mode of failure that is important. You have
to know if the part you are replacing is in tension, compression, bending,
or what. There are different values for each mode.
--
Jim in NC

[Gordon Arnaut]

Do you have some sort of personality disorder?

If you disagree with something I said, then address it in civil terms as I
have done when I disagreed with the other poster's point. There is no
excusable reason to launch into a personal attack and what I wrote "crap."

I would address your objections, but I don't argue with people who don't
adhere to basic civility.

You are obviously an odiferous idiot and as such I will ignore your stupid
outburst.

Gordon Arnaut.




"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote
>
>> One of the biggest dangers in using wood as a structural material is
>> compression failures that are almost invisible to the naked eye. A piece
> of
>> wood that has been severely stressed (such as sitting under some big
>> heavy
>> boxes on the UPS truck) may look perfectly good, but its fibers may be
> have
>> completely lost their strength.
> ???????????????????????????????????/
>
> You HAVE to be totally kidding. Unless that wood was sitting under a
> 10,000
> lbs box on the UPS truck, it WILL NOT get compressive failure like that.
>
> Most compressive fractures take place when the tree is felled, and lands
> across a swag, or on another log.
>
> You had a pretty good writing going, but you lost all credibility, with
> that
> last line of crap.
>
> Also, rupture is not the only mode of failure that is important. You have
> to know if the part you are replacing is in tension, compression, bending,
> or what. There are different values for each mode.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote

> If you disagree with something I said, then address it in civil terms as I
> have done when I disagreed with the other poster's point. There is no
> excusable reason to launch into a personal attack and what I wrote "crap."
>

I am normally a _very_ civil person, but I go off the deep end when someone
makes a post retorting to have a command of subject matter, then displays an
utter *lack* of grasp on the subject. People who know no better might
believe you, and commit a design change/substitution that kills them. this
is big stuff, with life ending possibilities.

In order to have a compression fracture to take place, the wood has to be
compressed past the ultimate failure of the species, in compression, or if
it were bent, in rupture on the side of the board that is in the "low" side
of the bend. How much force would be required would then depend on the
specifics of the size of the stock. I would dare to say, that the loads
required would be HUGE; it would be enough to crush the floor, and
suspension, and blow the tires of a UPS truck, if it were say, a spar, of
unremarkable size. That is not going to happen from having a box, or boxes,
or even a V-8 engine sitting on it. How ridiculous!

If you purport to write as an expert, dispensing advise, you must be
prepared to take your lumps when you blow it.

You blew it.

Oh, by the way, pot, kettle, black. You seemed to do a pretty good job of
not addressing me in a civil manner.

I do not have a personality disorder, nor am I odiferous, nor am I an idiot.
I was, however, bold enough to call you bluff on a subject you should not be
writing about, if you are so far off base from knowing the basic causes of
this kind of failure in wood.

It seriously makes me wonder how far off base you are on the rest of the
figures and concepts you wrote about. I might suggest that other readers
also view the previous posts made by you with a *very* large grain of salt.

Civil enough? If not, tough. Live with it.
--
Jim in NC

[Ernest Christley]

Morgans wrote:
>
> In order to have a compression fracture to take place, the wood has to be
> compressed past the ultimate failure of the species, in compression, or if
> it were bent, in rupture on the side of the board that is in the "low" side
> of the bend. How much force would be required would then depend on the
> specifics of the size of the stock. I would dare to say, that the loads
> required would be HUGE; it would be enough to crush the floor, and
> suspension, and blow the tires of a UPS truck, if it were say, a spar, of
> unremarkable size. That is not going to happen from having a box, or boxes,
> or even a V-8 engine sitting on it. How ridiculous!
>

Hey, Jim, I'm not trying to be odiferous (whatever that may be), I'd
just really like to know.

Does it make a difference that they UPS truck will bring the wood in
strips that are much smaller than a forest log? That is, will it stand
more of possibility from damage in the cut and cured state?

Another factor...an object doesn't have to weigh 10,000lbs to apply
10,000psi of force. If the wood ends up supporting another object by an
edge or a corner (or even a point), and the truck hits a bump, 10,000psi
might not be so extreme. A somewhat strained example: someone traps a
coat hanger between the sitka bundle and a V-8 engine place on top.

My sister-in-law got a new hardwood floor installed (I sweated a lot
putting that one in), and started to set little round indentations in
it. She was livid, blaming it on husband and children, started to call
Home Depot and give them what-for. Luckily, I stopped her in time and
pointed out her spiked high-heels. Lot of pressure there from a
one-hundred and ????? pound woman.

I guess that's all just to say, "Don't trust the UPS man." I used to
work a dock. I've seen the forklifts used to help a load 'fit' in the
truck.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Gordon Arnaut]

I'm posting this for the normal people in this group who might thing that
this "Morgans" clown actually has some kind of valid point.

His remarks make quite clear that he doesn't know the first thing about
structures. Yet he comes out with guns blazing and hurling unprovoked
insults. What a clown.

For example, take his comment about modulus of rupture not being relevant to
stress in compression or tension.

This is complete gibberish that shows he doesn't understand even the basics.
Modulus of rupture is a measure of a material's strength in bending.

Bending loads on a piece of wood (or other material) typically produce
stress in both compression and tension at the same time.

Take a wood yardstick and hold it by the ends; now try to bend it into a U
shape. The wood fibers on the inside of the curve will be in compression,
while those on the outside will be in tension, simultaneously.

If you apply enough bending moment you can break the stick. But what if you
bend it as far as you can without breaking it and then let it go? Have you
done any damage?

It's quite possible tthat you have damaged the wood fibers that were in
compression (the top of the stick). Almost certainly you will not have
damaged the bottom of the stick, which was under tension.

The reason is that wood is about two to three times stronger in tension than
in compression. So while you didn't break the stick, you might have caused
compression failure on the side of the stick that was on the inside of the
curve. This damage would be most acute on the top surface of the stick and
would be progressivly less until the neutral axis (middle) of the stick.

If you made a saw cut right across the point of bending, you would probably
see -- under a magnifying glass -- wood fibers that have failed in
compression.

If you have ever broken small pieces of wood in half with your hands you
would have experienced this first hand. If you take that yardstick and bend
it until it starts to break, what happens? It does not just snap at once.

The outside part that is under tension will begin to splinter long before it
lets go. Then in order to break it, you instinctively bend it back in the
opposite direction and what happens? It makes a clean break on the top
surface -- the surface that was under compression -- while the bottom
surface continues to splinter.

This shows you just how much stronger the wood is in tension than in
compression. So even bending the stick and letting go befoer it breaks could
have caused compression failure on the top surface. The next time you bend
that stick in the opposite direction, there will be no strength in the top
part -- it will just let go.

That's exactly how sticks of wood can get damaged in transit. All it takes
is bending the stick enough to cause compression on the inside of the bend.
And you would never know by merely looking at it.

Idiot's comments about needing 10,000 pounds on top of the wood simply
illustrate to everyone what a loudmouth know-nothing he is.

All it takes is enough force to bend the plank more than you would normally
do. This does not have to be a lot of force. We are talking about small
planks less than an inch thick. You could easily cause compression failure
on small sticks of wood like this just by bending it forcefully with your
bare hands.

Is that the kind of massive pressure idiot is talking about?

The fact is that this type of damage can and does happen in shipment. It is
quite easy as my explanation should make clear. All that needs to happen is
for the board to be bent awkwardkly -- and this does not take a whole lot of
weight. A couple of humdred pounds acting on the end of a plank could be
enough to do it.

As to his other objection about modulus of rupture not being "enough" of a
measure to determine wood substitution, this is simply not true. This is the
most important measure of strength. Fbu (sometimes referred as jut Fu) is
the ultimate stress before failure in bending.

There are also measurements for stiffness, elasticity, strength in
compression and tension both paralell and perpendicular to the grain and a
few more. But the undisputed fact is that for structural members, Fbu is the
most important measurement.

If the substitute wood passes muster in this measurement, then it will pass
in all the others -- since these strength properties all tend to vary
proportionately across species. For example if pine is 15 percent weaker in
bending than spruce, it is also weaker by a similar amount in the other
strength measures.

In closing, I really have to register my utmost contempt at this pathetic
clown for the way in which he is conducting his attacks. He obviously knows
nothing, yet he has the brass to call into question factual material I have
presented which is 100 percent valid.

I challenge this complete moron to point out one mistake in the methodology
or math I have presented. I will bet dollars to donuts that he won't even
attempt it -- he wouldn't know where to start.


Regards to All (Except to Moron in NC)

Gordon Arnaut.




"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote
>
>> If you disagree with something I said, then address it in civil terms as
>> I
>> have done when I disagreed with the other poster's point. There is no
>> excusable reason to launch into a personal attack and what I wrote
>> "crap."
>>
>
> I am normally a _very_ civil person, but I go off the deep end when
> someone
> makes a post retorting to have a command of subject matter, then displays
> an
> utter *lack* of grasp on the subject. People who know no better might
> believe you, and commit a design change/substitution that kills them.
> this
> is big stuff, with life ending possibilities.
>
> In order to have a compression fracture to take place, the wood has to be
> compressed past the ultimate failure of the species, in compression, or if
> it were bent, in rupture on the side of the board that is in the "low"
> side
> of the bend. How much force would be required would then depend on the
> specifics of the size of the stock. I would dare to say, that the loads
> required would be HUGE; it would be enough to crush the floor, and
> suspension, and blow the tires of a UPS truck, if it were say, a spar, of
> unremarkable size. That is not going to happen from having a box, or
> boxes,
> or even a V-8 engine sitting on it. How ridiculous!
>
> If you purport to write as an expert, dispensing advise, you must be
> prepared to take your lumps when you blow it.
>
> You blew it.
>
> Oh, by the way, pot, kettle, black. You seemed to do a pretty good job of
> not addressing me in a civil manner.
>
> I do not have a personality disorder, nor am I odiferous, nor am I an
> idiot.
> I was, however, bold enough to call you bluff on a subject you should not
> be
> writing about, if you are so far off base from knowing the basic causes of
> this kind of failure in wood.
>
> It seriously makes me wonder how far off base you are on the rest of the
> figures and concepts you wrote about. I might suggest that other readers
> also view the previous posts made by you with a *very* large grain of
> salt.
>
> Civil enough? If not, tough. Live with it.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
> Hey, Jim, I'm not trying to be odiferous (whatever that may be), I'd
> just really like to know.

Thanks for that. I think that *might* be something like stinking, <g> and I
haven't been close enough to smell you!

I'll attempt to shed some light on your (and others) concerns. I don't
pretend to know everything about wood, but I have studied the forrest
products book, (good stuff) and others on wood AC, and have been around wood
(carpenter, cabinet maker, jack of all trades) all my life.

> Does it make a difference that they UPS truck will bring the wood in
> strips that are much smaller than a forest log?

Sure, the smaller the piece, and the longer, the less abuse it can stand.

Still, the most common way (by a million percent) of compressive fractures
occur while the wood is in the shape of a log.

> That is, will it stand more of possibility from damage in the cut and
cured state?

Actually, wood is stronger in it's dry state. Much stronger. Milled, yes,
it will be weaker than a log, but only because it is not as large.

> Another factor...an object doesn't have to weigh 10,000lbs to apply
10,000psi of force.

True, you can generate more than the rated force without the rated weight.
or force. The good old principle of the lever at work, (and mechanical
advantage) is our main concern.

> If the wood ends up supporting another object by an edge or a corner (or
even a point), and the truck hits a bump,
> 10,000psi might not be so extreme.

Humm, this might be possible, but there are other things to consider to make
this a problem.

First, remember, we are talking (P)ounds per (S)quare (I)nch. Most of the
stuff we are going to order are much larger than a square (cross sectional)
inch, thus it will take much more force to be of concern. Lots of
calculations - moments of inertia, leverage, compression, buckling loads,
bending- all much more ugly than I want to go into here. Lets go for broad
concepts, and rough figures.

If the board were supported by a corner, on what is the corner resting on.
A shelf? Shelf gets crusted, if the board is of any size. Remember UPS has
a maximum weight, as I recall, about eighty some pounds. It will be
necessary to have many of these boxes to add up to enough to hurt anything,
except little sticks.

A point, say a rock under the plank? Part of the weight dents the floor or
crushes the rock, (UPS drivers are not in the habit of hauling around a
truck full of gravel) and part of the point load puts a big dent in the
board. This is still not a compressive failure. A compressive failure is a
_line_ of ruptured cells, and hard to see; not what is happening here. It
would make that one point as weak as say, a knot. Easy to detect, so
although the board may be damaged, it is easy to see. Report the damage,
get a new plank, or work (cut it out) to eliminate the damage. That is done
all of the time, to eliminate less that acceptable parts (defects) in the
lumber.

A extreme weight like an engine would not be resting on a sharp point, like
a flange sitting on the plank. It would be on a pallet, thus spreading the
load. Also, UPS does not ship engines; that would be some type of motor
freight.

Another point to consider is that in order to reach the point of rupture,
the board is going to bend a HUGE amount before _any_ damage is done.

> A somewhat strained example: someone traps a coat hanger between the
sitka bundle and a V-8 engine placed on top.

Not likely, but once again, the damage would be a dent, not a compressive
failure; at least not anything but a highly localized event. Easy to spot,
so mill it out, or reject it.


> My sister-in-law got a new hardwood floor installed (I sweated a lot
putting that one in), and started to set little round > indentations in it.
She was livid, blaming it on husband and children, started to call Home
Depot and give them what-
> for. Luckily, I stopped her in time and pointed out her spiked
high-heels. Lot of pressure there from a one-hundred and ????? pound woman.

Wow, want to talk extreem pressure, huh? <g> Yep, high heels are hell on
wood floors. It is easy for a petite woman to put well over 1,000 pounds
per square inch on a floor. Still easy to see; take action to remove or
eliminate the problem... (on the floor, not the woman <g>)
>
> I guess that's all just to say, "Don't trust the UPS man." I used to
> work a dock. I've seen the forklifts used to help a load 'fit' in the
> truck.

All easy to see problems. It would be more likely to have the compressive
fracture we are concerned about happen by taking a 1 inch by 8 inch board
supported by raised fulcrums say, 4 feet across, then use the board as a
ramp for the forklift to drive across. (like a bridge) That would be
unusual treatment for even a loading dock, and I believe you would agree.

Wood is a wonderful material. It is flexible, but strong. It can take a
surprising amount of abuse, and spring back, with no damage. After the big
Japanese earthquake, (what, 15 years ago?) the Japanese sent teams of
engineers to further study our wood frame house building practices, because
their mostly steel residential construction methods did not flex, but
buckle.

That (in house construction) is a case of much lower grade lumber. (than
aircraft lumber) You should see what lumber wholesalers are passing off for
#2 grade lumber, nowadays. Also, houses are nailed together, not fastened
with epoxy and scarf joints, like in aircraft practices.

In conclusion, don't worry about airplane lumber getting damaged by UPS.
Large stuff would have to have the whole truck run over it. Smaller stuff
will bend, long before the driver realizes that his loading is a problem,
and if it is firmly bundled, the whole bundle will share the load.

If you are building a wood aircraft, you should be trained in recognizing
defects, eliminating them, and safely orienting, joining and using wood.
Your life is on the line, and you better know what you are doing. There are
many things to worry about, (including substituting species) but damage from
the UPS man delivering your wood should be about 273rd on your list. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote

> I'm posting this for the normal people in this group who might thing that
> this "Morgans" clown actually has some kind of valid point.

OK, I tried nice, but you don't want to play, so first of all, a general,
FYT.

> His remarks make quite clear that he doesn't know the first thing about
> structures. Yet he comes out with guns blazing and hurling unprovoked
> insults. What a clown.
>
> For example, take his comment about modulus of rupture not being >relevant
to stress in compression or tension.

In contex, if you please. Site the usage, please. I can't defend something
I don't see.

> This is complete gibberish that shows he doesn't understand even the
basics. Modulus of rupture is a measure of a material's strength in
bending.

Close. That is when it FAILS.

> Bending loads on a piece of wood (or other material) typically produce
> stress in both compression and tension at the same time.

Oh really? Why that's all new news to this clown. Wow, thanks.

> Take a wood yardstick and hold it by the ends; now try to bend it into a U
> shape. The wood fibers on the inside of the curve will be in compression,
> while those on the outside will be in tension, simultaneously.
>
> If you apply enough bending moment you can break the stick. But what if
>you bend it as far as you can without breaking it and then let it go? Have
you done any damage?

Depends.

Please tell us how you can tell. Give us all a REAL example. Use something
more than modulus of rupture, or buy a vowel.

> It's quite possible tthat you have damaged the wood fibers that were in
> compression (the top of the stick). Almost certainly you will not have
> damaged the bottom of the stick, which was under tension.

Really? How do you know? There are ways to know, or don't you know how to
figure that part?

> So while you didn't break the stick, you might have caused compression
>failure on the side of the stick that was on the inside of the curve. This
>damage would be most acute on the top surface of the stick and would be
>progressivly less until the neutral axis (middle) of the stick.

> If you made a saw cut right across the point of bending, you would
>probably see -- under a magnifying glass -- wood fibers that have failed
in > compression.

Don't need a magnifying glass, if you know what to look for.

> Idiot's comments about needing 10,000 pounds on top of the wood simply >
illustrate to everyone what a loudmouth know-nothing he is.

I was talking about a bending force, or can't you read?

> All it takes is enough force to bend the plank more than you would
>normally do.

Oh, please tell. How about that. How about a number a bit more specific
than "more than you would normally do." How much is normal? Those numbers
are in there.

> This does not have to be a lot of force.

Once again, something more specific, please, professor? No? Oh well. You
obviously show a lot more book knowledge than real application.

You had damn well better understand how all of the figures for each species
apply to how the specific stick will be used. You know nothing that anyone
here should use to build an airplane.

You said something back there about modulus of rupture being the most
important. Yes it is important, but far from _all_ that is important.

How about modulus of elasticity? Some woods will not bend much, until they
suddenly rupture. Might want to know that, right? Some woods are very poor
in tension, and splinter at the drop of a hat. Might want to know about
that, too.

YOU CAN NOT PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT FIGURES YOU WANT TO LOOK AT. YOU MUST USE
THEM ALL, AND UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE THEM ALL.

To say otherwise is to create a death trap, and irresponsible to try to
convince others, that you don't need to consider the loads that will be
placed on each individual part.

Most people do not have the skills and understanding to consider all of the
factors involved. It is VERY clear, at least you do not.

YOU are one more fine example of newsgroups "gods" spouting off, and giving
misinformation that could be deadly.

Ever read the government's forrest products book? It's old, but still the
best of its type. Try it. That is only a start.

By the way, so everyone out there in newsgroup land can best judge how you
are qualified to pass on all of your useful information, how about posting
all of your qualifications? Education, degrees, how many wood airframes you
have analyzed, how many you have built and flown? Any or all of those
things.

Please. Please. Use the Doctor's motto. First do no harm.

You have some un-doing to do.

Don't bother responding to me. You are off my radar; my blood pressure
can't stand it.

Please, group. Learn more from someone who knows more than him (or me)
before taking this one's advise.

Jerk. I hate being like this.
--
Jim in NC

[Lou]

How long have you two been married?

[RST Engineering]

Don't DO that at this hour of the morning. I HATE iced tea coming out my
nose.

{;-)

Jim




"Lou" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> How long have you two been married?
>

[Gordon Arnaut]

Moron,

You really are a pathetic idiot.

Your stupid retorts are pure nonsense and anyone can see right through them.

You have not refuted one single thingI have said.

If it is true that I am giving bad information as you claim, why do you not
challenge my facts, my calculations or my methodology?

And here you are asking for hard facts and figures about my stick example.

I gave all kinds of hard facts and figures in my calculation example. Go to
town with that, moron. Let's see you refute one single thing I have said.

The point of my story about bending the stick was to provide an everyday
example we can all relate to and which illustrate the underlying concept --
how wood can be easily weakened by bending. And how that weakening occurs
through compression failure of wood fibers on the inside radius of the bend.

I think most people see the point and intent of this illustrative example.
So what exactly is your argument with it?

What a complete intelligence-free twerp you are.

And then there are your comments about how you tried to be "nice?" When was
that? When you jumped on my very good-natured posts out of the blue, hurling
insults and spitting unsubstantiated accusations that my information was
"crap."

I guess you don't realize that bushwackers sometimes get a bellyful of lead
for their troubles?

The pot calling the kettle black? What do you think any normal person would
do if some crazy nut suddenly accosted them on the street for no reason
other than overhearing a discussion he didn't like?

The person being attacked would have every legal and moral right to lay that
nut out flat on his back. Which is what I have done, in the verbal sense. I
have every right to do so and will continue to forcefully call your
agressive and sociopathic behaviour what it is, until you modify it to bring
it into conformity with accepted social norms.

You are simply a nut. And I don't care to be nice to nuts that go around
accosting people completely unprovoked.

You don't like it? Too bad. Aggressive nuts that attack people without any
provocation deserve disdainful treatment, at the very least.

Also disdainful is your posturing about being concerned for the safety of
people who might listen to and consider what I'm saying.

That is complete bull****. The reason you are atacking me is that you have
an old axe to grind. I remember you from the Ragwing list where you launched
a similar attack on me out of the blue because I provided some good
information about a very serious structural issue with wing spars.

I actually never responded to you then because you didn't say anything of
substance -- just like now.

When you saw me here, you launched a vicious attack like some crazed
pitbull. that's the reason for your sociopathic display here, not some
concern about people's safety. What a piece of work you are.

Bottom line is you know absolutely nothing about the subject under
discussion, as you have amply proved.

Quick reminder: you have not taken up my challenge to refute any facts I
have presented. You spit out a big long post of nonsense and meaningless
gibberish, but conveniently sidestepped the challenge I issued to you.

That challenege still stands. Either pick up the gauntlet or shut your
stupid obnoxious trap.

That's really the end of the story right there. Until you can actually point
to factual errors on my part, your mindless braying is just noise. Annoying
irritating, mindless noise.

Go bark somewhere else, mouth-foamer.

Regards to All (Except Moron in NC)

Gordon Arnaut
Ontario, Canada.








"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote
>
>> I'm posting this for the normal people in this group who might thing that
>> this "Morgans" clown actually has some kind of valid point.
>
> OK, I tried nice, but you don't want to play, so first of all, a general,
> FYT.
>
>> His remarks make quite clear that he doesn't know the first thing about
>> structures. Yet he comes out with guns blazing and hurling unprovoked
>> insults. What a clown.
>>
>> For example, take his comment about modulus of rupture not being
>> >relevant
> to stress in compression or tension.
>
> In contex, if you please. Site the usage, please. I can't defend
> something
> I don't see.
>
>> This is complete gibberish that shows he doesn't understand even the
> basics. Modulus of rupture is a measure of a material's strength in
> bending.
>
> Close. That is when it FAILS.
>
>> Bending loads on a piece of wood (or other material) typically produce
>> stress in both compression and tension at the same time.
>
> Oh really? Why that's all new news to this clown. Wow, thanks.
>
>> Take a wood yardstick and hold it by the ends; now try to bend it into a
>> U
>> shape. The wood fibers on the inside of the curve will be in compression,
>> while those on the outside will be in tension, simultaneously.
>>
>> If you apply enough bending moment you can break the stick. But what if
>>you bend it as far as you can without breaking it and then let it go? Have
> you done any damage?
>
> Depends.
>
> Please tell us how you can tell. Give us all a REAL example. Use
> something
> more than modulus of rupture, or buy a vowel.
>
>> It's quite possible tthat you have damaged the wood fibers that were in
>> compression (the top of the stick). Almost certainly you will not have
>> damaged the bottom of the stick, which was under tension.
>
> Really? How do you know? There are ways to know, or don't you know how
> to
> figure that part?
>
>> So while you didn't break the stick, you might have caused compression
>>failure on the side of the stick that was on the inside of the curve.
>>This
>>damage would be most acute on the top surface of the stick and would be
>>progressivly less until the neutral axis (middle) of the stick.
>
>> If you made a saw cut right across the point of bending, you would
>>probably see -- under a magnifying glass -- wood fibers that have failed
> in > compression.
>
> Don't need a magnifying glass, if you know what to look for.
>
>> Idiot's comments about needing 10,000 pounds on top of the wood simply >
> illustrate to everyone what a loudmouth know-nothing he is.
>
> I was talking about a bending force, or can't you read?
>
>> All it takes is enough force to bend the plank more than you would
>>normally do.
>
> Oh, please tell. How about that. How about a number a bit more specific
> than "more than you would normally do." How much is normal? Those
> numbers
> are in there.
>
> > This does not have to be a lot of force.
>
> Once again, something more specific, please, professor? No? Oh well.
> You
> obviously show a lot more book knowledge than real application.
>
> You had damn well better understand how all of the figures for each
> species
> apply to how the specific stick will be used. You know nothing that
> anyone
> here should use to build an airplane.
>
> You said something back there about modulus of rupture being the most
> important. Yes it is important, but far from _all_ that is important.
>
> How about modulus of elasticity? Some woods will not bend much, until
> they
> suddenly rupture. Might want to know that, right? Some woods are very
> poor
> in tension, and splinter at the drop of a hat. Might want to know about
> that, too.
>
> YOU CAN NOT PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT FIGURES YOU WANT TO LOOK AT. YOU MUST
> USE
> THEM ALL, AND UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE THEM ALL.
>
> To say otherwise is to create a death trap, and irresponsible to try to
> convince others, that you don't need to consider the loads that will be
> placed on each individual part.
>
> Most people do not have the skills and understanding to consider all of
> the
> factors involved. It is VERY clear, at least you do not.
>
> YOU are one more fine example of newsgroups "gods" spouting off, and
> giving
> misinformation that could be deadly.
>
> Ever read the government's forrest products book? It's old, but still the
> best of its type. Try it. That is only a start.
>
> By the way, so everyone out there in newsgroup land can best judge how you
> are qualified to pass on all of your useful information, how about posting
> all of your qualifications? Education, degrees, how many wood airframes
> you
> have analyzed, how many you have built and flown? Any or all of those
> things.
>
> Please. Please. Use the Doctor's motto. First do no harm.
>
> You have some un-doing to do.
>
> Don't bother responding to me. You are off my radar; my blood pressure
> can't stand it.
>
> Please, group. Learn more from someone who knows more than him (or me)
> before taking this one's advise.
>
> Jerk. I hate being like this.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Stealth Pilot]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:58:56 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:

the difference here is that one is a builder and one a designer.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[RST Engineering]

We call each other a lot of names in these groups, and sometimes it gets
mean and sometimes it is just fun to watch the fur fly.

This is one step over the line.

*plonk*


Jim




"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Moron,
>
>
> I guess you don't realize that bushwackers sometimes get a bellyful of
> lead for their troubles?
>

[Gordon Arnaut]

"Plonk" is also the way I filed your last few articles in Kitplanes.

Regards,

Gordon.



"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> We call each other a lot of names in these groups, and sometimes it gets
> mean and sometimes it is just fun to watch the fur fly.
>
> This is one step over the line.
>
> *plonk*
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Moron,
>>
>>
>> I guess you don't realize that bushwackers sometimes get a bellyful of
>> lead for their troubles?
>>
>
>

[Lou]

Who gets the house?

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Don't DO that at this hour of the morning. I HATE iced tea coming out my
> nose.
>
> {;-)


Better than hot coffee! :-)

Matt

[Morgans]

"Lou" > wrote
> How long have you two been married?

Ouch! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Moron,
>
>
> You have not refuted one single thingI have said.

I have asked you how tho other wood strength properties, like tension come
in to play. You only tote one number; rupture. If you can't see that I
object to that, tough.


> And then there are your comments about how you tried to be "nice?" When
was
> that?

I was nice on my second reply, after you jumped me for calling your post
crap.

> The reason you are atacking me is that you have
> an old axe to grind. I remember you from the Ragwing list where you
launched
> a similar attack on me out of the blue because I provided some good
> information about a very serious structural issue with wing spars.


Now you have shown your true colors. You are paranoid. I have NEVER,
repeat, NEVER been on a ragwings list. I never have seen your name, before
the last few days.


> When you saw me here, you launched a vicious attack like some crazed
> pitbull. that's the reason for your sociopathic display here, not some
> concern about people's safety. What a piece of work you are.

Wrong. Explain to me, and everyone else, how modulus of elasticity,
buckling, and stength related to tension of a wood sample comes into play.
Until you can do that, you have no buisness giving structural advise.

> Bottom line is you know absolutely nothing about the subject under
> discussion, as you have amply proved.
>

> Either pick up the gauntlet or shut your
> stupid obnoxious trap.

Oh, that's mature. who is the attacker now?

OK, I'll play 5th grade for you.

Make me shut up.

> That's really the end of the story right there. Until you can actually
point
> to factual errors on my part, your mindless braying is just noise.
Annoying
> irritating, mindless noise.

I already have pointed out factual errors of ommision. Use all of the wood
strength properties. Do you think someone sat down and measured all of
those numbers just for the fun of it? Once again, they *are* important.

> Go bark somewhere else, mouth-foamer.

Oh, you as such a master.

I give up.

Others, beware. Make the call yourself.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> We call each other a lot of names in these groups, and sometimes it gets
> mean and sometimes it is just fun to watch the fur fly.
>
> This is one step over the line.
>
> *plonk*
>
>
> Jim

I agree. I am 100% done with this one.
--
Jim in NC

[Jerry Springer]

Morgans wrote:
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>We call each other a lot of names in these groups, and sometimes it gets
>>mean and sometimes it is just fun to watch the fur fly.
>>
>>This is one step over the line.
>>
>>*plonk*
>>
>>
>>Jim
>
>
> I agree. I am 100% done with this one.

Don't give up yet, I want to see how he responds to your telling him you
have never been on a "ragwing" list. :-)

[Gordon Arnaut]

Mouth-Foamer,

It could be that you were not on the Ragwing list. I don't keep track of
every little heel-nipper who comes yipping at me on these lists.

If that's the case, then you are really even more of a sociopath than I
assumed. To just come out of the blue and attack a person in the aggressive
and obnoxious way that you did, points to a serious personality disorder.

Also you know nothing about structures and yet you launch criticisms in a
shrill tone that would make people you do know what you are talking about.

Even the way you answer my posts tells me what an intellectual dwarf you
are. You snip my posting into little bites and insert meaningless little
one-sentence retorts in between. What's the matter, can't you compose your
thoughts into a coherent whole and put that down on paper?

Let me just recap for a moment because your snipping and inserting has
thrown the whole thread of this argument out of context. (Which is probably
what you want, because you realize that the only way you are going to get
out of this without being exposed as a complete jackass is to sow
confusion -- put up a smokescreen of meaningless verbiatge and then bug out
while people are scratching their heads trying to make sense of your
gibberish).

But let's summarize this thread very quickly so people don't lose sight of
what's under discussion.

In the contect of a discussion with Matt, I pointed out that it is not much
work to recalculate the size of structural wooden members in order to
substutute one of the wood species that is approved in AC-43.13b.

As an example I worked through substuting white pine for sitka spruce in a
Baby Ace spar, and arrived at a thickness dimension of 7/8" for pine as a
suitable substitute for 3/4" sitka.

I also noted that I prefer this to having boards shipped, because the boards
could be damaged in transit, and if the damage was compression failure it
would be very hard to detect, yet could be catastrophic in terms of the
structural integrity of the member.

Then a wild-eyed moron jumped in with all kinds of baseless accusations
about my the veracity of my information, peppered with unprovoked personal
insults.

This crazy nut then claimed how it would be impossible for compression
failure to happen in shipment unless there was a 10,000 pound box sitting on
top of the wood. He also added that this kind of force would blow the tires
and break the axles of the truck before it damaged the wood. This is very
accurate paraphrasing, but the actual quotes are there for all to see.

After first deciding to ignore this annoying idiot who obviously knows
nothing, I decided to set the record straight when I saw that some people
were still interested in the topic and were actually responding to this nut
in a serious way.

I pointed out how compression failure does not require huge amounts of
weight -- especially in small dimension lumber -- and can happen easily with
simple bending. I gave an intuitive eexample of bending a yardstick. I also
pointed out how easy it would be for a package of sitka sticks, which are
shipped in cardboard tubes, to be bent to a point where they don't actually
break or leave visible damage, but could have sustained compression failure
of fibers where they were bent.

The wild-eyed idiot then responded by backtracking from his obvious boo-boo
by trying to rewrite history and saying he had never said it would take a
10,000 pound weight sitting on top of the wood, but only 10,000 pounds of
bending moment.

So we see the socipathic tendencies coming out clearly as he tries to submit
an obvious lie in full view of everyone.

I will document this very precisely here, just so Mr. Personality Disorder
can see his pathology clearly at work:

Exhibit 1:

18/07/2005 4:56 PM, Idiot writes: "You HAVE to be totally kidding. Unless
that wood was sitting under a 10,000
lbs box on the UPS truck, it WILL NOT get compressive failure like that."

Exhibit 2: 19/07/2005 1:30 AM Idiot writes: (The first part is the snip he
used from my previous message).

"> Idiot's comments about needing 10,000 pounds on top of the wood simply >
illustrate to everyone what a loudmouth know-nothing he is.

"I was talking about a bending force, or can't you read?"


So Idiot, were you talking about a bending force when you said that you
would need a 10,000 pound box sitting on top of the wood? Or did that come
later when you realized your mouth flew off before your brain had a chance
to catch up? Please tell us because this looks like a very obvious and
embarassing flip-flop.

The bottom line is that this clown is trying to discredit the information I
presented, yet he has not been able to point to one single fault with my
calculations. But he is trying to make up for that by screaming very loud.

And now he's saying that I made errors of omission by not talking about
Young's modulus (also known as modulus of elasticity), or strenght in
compression or tension.

This is quite funny because just by parsing his criticisms it is obvious
that he understands nothing about structures, or where and how those
concepts fit in.

If there are any engineers here, maybe you can enlighten Idiot as to the
basics. Bending moments, shear and torsion are more complex stresses than
pure tension and compression (which Idiot is bleating about as being really
important).

In working out my calculation on resizing the wing spar, I addressed bending
moment, in order to show that this is not a difficult calculation. Pure
compression and pure tension are much simpler calculations -- all you have
to do is plug in the figures from the Forest Products Laboratory.

As a matter of proper engineering you would want to do all the calculations,
but as a practical matter in a wooden airframe, bending moment is the most
critical issue, because it is the biggest force acting on the airplane --
especially the wings.

The spars are the single most critical structure in the airplane. You can
rest assured that if bending moment of the spars has been properly
addressed, then pure tension and compression will likewise be suitably
addressed by applying the same dimension increase to members that are under
pure tension or compression.

Another issue that Idiot is bleating about is modulus of elasticity (E),
also known as Young's modulus. Yet just by looking at FPL tables we see that
pine is very similar to spruce and fir, and most other coniferous species in
E. In any case, stiffness is not a major concern. A structural member will
not fail because it lacks stiffness. It will only fail if it is not strong
enough.

In any case, pine and other species are specifically approved as substitutes
for certified aircraft by AC-43-13b.

Now, I think I have been very reasonable here and I think any people here
knowledgable about structures will agree that all of what I have said is
completely factual and true, and that nothing relevant to the discussion has
been left out. So what exactly is Idiot challenging? (Except me personally?)

This stupid ass continues to hurl abuse and unfounded criticisms. I could
dissect his nonsense sentence by sentence and really point up all of his
factual mistakes, but why bother. I think all the knolwedgable people here
can now plainly see that he doesn't know even the most fundamental basics.

Now I ask you, is it proper for a person who knows nothing about the subject
to make so much noise? Is he not simply creating an obstruction to
intelligent discourse?

I will just leave on a more amusing note. I see that in one of his earlier
posts, he said "I hate being like this." (Direct quote).

Yes, I can see how he hates suffering from a personality disorder that
compels him to behave inappropriately and then causes acute embarassment.
Still, I would caution that self-hating tendencies are a very serious matter
and I would strongly counsel seeking professional help.

Regards,

Gordon.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Moron,
>>
>>
>> You have not refuted one single thingI have said.
>
> I have asked you how tho other wood strength properties, like tension come
> in to play. You only tote one number; rupture. If you can't see that I
> object to that, tough.
>
>
>> And then there are your comments about how you tried to be "nice?" When
> was
>> that?
>
> I was nice on my second reply, after you jumped me for calling your post
> crap.
>
>> The reason you are atacking me is that you have
>> an old axe to grind. I remember you from the Ragwing list where you
> launched
>> a similar attack on me out of the blue because I provided some good
>> information about a very serious structural issue with wing spars.
>
>
> Now you have shown your true colors. You are paranoid. I have NEVER,
> repeat, NEVER been on a ragwings list. I never have seen your name,
> before
> the last few days.
>
>
>> When you saw me here, you launched a vicious attack like some crazed
>> pitbull. that's the reason for your sociopathic display here, not some
>> concern about people's safety. What a piece of work you are.
>
> Wrong. Explain to me, and everyone else, how modulus of elasticity,
> buckling, and stength related to tension of a wood sample comes into play.
> Until you can do that, you have no buisness giving structural advise.
>
>> Bottom line is you know absolutely nothing about the subject under
>> discussion, as you have amply proved.
>>
>
>> Either pick up the gauntlet or shut your
>> stupid obnoxious trap.
>
> Oh, that's mature. who is the attacker now?
>
> OK, I'll play 5th grade for you.
>
> Make me shut up.
>
>> That's really the end of the story right there. Until you can actually
> point
>> to factual errors on my part, your mindless braying is just noise.
> Annoying
>> irritating, mindless noise.
>
> I already have pointed out factual errors of ommision. Use all of the
> wood
> strength properties. Do you think someone sat down and measured all of
> those numbers just for the fun of it? Once again, they *are* important.
>
>> Go bark somewhere else, mouth-foamer.
>
> Oh, you as such a master.
>
> I give up.
>
> Others, beware. Make the call yourself.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Gordon Arnaut]

Just a small self-correction for the pedants out there who would gleefully
jump on anything that isn't crystal-clear.

I said that a structure will not fail because it lacks stiffness, but only
if it lacks strength. To be more precise, I'm talking here about bending
stress, not other types of stress, such as column buckling, where stiffness
does indeed come into play (see Euler's formula).

However when we are talking about airplanes, column buckling is only
relevant to the wing struts and these are not made of wood, but tubular
metal.

And just to address Mouth-Foamer's yipping about pure compression and
tension, maybe he can start by telling me which parts of the airplane are
under pure tension or compression?

Ha ha...I think I'll be waiting a good long time for that one.

What a pathetic moron.

Regards,

Gordon.






"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Mouth-Foamer,
>
> It could be that you were not on the Ragwing list. I don't keep track of
> every little heel-nipper who comes yipping at me on these lists.
>
> If that's the case, then you are really even more of a sociopath than I
> assumed. To just come out of the blue and attack a person in the
> aggressive and obnoxious way that you did, points to a serious personality
> disorder.
>
> Also you know nothing about structures and yet you launch criticisms in a
> shrill tone that would make people you do know what you are talking about.
>
> Even the way you answer my posts tells me what an intellectual dwarf you
> are. You snip my posting into little bites and insert meaningless little
> one-sentence retorts in between. What's the matter, can't you compose your
> thoughts into a coherent whole and put that down on paper?
>
> Let me just recap for a moment because your snipping and inserting has
> thrown the whole thread of this argument out of context. (Which is
> probably what you want, because you realize that the only way you are
> going to get out of this without being exposed as a complete jackass is to
> sow confusion -- put up a smokescreen of meaningless verbiatge and then
> bug out while people are scratching their heads trying to make sense of
> your gibberish).
>
> But let's summarize this thread very quickly so people don't lose sight of
> what's under discussion.
>
> In the contect of a discussion with Matt, I pointed out that it is not
> much work to recalculate the size of structural wooden members in order to
> substutute one of the wood species that is approved in AC-43.13b.
>
> As an example I worked through substuting white pine for sitka spruce in a
> Baby Ace spar, and arrived at a thickness dimension of 7/8" for pine as a
> suitable substitute for 3/4" sitka.
>
> I also noted that I prefer this to having boards shipped, because the
> boards could be damaged in transit, and if the damage was compression
> failure it would be very hard to detect, yet could be catastrophic in
> terms of the structural integrity of the member.
>
> Then a wild-eyed moron jumped in with all kinds of baseless accusations
> about my the veracity of my information, peppered with unprovoked personal
> insults.
>
> This crazy nut then claimed how it would be impossible for compression
> failure to happen in shipment unless there was a 10,000 pound box sitting
> on top of the wood. He also added that this kind of force would blow the
> tires and break the axles of the truck before it damaged the wood. This is
> very accurate paraphrasing, but the actual quotes are there for all to
> see.
>
> After first deciding to ignore this annoying idiot who obviously knows
> nothing, I decided to set the record straight when I saw that some people
> were still interested in the topic and were actually responding to this
> nut in a serious way.
>
> I pointed out how compression failure does not require huge amounts of
> weight -- especially in small dimension lumber -- and can happen easily
> with simple bending. I gave an intuitive eexample of bending a yardstick.
> I also pointed out how easy it would be for a package of sitka sticks,
> which are shipped in cardboard tubes, to be bent to a point where they
> don't actually break or leave visible damage, but could have sustained
> compression failure of fibers where they were bent.
>
> The wild-eyed idiot then responded by backtracking from his obvious
> boo-boo by trying to rewrite history and saying he had never said it would
> take a 10,000 pound weight sitting on top of the wood, but only 10,000
> pounds of bending moment.
>
> So we see the socipathic tendencies coming out clearly as he tries to
> submit an obvious lie in full view of everyone.
>
> I will document this very precisely here, just so Mr. Personality Disorder
> can see his pathology clearly at work:
>
> Exhibit 1:
>
> 18/07/2005 4:56 PM, Idiot writes: "You HAVE to be totally kidding. Unless
> that wood was sitting under a 10,000
> lbs box on the UPS truck, it WILL NOT get compressive failure like that."
>
> Exhibit 2: 19/07/2005 1:30 AM Idiot writes: (The first part is the snip he
> used from my previous message).
>
> "> Idiot's comments about needing 10,000 pounds on top of the wood simply
> >
> illustrate to everyone what a loudmouth know-nothing he is.
>
> "I was talking about a bending force, or can't you read?"
>
>
> So Idiot, were you talking about a bending force when you said that you
> would need a 10,000 pound box sitting on top of the wood? Or did that come
> later when you realized your mouth flew off before your brain had a chance
> to catch up? Please tell us because this looks like a very obvious and
> embarassing flip-flop.
>
> The bottom line is that this clown is trying to discredit the information
> I presented, yet he has not been able to point to one single fault with my
> calculations. But he is trying to make up for that by screaming very loud.
>
> And now he's saying that I made errors of omission by not talking about
> Young's modulus (also known as modulus of elasticity), or strenght in
> compression or tension.
>
> This is quite funny because just by parsing his criticisms it is obvious
> that he understands nothing about structures, or where and how those
> concepts fit in.
>
> If there are any engineers here, maybe you can enlighten Idiot as to the
> basics. Bending moments, shear and torsion are more complex stresses than
> pure tension and compression (which Idiot is bleating about as being
> really important).
>
> In working out my calculation on resizing the wing spar, I addressed
> bending moment, in order to show that this is not a difficult calculation.
> Pure compression and pure tension are much simpler calculations -- all you
> have to do is plug in the figures from the Forest Products Laboratory.
>
> As a matter of proper engineering you would want to do all the
> calculations, but as a practical matter in a wooden airframe, bending
> moment is the most critical issue, because it is the biggest force acting
> on the airplane -- especially the wings.
>
> The spars are the single most critical structure in the airplane. You can
> rest assured that if bending moment of the spars has been properly
> addressed, then pure tension and compression will likewise be suitably
> addressed by applying the same dimension increase to members that are
> under pure tension or compression.
>
> Another issue that Idiot is bleating about is modulus of elasticity (E),
> also known as Young's modulus. Yet just by looking at FPL tables we see
> that pine is very similar to spruce and fir, and most other coniferous
> species in E. In any case, stiffness is not a major concern. A structural
> member will not fail because it lacks stiffness. It will only fail if it
> is not strong enough.
>
> In any case, pine and other species are specifically approved as
> substitutes for certified aircraft by AC-43-13b.
>
> Now, I think I have been very reasonable here and I think any people here
> knowledgable about structures will agree that all of what I have said is
> completely factual and true, and that nothing relevant to the discussion
> has been left out. So what exactly is Idiot challenging? (Except me
> personally?)
>
> This stupid ass continues to hurl abuse and unfounded criticisms. I could
> dissect his nonsense sentence by sentence and really point up all of his
> factual mistakes, but why bother. I think all the knolwedgable people here
> can now plainly see that he doesn't know even the most fundamental basics.
>
> Now I ask you, is it proper for a person who knows nothing about the
> subject to make so much noise? Is he not simply creating an obstruction to
> intelligent discourse?
>
> I will just leave on a more amusing note. I see that in one of his earlier
> posts, he said "I hate being like this." (Direct quote).
>
> Yes, I can see how he hates suffering from a personality disorder that
> compels him to behave inappropriately and then causes acute embarassment.
> Still, I would caution that self-hating tendencies are a very serious
> matter and I would strongly counsel seeking professional help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Moron,
>>>
>>>
>>> You have not refuted one single thingI have said.
>>
>> I have asked you how tho other wood strength properties, like tension
>> come
>> in to play. You only tote one number; rupture. If you can't see that I
>> object to that, tough.
>>
>>
>>> And then there are your comments about how you tried to be "nice?" When
>> was
>>> that?
>>
>> I was nice on my second reply, after you jumped me for calling your post
>> crap.
>>
>>> The reason you are atacking me is that you have
>>> an old axe to grind. I remember you from the Ragwing list where you
>> launched
>>> a similar attack on me out of the blue because I provided some good
>>> information about a very serious structural issue with wing spars.
>>
>>
>> Now you have shown your true colors. You are paranoid. I have NEVER,
>> repeat, NEVER been on a ragwings list. I never have seen your name,
>> before
>> the last few days.
>>
>>
>>> When you saw me here, you launched a vicious attack like some crazed
>>> pitbull. that's the reason for your sociopathic display here, not some
>>> concern about people's safety. What a piece of work you are.
>>
>> Wrong. Explain to me, and everyone else, how modulus of elasticity,
>> buckling, and stength related to tension of a wood sample comes into
>> play.
>> Until you can do that, you have no buisness giving structural advise.
>>
>>> Bottom line is you know absolutely nothing about the subject under
>>> discussion, as you have amply proved.
>>>
>>
>>> Either pick up the gauntlet or shut your
>>> stupid obnoxious trap.
>>
>> Oh, that's mature. who is the attacker now?
>>
>> OK, I'll play 5th grade for you.
>>
>> Make me shut up.
>>
>>> That's really the end of the story right there. Until you can actually
>> point
>>> to factual errors on my part, your mindless braying is just noise.
>> Annoying
>>> irritating, mindless noise.
>>
>> I already have pointed out factual errors of ommision. Use all of the
>> wood
>> strength properties. Do you think someone sat down and measured all of
>> those numbers just for the fun of it? Once again, they *are* important.
>>
>>> Go bark somewhere else, mouth-foamer.
>>
>> Oh, you as such a master.
>>
>> I give up.
>>
>> Others, beware. Make the call yourself.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>
>

[RST Engineering]

I'm taking up a collection in Oshkosh. It is obvious that there is a person
on this ng that can't afford their meds. We owe it to him as a colleague.


Jim

[Gordon Arnaut]

Ha, ha, ha...another chestnut from the avionics Hemingway of Kitplanes.

Regards,

Gordon.

PS: For anyone out there that might still be interested in serious
discussion of wood, I want to just add a little about compressive strength
and tensile strength as it relates to wood species substitution.

Using the same FPL data I used earlier, we see that spruce has a maximum
crushing strenght of 5,650 psi, while pine is 4840 psi, which makes pine
exactly 85 percent as strong in compression. This is nearly the same
difference as in bending -- and as I noted earlier, most of the other
measures will be similarly in line.

But just to see if my statement that 7/8' pine will adequately substitute
for 3/4 spruce, let's calculate. Since stress is force per area, we can see
that a 3/4" spruce member will be able to withstand a maximum compressive
stress of 0.75(squared) x 5650 = 3178 psi.

How big would our pine member have to be? Well by rearranging the formula
3178 divided by 4840 will give us the dimension squared, which is 0.81 inch,
again somewhat less than 7/8".

So just as in the bending moment calculation we see that substituting 7/8'
pine for 3/4" spruce gives us a member that is actually a little bit
stronger. It is also a tiny bit heavier, but this is negligible.

However I should point out that going through the exercise we just did is
not proper methodology. I am only doing it to prove a point.

The proper method is to first identify the structural member we are
interested in analyzing, like I did with the wing spar. Next we have to know
how much load this member is expected to carry. Only then does it make sense
to determine the size of the member.

But like I said, let's see if Mouth-Foamer can tell us which pieces of the
plane are under pure compression or tension. (Since he is so concerned aobut
that and is basing his whole character assassination on me on that stupid
notion).

In the meantime, I hope Mr. Personality is getting the couch-time he so
desperately needs. And I hope he doesn't forget to remind his analyst,
"first do no harm."







"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> I'm taking up a collection in Oshkosh. It is obvious that there is a
> person on this ng that can't afford their meds. We owe it to him as a
> colleague.
>
>
> Jim
>

[Rich S.]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> I'm taking up a collection in Oshkosh. It is obvious that there is a
> person on this ng that can't afford their meds. We owe it to him as a
> colleague.

I've got a bunch of old meds I can bring. You're right, Jim. He's pitiful.
And plonked.

Rich S.

[Lou]

Can I administer the meds?

[Gordon Arnaut]

Seeing these comments from the peanut gallery brought to mind an interesting
memory from middle school -- eighth grade I believe.

It was a schoolyard scrap between two of the heavyweight contenders -- one
of many matches and rematches in a long line of slugfests among the
slugerati of middle school.

As usual, the fisticuffs attracted a mighty crowd, and as usual the scrawny
nerds were in the front row, cheering and screaming and waving their little
fists. Keeping the crowd back with arms outstretched behind them -- and at
the same time forming a kind of ring for the fighters -- were some of the
other school sluggers.

It was a spirited match that ended pretty much a draw, with both
combatatants slugged out and panting for air. Just as the action was winding
down into general groping and grasping, one of the little hamsters in the
front, eyes glazed over with blood lust, screamed out some kind of comment
to the effect of, "Come on, let's go. You call this a fight?"

Well that turned all eyes on the little rodent, who quickly sprouted a big
"Oops" bubble above his head. One of the big kids who was on crowd control
quickly administered a cuff upside the head, along with some words of
remonstration, to the effect of "who the heck asked you?" -- and then the
mob dived in.

The next instant our little rodent was being tossed around by the angry mob
like an unfortuante rag doll. A monster wedgie was the crowning indignity as
I recall.

Wow. I hadn't thought of that story in years. Thanks to Rich, Lou, and
Hemingway for sparking that memory.

I sometimes try to picture how some of these kids from middle school might
have grown up, trying to picture the kind of people they have become later
in life, how they might behave in certain situations.

I think I have a pretty good picture of what that unfortunate little
spectator would be doing right about now.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Lou" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Can I administer the meds?
>

[Morgans]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote
>
> Don't give up yet, I want to see how he responds to your telling him you
> have never been on a "ragwing" list. :-)

<chuckle>

Probly got to go see his shrink, ya think?
--
Jim in NC

[Lou]

Why is it that the looser of the fight always says "it was pretty much
a draw"?

[Gordon Arnaut]

My friend,

You misinterpreted the story. That particular fight was in no way a metaphor
for this fight, in which I have quite obviously decimated a feeble-minded
moron.

The metaphor was about the gleeful onlooker speaking out of turn and getting
humiliated for his trouble.

Guess who is playing the part -- or parts -- of the onlooker?

Regards,

Gordon.




"Lou" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Why is it that the looser of the fight always says "it was pretty much
> a draw"?
>

[Ed Sullivan]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:15:53 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:

>My friend,
>
>You misinterpreted the story. That particular fight was in no way a metaphor
>for this fight, in which I have quite obviously decimated a feeble-minded
>moron.
>
>The metaphor was about the gleeful onlooker speaking out of turn and getting
>humiliated for his trouble.
>
>Guess who is playing the part -- or parts -- of the onlooker?
>
>Regards,
>
>Gordon.
>
>Man, are you any relation to Jaun?
>
>
>"Lou" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Why is it that the looser of the fight always says "it was pretty much
>> a draw"?
>>
>
>

[Gordon Arnaut]

Just to wrap up this thread for those who were seriously interested in wood
substitution issues, before the discussion was rudely disrupted by a
know-nothing peon who has since departed with tail between legs -- as soon
as he realized the jig was up.

As was discussed before the rude interruption, the FAA has approved a number
of wood species for substitution for sitka spruce on certified aircraft,
including certain varieties of pine, fir, cedar, and poplar. There is
specific guidance on this is Chapter 1 of AC43.13b.

Since we are primarily interested in experimental aircraft, I think it is
quite prudent to follow what guidance exists for certified craft -- it is a
good standard to adhere to. For example, AC43.13b specifically states that
white pine can be substituted for sitka if the member is appropriately
resized to account for the slightly lower strength (and weight) of pine.

I did not set out to provide a lecture or tutorial on wood substitution as
this is not the appropriate forum for such an exercise. Instead, I urge each
airplane builder to educate himself using good reference material, such
ANC-18 and the many NACA documents that can be easily downloaded.

However, I thought it would be useful to show how easy it really is to
accomplish the calculations necessary for resizing even the most critical
structural member of the airplane, the wing spar.

Subsequently I also worked through a simple calculation for compression,
which may be relevant in parts like wing compression members and drag
braces. (Stress in tension is calculated the same way as compression: force
per area).

The main reason for sbustituting wood is that it allows the builder to buy
lumber locally, where he can inspect it closely and subject it to proper
selection techniques -- assuming he has learned how to do that.

I think personally that shipping aircraft lumber cross country is not a good
idea. Others may have different views and indeed many airplanes are flying
successfully that have been built with mail-order lumber. However, it is
quite conceivable for such small pieces of wood to be placed in awkward
bending situations in transit. And as we have seen, it does not take much
bending at all to cause compression failure that is nearly invisible to the
naked eye.

It is a fact that there have been catastrophic structural failures on
homebuilt wooden airframes. That's not to say that those accidents were
caused by wood damaged in transit. In some cases, accident investigators
have been able to pinpoint the cause of the failure -- and compression
failure in wood members has been one such cause, as have other things, like
improper techniques, materials, etc.

In some of those cases were compression failure was a factor, it may never
be known when or how the wood was damaged. Still it is enough of an issue
for me that I prefer not to buy mail order lumber. It is also quite a bit
cheaper to buy wood locally, which is a nice ancillary benefit.

Another benefit is that I prefer to mill my own boards to size, which lets
me make best use of the grain direction, slope, etc. When you get a
cardboard tube of wood from a mail-order house, it is a fait accompli --
everything is already cut to size and you must use it regardless of how the
grain pleases you.

The fact of the matter is that in every part of this continent -- and indeed
many parts of the world -- there is suitable lumber available locally. In
the Great Lakes region where I live, northern white pine grows tall and
straight, yielding nice long runs of knot-free planks. There is also spruce
locally, but it is difficult to get clear wood because eastern spruce does
not tend to grow very tall, so branches start much lower to the ground than
pine.

In Australia, there is an abundance of hoop pine, which is actually stronger
than sitka spruce, also grows very tall and makes fine wood for airplanes.

So yes, I think it is important to know these things when one is starting
out and considering what to do and how to get started.

That's why I have gone to considerable effort here to silence the noise from
a completely worthless clown who thinks it is okay to completely disrupt an
intelligent and friendly discussion despite the fact that he has zero
knowledge of the subject.

In any case, I think everyone can see that this annoying moron has been
completely discredited, hence his silence.

I just want to address a couple of things and then I will call it a wrap. As
I have shown, making calculations for resizing lumber is not that difficult
or time-consuming, even for complex stresses like bending moments.

And I have also shown that making calculations for compression and tension
is even simpler still. (I gave an example for compression, but tnesion is
calculated in exactly the same way -- stress equals area per force.

Column buckling is not a consideration on any wooden part of an airframe,
there is simply no such structure that has a length to thickness ratio high
enough and that is completely unsupported along its length.

I'm adding this just to clear up the confusion that the irritating moron has
raised -- throwing verbiage out willy-nilly without even knowing the first
thing about what those things mean.

All in all, substituting local wood is a very attractive option for a number
of reasons. It should not be dismissed out of hand because of some erroneous
impressions we may have, or some hangar tales we may have heard -- and above
all, not because of some nut screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Regards,

Gordon.

[Gordon Arnaut]

Just one more quick point about stiffness and elasticity, since this was
another issue that nutjob was screaming about.

As I explained earlier, stiffness of all the species mentioned in AC43.13b
is quite acceptable and does not really vary by a significant degree. Also
stiffness is not a structural concern -- although it can be a factor in
flying qualities.

For example, an airplane built of fir will be stiffer than than the same
airframe built of spruce, and could provide a little crisper control
response. However, the more flexible spruce or pine airplane will give a
little more comfortable ride in bumpy air.

I think that puts to rest all of the dust that nutjob has kicked up.

Regards,

Gordon.




"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Just to wrap up this thread for those who were seriously interested in
> wood substitution issues, before the discussion was rudely disrupted by a
> know-nothing peon who has since departed with tail between legs -- as soon
> as he realized the jig was up.
>
> As was discussed before the rude interruption, the FAA has approved a
> number of wood species for substitution for sitka spruce on certified
> aircraft, including certain varieties of pine, fir, cedar, and poplar.
> There is specific guidance on this is Chapter 1 of AC43.13b.
>
> Since we are primarily interested in experimental aircraft, I think it is
> quite prudent to follow what guidance exists for certified craft -- it is
> a good standard to adhere to. For example, AC43.13b specifically states
> that white pine can be substituted for sitka if the member is
> appropriately resized to account for the slightly lower strength (and
> weight) of pine.
>
> I did not set out to provide a lecture or tutorial on wood substitution as
> this is not the appropriate forum for such an exercise. Instead, I urge
> each airplane builder to educate himself using good reference material,
> such ANC-18 and the many NACA documents that can be easily downloaded.
>
> However, I thought it would be useful to show how easy it really is to
> accomplish the calculations necessary for resizing even the most critical
> structural member of the airplane, the wing spar.
>
> Subsequently I also worked through a simple calculation for compression,
> which may be relevant in parts like wing compression members and drag
> braces. (Stress in tension is calculated the same way as compression:
> force per area).
>
> The main reason for sbustituting wood is that it allows the builder to buy
> lumber locally, where he can inspect it closely and subject it to proper
> selection techniques -- assuming he has learned how to do that.
>
> I think personally that shipping aircraft lumber cross country is not a
> good idea. Others may have different views and indeed many airplanes are
> flying successfully that have been built with mail-order lumber. However,
> it is quite conceivable for such small pieces of wood to be placed in
> awkward bending situations in transit. And as we have seen, it does not
> take much bending at all to cause compression failure that is nearly
> invisible to the naked eye.
>
> It is a fact that there have been catastrophic structural failures on
> homebuilt wooden airframes. That's not to say that those accidents were
> caused by wood damaged in transit. In some cases, accident investigators
> have been able to pinpoint the cause of the failure -- and compression
> failure in wood members has been one such cause, as have other things,
> like improper techniques, materials, etc.
>
> In some of those cases were compression failure was a factor, it may never
> be known when or how the wood was damaged. Still it is enough of an issue
> for me that I prefer not to buy mail order lumber. It is also quite a bit
> cheaper to buy wood locally, which is a nice ancillary benefit.
>
> Another benefit is that I prefer to mill my own boards to size, which lets
> me make best use of the grain direction, slope, etc. When you get a
> cardboard tube of wood from a mail-order house, it is a fait accompli --
> everything is already cut to size and you must use it regardless of how
> the grain pleases you.
>
> The fact of the matter is that in every part of this continent -- and
> indeed many parts of the world -- there is suitable lumber available
> locally. In the Great Lakes region where I live, northern white pine grows
> tall and straight, yielding nice long runs of knot-free planks. There is
> also spruce locally, but it is difficult to get clear wood because eastern
> spruce does not tend to grow very tall, so branches start much lower to
> the ground than pine.
>
> In Australia, there is an abundance of hoop pine, which is actually
> stronger than sitka spruce, also grows very tall and makes fine wood for
> airplanes.
>
> So yes, I think it is important to know these things when one is starting
> out and considering what to do and how to get started.
>
> That's why I have gone to considerable effort here to silence the noise
> from a completely worthless clown who thinks it is okay to completely
> disrupt an intelligent and friendly discussion despite the fact that he
> has zero knowledge of the subject.
>
> In any case, I think everyone can see that this annoying moron has been
> completely discredited, hence his silence.
>
> I just want to address a couple of things and then I will call it a wrap.
> As I have shown, making calculations for resizing lumber is not that
> difficult or time-consuming, even for complex stresses like bending
> moments.
>
> And I have also shown that making calculations for compression and tension
> is even simpler still. (I gave an example for compression, but tnesion is
> calculated in exactly the same way -- stress equals area per force.
>
> Column buckling is not a consideration on any wooden part of an airframe,
> there is simply no such structure that has a length to thickness ratio
> high enough and that is completely unsupported along its length.
>
> I'm adding this just to clear up the confusion that the irritating moron
> has raised -- throwing verbiage out willy-nilly without even knowing the
> first thing about what those things mean.
>
> All in all, substituting local wood is a very attractive option for a
> number of reasons. It should not be dismissed out of hand because of some
> erroneous impressions we may have, or some hangar tales we may have
> heard -- and above all, not because of some nut screaming "fire" in a
> crowded theatre.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
>
>

[Stealth Pilot]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:26:33 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:

>Just to wrap up this thread for those who were seriously interested in wood


>Another benefit is that I prefer to mill my own boards to size, which lets
>me make best use of the grain direction, slope, etc. When you get a
>cardboard tube of wood from a mail-order house, it is a fait accompli --
>everything is already cut to size and you must use it regardless of how the
>grain pleases you.
>
I think you guys forget that shipped wood comes in a protective
packing. it isnt sent with the address in texta and a stamp stuck to
the end of the plank.

Queensland Hoop Pine (QHP) is a wonderful timber to use. I am building
a modified Druine Turbulent in what is called recutting grade. there
are enough flaws in the wood that it cant just be milled and used, you
need to cut to avoid the flaws.
to buy the cut QHP for a Corby Starlet was $aus3,200. it is similar to
a turbulent in volume of wood used. to buy locally in Perth you can
get QHP in 14" x 2" planks up to 5 metres long at $aus 96/metre.
a 5 metre plank is a little under $aus500 and yields enough wood to
build all of a single seat aircraft.
my wood is sourced by the brother in law in queensland and comes over
in his ute when he visits. I've run out of wood for the wing spars but
$aus50 has bought all the wood needed for the fuselage and
tailfeathers. plywood is a little over $aus200
an icom A200 radio is $1,200. it is my target to build the entire
aircraft for less than the cost of the radio.I think it can be done.

tools for the job so far are a table saw, a band saw, a little hand
coping saw (gets a lot of use), a pencil, an engineers square, a steel
straight edge, a stanley knife and about 60 of the black nylon clamps
with the orange jaws that you can buy in Home Depot in the USA or
Bunnings in Australia. I'm using FR100 epoxy.

having the courage, and the knowledge, to select and cut the wood
yourself can save a small fortune.

In Australia we use a 1944 emergency wartime standard as the guide to
QHP. Emergency Standard (E)3D.803-1944

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Lou]

You have a good list of tools. I replaced my coping saw with a back saw
and started getting better results. I'd like to ad 2 more tools to your
list, a standup belt sander and a pair of reading glasses.
The belt sander comes in handy for over cutting the small pieces and
sanding down to the lines and square. The reading glasses sure help on
the small joint alignment.
Lou

[[email protected]]

Lou wrote:
> You have a good list of tools. I replaced my coping saw with a back saw
> and started getting better results. I'd like to ad 2 more tools to your
> list, a standup belt sander and a pair of reading glasses.
> The belt sander comes in handy for over cutting the small pieces and
> sanding down to the lines and square.

I suggest a better tool for that, or at least a quieter one, is
a low-angle block plane. In Fine Woodworking the process you
describe is called 'blocking in' hence the name for the preferred
tool.

However, be forewarned: Once you start using planes, there is no
going back.

> The reading glasses sure help on
> the small joint alignment.
>

Great idea.

--

FF

[Matt Whiting]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:

> It is a fact that there have been catastrophic structural failures on
> homebuilt wooden airframes. That's not to say that those accidents were
> caused by wood damaged in transit. In some cases, accident investigators
> have been able to pinpoint the cause of the failure -- and compression
> failure in wood members has been one such cause, as have other things, like
> improper techniques, materials, etc.

Can you cite a few? I don't remember of any and I've read many accident
reports over the years.


Matt

[Smitty]

Let's see whether I have this clear. A discussion was started about wood
substitution. Someone opined that the difficulty of the calculations
wasn't worth the effort, and Gordon, who is obviously extremely
intelligent and exceptionally knowledgeable on the subject, demonstrated
by example that the calculations aren't all that complex.

Someone else piped in with a dissenting opinion, and included some
disparaging comments about Gordon in his post, which of course is common
on usenet, but nevertheless, widely considered inappropriate.

In a subsequent series of exchanges, Gordon referred to his new-found
adversary as:

mouth foamer xx
heel-nipper
sociopath
intellectual dwarf
complete jackass
wild-eyed moron
annoying idiot
crazy nut
wild-eyed idiot
Mr. Personality Disorder
idiot xxxx
(completely worthless) clown xx
stupid ass
pathetic moron
know-nothing
annoying moron
irritating moron

each x represents a repeat of the same slur.

Gordon also said:

"Yes, I can see how he hates suffering from a personality disorder that
compels him to behave inappropriately and then causes acute
embarassment. Still, I would caution that self-hating tendencies are a
very serious matter and I would strongly counsel seeking professional
help."

I'm not sure how others feel, but I find this situation more than
slightly ironic. I've never believed that hostility, anger, and
condemnation of others in any way makes us better people. Nor does it
add to our credibility, make the other person less credible, enhance our
standing in the community, sway opinion in our favor, or otherwise "win
friends and influence people."

There are obviously some very knowledgeable people here. But when we
disagree, why not just debate topics based on our individual knowledge
and beliefs? I personally deduct a few "credibility points" when I see
the above-referenced types of attacks, *whether or not* the poster
believes them to be justified. Two wrongs *do not* make a right. The
most convincing way to discredit a jerk is not to act like a jerk
yourself.

I hope Gordon doesn't feel picked on, because I'm using his posts as an
example of widespread behavior that, frankly, I find distressing. (The
inane zzzzz thread is another fine example.) Nevertheless, if he chooses
to refer to me in some derogatory fashion, you will not see me retaliate
in same fashion.

I'm using the news reader that comes with OS X. After composing a post
and hitting the "post" button, I get a dialogue box that says:

"Are you sure you want to post? This machine posts news to thousands of
machines throughout the civilized world. Please be sure you know what
you are doing."

This dialogue box is easily disabled, but I choose to leave it active.
Perhaps other news programs should include a similar admonition.

NOTE: I realized recently that there are two Smittys on this group;
since I'm relatively new I think it's appropriate that I adopt another
moniker to avoid confusion, so in the future I believe I'll be Smitty
Two or something to that effect.

[StellaStarr]

Smitty (the new one) wrote:

After composing a post
> and hitting the "post" button, I get a dialogue box that says:
>
> "Are you sure you want to post? This machine posts news to thousands of
> machines throughout the civilized world. Please be sure you know what
> you are doing."


That message should be printed all around the monitor frame of every
computer connected to the Internet. It could change the nature of Usenet
as we know it. OK, I'm an optimist.

[Gordon Arnaut]

Smitty,

Thanks for chipping in.

You have described the discussion quite accurately, for which I am grateful.

Yes, I called the annoying rodent a lot of names. (Sorry to add a new one to
your list).

But his out-of-the-blue attack was so unjustified and his criticisms so
devoid of any footing in fact that I have become extremely angry.

I don't make excuses for that -- despite the fact that I realize it does not
necessarily make me look good either, at least in the eyes of the
intelligent and thoughtful people on this list.

At the same time, I believe my humiliating this rodent also sends a message
to those of his ilk who will next time possibly think twice before acting
out inappropriately and hijacking a disucssion that they are not qualified
to debate -- lest they get dismantled as thoroughly and as embarrassingly as
Mr. Personality.

I think Mr. Personality has learned a lesson too. At the very least I have
succeeded in silencing his meaningless screaming that had completely
derailed this discussion -- and this is a good thing.

And yes, I could have stopped bashing a long time ago, but just like when
someone sucker punches you from behind, you tend to keep on bashing long
after you have subdued the attacker -- until you have punched the anger out
of your system.

I feel I am close to that point now. I came here only to partake in polite
discussion and to learn from others. I did not come here to lecture or to
make myself look smarter than others -- and I am very angry that I have been
forced into that kind of contest by this person. Very angry about that part
still.

Because I consider humility and modesty important aspects of my personal
diginity, the last thing I want to act out is ostentatious displays of
knowledge. Yet I have been forced by anger and the insistent challenges of
this pea-brain to do just that.

I will leave it at that. Perhaps now you can better appreciate from whence
my anger springs.

Regards,

Gordon.





"Smitty" > wrote in message
...
> Let's see whether I have this clear. A discussion was started about wood
> substitution. Someone opined that the difficulty of the calculations
> wasn't worth the effort, and Gordon, who is obviously extremely
> intelligent and exceptionally knowledgeable on the subject, demonstrated
> by example that the calculations aren't all that complex.
>
> Someone else piped in with a dissenting opinion, and included some
> disparaging comments about Gordon in his post, which of course is common
> on usenet, but nevertheless, widely considered inappropriate.
>
> In a subsequent series of exchanges, Gordon referred to his new-found
> adversary as:
>
> mouth foamer xx
> heel-nipper
> sociopath
> intellectual dwarf
> complete jackass
> wild-eyed moron
> annoying idiot
> crazy nut
> wild-eyed idiot
> Mr. Personality Disorder
> idiot xxxx
> (completely worthless) clown xx
> stupid ass
> pathetic moron
> know-nothing
> annoying moron
> irritating moron
>
> each x represents a repeat of the same slur.
>
> Gordon also said:
>
> "Yes, I can see how he hates suffering from a personality disorder that
> compels him to behave inappropriately and then causes acute
> embarassment. Still, I would caution that self-hating tendencies are a
> very serious matter and I would strongly counsel seeking professional
> help."
>
> I'm not sure how others feel, but I find this situation more than
> slightly ironic. I've never believed that hostility, anger, and
> condemnation of others in any way makes us better people. Nor does it
> add to our credibility, make the other person less credible, enhance our
> standing in the community, sway opinion in our favor, or otherwise "win
> friends and influence people."
>
> There are obviously some very knowledgeable people here. But when we
> disagree, why not just debate topics based on our individual knowledge
> and beliefs? I personally deduct a few "credibility points" when I see
> the above-referenced types of attacks, *whether or not* the poster
> believes them to be justified. Two wrongs *do not* make a right. The
> most convincing way to discredit a jerk is not to act like a jerk
> yourself.
>
> I hope Gordon doesn't feel picked on, because I'm using his posts as an
> example of widespread behavior that, frankly, I find distressing. (The
> inane zzzzz thread is another fine example.) Nevertheless, if he chooses
> to refer to me in some derogatory fashion, you will not see me retaliate
> in same fashion.
>
> I'm using the news reader that comes with OS X. After composing a post
> and hitting the "post" button, I get a dialogue box that says:
>
> "Are you sure you want to post? This machine posts news to thousands of
> machines throughout the civilized world. Please be sure you know what
> you are doing."
>
> This dialogue box is easily disabled, but I choose to leave it active.
> Perhaps other news programs should include a similar admonition.
>
> NOTE: I realized recently that there are two Smittys on this group;
> since I'm relatively new I think it's appropriate that I adopt another
> moniker to avoid confusion, so in the future I believe I'll be Smitty
> Two or something to that effect.

[Gordon Arnaut]

Matt,

Are you questioning whether an amateur-built wooden airframe has ever failed
in flight?

Because I think this would be a rather ridiculous notion. A thorough search
of the NTSB archives should turn up numerous examples.

Specific cases I have heard of have involved the Minimax, Volksplane and
several other wood airplane types. I cannot cite details or NTSB numbers,
but the info is out there.

Regards,

Gordon.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>
>> It is a fact that there have been catastrophic structural failures on
>> homebuilt wooden airframes. That's not to say that those accidents were
>> caused by wood damaged in transit. In some cases, accident investigators
>> have been able to pinpoint the cause of the failure -- and compression
>> failure in wood members has been one such cause, as have other things,
>> like improper techniques, materials, etc.
>
> Can you cite a few? I don't remember of any and I've read many accident
> reports over the years.
>
>
> Matt

[Gordon Arnaut]

Matt,

There was discussion recently on the Minimax list about a fatal accident
involving a wing breaking off. The accident was preceded by a ground
incident in which the airframe sustained some damage that was said to be
slight. No more verifiable details that I know, but one would assume the
builder carefully inspected the airframe before flying again and could see
no problems.

Another one that comes to mind is a Fisher that had a spar failure and which
the NTSB said was due to some wood problems and technique. I think it's safe
to say there are others.

But like I said, even where the wood fails, it is nearly impossible to
establish after the fact when the wood was damaged -- just it's impossible
to tell (without very fancy testing at the molecular level) when metal
fatigue on airframes reaches its point of no return. (That's not to compare
the two directly because wood does not have "fatigue.")

Regards,

Gordon.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> Are you questioning whether an amateur-built wooden airframe has ever
>> failed in flight?
>
> No, I'm simply saying I've not heard of one that failed from a problem
> with the wood. I've heard of a few that had glue failures.
>
>
>> Because I think this would be a rather ridiculous notion. A thorough
>> search of the NTSB archives should turn up numerous examples.
>
> It might, but you talked as though you had examples readily at hand so I
> was asking to see a couple to save hours of searching.
>
> Matt

[Bashir]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> Because I consider humility and modesty important aspects of my personal
> diginity, the last thing I want to act out is ostentatious displays of
> knowledge.

I will have to wait for several hours for my laughter to subside.

Now. That's better.

Someone questions you on the smallest technical point and you respond
by calling them a mouth-foaming sociopath, and all the other things
Smitty listed?

You're insane. More than that, you are flamboyantly insane.

And you misspelled "divinity." It's understandable, even for someone
as God-like as you, since the "v" key is right next to the "g" key.
Normally I wouldn't point out a typographic error in a usenet post but
that one almost made my irony meter explode. It was almost as if you
were trying to type "dignity."

>
> I will leave it at that. Perhaps now you can better appreciate from whence
> my anger springs.

And from whence springs your anger at Jim Weir?

I don't know anything about designing or building with wood. Based on
what you have written here, I would never use anything from you as a
reference.

[Bashir]

karel wrote:
> "Bashir" <bsal
> > I will have to wait for several hours for my laughter to subside.
> >
> > Now. That's better.
>
> ( ... )
>
> Thank you Sir!

I am pleased that you find my post clear. English has been very
difficult to learn, but I felt that I was doing better this past year.

My pleasure, Sir!

Bashir

[Gordon Arnaut]

Not that I care about your snot-nosed perspective, but you are severly
twisting reality when you say that what set me off was someone "questioning"
me on a small technical point.

What took placed was a hysterical attack complete with name-calling. This is
not "questioning." This is the verbal equivalent of hurling stones at
someone's window. Maybe you go around "questioning" people by launching
verbal missiles, but most people have a quite different idea of what
constitutes polite "questioning."

Regards,

Gordon.




"Bashir" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>> Because I consider humility and modesty important aspects of my personal
>> diginity, the last thing I want to act out is ostentatious displays of
>> knowledge.
>
> I will have to wait for several hours for my laughter to subside.
>
> Now. That's better.
>
> Someone questions you on the smallest technical point and you respond
> by calling them a mouth-foaming sociopath, and all the other things
> Smitty listed?
>
> You're insane. More than that, you are flamboyantly insane.
>
> And you misspelled "divinity." It's understandable, even for someone
> as God-like as you, since the "v" key is right next to the "g" key.
> Normally I wouldn't point out a typographic error in a usenet post but
> that one almost made my irony meter explode. It was almost as if you
> were trying to type "dignity."
>
>>
>> I will leave it at that. Perhaps now you can better appreciate from
>> whence
>> my anger springs.
>
> And from whence springs your anger at Jim Weir?
>
> I don't know anything about designing or building with wood. Based on
> what you have written here, I would never use anything from you as a
> reference.
>

[Gordon Arnaut]

I think you are referring to a "pole," which is a long column-like
structure, rather than a "poll," which is a sampling of opinion.

Have fun stewing in your vinegar.

Regards,

Gordon.


"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:52:52 -0700, Smitty >
> wrote:
>
> :I'm not sure how others feel, but I find this situation more than
> :slightly ironic. I've never believed that hostility, anger, and
> :condemnation of others in any way makes us better people. Nor does it
> :add to our credibility, make the other person less credible, enhance our
> :standing in the community, sway opinion in our favor, or otherwise "win
> :friends and influence people."
>
> You're still reading his posts? You must be much more tolerant than
> me. I filtered him a week ago. :)
>
> It is strange that relatively well trafficked usenet groups always
> seem to have a couple of this type, ranging from pure trolls - who
> have no interest in the topic at all - to people like Juan, Latchless
> Larry and this poster. They know something about the topic, but
> insist on presenting it in the most offensive, contentious way they
> can. They thus ensure that the casual reader will dismiss their
> statements - which may be true - as ravings.
>
> Somehow they seem to derrive utility from causing offense. I don't
> understand it, but I see it over and over, in a wide variety of
> forums. It's very different from Zoom, who's actual business model is
> based in actions most people would consider insane. (It's not a
> *good* business model, but it does work to a limited extent).
>
> Just to keep it on topic, the electric company replaced the poll in
> our back yard last week. I asked how long polls last, and what kind
> of wood was used. 50-70 years, and treated Douglas Fir. I thought,
> what a waste of good wood. :)

[Gordon Arnaut]

Bashir,

I'm flattered that you look up to me as some sort of super-human figure.

However, I really can't help you in your quest for self-validation -- at
least not in this medium.

But I can see how half a man might mistake even a mere mortal for some kind
of god.

Regards,

Gordon.


"Bashir" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>> Because I consider humility and modesty important aspects of my personal
>> diginity, the last thing I want to act out is ostentatious displays of
>> knowledge.
>
> I will have to wait for several hours for my laughter to subside.
>
> Now. That's better.
>
> Someone questions you on the smallest technical point and you respond
> by calling them a mouth-foaming sociopath, and all the other things
> Smitty listed?
>
> You're insane. More than that, you are flamboyantly insane.
>
> And you misspelled "divinity." It's understandable, even for someone
> as God-like as you, since the "v" key is right next to the "g" key.
> Normally I wouldn't point out a typographic error in a usenet post but
> that one almost made my irony meter explode. It was almost as if you
> were trying to type "dignity."
>
>>
>> I will leave it at that. Perhaps now you can better appreciate from
>> whence
>> my anger springs.
>
> And from whence springs your anger at Jim Weir?
>
> I don't know anything about designing or building with wood. Based on
> what you have written here, I would never use anything from you as a
> reference.
>

[Gordon Arnaut]

For those who may be wondering what I meant when I referred to Bashir's
quest for "self-validation," I will just provide a brief little example.

Picture if you will a baby sitting in his high chair. The entire family is
milling around the kitchen in various stages of preparing and consuming food
and the room is bursting with voices -- there are all kinds of discussions
taking place at the same time.

All of a sudden, baby starts yelling and shouting, gesticulating with his
arms, perhaps slapping his tray with his hands or food bowl. It's a scene
we've all seen. We also know instinctively what's wrong -- in all the hubbub
of activity and discussion no one was talking to baby. He's alive too and he
wants us to know it, because that's how he validates the value and meaning
of his own existence.

It's the same with Bashir. He doesn't have any argument about the wood (he's
admitted as much), he just wants his voice to be heard -- like baby. Of
course the big difference is Bashir isn't really a baby anymore (not
really...come on now).

Regards,

Gordon.


PS: Bashir, what did I do to Hemingway? Sheesh...




"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
>I think you are referring to a "pole," which is a long column-like
>structure, rather than a "poll," which is a sampling of opinion.
>
> Have fun stewing in your vinegar.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
>
> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:52:52 -0700, Smitty >
>> wrote:
>>
>> :I'm not sure how others feel, but I find this situation more than
>> :slightly ironic. I've never believed that hostility, anger, and
>> :condemnation of others in any way makes us better people. Nor does it
>> :add to our credibility, make the other person less credible, enhance our
>> :standing in the community, sway opinion in our favor, or otherwise "win
>> :friends and influence people."
>>
>> You're still reading his posts? You must be much more tolerant than
>> me. I filtered him a week ago. :)
>>
>> It is strange that relatively well trafficked usenet groups always
>> seem to have a couple of this type, ranging from pure trolls - who
>> have no interest in the topic at all - to people like Juan, Latchless
>> Larry and this poster. They know something about the topic, but
>> insist on presenting it in the most offensive, contentious way they
>> can. They thus ensure that the casual reader will dismiss their
>> statements - which may be true - as ravings.
>>
>> Somehow they seem to derrive utility from causing offense. I don't
>> understand it, but I see it over and over, in a wide variety of
>> forums. It's very different from Zoom, who's actual business model is
>> based in actions most people would consider insane. (It's not a
>> *good* business model, but it does work to a limited extent).
>>
>> Just to keep it on topic, the electric company replaced the poll in
>> our back yard last week. I asked how long polls last, and what kind
>> of wood was used. 50-70 years, and treated Douglas Fir. I thought,
>> what a waste of good wood. :)
>
>

[Ed Sullivan]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:54:33 -0400, "Gordon Arnaut"
> wrote:

>For those who may be wondering what I meant when I referred to Bashir's
>quest for "self-validation," I will just provide a brief little example.
>
>Picture if you will a baby sitting in his high chair. The entire family is
>milling around the kitchen in various stages of preparing and consuming food
>and the room is bursting with voices -- there are all kinds of discussions
>taking place at the same time.
>
>All of a sudden, baby starts yelling and shouting, gesticulating with his
>arms, perhaps slapping his tray with his hands or food bowl. It's a scene
>we've all seen. We also know instinctively what's wrong -- in all the hubbub
>of activity and discussion no one was talking to baby. He's alive too and he
>wants us to know it, because that's how he validates the value and meaning
>of his own existence.
>
>It's the same with Bashir. He doesn't have any argument about the wood (he's
>admitted as much), he just wants his voice to be heard -- like baby. Of
>course the big difference is Bashir isn't really a baby anymore (not
>really...come on now).
>
>Regards,
>
>Gordon.
>
>
>PS: Bashir, what did I do to Hemingway? Sheesh...

Sir, you are one supremely pedantic ass!

Ed Sullivan

[Bashir]

I have written a short script so that whenever your name appears on my
screen, your theme song plays.

http://tinyurl.com/bth8r

You are the most amusing loon to have posted here in some time.
Welcome! Knowledge of the use of wood in aircraft building is
valuable, I'm sure that you are paid handsomly for it in industry.

[Gordon Arnaut]

Bashir,

Yes the wooden planes industry is flourishing, as you know, so my services
are indeed in high demand.

I assume the Looney Tunes scripting industry is similarly lucrative?

Regards,

Gordon.


"Bashir" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have written a short script so that whenever your name appears on my
> screen, your theme song plays.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bth8r
>
> You are the most amusing loon to have posted here in some time.
> Welcome! Knowledge of the use of wood in aircraft building is
> valuable, I'm sure that you are paid handsomly for it in industry.
>

[Jean-Paul Roy]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Ha, ha, ha...another chestnut from the avionics Hemingway of Kitplanes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
> PS: For anyone out there that might still be interested in serious
> discussion of wood, I want to just add a little about compressive strength
> and tensile strength as it relates to wood species substitution.
>
> Using the same FPL data I used earlier, we see that spruce has a maximum
> crushing strenght of 5,650 psi, while pine is 4840 psi, which makes pine
> exactly 85 percent as strong in compression. This is nearly the same
> difference as in bending -- and as I noted earlier, most of the other
> measures will be similarly in line.
>
> But just to see if my statement that 7/8' pine will adequately substitute
> for 3/4 spruce, let's calculate. Since stress is force per area, we can
see
> that a 3/4" spruce member will be able to withstand a maximum compressive
> stress of 0.75(squared) x 5650 = 3178 psi.
>
> How big would our pine member have to be? Well by rearranging the formula
> 3178 divided by 4840 will give us the dimension squared, which is 0.81
inch,
> again somewhat less than 7/8".
>
> So just as in the bending moment calculation we see that substituting 7/8'
> pine for 3/4" spruce gives us a member that is actually a little bit
> stronger. It is also a tiny bit heavier, but this is negligible.
>
> However I should point out that going through the exercise we just did is
> not proper methodology. I am only doing it to prove a point.
>
> The proper method is to first identify the structural member we are
> interested in analyzing, like I did with the wing spar. Next we have to
know
> how much load this member is expected to carry. Only then does it make
sense
> to determine the size of the member.
>
> But like I said, let's see if Mouth-Foamer can tell us which pieces of the
> plane are under pure compression or tension. (Since he is so concerned
aobut
> that and is basing his whole character assassination on me on that stupid
> notion).
>
> In the meantime, I hope Mr. Personality is getting the couch-time he so
> desperately needs. And I hope he doesn't forget to remind his analyst,
> "first do no harm."

And,,,,,, who gives a f***ck

[Jean-Paul Roy]

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Seeing these comments from the peanut gallery brought to mind an
interesting
> memory from middle school -- eighth grade I believe.
>
> It was a schoolyard scrap between two of the heavyweight contenders -- one
> of many matches and rematches in a long line of slugfests among the
> slugerati of middle school.
>
> As usual, the fisticuffs attracted a mighty crowd, and as usual the
scrawny
> nerds were in the front row, cheering and screaming and waving their
little
> fists. Keeping the crowd back with arms outstretched behind them -- and at
> the same time forming a kind of ring for the fighters -- were some of the
> other school sluggers.
>
> It was a spirited match that ended pretty much a draw, with both
> combatatants slugged out and panting for air. Just as the action was
winding
> down into general groping and grasping, one of the little hamsters in the
> front, eyes glazed over with blood lust, screamed out some kind of comment
> to the effect of, "Come on, let's go. You call this a fight?"
>
> Well that turned all eyes on the little rodent, who quickly sprouted a big
> "Oops" bubble above his head. One of the big kids who was on crowd control
> quickly administered a cuff upside the head, along with some words of
> remonstration, to the effect of "who the heck asked you?" -- and then the
> mob dived in.
>
> The next instant our little rodent was being tossed around by the angry
mob
> like an unfortuante rag doll. A monster wedgie was the crowning indignity
as
> I recall.
>
> Wow. I hadn't thought of that story in years. Thanks to Rich, Lou, and
> Hemingway for sparking that memory.
>
> I sometimes try to picture how some of these kids from middle school might
> have grown up, trying to picture the kind of people they have become later
> in life, how they might behave in certain situations.
>
> I think I have a pretty good picture of what that unfortunate little
> spectator would be doing right about now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
And,,,, who gives a f***ck

[Flyingmonk]

911 operator, "911, What is your emergency?"

me, "Hello operator, I'd like to report a gangbang rape."

911 operator, "Have you been assaulted sir?"

me. "No mam, the fella's name is Gordon and he's been bent over by
several people in the rec.aviation.homebuilt."

911 operator, "OK sir, remain calm, help is on the way."

[Morgans]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 911 operator, "911, What is your emergency?"
>
> me, "Hello operator, I'd like to report a gangbang rape."
>
> 911 operator, "Have you been assaulted sir?"
>
> me. "No mam, the fella's name is Gordon and he's been bent over by
> several people in the rec.aviation.homebuilt."
>
> 911 operator, "OK sir, remain calm, help is on the way."

<Chuckle>

Please, say the call got dropped? <g>

Yet he persists; and goes on with the stance that he knows all, and others
know nothing? Humm.

I don't understand why some ot the group continues to converse, like he is a
rational person, or something.

OK, now get ready for the flamethrower that is sure to follow.
--
Jim in NC

>

[Gordon Arnaut]

Interesting to hear from a hillbilly with homo-erotic fantasies.

Just wondering, how do your trailer park neighbours feel about your gay
lifestyle?

Regards,

Gordon.



"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 911 operator, "911, What is your emergency?"
>
> me, "Hello operator, I'd like to report a gangbang rape."
>
> 911 operator, "Have you been assaulted sir?"
>
> me. "No mam, the fella's name is Gordon and he's been bent over by
> several people in the rec.aviation.homebuilt."
>
> 911 operator, "OK sir, remain calm, help is on the way."
>

[Flyingmonk]

Lighten buddy, I'm jist funnin' yah!

[Flyingmonk]

I meant lighten up. Anyways, my trailer park neighbors said, "Hey!...
what's wrong with trailers?"

[W P Dixon]

Wow Gordon,
You have ESP too!!! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting to hear from a hillbilly with homo-erotic fantasies.
>
> Just wondering, how do your trailer park neighbours feel about your gay
> lifestyle?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
>
>
> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> 911 operator, "911, What is your emergency?"
>>
>> me, "Hello operator, I'd like to report a gangbang rape."
>>
>> 911 operator, "Have you been assaulted sir?"
>>
>> me. "No mam, the fella's name is Gordon and he's been bent over by
>> several people in the rec.aviation.homebuilt."
>>
>> 911 operator, "OK sir, remain calm, help is on the way."
>>
>
>

[Lou]

I can't believe it, Gordon is still crying on this subject. Do you
think he has a life?
What happened to talk about wood?
Lou

[Morgans]

"Lou" > wrote

> I can't believe it, Gordon is still crying on this subject. Do you
> think he has a life?

Not outside the ward. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Gordon Arnaut]

Crying?

Maybe my end-zone taunting looks like crying to someone who has actual tears
in his eyes from being stomped on at will.

Regards,

Gordon.



"Lou" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I can't believe it, Gordon is still crying on this subject. Do you
> think he has a life?
> What happened to talk about wood?
> Lou
>

[Richard Lamb]

Well, having stroked nice the other day, I'll have to reconsider now...

There is no reason to expend bandwith on ego boosting drivel.
It's more telling about the poster than the postee...

[Bashir]

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> Bashir,
>
> Yes the wooden planes industry is flourishing, as you know, so my services
> are indeed in high demand.
>
> I assume the Looney Tunes scripting industry is similarly lucrative?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.

I do not write scripts for Looney Tunes - your theme song was from
Woody Woodpecker. But now I have read some of your essays, and changed
it to something even more appropriate.

http://tinyurl.com/b7kjp

In fact, my scripts are primarily for embedded micrprocessors. The
work is normally done in C but I have made something of a name for
myself by writing in assembly code or raw hex.

Bashir