Aircraft design tool ?

[flash]

My brother, who is into woodworking, pointed this out to me. I wonder if it
is of any use to aircraft designers?

There is a free version and a pay-for-play, but they both seem to be
competent, capable things. Anybody else even seen this??

How about it, VeeDuber?


Flash

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

flash wrote:
> My brother, who is into woodworking, pointed this out to me. I wonder if it
> is of any use to aircraft designers?
>
> There is a free version and a pay-for-play, but they both seem to be
> competent, capable things. Anybody else even seen this??
>
> How about it, VeeDuber?
>
>
> Flash
>
>

Something seems to be missing there, flash...

[[email protected]]

> How about it, VeeDuber?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Flash,

There are a number of aircraft design tools available to anyone having
an interest in that area. Some are computer programs, which I suspect
you were referring to (Usenet does not allow attachments) that are
specific to aviation while others are relatively simple structural-
design equation-sets suitable for anything from a railroad bridge to
an airplane's wing.

Others are books and magazine articles devoted to aircraft design.
For the homebuilder, one of the more useful hard-copy sources were the
articles by Raoul Hoffmann, the aeronautical engineer who worked for
Matty Laird, which appeared in 'Popular Flying' magazine during the
1930's. Back when the EAA had an interest in such things they used to
offer a reprint collection of Mr. Hoffmann's articles in a manual
devoted to aircraft design.

An interesting test of computerized aircraft design tools is run them
backwards and see what you get. That is, enter the parameters of a
proven design such as the Piper 'Cub' and see what the program has to
say with regard to the parameter(s) you've left out, such as weight,
performance or what-have-you. In most cases the software fails to
match the reality of a proven design; good evidence there's a bit more
to it than plugging numbers into a matrix and hitting the button.

Another thing about design tools is that while some will tell you the
required metal thickness and rivet pitch, or the required cross-
sectional area of a wooden spar, they don't tell you HOW to set those
rivets or glue-up such a spar. Which leads to a crude but effective
design tool seldom mentioned by the various 'experts,' which is to
simply make a part and then test it to destruction... once you've
learned HOW to make it
Indeed, the 'Experimental, Amateur-built' license exists not to foster
the sale of kits nor glossy coffee-table magazines, it exists to
foster EDUCATION in aeronautics. And while it is wildly unpopular to
advocate such a thing, by devoting a bit of time to the subject of
aircraft design -- at any level -- you will find that it isn't that
difficult to amass your own kit of fully portable design tools neatly
packaged and always available, between your own ears :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[flash]

Yeah, something missing, for sure.


http://sketchup.google.com/index.html

Take that, Usenet!

Flash



"flash" > wrote in message
...
> My brother, who is into woodworking, pointed this out to me. I wonder if
> it is of any use to aircraft designers?
>
> There is a free version and a pay-for-play, but they both seem to be
> competent, capable things. Anybody else even seen this??
>
> How about it, VeeDuber?
>
>
> Flash
>

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

flash wrote:
> Yeah, something missing, for sure.
>
>
> http://sketchup.google.com/index.html
>
> Take that, Usenet!
>
> Flash
>
>
>
> "flash" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>My brother, who is into woodworking, pointed this out to me. I wonder if
>>it is of any use to aircraft designers?
>>
>>There is a free version and a pay-for-play, but they both seem to be
>>competent, capable things. Anybody else even seen this??
>>
>>How about it, VeeDuber?
>>
>>
>>Flash
>>
>
>
>

Ah, ok. I see waht you are talking about now.


I like this one a lot better.
http://www.imsidesign.com/Products/DesignCADSeries/tabid/321/Default.aspx

Version 18 3D MAX is at Frys for $69.

It doesn't HAVE to have a really hot computer to run properly.
(But it of course helps - 2Ghz cpu, 2 Gig Ram is nice)

I ran version 2000 on 500 mhz AMD K6 for several years - quite satisfactory.

The deal is, you see, for AIRPLANES (and boats) you really need cubic
spline curves. Without that, you got nothing but houses...


Richard


Some examples?

aircraft:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one.htm

boats:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/draft.htm

[Scott[_1_]]

Heck, you got an RV-3 with a razorback instead of a bubble canopy! ;)

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

cavelamb himself wrote:




>
> Some examples?
>
> aircraft:
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one.htm


--

[flash]

Now THAT is impressive, especially at the price, and the processor it will
run on. Wowie, just one more toy to occupy my idle mind on winter evenings
when the honey-do's are all done (as if that will ever happen) 8-)

Thanks, really

Flash


"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
> flash wrote:
>> Yeah, something missing, for sure.
>>
>>
>> http://sketchup.google.com/index.html
>>
>> Take that, Usenet!
>>
>> Flash
>>
>>
>>
>> "flash" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>My brother, who is into woodworking, pointed this out to me. I wonder if
>>>it is of any use to aircraft designers?
>>>
>>>There is a free version and a pay-for-play, but they both seem to be
>>>competent, capable things. Anybody else even seen this??
>>>
>>>How about it, VeeDuber?
>>>
>>>
>>>Flash
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ah, ok. I see waht you are talking about now.
>
>
> I like this one a lot better.
> http://www.imsidesign.com/Products/DesignCADSeries/tabid/321/Default.aspx
>
> Version 18 3D MAX is at Frys for $69.
>
> It doesn't HAVE to have a really hot computer to run properly.
> (But it of course helps - 2Ghz cpu, 2 Gig Ram is nice)
>
> I ran version 2000 on 500 mhz AMD K6 for several years - quite
> satisfactory.
>
> The deal is, you see, for AIRPLANES (and boats) you really need cubic
> spline curves. Without that, you got nothing but houses...
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> Some examples?
>
> aircraft:
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one.htm
>
> boats:
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/draft.htm

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Some examples?
>>
>> aircraft:
>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/l-one.htm
>

Scott wrote:

> Heck, you got an RV-3 with a razorback instead of a bubble canopy! ;)
>
> Scott
> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>
>
>

A little smaller than an RV-3, but larger than a Hummel.

18 to 20 ft span

70 to 75 sq ft wing.

VW power using 1835 or 2180 cc engines.

Or, for the man with pocket power,
Rotax 912 power and an electric prop!


I think it would be fun.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:08:14 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>
>> How about it, VeeDuber?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Dear Flash,
>
>There are a number of aircraft design tools available to anyone having
>an interest in that area. Some are computer programs, which I suspect
>you were referring to (Usenet does not allow attachments) that are
>specific to aviation while others are relatively simple structural-
>design equation-sets suitable for anything from a railroad bridge to
>an airplane's wing.
>
>Others are books and magazine articles devoted to aircraft design.
>For the homebuilder, one of the more useful hard-copy sources were the
>articles by Raoul Hoffmann, the aeronautical engineer who worked for
>Matty Laird, which appeared in 'Popular Flying' magazine during the
>1930's. Back when the EAA had an interest in such things they used to
>offer a reprint collection of Mr. Hoffmann's articles in a manual
>devoted to aircraft design.
>
>An interesting test of computerized aircraft design tools is run them
>backwards and see what you get. That is, enter the parameters of a
>proven design such as the Piper 'Cub' and see what the program has to
>say with regard to the parameter(s) you've left out, such as weight,
>performance or what-have-you. In most cases the software fails to
>match the reality of a proven design; good evidence there's a bit more
>to it than plugging numbers into a matrix and hitting the button.
>
>Another thing about design tools is that while some will tell you the
>required metal thickness and rivet pitch, or the required cross-
>sectional area of a wooden spar, they don't tell you HOW to set those
>rivets or glue-up such a spar. Which leads to a crude but effective
>design tool seldom mentioned by the various 'experts,' which is to
>simply make a part and then test it to destruction... once you've
>learned HOW to make it
>Indeed, the 'Experimental, Amateur-built' license exists not to foster
>the sale of kits nor glossy coffee-table magazines, it exists to
>foster EDUCATION in aeronautics. And while it is wildly unpopular to
>advocate such a thing, by devoting a bit of time to the subject of
>aircraft design -- at any level -- you will find that it isn't that
>difficult to amass your own kit of fully portable design tools neatly
>packaged and always available, between your own ears :-)
>
>-R.S.Hoover

and the wonderment is that if you actually understand a little of the
history the technology is actually sitting there naked in front of you
at airshows and in museums.

its fascinating!

Stealth Pilot

[Scott[_1_]]

So, have you started bending metal yet??? ;)

Scott


cavelamb himself wrote:

> A little smaller than an RV-3, but larger than a Hummel.
>
> 18 to 20 ft span
>
> 70 to 75 sq ft wing.
>
> VW power using 1835 or 2180 cc engines.
>
> Or, for the man with pocket power,
> Rotax 912 power and an electric prop!
>
>
> I think it would be fun.
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Scott wrote:
> So, have you started bending metal yet??? ;)
>
> Scott
>
>
> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>> A little smaller than an RV-3, but larger than a Hummel.
>>
>> 18 to 20 ft span
>>
>> 70 to 75 sq ft wing.
>>
>> VW power using 1835 or 2180 cc engines.
>>
>> Or, for the man with pocket power,
>> Rotax 912 power and an electric prop!
>>
>>
>> I think it would be fun.
>>
>

I've heard of airplanes being built in the most unlikely of places,
but I've never heard of one built aboard a sailing vessel...

Could be a another first for the program!

:)

Richard

[Scott[_1_]]

Shouldn't be too hard if you're on an aircraft carrier :)

Scott


cavelamb himself wrote:

>>>
>>
>
> I've heard of airplanes being built in the most unlikely of places,
> but I've never heard of one built aboard a sailing vessel...
>
> Could be a another first for the program!
>
> :)
>
> Richard

[Scott[_1_]]

Sorry...I fly...I don't "intentionally" put anything in the water ;) I
thought that even nuclear ships sailed from port. Maybe not though...

Scott


Ernest Christley wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't be too hard if you're on an aircraft carrier :)
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> cavelamb himself wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've heard of airplanes being built in the most unlikely of places,
>>> but I've never heard of one built aboard a sailing vessel...
>>>
>>> Could be a another first for the program!
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Richard
>
>
>
> I knew that Rumsfeld guy was trying to cheap out on our proud men in
> arms, but did he actually resort to powering our aircraft carriers with
> sails!?!
>
> 8*)

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)