On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:32:14 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:


All right, back to the beheadings!


Four days, and not a mumblin' word.
Makes a body wonder, don't it?

Seriously, if the intent is to protect the innocent and unwary, why NOT
respond (and show your work?).

I'm not involved, so I have no work to show.
As for the "Canadian project" - it is basically DEAD.

Or? Have I misinterpreted obviously altruistic motives?
(huh!)


I've been trying to raise the RAA web site for several days to see if they
post their articles on the web. But it seems to be snowed under and won't be
back up until the spring thaw.


Fortunately (or otherwise, depending on your point of view?), I just happen
to HAVE a copy of the magazine. It was sent to me by a Canadian fellow (who
I'll not name to avoid allegations of international espionage).

But here it is, and we'll let the reader decide for him/her/it self...

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/
page-1.jpg to page-6.jpg

I particularly like the ripe irony of the last paragraph of the article.

The artical was written by a Canadian who was looking for a good,
cheap, safe way to get into the air. He was reporting on the early
stages of the "Canadian project" and none of the problems with the
wings had been uncovered yet, or at least the testing had not yet been
done. There is also no indication that they were building a heavier
version than yours, other than the mention of designing an all
aluminum wing.

The artical was written more about the Canadian ultralight regs than
about the Parasol.

As for the other attatchments, I'm not an engineer, so I can't speak
for their accuracy - but at least it looks like whoever wrote them did
have a very good understanding of the engineering involved. Myself ? -
it was over my head. I have no idea who wrote them, or what his
qualifications are. Neither do I particularly care.

It's YOUR design. It's up to YOU to either make it safe, and provide
accurate information, or to do one of two things:

Remove the plans from circulation, or mark them clearly as being
"proof of concept" plans requiring some extra engineering - and NOT
FOR FIRST TIME BUILDERS.

OK - 'Nuff said - I'm out here.
I've let everyone on this list know the concerns that were raised, and
the status of the plans. That's all I intended.



There are also a few of the stress analysis reports in pdf format.

ul-spar.pdf The original preliminary report (corrected! The original
original showed an 8 G limit(!), but it was a simple error)

ul-redo.pdf Suggested upgrade to 4.4 Gs at 650 lbs

fastner.pdf rivets, bolts, etc

For what it's worth, none of these are my own works.
They were posted to the Fly5k list by the author and are presented here
for enlightenment and entertainment of (any?) interested readers...

Richard

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***