![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In trying to restore an uncompleted, decades old project, some corrosion is
evident in the wing spars and as an old non-aero engineer, I would like to know the basis or the process for evaluating it before proceeding. The spar has stacked, rectangular-bar caps riveted to a "C" shape web (as in the Midget Mustang designed by Long) with the quantity and vertical size of the cap strips being reduced as progressing outboard. IE: at root,(6)-1/8" thick x 1.5" high straps ending with (1)-1/8" x 3/8" high near wingtip. After becoming lost in several engineering design articles because some critcal number or statement was either omitted brevity or not understood (most likely), I gave up trying to mentally reconcile the tapered leading & trailing edge wing-loading with the reduced caps of the spar. Once again the lookers at my field G are divided over the necessary actions to take with most saying "just clean up, paint to prevent again and derate plane slightly from the designed +/-9 G's. My problem is in trying to determine a "go-no go" approach. Although the stacked (6) caps at the root have no corrosion, my gut tells me that a few thousands of surface corrosion, not involving an edge or rivet, would be repairable easily and not even require the proposed "G" derating. It is out where the stacked caps are reduced in both quantity and height where I exceed my "gut" G. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Dick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Dick wrote: In trying to restore an uncompleted, decades old project, some corrosion is evident in the wing spars and as an old non-aero engineer, I would like to know the basis or the process for evaluating it before proceeding. Max limits we use is: 10% of the material thickness lost to corrosion and you replace it. ie. if your part is .125", then if the material is ..1125" or less in any area, it gets replaced. Craig C. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you are restoring it, why not take it apart and restore it? That way you
have piece of mind and know if there is any corrosion throughout or not. Patrick student SPL aircraft structural mech |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Surface Corrosion? | Joaquin Murrieta | Home Built | 2 | May 3rd 05 01:19 AM |
Corrosion Proofing | Clay | Owning | 7 | April 22nd 05 12:03 AM |
Naval Air Refueling Needs Deferred in Air Force Tanker Plan | Henry J Cobb | Military Aviation | 47 | May 22nd 04 03:36 AM |
How much corrosion is too much? | Carl Orton | Owning | 5 | February 2nd 04 01:31 AM |
Corrosion X Applicators | Hankal | Owning | 5 | July 7th 03 06:07 PM |