![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can anyone comment on which manufacturers use "sandwich" construction
in the fuselage and which ones don't? I'm particularly interested in the LS ships, but I'm also curious about what others are doing or have done. Thanks, Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can anyone comment on which manufacturers use "sandwich" construction
in the fuselage and which ones don't? I'm particularly interested in the LS ships, but I'm also curious about what others are doing or have done. Tough question. My take on it is: It's not going to break down well by manufacturer, or even by model. In then production lives of all ships there will be minor changes, including the starting or discontinuing of sandwich construction in various models. Most composite ships I've seen inside out have sandwich construction in the vertical fin. That stands to reason, it's usually a ruled surface that's easy to core and which gains a lot of panel stiffness with a little bit of foam. Some ships have virtually no sandwich construction anywhere in the fuselage, including the vertical fin. I think that most ASW 20 fall into this category. In my own fuselages I only have sandwich construction in the vertical fin, with the builder adding sandwich stiffeners under the cockpit rail and also at the skidmark patch of the fuselage belly under the pilot's butt. The only glider fuselages I've seen with all-over sandwich construction are the Russia AC4 and AC5, and the ASC American Spirit and American Falcon kit gliders. The Russias have tiny wings, and as a consequence require very low gross weight to climb well. The sandwich fuselage helps keep the fuselage weight down, but makes the construction so light that crashworthiness seems to suffer somewhat. For the ASC ships, I don't know the rationale for full-sandwich construction, except perhaps it made those huge shells stiffer and easier to handle until bonded together. I've hear that some manufacturers have include sandwich stiffeners in key areas such as near the aft lift tube carrythroughs, but I've seen relatively little of this in the crashed gliders I've picked through. But that's mostly due to the selection process itself; I've had precious little opportunity to inspect crashed high-end gliders such as Duo Discus, DG1000, and ASH25. WIth luck, few such opportunities will present themselves. Thanks, Bob K. http://www.hpaircraft.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 10, 1:26 pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Can anyone comment on which manufacturers use "sandwich" construction in the fuselage and which ones don't? I'm particularly interested in the LS ships, but I'm also curious about what others are doing or have done. Tough question. My take on it is: It's not going to break down well by manufacturer, or even by model. In then production lives of all ships there will be minor changes, including the starting or discontinuing of sandwich construction in various models. Most composite ships I've seen inside out have sandwich construction in the vertical fin. That stands to reason, it's usually a ruled surface that's easy to core and which gains a lot of panel stiffness with a little bit of foam. Some ships have virtually no sandwich construction anywhere in the fuselage, including the vertical fin. I think that most ASW 20 fall into this category. In my own fuselages I only have sandwich construction in the vertical fin, with the builder adding sandwich stiffeners under the cockpit rail and also at the skidmark patch of the fuselage belly under the pilot's butt. The only glider fuselages I've seen with all-over sandwich construction are the Russia AC4 and AC5, and the ASC American Spirit and American Falcon kit gliders. The Russias have tiny wings, and as a consequence require very low gross weight to climb well. The sandwich fuselage helps keep the fuselage weight down, but makes the construction so light that crashworthiness seems to suffer somewhat. For the ASC ships, I don't know the rationale for full-sandwich construction, except perhaps it made those huge shells stiffer and easier to handle until bonded together. I've hear that some manufacturers have include sandwich stiffeners in key areas such as near the aft lift tube carrythroughs, but I've seen relatively little of this in the crashed gliders I've picked through. But that's mostly due to the selection process itself; I've had precious little opportunity to inspect crashed high-end gliders such as Duo Discus, DG1000, and ASH25. WIth luck, few such opportunities will present themselves. Thanks, Bob K.http://www.hpaircraft.com The ASW-15 used honeycomb core material over the entire fuselage and the Phoebus used balsa. These were early attempts to maintain structural stiffness without adding too much weight. In general it was found that the weight reduction was minor compared to the cost and added complexity of coring the fuselage. Additionally it's much easier to repair a single skin fuselage than it is to deal with sandwich construction over compound curves. Craig |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 10, 3:42*pm, wrote:
Can anyone comment on which manufacturers use "sandwich" construction in the fuselage and which ones don't? I'm particularly interested in the LS ships, but I'm also curious about what others are doing or have done. Thanks, Dave ASW-15 ASW-17 ASK-21 Major pain in the butt to repair compared to singel wall construction. UH |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On the "changes over time" subject:
Bob K mentioned Russia AC-4 models being sandwich construction... Not so with all of them! My early model (S/N #4) has solid/single-wall construction throughout most of the fuse (I'd guesstimate over 95% by area), with only select patches having any core material. Take care, --Noel |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
IIRC the Swiss built Diamants had a sandwich construction fuselage.
John Galloway |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
Can anyone comment on which manufacturers use "sandwich" construction in the fuselage and which ones don't? I'm particularly interested in the LS ships, but I'm also curious about what others are doing or have done. What is the reason for your interest? Do you want to design such a fuselage? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As others have said, it is more aircraft-specific versus manufacturer.
Some models that have sandwich construction: AS-K21, AS-W15, AS-W17, AS-W12, Diamant, ASC Spirit / Falcon, Phoebus, Russia. I do not believe LS ever made a sandwich fuselage. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lockheed Vega fuselage construction in Burbank | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 0 | May 8th 07 10:27 AM |
Composite construction T-junctions | [email protected] | Home Built | 2 | May 6th 05 04:55 AM |
Composite Construction CD and Resin Infusion | Steve G | Home Built | 1 | March 18th 04 08:32 PM |
IS-28 Fuselage Construction | smjmitchell | Soaring | 5 | December 31st 03 02:07 AM |
"Understanding Aircraft Composite Construction" | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:18 AM |