![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I can't figure this one out.
I want to add a retractable step that will stick out of the fuselage at a 40 degree from vertical angle. It sticks out 10" and is made of 3/4" square, .065 thick, 4130 tube. Assuming no weakness in the support, will this support a 300lb man (me with all my luggage on my back), and how can you tell? -- 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)." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ernest Christley wrote:
I can't figure this one out. I want to add a retractable step that will stick out of the fuselage at a 40 degree from vertical angle. It sticks out 10" and is made of 3/4" square, .065 thick, 4130 tube. Assuming no weakness in the support, will this support a 300lb man (me with all my luggage on my back), and how can you tell? I think it's the "assuming no weakness in the support" part that has everybody tongue tied. The square tube sees healthy enough. It's the "rest of the story" that will make a difference. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . net,
Richard Lamb wrote: Ernest Christley wrote: I can't figure this one out. I want to add a retractable step that will stick out of the fuselage at a 40 degree from vertical angle. It sticks out 10" and is made of 3/4" square, .065 thick, 4130 tube. Assuming no weakness in the support, will this support a 300lb man (me with all my luggage on my back), and how can you tell? I think it's the "assuming no weakness in the support" part that has everybody tongue tied. The square tube sees healthy enough. It's the "rest of the story" that will make a difference. Well, if I'm tongue-tied, it's mostly because I don't know why he wants a step that sticks out from vertical at some angle other than 90 degrees. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Smitty Two wrote:
In article . net, Richard Lamb wrote: Ernest Christley wrote: I can't figure this one out. I want to add a retractable step that will stick out of the fuselage at a 40 degree from vertical angle. It sticks out 10" and is made of 3/4" square, .065 thick, 4130 tube. Assuming no weakness in the support, will this support a 300lb man (me with all my luggage on my back), and how can you tell? I think it's the "assuming no weakness in the support" part that has everybody tongue tied. The square tube sees healthy enough. It's the "rest of the story" that will make a difference. Well, if I'm tongue-tied, it's mostly because I don't know why he wants a step that sticks out from vertical at some angle other than 90 degrees. yep! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Lamb wrote:
Smitty Two wrote: In article . net, Richard Lamb wrote: Ernest Christley wrote: I can't figure this one out. I want to add a retractable step that will stick out of the fuselage at a 40 degree from vertical angle. It sticks out 10" and is made of 3/4" square, .065 thick, 4130 tube. Assuming no weakness in the support, will this support a 300lb man (me with all my luggage on my back), and how can you tell? I think it's the "assuming no weakness in the support" part that has everybody tongue tied. The square tube sees healthy enough. It's the "rest of the story" that will make a difference. Well, if I'm tongue-tied, it's mostly because I don't know why he wants a step that sticks out from vertical at some angle other than 90 degrees. yep! It's retractable. It has to have someplace to retract to. It is attached to the outboard end of a delta wing, not a conventional fuselage. The odd angle is so that I can attach it to structural members and have it stick out past the leading edge. The height is such that it has to be lower than the leading edge to be useful. The plans call for a step welded to the leading edge that does not retract. This leaves an ugly step dangling in the wind, where it's turbulanc can do maximum damage. It is also so high that it is barely useful. You almost need a step ladder to reach the step. It works, and is simple, but I think I can do better. The 3/4" tube has a sleeve welded around the top. It slides in a 1"x.065 square tube that has a sleeve welded around the inside at the bottom. The 1" tube is to be welded to structural members. The sleeves positively capture the inside tube, and there is 1.5" of overlap in the two tubes. Both sleeves have several inches of weld. My biggest concern is the inside tube not being strong enough and taking a slight bend over time. Then it will no longer slide. Hence my question. If it were a straight beam, I think I could run the calculations, but how do you analyze it when the cantilevered beam isn't straight? -- 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)." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Ernest Christley wrote: Richard Lamb wrote: Smitty Two wrote: In article . net, Richard Lamb wrote: Ernest Christley wrote: I can't figure this one out. I want to add a retractable step that will stick out of the fuselage at a 40 degree from vertical angle. It sticks out 10" and is made of 3/4" square, .065 thick, 4130 tube. Assuming no weakness in the support, will this support a 300lb man (me with all my luggage on my back), and how can you tell? I think it's the "assuming no weakness in the support" part that has everybody tongue tied. The square tube sees healthy enough. It's the "rest of the story" that will make a difference. Well, if I'm tongue-tied, it's mostly because I don't know why he wants a step that sticks out from vertical at some angle other than 90 degrees. yep! It's retractable. It has to have someplace to retract to. It is attached to the outboard end of a delta wing, not a conventional fuselage. The odd angle is so that I can attach it to structural members and have it stick out past the leading edge. The height is such that it has to be lower than the leading edge to be useful. The plans call for a step welded to the leading edge that does not retract. This leaves an ugly step dangling in the wind, where it's turbulanc can do maximum damage. It is also so high that it is barely useful. You almost need a step ladder to reach the step. It works, and is simple, but I think I can do better. The 3/4" tube has a sleeve welded around the top. It slides in a 1"x.065 square tube that has a sleeve welded around the inside at the bottom. The 1" tube is to be welded to structural members. The sleeves positively capture the inside tube, and there is 1.5" of overlap in the two tubes. Both sleeves have several inches of weld. My biggest concern is the inside tube not being strong enough and taking a slight bend over time. Then it will no longer slide. Hence my question. If it were a straight beam, I think I could run the calculations, but how do you analyze it when the cantilevered beam isn't straight? OK, now that's a little more clear, but we're still talking about a support member. It's good to say what we mean, I think. A step support bar isn't a step anymore than a spar is a wing. Engineers spend too much time thinking. Clamp the piece of steel to something solid and jump up and down on it. You'll have your answer in the time it would take you to find the back of an envelope and dust off your slide rule. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
... ... My biggest concern is the inside tube not being strong enough and taking a slight bend over time. Then it will no longer slide. Hence my question. If it were a straight beam, I think I could run the calculations, but how do you analyze it when the cantilevered beam isn't straight? Divide the load in to two componants - the load normal to the beam (bending force) and the load parallel to the beam (tension). The compression load on the bottom face of the beam will be somewhat reduced by the tension and the tension load on the top face will be somewhat increased and the sides of your box will carry shear plus tension. If your beam is 40 degrees from vertical, the bending force would be the load (I think you mentioned 300 pounds) times the sine of the angle and the tension force would be 30 times the cosine of the angle (I'll let you do the math). (assuming, of course, that I am drawing the picture correctly in my head) It would be reasonable to assume that the tension force is carried by the entire cross section of the square tube so divide the force by the cross section ((width + height) * thickness) and add that stress to whatever stresses you come up with from the bending. Or, you could clamp the bar in a vice and jump up and down on it. -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Ernest Christley" wrote in message ... ... My biggest concern is the inside tube not being strong enough and taking a slight bend over time. Then it will no longer slide. Hence my question. If it were a straight beam, I think I could run the calculations, but how do you analyze it when the cantilevered beam isn't straight? Divide the load in to two componants - the load normal to the beam (bending force) and the load parallel to the beam (tension). The compression load on the bottom face of the beam will be somewhat reduced by the tension and the tension load on the top face will be somewhat increased and the sides of your box will carry shear plus tension. If your beam is 40 degrees from vertical, the bending force would be the load (I think you mentioned 300 pounds) times the sine of the angle and the tension force would be 30 times the cosine of the angle (I'll let you do the math). (assuming, of course, that I am drawing the picture correctly in my head) It would be reasonable to assume that the tension force is carried by the entire cross section of the square tube so divide the force by the cross section ((width + height) * thickness) and add that stress to whatever stresses you come up with from the bending. Or, you could clamp the bar in a vice and jump up and down on it. -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader. Todd was correct. I was talking about the support beam and not the step. The step actually sticks out forward from the support beam. I apologize for not being completely clear. I'm going to work on the calculation, just for schnitz and giggles, but took the suggestion to heart and rigged up a test stand by nailing a couple of blocks to the side of a sawhorse so that the outer housing was supported at the points where it will be welded. Bounced as hard as I could in the unstable situation, and could not detect any flexing. That was with junk mild steel that I was using for a mock-up. I think I might have overbuilt it by just a tad 8*) This is the last piece to go on the airframe before the fabric. -- 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)." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ernest Christley wrote:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote: "Ernest Christley" wrote in message ... ... My biggest concern is the inside tube not being strong enough and taking a slight bend over time. Then it will no longer slide. Hence my question. If it were a straight beam, I think I could run the calculations, but how do you analyze it when the cantilevered beam isn't straight? Divide the load in to two componants - the load normal to the beam (bending force) and the load parallel to the beam (tension). The compression load on the bottom face of the beam will be somewhat reduced by the tension and the tension load on the top face will be somewhat increased and the sides of your box will carry shear plus tension. If your beam is 40 degrees from vertical, the bending force would be the load (I think you mentioned 300 pounds) times the sine of the angle and the tension force would be 30 times the cosine of the angle (I'll let you do the math). (assuming, of course, that I am drawing the picture correctly in my head) It would be reasonable to assume that the tension force is carried by the entire cross section of the square tube so divide the force by the cross section ((width + height) * thickness) and add that stress to whatever stresses you come up with from the bending. Or, you could clamp the bar in a vice and jump up and down on it. -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader. Todd was correct. I was talking about the support beam and not the step. The step actually sticks out forward from the support beam. I apologize for not being completely clear. I'm going to work on the calculation, just for schnitz and giggles, but took the suggestion to heart and rigged up a test stand by nailing a couple of blocks to the side of a sawhorse so that the outer housing was supported at the points where it will be welded. Bounced as hard as I could in the unstable situation, and could not detect any flexing. That was with junk mild steel that I was using for a mock-up. I think I might have overbuilt it by just a tad 8*) This is the last piece to go on the airframe before the fabric. A little flexing isn't all that bad. The retractable ladder on F-4E flexed quite a bit yet had no trouble supporting my 220 pounds plus anything I was carrying. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
So I invested my US$6°°.....GUESS WHAT!!!... less than ten days later, I received money | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | January 16th 05 06:48 AM |
Garmin 430 and Comm Strength - Solved! | Marco Leon | Owning | 0 | December 17th 04 05:15 PM |
Garmin 430 and Comm Strength - Solved! | Marco Leon | Piloting | 0 | December 17th 04 05:15 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |