Flying on the Cheap - Wood

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Nice article Veeduber, I doubt I'll ever build from wood, or from scratch
for that matter but I enjoyed the read. Thanks.


That's really my feeling as well.

Peter

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:30:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

I am not sure how much is set in stone so far, but will stay tuned. My
understanding was that LSA was to be complete (ready to fly), SLSA was to be
kits, and ELSA was not yet final. Of course, that is now old info and may
have changed...

"LSA" is a definition. FAR 1.1, Definitions: "Light-sport aircraft means an
aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
certification, has continued to meet the following..."

SLSA means "Special Light Sport Aircraft"; an LSA that has received a
Special-category airworthiness certificate.

ELSA means "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft," an LSA that has received
certification in the Experimental category, under the "LSA" subcategory (as
"Amateur-Built" is another subcategory).

SLSAs must be constructed in accordance with the process that the FAA has
accepted meets the consensus standards, and must be maintained in accordance
with the standards. ELSAs must also be constructed in accordance to the
process, but once certification is receive, the owner is not required to
maintain the aircraft in accordance with its certification.

Aircraft can receive ELSA certification a number of ways. A builder may
construct an ELSA in compliance with an approved kit or plans. The owner of an
SLSA can convert his or her aircraft to ELSA. The owner of an existing
non-certified aircraft (e.g., two seat ultralights) can gain ELSA certification
(for the next year and a half). The builder of a plane meeting the LSA
definition can receive ELSA certification (again, until the deadline in January
2008).

Ron Wanttaja

wrote:

Fred is bucking additional headwinds in that he has zero woodworking
experience, doesn't own a table saw and has only a limited amount of
shop space.

I've never had a table saw of my own either. I now have a little 9
inch Delta bandsaw though, and I find for this sort of light-duty
resawing, I like it rather better than a table saw, in part because the
smaller kerf means less wood reduced to powder in the conversion of
"white wood" shelves into longerons or rib sticks. Lots of sawmills
use bandsaws - big, scarey ones - for sawing balks into finished
lumber.

Making up a scarfing fixture tends to drive a lot of homebuilders crazy
as they fiddle and tweak, ..... This degree of accuracy
can be achieved using nothing more complicated than fixtures assembled
from scrap wood, one for scarfing solid stock, the other for scarfing
plywood. In each case the wood gets clamped in the fixture and the
same cutter - - a portable circular saw - - is used on both.

For the benefit of the readers, here are a few scarfing web pages for
inspection.

http://www.marisystems.com/ellipticat/page4.htm I've used one very
much like this with a hand plane, after roughing the cut with a
japanese saw. Use a fairly large plane, with a lot of plane ahead and
behind to the blade to guide you if you use this method or you'll end
up planing the jig.

That was the only decent link I found on scarfing solid wood.
Scarfing plywood has lots more links, and some of these methods can be
adoped to small stringers - just stack a bunch of them side-by-side,
and they start to look like a sheet of plywood.

http://www.seqair.com/skunkworks/Woo...ig/Gauger.html
for plywood. Gougeon, the WEST epoxy people, sell a device like this
for a Skilsaw that works very well.
http://www.boat-links.com/scarf_bevels.html Free-handing plywood scarfs
http://www.menestrel.org.uk/scarfing_plywood.htm A sander approach.

Finally, "The Gougeon Brothers On Boat Construction" devotes a whole
chapter to scarfing, both dimensional lumber and plywood, and is widely
available in libraries. Other books on wooden boat building may also
cover it, but of the two I've kept from the dozens I used to have, only
this one did.

wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
...

Direct drive VW made sense in 1965. Not today. Use a liquid cooled car
engine and a redrive, perhaps a Honda since they are attractively
priced as JDM pulls.

Have you seen many airplanes flying with liquid cooled car
engines and a redrives?

A few.

How many with Honda engines?

Fewer.

Is the CVCC engine better (or worse) for flying than other
auto engines?


The CVCC is rarer than a Lycoming now since the Honda cars made with
it are almost all crushed out. I think they discontinued CVCC in the
_very_ early eighties. Most Honda mechanics working today have never
seen one. You must be a fossil to even remember CVCC.

The point is not what is most common today but what would offer the
best prospects for inexpensive, safe flying. If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

REAL aircraft engines are turbines. If you think otherwise you are
bull****ting yourself. Lycoming and Continental are, like Harley
Davidson and Porsche, toys for people with just a little too much
money.

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
I must dissagree. "Fred" appears to have settled on what could be
termed
a
light, single seat, ELSA which should need roughly 30 to 45 HP. The VW
should be ideal for the purpose.

No matter what he builds from Home Depot lumber it isn't ever going to be
an
ELSA.


Perhaps, and perhaps not.

At the moment, they appear to still be pretty busy working on kit
certification. However, it appeared (by reading between the lines in an
interview with Marion Blakely) that plans built ELSA is in the future. It
would then be "out of character" for custom built aircraft and/or small
designers of plans to be specifically excluded.

Besides, I think you know what I meant in terms of performance--even if
Fred
chooses to apply only for the traditional amateur built experimental
category.

Peter


The entire basis of the E-LSA is that it is built exactly to "factory"
standards with no deviation. Otherwise it is a Exp-Amateur that just happens
to be legal to fly by an LSA.

There is nothing to be gained by builders, manufacturers, pilots or the FAA
by a change such as you describe and many things to lost so where is the
motivation for such a move?

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
SLSAs must be constructed in accordance with the process that the FAA has
accepted meets the consensus standards, and must be maintained in accordance
with the standards. ELSAs must also be constructed in accordance to the
process, but once certification is receive, the owner is not required to
maintain the aircraft in accordance with its certification.

So... the owner of an ELSA could, in the course of "maintaining" the
aircraft, change out everything except the data plate and end up with a
very different aircraft. Talk about major repairs, maybe we'll see a
niche market around "repairman assist" modifications, violating the heck
out of the spirit and intent of the rule.

I'm being facetious, I haven't finished my coffee yet this morning.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:49:22 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:


"David Melby Cavalier" wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:
To All:



Since Veeduber's original post, I have taken a long glance at the lumber in
both of the local big boxes, as well as a couple of the local independents,
and I have concluded that the method is reasonable and a good compromise.
Arguments in favor include:
1) the high cost of shipping for small quantities,
2) the ability to buy a little at a time
(think empenage kit, wing kit, etc.),
3) laminating can be used to defeat any remaining tendency of wood to warp
or bow over time,
4) laminated wood better resists splitting, and
5) the relative amount of expertise (a/k/a experience) required to evaluate
small (thin) peices is less than that required for large (thick) peices.

There is no question that more work, including a lot of clamping, is
required to splice and laminate. But the old timers all swear by it and I
have NEVER heard or read anything in opposition from an experienced source!

That does not mean that I either will or will not use wood as the base
material for a composite, only that I kow it to be a sound engineering
material.

Peter


cellulose is a macro molecule assembled from sugar.
apart from some grain characteristics that are species related the
main arbiter for wood strength is its density. since most of the wood
you see in commercial sales areas is all at 12 to 15% moisture content
the density of the wood is a reasonable guide as to its strength.
compression, tension and izod tests are actually what you need but the
visual inspection of wood to exclude defects (from the actual length
of the cut piece as veedubber suggests) has served builders well for
all of aviation.

the only other piece of information needed for laminating is an
understanding of whether the lignin binding the cellulose together is
a thermoset plastic or a thermosoftening plastic.
thermosoftening lignins allow for woods that can be steamed and shaped
very easily. thermosetting lignin makes for a wood that should only be
used in straight pieces.

my own wood is sourced via a relative on the other side of the country
from the stocks of a chap who makes bee hive boxes for the apiary
industry. Talk to people and ask around because you can find some
amazing wood sources. One chap I know stumbled on 3 pieces of 50 year
old spruce, that were absolutely straight grained for over 30 ft, out
of a deceased estate. he now has enough for two aeroplanes.

if you look around and weigh woods you will find an amazing array of
suitable woods. I'm writing from Australia but in my local Bunnings (
a clone of your home depot) I can get Alaskan Yellow Cedar that ranges
from useless heavily knotted pieces to pieces with close straight
grain for over 6ft. I can find Australian "Oak" in densities from just
heavier than Spruce to nearly 65lb per cubic ft. I can occasionally
source Oregon Pine (Douglas Fir) that is usually suitable.
Mainly though I use Queensland Hoop Pine in the manner that Veedubber
suggests.

One of the keys to getting a supply of good wood is to be prepared to
buy it when it becomes available. It is a natural product and supply
is variable. There are lots of people out to obtain good woods.

I think my aircraft will have about 8 species of wood in it by the
time I'm finished. I'm using it because Wood structures are
permanently repairable.

Stealth Pilot

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
I must dissagree. "Fred" appears to have settled on what could be
termed
a
light, single seat, ELSA which should need roughly 30 to 45 HP. The
VW
should be ideal for the purpose.

No matter what he builds from Home Depot lumber it isn't ever going to
be
an
ELSA.


Perhaps, and perhaps not.

At the moment, they appear to still be pretty busy working on kit
certification. However, it appeared (by reading between the lines in an
interview with Marion Blakely) that plans built ELSA is in the future.
It
would then be "out of character" for custom built aircraft and/or small
designers of plans to be specifically excluded.

Besides, I think you know what I meant in terms of performance--even if
Fred
chooses to apply only for the traditional amateur built experimental
category.

Peter


The entire basis of the E-LSA is that it is built exactly to "factory"
standards with no deviation. Otherwise it is a Exp-Amateur that just
happens
to be legal to fly by an LSA.

There is nothing to be gained by builders, manufacturers, pilots or the
FAA
by a change such as you describe and many things to lost so where is the
motivation for such a move?


We seem to be working our way around to agreement as we iron out the
nomenclature.

Now, if we can just get rid of those damanble dolly launches to transfer the
amphibians from airport to seaplane base--and the belly landings coming
back...

Peter
;-)

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
SLSAs must be constructed in accordance with the process that the FAA has
accepted meets the consensus standards, and must be maintained in accordance
with the standards. ELSAs must also be constructed in accordance to the
process, but once certification is receive, the owner is not required to
maintain the aircraft in accordance with its certification.

So... the owner of an ELSA could, in the course of "maintaining" the
aircraft, change out everything except the data plate and end up with a
very different aircraft. Talk about major repairs, maybe we'll see a
niche market around "repairman assist" modifications, violating the heck
out of the spirit and intent of the rule.

You're absolutely correct. The owner of an ELSA, once the airplane is initially
certified, can change practically anything.

We won't even have to worry about "repairman assist" issues, because there *are*
no Repairman Certificates for ELSAs. Just like Experimental/Amateur-Builts,
anyone can maintain or modify them. But the "Light Sport-Inspection" license
permits you to perform the annual on any ELSA that you own...not just the plane
you built, like the Exp-Ambuilt Repairman Certificate. And you can get the LS-I
license after a 16-hour course.

Like I said earlier, any owner can take a production LSA (SLSA), change the
certification to Experimental LSA (ELSA), and thereafter maintain and modify it
as he or she wishes.

Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
category, not SLSA? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere
wrote:
snip.

Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
category, not SLSA? :-)


The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
or conventional gear (or floats)-and leave LSA alone. Like CB radio,
LSA is going to turn into a quagmire.

The upside is that it will put just enough people in the air to give
them some political pull. I personally hope it turns into such a
stinking mess the FAA begs Congress to be allowed to do what would have
been the right thing anyway-expand Part 103 to 1250 lbs empty-and wash
their hands of the whole disgusting mess.

Of course, I hope the Hezzies pound the living holy **** out of the
IDF too. I'm contrarian like that.