Flying on the Cheap - Wood

wrote:
To All:

A few years ago I posted an article offering some hints about how to
build an inexpensive airplane that was safe and reliable (Flying on the
Cheap, October 2001; Google will find it for you). The key point in
the article was the use of commonly available mild steel tubing for the
fuselage. Of course, that meant you had to weld and nowadays most
folks don't, nor do they want to learn. Wood's the thing,
according to non-welding folks, citing its use in KR's and Piets and
dozens of other airframes, each held as the Perfect Design by that
particular person.

The advocates of wooden airframe construction have a valid point, at
least here in the States. Because of the rise of the box stores (Home
Depot, Lowes, etc), wood is more commonly available than steel tubing
and despite what many think, there's plenty of aviation-quality wood
lurking inside the knot-hole collection at your local box store. The
task of the lo-buck builder is to cut away the non-aviation parts, glue
the good stuff together and go flying. Thanks to modern adhesives, the
likelihood of a novice builder producing an unsafe glue-joint is small.


To support the builders of Box Store Bombers I shared my woodworking
experience in several articles posted to this newsgroup (How to Make
Ribs Out of Old Orange Crates [Nov 2002], Wooden Notes [Jan 2006] and
several others). Surprisingly, homebuilding at that level is not an
especially welcome topic on the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. This
lead to relaying such information in private posts to guys who were
interested in actually building something. Like Fred. Which isn't
his name, but work with me here.

After considerable thought Fred settled upon a single-place, VW-powered
KR-ish design as being the best match for his particular situation. In
working toward that goal he didn't find much support, especially from
the only organization that claims to speak for grass-roots aviation in
America. Thanks to an income of only $25k or thereabouts, to the EAA,
Fred and the millions of people like him simply do not exist. But Fred
is determined to build and fly his very own airplane, even if he has to
use the local box store for most of his materials. Indeed, he
doesn't have much choice. The total cost for his box store lumber
will be under $100 whereas a kit of aviation-grade spruce would cost
about a thousand dollars by the time the freight was paid. The lumber
will have to be resawn and spliced but that's the reality of Flying
on the Cheap.


Aircraft wood doesn't necessarily have to come from Wicks or Aircraft
Spruce: it has to meet the requirements as set forth in AC 43-13 et
seq. You can find aircraft wood or get it sawn if you know what to look
for. But using wood that clearly is out of those spec is going to cause
trouble.

The biggest problem with flying costs are not traditional simple
airframes: they are the overpriced ridiculous powerplants and high
storage costs.

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.

On 10 Aug 2006 05:23:38 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:




Aircraft wood doesn't necessarily have to come from Wicks or Aircraft
Spruce: it has to meet the requirements as set forth in AC 43-13 et
seq. You can find aircraft wood or get it sawn if you know what to look
for. But using wood that clearly is out of those spec is going to cause
trouble.

wood is just an engineering material, one of many, it has to meet the
strength requirements put on it by the loads on the airframe.

ac43-13 contains a description of what woods that have met the
requirements usually look like. it is the structural characteristics
of the wood that are important not the visual appearance.

btw I agree totally with Veedubbers comments on wood sourcing and wood
selection. none of my wood comes from certified sources.

Stealth Pilot

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
To All:

A few years ago I posted an article offering some hints about how to
build an inexpensive airplane that was safe and reliable (Flying on the
Cheap, October 2001; Google will find it for you). The key point in
the article was the use of commonly available mild steel tubing for the
fuselage. Of course, that meant you had to weld and nowadays most
folks don't, nor do they want to learn. Wood's the thing,
according to non-welding folks, citing its use in KR's and Piets and
dozens of other airframes, each held as the Perfect Design by that
particular person.

The advocates of wooden airframe construction have a valid point, at
least here in the States. Because of the rise of the box stores (Home
Depot, Lowes, etc), wood is more commonly available than steel tubing
and despite what many think, there's plenty of aviation-quality wood
lurking inside the knot-hole collection at your local box store. The
task of the lo-buck builder is to cut away the non-aviation parts, glue
the good stuff together and go flying. Thanks to modern adhesives, the
likelihood of a novice builder producing an unsafe glue-joint is small.


To support the builders of Box Store Bombers I shared my woodworking
experience in several articles posted to this newsgroup (How to Make
Ribs Out of Old Orange Crates [Nov 2002], Wooden Notes [Jan 2006] and
several others). Surprisingly, homebuilding at that level is not an
especially welcome topic on the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup. This
lead to relaying such information in private posts to guys who were
interested in actually building something. Like Fred. Which isn't
his name, but work with me here.

After considerable thought Fred settled upon a single-place, VW-powered
KR-ish design as being the best match for his particular situation. In
working toward that goal he didn't find much support, especially from
the only organization that claims to speak for grass-roots aviation in
America. Thanks to an income of only $25k or thereabouts, to the EAA,
Fred and the millions of people like him simply do not exist. But Fred
is determined to build and fly his very own airplane, even if he has to
use the local box store for most of his materials. Indeed, he
doesn't have much choice. The total cost for his box store lumber
will be under $100 whereas a kit of aviation-grade spruce would cost
about a thousand dollars by the time the freight was paid. The lumber
will have to be resawn and spliced but that's the reality of Flying
on the Cheap.


Aircraft wood doesn't necessarily have to come from Wicks or Aircraft
Spruce: it has to meet the requirements as set forth in AC 43-13 et
seq. You can find aircraft wood or get it sawn if you know what to look
for. But using wood that clearly is out of those spec is going to cause
trouble.

The biggest problem with flying costs are not traditional simple
airframes: they are the overpriced ridiculous powerplants and high
storage costs.

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.

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.

Peter

"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.

"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

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:33:37 -0400, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

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.

I think the basic problem would lie in the certification process. Ignoring the
grandfathered aircraft, ELSA certification requires two things: That an example
of the aircraft be built and certified as an SLSA, and that the ELSA builder
strictly conform to the materials, processes, and design of that example SLSA.
You can't change the engine, you can't change the radio, you can't make a single
deviation from the manufacturer's construction manual UNTIL your plane receives
its ELSA certification.

Thus, the plans must specify the materials to be used. The structural wood
elements will have to be spelled out. Conceivably, the designer could just
specify "Hemlock with XXX rings per inch, with the grain slope no more than
X:Y," etc, which means you *will* be able to go to Home Depot Aerospace and hunt
and pick for conforming wood.

However...remember, the designer has to certify the aircraft as a
production-type LSA. It's going to be a lot easier for him to specify "Spruce
conforming to XXXX standard."

Either way, there can be problems afoot for the plans builders. In both cases,
a hard-nosed FAA inspector could demand proof that the wood on the aircraft
meets the standard specified by the designer. If the designer specifies a
particular grade of spruce, you can probably show the appropriate receipts. But
if the designer merely states the qualification criteria for wood selection,
this might be a bit more difficult to provide sufficient proof.

ELSA is NOT Experimental-Amateur Built. There are some significant differences.
If you're building, the only advantage you get with an ELSA certification is
that a later owner can receive an LS-I certificate that lets them do their own
annuals. Otherwise, you're much better off as Exp-Am.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:33:37 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

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.

I think the basic problem would lie in the certification process.
Ignoring the
grandfathered aircraft, ELSA certification requires two things: That an
example
of the aircraft be built and certified as an SLSA, and that the ELSA
builder
strictly conform to the materials, processes, and design of that example
SLSA.
You can't change the engine, you can't change the radio, you can't make a
single
deviation from the manufacturer's construction manual UNTIL your plane
receives
its ELSA certification.

Thus, the plans must specify the materials to be used. The structural
wood
elements will have to be spelled out. Conceivably, the designer could
just
specify "Hemlock with XXX rings per inch, with the grain slope no more
than
X:Y," etc, which means you *will* be able to go to Home Depot Aerospace
and hunt
and pick for conforming wood.

However...remember, the designer has to certify the aircraft as a
production-type LSA. It's going to be a lot easier for him to specify
"Spruce
conforming to XXXX standard."

Either way, there can be problems afoot for the plans builders. In both
cases,
a hard-nosed FAA inspector could demand proof that the wood on the
aircraft
meets the standard specified by the designer. If the designer specifies a
particular grade of spruce, you can probably show the appropriate
receipts. But
if the designer merely states the qualification criteria for wood
selection,
this might be a bit more difficult to provide sufficient proof.

ELSA is NOT Experimental-Amateur Built. There are some significant
differences.
If you're building, the only advantage you get with an ELSA certification
is
that a later owner can receive an LS-I certificate that lets them do their
own
annuals. Otherwise, you're much better off as Exp-Am.

Ron Wanttaja

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...

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

"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?

"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
;-)