Flying on the Cheap - Wood

"pbc76049" wrote in message
...
There is another spec for Spruce and Doug Fir that is a bit easier to find
than "Spar Stock".
History lesson follows.... One of the biggest markets for dead straight
tight grain wood was for
the construction of fire department ladders, especially aerial ladders.
The
ladder makers
created a standard for wood used in ladders. "Ladder Grade" spruce is a
commercial spec that is
indistinguishable from AC43 and in many cases tighter.. If you call
around
and find the folks who sell it, you can save
hours of dumpster diving to find good stuff at box stores. It is
reasonably
priced compared
to "airplans stuff" with only a moderate premium over regular wood prices.
Scott
"


Thanks. I have saved the post for future reference.

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.

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?

How many with Honda engines?

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

--

FF

"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

Spoken like a true idiot that never looked at Home Depot lumber.

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

David Melby Cavalier wrote:

...

If Fred plans to build a plane from wood purchased from Home Depot, he
should also build a pine box. He will need it. I have never found
wood acceptable for aircraft at HD or any other such outlet. Why pass
on such bad information?

Have you ever looked at the FAS Doug Fir they stock next to the
hardwoods?

--

FF

wrote:
David Melby Cavalier wrote:
...

If Fred plans to build a plane from wood purchased from Home Depot, he
should also build a pine box. He will need it. I have never found
wood acceptable for aircraft at HD or any other such outlet. Why pass
on such bad information?

Have you ever looked at the FAS Doug Fir they stock next to the
hardwoods?

I bet either "no," or the stock in his region may simply be lower quality.

Personally I've seen some very knot-free and fine grain birch and fir at
the local Lowe's. Of course, there is also plenty "doghouse grade" wood.

Lowe's is fifteen minutes closer to me than HD

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