Flying on the Cheap - Wood

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?

Must disagree with this. You should look a little harder. I have many
board feet of really tight grained, vertical sawn, dry, straight
hemlock (not hemfir, a fast growing commercial mutant wood) found right
in the trim/banister section of our local Sutherlands. Our
independant lumber outlet occasionally has 8/4 shop doug fir that also
meets AC standards for all criteria. I know of a couple of Piets built
long ago with white pine ribs with hardware store flashing leading
edges.

Years ago, I heard one of the FAA guys give a lecture about final
inspections and the use of AC grade materials. At that time he made a
comment that homebuilders were the ones that certified the materials
and that as far as they were concerned you could use wet cardboard and
shaving cream to build your plane. As long as you could back up your
material choice with a least some data anything went. However, he did
mention that they could also restrict you to 200+ hours ground (taxi)
testing prior to flight.

Even Rutan ignored the AC quality thing on the first Vari-eze since
there wasn't ( and may still not be) anything such as AC certified foam.

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

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.


Bert,

Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using 1,500
feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...P/N16VP_6b.jpg

Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario, OR
airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"

gorgon 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?

Must disagree with this. You should look a little harder. I have many
board feet of really tight grained, vertical sawn, dry, straight
hemlock (not hemfir, a fast growing commercial mutant wood) found right
in the trim/banister section of our local Sutherlands. ...

Splorf! It sounds like you got your species information from a
clerk at the Home Depot. The last ime I asked one iif their
Hem-FIr was Helock or Fir he said it was probably a hybrid!

Hem-Fir is a softwood lumber association _species group_, like
SPF, only one level higher up in quality. Hem-Fir may be Western
hemlock or any of several Firs, it won't be any species of pine,
larch, Doug Fir, or spruce and the minimum tensile strength
requirement for that group is higher than for SPF, but lower than
for Southern Yellow pine, or Doug Fir.

It may be fast grown or not, but it isn't a hybrid or a mutant any more
than SPF (Spruce, Pine or Fir) is a mutant or hybrid wood. Most
Douglas Fir and Southern Yellow Pine sold by the Borgs IS fast
grown and bears little resemblence to old-growth despite being the
named genus, or group of species.

--

FF

On 15 Aug 2006 06:52:46 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


wrote:



You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'

I've known a couple of them who got killed doing that and some that
had planes with rater strange handeling characteristics. Of course
like building, flying one with no break out force or stick gradient is
a challenge:-)) Then installing a 6 cylinder IO-540 with a 3-blade
hartzell in place of a IO-360 and 2-blade prop that required moving
the wing forward to get some semblance of a reasonable GC, or adding
wide profile tires that required a thicker wing root of a different
and symmetrical airfoil to accommodate the gear which required a
different angle of incidence for the outboard wing sections to
maintain sufficient lift...

airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
going with a used engine and prop.

OTOH price is a relative thing. If you build it you can economize
where ever you'd like or, go hog wild and get the best of everything.
You can use a minimal panel with steam gages, or the latest in glass
panel and technology.

We just have to remember that every airplane is a group of compromises
flying in formation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
...

Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
going with a used engine and prop.

OTOH price is a relative thing. If you build it you can economize
where ever you'd like or, go hog wild and get the best of everything.
You can use a minimal panel with steam gages, or the latest in glass
panel and technology.

Let's not forget that the articles that prompted this thread were about
how to build a plane with at least the same performance and safety
as many kit planes, but for much less money.

People have scratch built ultralights for under $1000 in materials and
less than 400 hours times which works out, even including labor rated
at, say $20/hr, to about what one might pay for a completed UL.

It might be better economics to get a second job to pay for plane
but it won't be as enjoyable and they won't know thier plane as
well.

--

FF

Wayne Paul wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.


Bert,

Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using 1,500
feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...P/N16VP_6b.jpg

Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario, OR
airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.


Almost all soaring in the US is done by aero tow.

Winch, vehicle and other methods are not very popular in the US but
more so in Europe.

Even Rutan ignored the AC quality thing on the first Vari-eze since
there wasn't ( and may still not be) anything such as AC certified foam.

The Rutans ignored a great deal of "proven" practice in their
homebuilt designs yet after they proved unable to make a direct drive
pusher VW work in the prototype VariEze (which others had, having less
theoretical knowledge but much more common sense than Burt and Dick)
decided only certified aircraft engines were any good. Then they freely
instructed builders to not only ignore but defy manufacturer's
instructions, such as not operating the O-200A as a pusher.

In other words they are talking out their mouth and ass
simultaneously. When one or the other Rutan does buy it, I won't cheer,
but I'm not going to get lachrymose either. Honebuilders don't have the
sense to figure out Rutan F'ed them and kicked them out before dawn
like an acne-ridden fat broad picked up at a bar.

Roger wrote:

airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.


If you aren't a "gearhead" why the hell are you thinking about
BUILDING AN AIRPLANE????

It's cheaper?? It isn't.

Cheaper? Are you kidding? By the time I finish the G-III (If I ever
do) I'll have more than twice the price of the Deb in it and that is
going with a used engine and prop.


In other words you could have bought a T-6 or an L-39 when you
started and they would now be worth much more than the G-III (I assume
by G-III you do not mean what averyone else I know means by a G-III-a
large Grumman with two turbofans used to haul VIPs and train Shuttle
pilots on approaches.)

wrote in message
ups.com...

Let's not forget that the articles that prompted this thread were about
how to build a plane with at least the same performance and safety
as many kit planes, but for much less money.


NO.... INCORRECT...........
Lets go back and READ.
The thread started out talking about inexpensive wood sources and how
sometimes
good stuff can be had at box stores like Home Depot. RS Hoover specifically
referenced his past writings on wood selection in post one of this thread.
It had NOTHING to do with performance, just the use of lo buck wood.
SOMEBODY morphed this into a design circular argument, but getting back on
point
isn't on some folks agenda.

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

Wayne Paul wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

As I pointed out, there is more to an airplane than an engine.
Indeed, there are airplanes without engines. We call them
sailplanes.


Yes but they need towing up by an airplane that does.


Bert,

Here is a picture of a homebuilt Schreder HP-16T being launched using
1,500
feet of rope hooked to a pickup truck.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...P/N16VP_6b.jpg

Local area pilots have used this technique at the Nampa, ID and Ontario,
OR
airports as well as from the Alvord Desert dry lake.


Almost all soaring in the US is done by aero tow.

Winch, vehicle and other methods are not very popular in the US but
more so in Europe.


Winch operation are becoming more popular in the US as fuel and insurance
cost continue to escalate.