russ, if you have word 2007 I'd be happy to send you the file
--- On Tue, 3/27/12, russell wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:
From: russell wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: Re: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: 3-piece wing calcs, thoughts
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 7:46 PM
hi unfortunately i cant view the tralor pick or the calculations/bending sheer of the 3 pice wing...i use google and i only got a yahoo account for joining here...i dont remember my user or pass word.
im not shure a 3 pice wing will be lighter than the same size 2 pice...i too was thinking of the weight requred to comunicate with the elerons.im also not shure a 3 pice wing will be easier to build..(i can see conveniance for some one with little build space and handeling the smaller pices in the field/hill..) but two joints and aleron controlls against one joint?even dicounting the alerons?
stronger was the other reason..mmm...yer i hear you kenny when you say you can build ither configeration strong enough.i think the idea of going to a smaller airfoil in the centre section is counter productive here.....i thaught you would have stayed with your biggest airfoil/ at the root of the standard wing...that one gives you the deepest i beam and your also looking for wing area to maintain your wing loading(not that i think you need it.)
i know you were just asking for opinions on the idea...at this point i dont see a 3 pice wing meeting the expectations you have.
i wonder if jim and erve had these conversations:)?..hats off to them..its a well designed ship:)
russ.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Philip Lardner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:
Thanks for uploading that explanation Kenny - it's clarified the problem in my mind (a little!)
One other thing to consider in a 3-part wing - if we split the full-span flaperon into separate flaps and ailerons then we'll also need an extra set of rods/pullies/actuators to operate the outboard ailerons, which probably means significant extra weight and complication. My gut feeling is to keep the flaperons as flaperons and not bother splitting the functions (if it ain't broke...) and just make sure that the flaperon mid-span join is sufficiently stiff enough to prevent twisting.
Phil.
From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Kenny Andersen
Sent: 27 March 2012 16:24
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: 3-piece wing calcs, thoughts
Karl,
I've uploaded a file showing the shear and moment diagram (general) for the wing. I'm not convinced the 2-splice wing is stronger (actually you would size either configuration to be strong enough), and I'm not even sure it's lighter in the end. I suspect that what is driving the Arc in that direction (though I freely admit I don't know for sure) is that they can leave the flaps rigged on the center section and they can also have separate flap and aileron AND you can get it all in a trailer that is 5 foot shorter. I don't think it is lighter and the outboard joint is a little trickier than it looks (not that it can't be done that way of course!). Take a look at my comments. It is still VERY much open for discussion! As an engineer, I can tell you without ANY hesitation that everything is a compromise and there isn't a perfect way of doing anything; however, the results will not be the same!
Kenny
