Exactly what the Arc is Charlie.

Karl

--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., oneskydog@... wrote:
>
> I think there a lot of advantages to it. Flaps in center ailerons outer
> panels.
>
> Charlie Johnson
> Ogden, Utah
>
>
> In a message dated 3/22/2012 4:12:11 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> kschneider@... writes:
>
> Does anybody else see a center section of the wing? This is more or
> less the concept to build the wing on I was thinking. Simple it is?
> Thoughts?
>
> groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...ots/photos/album/212
> 271473/pic/387973990/view?picmode=large&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&dir=as
> c
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "KarlS"
> <kschneider@> wrote:
> >
> > I suppose it would require some rigging but it would depend on how far
> you took it apart. The young lady and gent did it on a slope.
> >
> > Pip pins and fork connectors wouldn't take that long. The tail boom
> could be pip pinned on as well if it was in a fork configuration and slid up
> onto the wing center section.
> >
> > You could do partial tear downs like the photo of the Mitchell A10 on
> the trailer I posted.
> >
> > Design folding wings and you're talking even faster.
> >
> > Here's a couple good shots of the dihedral and possibly some washout.
> >
> >
> groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...=ordinal&start=1&dir
> =asc
> >
> > and
> >
> >
> groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...r=ordinal&start=1&di
> r=asc
> >
> > Karl
> >
> > --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Kenny Andersen
> <kennyrayandersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, so if you wanted to put a little dihedral you could do it at
> the joints outboard joints rather than at the center. In the end, I think
> the 3-piece wing would likely be a bit lighter, but then wouldn't you want
> the boom to disassemble? THat makes storing the wing a little more
> diffidult if you don't. I know the Arc separates the boom form the center
> section, which means you have to rig the controls every time you hook it up, no?
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 3/20/12, KarlS <kschneider@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: KarlS <kschneider@>
> > > Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] CDII 3-part wing
> > > To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> > > Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 9:59 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil,
> > >
> > > My apologies but my proposal was for the new CDII ship and not to
> redesign the current CD wing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Basically it would be scrapping the current CD wing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I changed the subject line.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's a top view of the Arc. (by the way your spelling was right )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...er=ordinal&start=1&d
> ir=asc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the new wing the center of the wing is a Hershey bar shaped from
> the end of the flaps corner to corner. Constant chord, constant airfoil
> thickness, linear as it gets.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This yields easier to build. There would be no deflection in the
> rods. They would bend by the way if needed. I have 100 ft of them in the
> basement in a 3.5 foot diameter roll.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil sorry for throwing in the wrench.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way.. any idea of the airfoil on the Arc? Looks like the top
> of the fx63-137 but flat bottomed. Or something similar to what they did on
> the Axel. Its definitely flat bottomed from about 25% back.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Karl
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "Philip Lardner"
> <philiplardner@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Starting a new thread...
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Hmm... I hadn't really considered a 3-part wing until just now! I
> remember
> > >
> > > > seeing that video of the prototype Arc a long time ago but I never
> > >
> > > > considered the benefits or build implications - thanks for prodding
> us in
> > >
> > > > this direction Karl!
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Benefits (as I see them):
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Shorter wing components = easier to transport / store / handle /
> > >
> > > > assemble.
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > It also removes a potential weak spot that is the aluminium
> > >
> > > > root-join fittings and moves them outboard where the loads are much
> less,
> > >
> > > > and maintains an unbroken carbon rod spar at the highest load area
> across
> > >
> > > > the root. I like that a lot!
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Problems & build implications (as I see them):
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Trickier main spar central section to fabricate - remember, it's
> > >
> > > > bent in the middle! Will the carbon rods bend enough?
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Two sets of (lower load) wing connectors, not easily accessed
> > >
> > > > without breaking the skin covering with some sort of access panel =
> > >
> > > > disrupted airflow (maybe.)
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Two join lines that need to be perfectly aligned/faired to
> maintain
> > >
> > > > smooth air flow (on the flaperons also.)
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Two extra ribs - fore and aft of the main spar and flaperon
> (extra
> > >
> > > > weight, but no big deal.)
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Extra hardware required to connect the three wing parts and two
> > >
> > > > parts of each flaperon.
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Spoiler and deployment arm will need to be redesigned (could
> this be
> > >
> > > > completely replaced by a controllable drogue??
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Pilot would definitely need to be under the wing, which would
> > >
> > > > definitely mean a new pilot pod and control rod design!
> > >
> > > > *
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Not sure my workshop will be long enough to accommodate
> > >
> > > > building/aligning both the centre section and one wing tip section
> bolted
> > >
> > > > together - it's barely 25 feet long!
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Hmm... drat, now I'm going to have to think again!!
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I do like the idea of shorter wings when disassembled though - much
> easier
> > >
> > > > one-man handling.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The big issue to overcome with a 3-part wing is how best to join
> them and
> > >
> > > > the flaperon halves, and what to do at the flaperon root. I suppose
> we could
> > >
> > > > use a variation on the original root connection fitting, with the
> metal
> > >
> > > > fittings slotting into cut-outs in the root of the wing end rib...
> if you
> > >
> > > > get me! You would also need a very solid method of preventing the
> ends/edges
> > >
> > > > of the ribs at the joins from moving or flexing, which might cause
> the
> > >
> > > > flaperon parts to bind - and similarly on the trailing edge of the
> flaperon
> > >
> > > > at the joins.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > So, where do we split the wing parts? Thinking about handling and
> trailer
> > >
> > > > storage, let's pick some arbitrary positions... if we split the wing
> into 1
> > >
> > > > x 22 foot long centre section and 2 x 11 foot wing ends, the centre
> 22 foot
> > >
> > > > section will be a handfull to manage on your own but can be packed
> up in the
> > >
> > > > trailer relatively easily (just two wing thicknesses.)
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > If we go for easier one-man handling, we could split the wing into
> roughly
> > >
> > > > equal thirds = 14.6 feet per section = much more manageable, but
> trickier
> > >
> > > > trailer packing Let's ignore the trailer problem for now!
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > In my design (run your own figures through my spreadsheet) the 1g
> load on
> > >
> > > > the spar cap at rib #5 is 606.19lbs, down from 1265.92lbs at the
> wing root!
> > >
> > > > At 8g those loads increase to 4849.56lbs, down from 10127.33lbs at
> the wing
> > >
> > > > root. So, the loads are roughly half those experienced at the
> original root
> > >
> > > > fittings, and the new fittings can be made smaller and lighter.
> However,
> > >
> > > > even reducing the strength and weight of the carbon load transfer
> bars and
> > >
> > > > metal fittings appropriately we will almost certainly be adding a
> little
> > >
> > > > extra weight. I'll work out theexact wing connection fitting design
> later,
> > >
> > > > but it would be neat if we could use strong pip pins rather than AN
> bolts to
> > >
> > > > do the job (I'm not holding my breath on that!)
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Rib #5 is 85.5+8.25 inches = 93.75" = 7.8 feet out from the wing
> root, so
> > >
> > > > the centre section of the wing would end up at 15.625 feet long and
> the
> > >
> > > > outer wings would each be 14.19 feet long.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Arguments and ideas please!
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > 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
> KarlS
> > >
> > > > Sent: 20 March 2012 09:21
> > >
> > > > To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> > >
> > > > Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: CDII -fuselage
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I know you gentlemen are thinking of the 2 part wing with a center
> box but I
> > >
> > > > would once again like to mention a 3 part perhaps folding wing.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Once again a 3 part wing eliminates the heavy most likely to fail
> highest
> > >
> > > > stress part of the airframe as per Dieter Reich. I bet Ruppert
> wishes they
> > >
> > > > stayed with the 3 part wing like their prototype.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Here's a photo for thought.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...ots/photos/album/212
> > >
> > > > 271473/pic/495742754/view?picmode=large
> > >
> > > >
> <groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...lots/photos/album/21
> > >
> > > >
> 2271473/pic/495742754/view?picmode=large&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&dir=a
> > >
> > > > sc> &mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&dir=asc
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Here's the spin characterists for the Arc and also the highest
> stress area
> > >
> > > > failing.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Now that we are in the early stages of design concept I am putting
> the 3
> > >
> > > > piece wing up again for discussion.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Rupperts original 3 piece wing.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > vimeo.com/29536897
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Karl