|
Welcome,
Guest
|
TOPIC:
Re: carbon vs plywood 12 Dec 2013 00:50 #723
|
I can't believe I'm actually taking time to write this. The carbon is stronger -- get over it.
--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., russell wilson > > hi kenny > are you talking about your 0.4 mm carbon that you say is slightly heavier ? > what i am talking about is the claim that a carbon d scin part can > be lighter and stronger. > ill take a guess that the b2 does not use a resin that has a temprature to > gel of 60 degrease celcius. > > russ. > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Kenny <kennyrayandersen@...> wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > as civil as I could manage... > > > > Either you: > > > > 1) Didn't read my previous post > > 2) Didn't understand my previous post > > 3) Are a troll > > > > As I said before and will repeat just this one time more. NO, we can't > > agree on that – it's simply silly and it is CERTAINLY not dangerous – where > > the L did you get that? Did you do come calculations that you'd like to > > share with the rest of us, or are you just shooting from the hip with a > > mixture of words you read on the internet someplace. The weight difference > > between two plies of carbon and plywood is trivial for the size of the > > aircraft and the carbon CLEARLY comes with some advantages – strength being > > the chief among them (also non-warping, better aging and better moister > > resistance)! For the shear case, in fact, as I said, the shear bucking for > > the 2-ply composite is HIGHER than the plywood! Besides, even if you lose a > > bit of stability from the reduction of thickness it can EASILY be remedied > > with the addition of a few-once false ribs. As far as strength goes the > > carbon is WAY stronger -- to suggest otherwise would only flaunt your > > ignorance of materials. > > > > As far as anything being unknown, if it's anything, it's the plywood!! Go > > find me some mechanical properties for it!! They are sketchy at best which > > means practically you'd have to take a big knock-down in strength due to the > > uncertainty of it. Not to mention the inconsistency of wood properties. > > Carbon, on the other hand is very well defined and easy to analyze. Plus > > with the carbon you can orient the fiber any direction you want (if you > > choose to do so). > > > > In any case you CERTAINLY DO NOT loose stiffness as I pointed out earlier – > > the carbon is WAY stiffer than the plywood, so if anything you would improve > > the flutter characteristics. What part of that don't you understand? Would > > it help if I type slower? > > > > The B-2 bomber is black, made entirely of carbon, and can sit out in the > > sun without problem. Tons of composite airplanes out there with MANY of > > those made with a room temperature cure resin systems! – I haven't read of a > > single one `melting' -- utter nonsense! However, I believe that the CD wing > > is covered with fabric anyway (similar to Steve's magic dragon), no? – make > > it any color you like -- don't paint -- use the fabric as the epoxy UV > > stabilizer. > > > > I hope you will get to the point you understand that there is more to > > aircraft design than only weight. It's a big issue, but there are all kinds > > of reasons to do something IF you understand the underlying principles > > (which I'm sorry to say it's obvious you don't). > > > > The tailboom can be looked at, but with a heavier pilot lightening the tail > > may not buy you much since you'd possibly have to add that back as ballast. > > Perhaps making it a bit longer, but keeping the weight down mioght be a > > combo worth exploring… > > > > The debate is over for me because it's obvious you just aren't going to get > > any of this due to your unfounded preconceived bias so post what you want, > > but without analytical proof, which you are incapable of providing, it just > > static. I've laid out what are likely pluses and minuses for the carbon and > > the builder can make their own choice. You know in the end you can test it > > anyway, so nobody but a fool would build one and fly it without testing! So, > > I clearly don't see the danger that you do. > > > > --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., russell wilson > > <ruzty27@> wrote: > > > > > > im not offended or worried about a bit of passion. > > > > > > do we all agree that it is a waste of a builders time and mony and moor > > > importantly dangerous to sugest that...... the d scins can be made > > lighter > > > and stronger using carbon in sheet form,to replace the ply? > > > in this particular aplication becaus of the very thin part we are dealing > > > with..when we half the thikness(we need to go less than half to be > > > lighter) of the part we lose much moor in terms of strenth/stiffness than > > > the superior carbon can give back. > > > it is also worth noting that the unknowen spring qualities of the > > > carbon part at this thinness > > > could caus a catastrofic resonance/flutter situation. > > > also worth noting is that the collor black in the sun can reach 90 > > degrees > > > celcius,most resins reach a melting point/ temprature to gel..TG of 60 > > > degrees celcius.if your part is black.you will need to find a higher TG > > > resin or paint white and incure a further weight penalty. > > > > > > i do hope this debate on this particular material/part is over and > > between > > > us all,we have dispelled the myth that thinner sheet carbon is better > > than > > > standard ply. > > > > > > should we look at the tail boom?is it better perhaps to scin it in ply? > > > > > > russ...amator..ordinary person..not a profesional..can be wrong. > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, slrrls2000 <slrrls2000@> wrote: > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > Got awfully quite after that snyde remark the one group member made to > > the > > > > other. > > > > Let's try to keep it cival and on the up and up. We have the best > > chance of > > > > fresh ideas and motivated builders. That is what Jim wantet...afterall. |
|
Please Log in to join the conversation. |
