Fabric testing
Whunicut
be reasonably sure the fabric is good?
I haven`t been able to find any info in my references but 56 p/s/i keeps
bouncing around in my memory. That seems to be too much and I don`t want to
punch a hole in the fabric unnecesarily.
Anybody know fer sure?
Warren
David Pincus
> Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> Depends on the fabric Warren. What are you testing? Most of the new
> stuff doesn't need testing. When it cracks you fix it. I know that
> Stitts lasts a good 10 to 15 years if done correctly even when left
> out in the Las Vegas sun. I've done it. The fabric still has the
> same PSI rating as the day you covered it but it looks like shit so
> you either repaint it or recover it.
Well Bill, let's see. You've been left out in the Las Vegas sun for
over 50 years now..... and you certainly DO look like shit! Painting
won't help, what with that scraggly beard of yours, so that leaves
recovering you. And no matter how much meds they give you, I don't
think you've got a snowball's chance in hell of recovering your
original appearance OR your sanity!
Think it's time you just jumped in a hole and pulled in the dirt! :)
Ecumenically Yours,
'Pastor' Dave
Bryan Jensen
How long will Stitts last if applied correctly and cared for properly...ie, kept in
a hanger and kept clean?
Bryan
Badwater Bill wrote:
> Depends on the fabric Warren. What are you testing? Most of the new
> stuff doesn't need testing. When it cracks you fix it. I know that
> Stitts lasts a good 10 to 15 years if done correctly even when left
> out in the Las Vegas sun. I've done it. The fabric still has the
> same PSI rating as the day you covered it but it looks like shit so
> you either repaint it or recover it.
>
> Bill
Bruce A. Frank
>
> Bill,
>
> How long will Stitts last if applied correctly and cared for properly...ie, kept in
> a hanger and kept clean?
>
> Bryan
>
UV light is the only thing in the airplane's enviornment that will
degrade polyesther fabric. If the coating is kept intact the fabric will
last untill you decide to remove it to inspect the fuselage. Twenty
years is easy if stored in a hangar.
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
BAFRANK(at)worldnet.att.net Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding
While trying to find the time to finish mine.
Badwater Bill
>Using a Maule spring tester, What is the minimum reading I can get by with and
>be reasonably sure the fabric is good?
>
>I haven`t been able to find any info in my references but 56 p/s/i keeps
>bouncing around in my memory. That seems to be too much and I don`t want to
>punch a hole in the fabric unnecesarily.
>
>Anybody know fer sure?
>
>Warren
Depends on the fabric Warren. What are you testing? Most of the new
Quietpilot
is valid.
If you are testing one of the polyester fibers I believe a Maule tester is
invalid. The Polyfiber factory states in their covering manual that the Maule
is only calibrated for testing on Grade A cotton.
Dan Horton
Give John at Poly Fiber a call, or drop him a note from their web site.
Damn nice guy, and he'll tell you anything you want to know.
Dan Horton
BOb U.
>
>Well Bill, let's see. You've been left out in the Las Vegas sun for
>over 50 years now..... and you certainly DO look like shit! Painting
>won't help, what with that scraggly beard of yours, so that leaves
>recovering you. And no matter how much meds they give you, I don't
>think you've got a snowball's chance in hell of recovering your
>original appearance OR your sanity!
>
>Think it's time you just jumped in a hole and pulled in the dirt! :)
>
>Ecumenically Yours,
>
>
>'Pastor' Dave
'Bout time you picked on somebody besides me.
BOb U.
Ron Natalie
David Pincus wrote:
>
>
>
> Well Bill, let's see. You've been left out in the Las Vegas sun for
> over 50 years now..... and you certainly DO look like shit!
Perhaps he needs to be punch tested.
BOb U.
>> Well Bill, let's see. You've been left out in the Las Vegas sun for
>> over 50 years now..... and you certainly DO look like shit!
>
>Perhaps he needs to be punch tested.
Almost my pleasure a few months back.
Vice-versa I might add. <g>
BOb - recovering muzzleloaderhaulic - U.
Badwater Bill
>
>UV light is the only thing in the airplane's enviornment that will
>degrade polyesther fabric. If the coating is kept intact the fabric will
>last untill you decide to remove it to inspect the fuselage. Twenty
>years is easy if stored in a hangar.
Yep! Or more. Stitts themselves took a piece and hung it on a fence
outside their factory for 10 years that was covered and filled
correctly. The tensile strength was identical to new cloth off the
roll. They did the same experiment with a piece that they left
untreated and it shreaded in about three months on it's own.
Bill
David Pincus
> >
> > Well Bill, let's see. You've been left out in the Las Vegas sun for
> > over 50 years now..... and you certainly DO look like shit!
> Perhaps he needs to be punch tested.
>
> Ron Natalie
OK, but how we gonna do that? The punch tester is designed to work on
Grade A Cotton and Bill's Grade A Crazy!
'Pastor' Dave
Whunicut
>Date: Thu, 18 November 1999 08:23 PM EST
>Message-id: <383b9528....@news.earthlink.net>
I should have included a tad more information in the above.
One of the aircraft was covered with grade "A" some 10 to 12 years ago and
always been hangared. The second was covered about the same time with ceconite
and the System 2 process. It also has been hangared ever since.
Digging through my "stuff", I found the following in, of all places, a 1965
Stits poly-fiber covering & painting manual. I knew being a "pack rat" would
pay off some day.
1. The minimun allowable strength for fabric on an aircraft with a wing loading
of 9 lbs per sq. ft. or less and a red line (VNe)of 160 mph or less, is 46 lbs
per inch width, or 70% of the orginal 65 lbs new fabric strength.
2. Minimum for an aircraft with wing loading over 9 lbs per sq. ft. and a VNe
over 160 mph is 56 lbs per inch width, or 70% of orginal fabric strength of 80
lbs new fabric.
The minimum allowable strength is applicable whether the aircraft is covered
with linen, cotton, polyester, or glass fabric.
Thanks to all for the replys.
Warren
JStricker
Use a hammer?? Just a thought.
--
John Stricker
"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain just to
be a vegetarian"
David Pincus <dpi...@XYZerols.com> wrote in message
news:38359F...@XYZerols.com...
Whunicut
wrote;
I have the Poly Fiber "How To Cover An Aircraft Using the Poly-fiber System" by
John Goldenbaum, Procedure Manual No.1, Rev. No.16, April. 1996 and no where in
it can I find it stated the Maule tester is only calibrated for cotton.
Would you please post the title and Rev. No of the Manual you are quoteing from
and page number?
Warren
Paul & Gen
<19991120130732.05801.00000433@ng-
<snip> I have the Poly Fiber "How To Cover An Aircraft Using the Poly-fiber
System" by
> John Goldenbaum, Procedure Manual No.1, Rev. No.16, April. 1996 and no
where in
> it can I find it stated the Maule tester is only calibrated for cotton.
> Would you please post the title and Rev. No of the Manual you are
quoteing from
> and page number?
Warren,
I have a copy of some info from Maule on the tester. It gives a
description on how to use it, that it is to be used in conjunction with the
chart in 43.13, and it says it "is to be used with organic coverings." It
says that manmade frabics such as Ceconite, Razorback, and Stits cannot be
tested by field tools. This is a copy of the info, not an original, and
there's no date on it. Maybe someone has an original version of this info.
It was given to me by an IA who said most peope don't realize that the
Maule tester wasn't meant for poyester fabrics. I guess the proper way to
test these fabrics is to take a test strip, make it the proper width, and
pull to failure.
Genevieve
Whunicut
>Date: Sun, 21 November 1999 01:43 AM EST
You wrote;
>Warren,
>I have a copy of some info from Maule on the tester. It gives a
>description on how to use it, that it is to be used in conjunction with the
>chart in 43.13, and it says it "is to be used with organic coverings." It
>says that manmade frabics such as Ceconite, Razorback, and Stits cannot be
>tested by field tools. This is a copy of the info, not an original, and
>there's no date on it. Maybe someone has an original version of this info.
>It was given to me by an IA who said most peope don't realize that the
>Maule tester wasn't meant for poyester fabrics. I guess the proper way to
>test these fabrics is to take a test strip, make it the proper width, and
>pull to failure.
>Genevieve>>
I know the pull test is the only one recognized by the FAA but the IA does not
often have this option in the field.
Using the Maule tester would give him a general "feel" for the condition of the
fabric.
Seems I remember way back in the distant past, when razorback was the coming
thing, that the Maule tester would now be obsolete. ;/))
Thanks, Genevieve
Warren
Quietpilot
Thanks muchly for a fine lesson in going back and reading my sources before I
quote them from memory :-)
I have the Polyfiber Manual, Revision 17 from January 1997. Appendix E
(starting on page 98) gives quite a dissertation on Maule and Seyboth testers,
as well as TSO C-14b/AMS3804C and TSO C-15d/AMS3806C.
I drew my (erroneous) conclusion from two paragraphs. The first states "The
standards an IA uses were written for cotton fabric. The FAA accepts polyester
or any other fabric for aircraft if it meets or exceeds these fifty year-old
cotton standards" The second paragraph, later in the appendix states,
"Interestingly, Maule and Seyboth testers are not recognized anywhere in
writing by the FAA as accepted fabric tests."
I would have been more correct if I had stated it was my interpretation that a
Maule tester was only designed for Cotton.
My apology to Polyfiber and all for the misquote.
highflyer
>
> Bill,
>
> How long will Stitts last if applied correctly and cared for properly...ie, kept in
> a hanger and kept clean?
>
I have seen Grade A Cotton applied correctly and cared for properly that
was still good after thirtyfive years. So far, Stitts has not been
around
long enough to say. I do know that I have never had to replace a Stitts
or a Ceconite cover because the fabric was bad, if it was properly
applied
in the first place. That is since Ceconite first came out, back in the
fifties.
I have replaced both Ceconite and Stitts when it was NOT properly
applied.
Generally because the finish failed, not the fabric. When the finish
starts to fail, it is generally easier and cheaper to replace the fabric
and all, than it is to attempt to strip and refinish the existing good
fabric.
The finish and the application OF the finish both cost about ten times
as much as the fabric. It isn't worth spending hours and hours trying
to salvage the fabric.
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Dick Steel
I have Stitts on my Piper Colt.The fuselage was covered in 1964 and the
wings were covered in 1974 in both cases the fabric is in good to
excellent condition.However I can't say the same for the frame tubes.I
now find it necessary to recover the A/C merely so that I can deal with
the corrosion on the frame.Too bad we didn't have such good primers in
the good old days.The fabric and dope must have been ahead of it's time.
Whunicut
>Date: Mon, 22 November 1999 12:00 AM EST
Thank you Sir, for the clarification. I need to get a later edtion of the
manual obviously.
Warren
highflyer
>
> highflyer wrote:
> I have Stitts on my Piper Colt.The fuselage was covered in 1964 and the
> wings were covered in 1974 in both cases the fabric is in good to
> excellent condition.However I can't say the same for the frame tubes.I
> now find it necessary to recover the A/C merely so that I can deal with
> the corrosion on the frame.Too bad we didn't have such good primers in
> the good old days.The fabric and dope must have been ahead of it's time.
Another valid reason to remove perfectly good fabric! I have
frequently
removed all or part of a fabric job to repair or replace underlying
structure. The most common cause of failure of the structure these
days,
seems to be just the result of age and the elements!
Either Polyfiber or Classic Dope and a good quality polyester fabric
that
is properly applied can easily outlast the underlying structure. I
would
suggest recovering every twenty or thirty years just to get a good look
at what is underneath there and fix it up! :-)
Dick Steel
Actually I,m thinking (spooky huh?) that this will probably be the last
recover for this A/C in my lifetime.With the new primers and a good
linseed oil treatment of the frame tubes and keeping the airplane
hangered,there should be no reason to recover in the next thirty or so
years.And if I'm still flying at the ripe old age of 80 by then I'll
have saved enough money to pay someone else to recover it if anyone
still remembers how.
'Roy' Downing
trend is to the Synthetics. Therefore you have the
longevity of those fabrics to save the requirement of a
recover job every fwe years. However if properly
maintanine the coverings will last for a really unknown
length of time.
Most of all field technicians, will state the you should
recover at least, the end of the manucafturer's recommended
fabric life time. If for no other reason to inspect the
underlying structure materials for corrosion, decay or
damage.
Years ago the only method for fabric testing was the pull
test sample. This consisted of cutting a one inch wide by
four inch long fabric sample, out of the airframe cover
from the fuselage top, wings top, empanage top, and the
same for the bottom surfaces. Then patch these same
cuttout and finish the patches the same as the original
coatings. It didn't take long for most owners to become
discouraged with this method.
Then came the punch test, a tool that had a spring loaded
curved expanding needle point set, that had a chart on the
handle. This chart had two Green areas, one each Yellow &
Red area. When used you pushed the tool downwards you
watched the indicator to see where it stopped. Later
version had a reset p[ointer that remained where the needle
pointer stopped. There were many times you would have read
fabric tested in first or second green. This was another
Inspection field test tool. But you still had to patch the
holes.
Then came the Maule Tester, the most simple and to my
knowledge the best fabric tester available today. In their
original advertising they stated the you no longer had to
punch holes to test the fabric. The scale on the side is
marked is in per square foot, giving a fairly good field
indication of the fabric condition. It has not been
replaced yet in over 35 years.
The Feds have revised the AC 43.13-1to Revision B. Have
not had time to completely digest it yet but get acopy and
follow there recommendations for your own aircraft and
information.
While you are in the process of recovering the bird now
then is the time to flood the tobing frame with either hot
linseed oil or Chromate Primer, This process will drive any
moisture out and give additional corrosion protection to
the tube frame.
Just the facts that may help all.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!