Texas Parasol
veed...@isp.com
I have recovered some of the files containing the corrections to the
FUSELAGE errors in the Texas Parasol drawings, originally posted in
Feb 2003 but since erased. Also found were portions of the tutorial
on extruded angle and its use for this type of structure.
If you've any interest in this data please provide a publicly
accessible space where the material may be posted. Some of the
drawings are in .jpg format, others are in DeltaCAD. So far, I've not
found any of the text files.
-R.S.Hoover
cavelamb himself
You have tried for years to make me out to be some kind of villain who
stole the design for someone else's airplane and called it my own.
That's not true. Not by a long shot!
But that's the story you keep shouting.
The construction manual I put together for the plane was my contribution
to our little group.
But that group didn't survive. When I found out that Chuck was selling
the plans anyway, I countered by selling them myself.
When he (allegedly) quit, so did I.
But here you go doing exactly what you've always accused me of doing!
Taking someone else's work, making changes, and calling it you own.
So what is your motive here, Robert?
Why are you doing all this?
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
William Shakespeare, "Othello", Act 3 scene 3
--
Richard
(remove the X to email)
Anthony W
You could post it on some fee web space at Google.
Tony
Copperhead144
Cavelamb, no one is in any way being disrespectful to rude to you with
regarding the TP and this post from Bob or his generous offer. If you
have a need to be angry with someone than you may choose me as I have
downloaded the plans you so generously posted as well as asked Bob for
a copy of the prints and drawing he had critiqued and applied
corrections to.
I even became a member of the Yahoo TP Group because this design
impressed me with its simplicity. So if searching for available
options and possible improvements to a design is wrong then why is it
an experimental aircraft? In addition, as we expected to learn
something about aircraft construction throughout the entire process,
then what is wrong with questioning a design or a possible mistake?
Joe
Stealth Pilot
<cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
>veed...@isp.com wrote:
>
>> To All:
>>
>> I have recovered some of the files containing the corrections to the
>> FUSELAGE errors in the Texas Parasol drawings, originally posted in
>> Feb 2003 but since erased. Also found were portions of the tutorial
>> on extruded angle and its use for this type of structure.
>>
>> If you've any interest in this data please provide a publicly
>> accessible space where the material may be posted. Some of the
>> drawings are in .jpg format, others are in DeltaCAD. So far, I've not
>> found any of the text files.
>>
>> -R.S.Hoover
>
>
>
>Taking someone else's work, making changes, and calling it you own.
>
he called it the Texas Parasol and noted the information as
corrections to errors in the original plans.
he hasnt made any attribution of source.
I cant understand your attitude. Dont you realise that there were
changes needed?
cavelamb himself
Needed?
Or wanted?
That's my problem with this whole affair.
These "improvements" have never been built (so you don't really know if
it will go together that way or not),
nor tested.
YOU BOTH have made really disparaging statements about the airplane not
being safe because you don't approve od some of the details.
Like the cabane bolts being loaded in tension.
I questioned it too - until I realized how lightly loaded they are.
And how many there are.
You don't like the wing strut fitting attachment.
Granted.
But it has never failed. Not even once.
If one had ever failed, we would have changed the thing years ago.
Before you ever even heard of it.
Bottom line on modifications is this:
If you want to change it, build it that way yourself.
THEN, if it works out ok, THEN publish the mods.
My attitude is simply, If it works, it works.
Copperhead144
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:52:03 -0500, cavelamb himself
>
> - Show quoted text -
Posting modifications and or corrections to a project that work are
what I thought experimental avaition is all about Richard. Detailed
research of a project of any type before taking it on is something I
have done for many year's. I've written more research paper's and
immplemented more proceeedual policies than I care to recall.
I have no way of knowing if anything is right or wrong with the TP, I
only know that I like it and am doing a detailed study of it to
determine if I want to build one. Reviewing plan's, potential
glitche's and recommendations is a very basic part of who I am. If you
feel this is being critical of you than I am sorry you feel that way,
but it is not the case.
Coming back to avaition on a super tight budget mean's weighing out my
options, doing a detailed cost study and getting things right the
first time. It's a challange to me and I am enjoying myself.
Best regards
Joe
cavelamb himself
I appreciate that Joe.
But yes the are, and yes they have been.
And yes, they will continue to be.
My ire is with three individuals only.
That goes back several years.
Alternative approaches are not mistakes if they work.
cavelamb himself
> Posting modifications and or corrections to a project that work are
> what I thought experimental avaition is all about Richard. Detailed
> research of a project of any type before taking it on is something I
> have done for many year's. I've written more research paper's and
> immplemented more proceeedual policies than I care to recall.
>
> I have no way of knowing if anything is right or wrong with the TP, I
> only know that I like it and am doing a detailed study of it to
> determine if I want to build one. Reviewing plan's, potential
> glitche's and recommendations is a very basic part of who I am. If you
> feel this is being critical of you than I am sorry you feel that way,
> but it is not the case.
>
> Coming back to avaition on a super tight budget mean's weighing out my
> options, doing a detailed cost study and getting things right the
> first time. It's a challange to me and I am enjoying myself.
>
> Best regards
>
> Joe
From what you have said here, I understand where you are coming from.
And you are welcome to critique as you see fit.
Just so you know what I amd talking about, please feel free to research
our old history...
http://www.airtalk.org/next-vt20548.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
I suggest you read the whole thread (about six pages).
If telling the truth is 'bashing' then I'm proud to plead guilty.
-R.S.Hoover
clareatsnyderdotontariodotcanada
Mistake? Cavlamb doesn't make mistakes. There was nothing wrong with
the TP plans as published.
Ya,Right!!!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
clareatsnyderdotontariodotcanada
<cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
ANd Richard's own personal plane was NOT built to his published specs.
By his own admission.
cavelamb himself
>>
>
> ANd Richard's own personal plane was NOT built to his published specs.
> By his own admission.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Which one?
cavelamb himself
> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> ANd Richard's own personal plane was NOT built to his published specs.
>> By his own admission.
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>
>
>
> Which one?
>
>
Or should I ask which oneS.
Because no two have been exactly alike.
Stealth Pilot
<cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
not correct. in my case I had an aeroengineer friend of mine look at
the details. his comments were not polite.
as a result of the deficiencies in your design he has been tempted to
publish a similar design backed up by full stress calculations a built
and statically tested to destruction fuselage.
unfortunately he is a very busy boy. he has done the FEA but hasnt
finished building the fuselage.
you should follow Chuck Slusarcik's lead and have a proper stress
analysis done. your spar needs mods.
Stealth Pilot
cavelamb himself
Good Bye
clareatsnyderdotontariodotcanada
<cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>>>
>>
>> ANd Richard's own personal plane was NOT built to his published specs.
>> By his own admission.
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>
>
>Which one?
I don't know - the last one? Or any? Bring us up to date.
Fred the Red Shirt
> ...
>
> >>Taking someone else's work, making changes, and calling it you own.
>
> > he called it the Texas Parasol and noted the information as
> > corrections to errors in the original plans.
> > he hasnt made any attribution of source.
>
> > I cant understand your attitude. Dont you realise that there were
> > changes needed?
>
>
> Bottom line on modifications is this:
>
> If you want to change it, build it that way yourself.
> THEN, if it works out ok, THEN publish the mods.
>
> My attitude is simply, If it works, it works.
>
Regardless, Mr Hoover advanced no claims to anyone
else's designs.
--
FF
cavelamb himself
>
>
> Regardless, Mr Hoover advanced no claims to anyone
> else's designs.
>
>
Give it up, Fred.
He is making changes to primary structure and claiming they
correct "faults" in the original design.
His suggestions have not been built or tested.
In fact, he has never built and flown ANY airplane.
If he's not putting a claim on it, dunno what is.
Actually, he damned well better put his name on it.
Because it's sure not MY work.
I do NOT recommend these modifications to prospective builders.
All because we violated his cast-in-stone rules of thumb.
Fred the Red Shirt
discussed here:
http://www.airtalk.org/next-vt20548.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Or has that been addressed over on the Yahoo TP group?
--
FF
cavelamb himself
Fred,
Do YOU know what he's talking about?
cavelamb himself
And, since you butted in here...
I don't see you listed as an active builder.
So what do you want?
Fred the Red Shirt
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > What was the resolution of the supposed dimensional discrepency
> > discussed here:
>
>
> > Or has that been addressed over on the Yahoo TP group?
>
>
> Fred,
>
> Do YOU know what he's talking about?
Not to the extent that Mr Hoover does, so if you are unclear
as to the details of points he has raised I suggest you ask
him to clarify.
I've just never seen anyone else including yourself, agree or
dispute the errors or suggest they have been resolved. That
seems peculiar.
IMHE in the nuclear industry I have never seen a drawing package
that size executed by one designer without numerous errors. That
is why we employed checkers.
FWIW, the 'designer' was typically not the person who actually
designed the systems. He/she was the person who executed the
formal top-level drawings based on one or more engineers' sketches
and descriptions.
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > What was the resolution of the supposed dimensional discrepency
> > discussed here:
>
>
> > Or has that been addressed over on the Yahoo TP group?
>
> And, since you butted in here...
>
> I don't see you listed as an active builder.
>
> So what do you want?
Discussion
--
FF
cavelamb himself
>>
>>And, since you butted in here...
>>
>>I don't see you listed as an active builder.
>>
>>So what do you want?
>
>
> Discussion
>
> --
>
> FF
Ok, talk to us.
This being rec.aviation.homebuilt, why don't we start on topic?
What are YOU building?
What have you BUILT?
Fred the Red Shirt
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> >>And, since you butted in here...
>
> >>I don't see you listed as an active builder.
>
> >>So what do you want?
>
> > Discussion
>
>
> Ok, talk to us.
>
> This being rec.aviation.homebuilt, why don't we start on topic?
Good.
Have you identified any errors in the plans that should be corrected?
An addendum of corrections would be a welcome adjunct to the CD
I bought from you a couple of years ago.
It was money well-spent regardless.
--
FF
cavelamb himself
Ok Fred. I guess I may owe you an apology for being a wee but
suspicious of your motives.
The one thing a man can never defend himself from is the mongrels
snapping at his heals.
But you kinda skipped over _MY_ questions:
What are YOU building?
What have you BUILT?
I'd still like to know.
Ok,
Did you happen to notice the date on the rant you referenced up-thread?
This referenced stuff from five years ago.
Intentional or not, you are perpetuating an old and very tired vendetta.
Regardless of all the noise you have heard here, (and will continue to
hear) there really aren't any serious corrections to be made.
MISSION:
The airplane is not intended to be a high-tech, close tolerance, aero-
space machine. It is a low and slow fair weather baby buggy.
It was intended to be as inexpensive and simple to build as possible
while retaining good flying qualities.
It is not to "go places" in. It's for fun flying in the local area.
That's our Dreaded Mission Statement(tm) and I think we fulfilled those
requirements pretty darned well.
PLANS:
In the first printing...
I had left out the drawing for landing gear setup, but that was added
years ago. Check your copy and see if it's there.
There was one incorrect dimension of a vertical member back in the aft
fuselage. That was corrected years ago also. It was really obvious if
you actually laid the fuselage truss out on a table to build it.
I'm measuring to about 1/16" - not .001" ą a tenth.
I've had people write and ask if I could provide the drawings in DXF
format so they could have the CNC guys cut out all the parts for them.
That is absolutely NOT the way this thing is built.
Hacksaw and file and trim to fit are the orders for the day.
(Although a chop saw and belt sander make the job go a lot faster!)
This is not intended to be a high tech, close tolerance, aero-space
structure. It's basically South Texas farm technology.
It can be built by a single person who is handy with tools in something
like 6 to 8 weeks. First time builders usually take a LOT longer.
Chuck and I had them down to TWO weeks each for the kits. That was
complete all controls hooked up, no engine, gauges, or cover.
Two Weeks...
Lastly, on this particular subject, if you think my plans suck, take
a look at the late Graham Lee's plans for the Neiuport 11 Bebe.
I paid $145 for my copy. It was well worth the money too.
His work motic\vated me to try my project.
(Neither one of us meet Nuclear Regulatory standards though!)
FIT:
There are a few pointers I've described on the Texas Parasol group at
Yahoo Group.
For instance, some people were thinking that the verticals in the aft
fuselage were suppose to be riveted to the laterals as well as the
longerons. But he verticals are at a non-square angle that far back and
the laterals don't fit flat on the faces. If you try to rivet the
verticals to the laterals, IT WON'T FIT.
That seems to upset some people. But that's the way we build them.
I thought I had mentioned that pretty well in the manual, but it kept
coming up, so we posted some pictures to show how its supposed to go
together there. (A picture really is worth a thousand words)
BAD MODS:
One of the detail issues that self appointed experts want to change is
the cabane mounting brackets. Per plans, there are 8 little brackets
cut from 1"x1" angle and bolted to the top of the top longeron.
The cabane struts fit between each pair and are pinned with an AN-3 bolt
running longitudinally (fore/aft).
But the rule of thumb in aircraft design says thou shalt not put bolts
in tension. We violated that one intentionally because it simplifies
the construction - and puts the pin through the bottom end of the cabane
in double shear (stronger!)
One of the proposed "corrections" was to bolt a strap to the outside of
the vertical member near the mount point and bend it to meet the slope
of the cabane. The cabane tube is then bolted to the strap.
Problem with that: First and foremost, the cabane tube would be bolted
in single shear. That would create a serious moment trying to bend the
mount bolt and rip out (twist?) the end of the cabane tube (1" x .058
6061-T6).
This so-called "correction" to our original "mistake" is down right
dangerous and I resent the hell out of it being offered at all.
GOOD MODS:
Wing Strut fittings. Yes, a wrap around fitting would be technically
superior to the through bolted bracket. But if one were to go that
route, by the time he had all four brackets made, he'd understand why
we did it a simpler way. There is currently a BAD MOD sketch on the
Yahoo Group. It's a wrapper, but so poorly designed as to be of
questionable safety. I'd like to have it removed, but I don't run the
group.
WING SPARS:
Replacing the 2" spar tubes with 2-1/4" diameter tubes would be pretty
straight forward simple (if one can find 2-1/8" tube for the internal
sleeves). One clown claimed that would spoil the stall characteristics.
For two seat versions this is going to be absolutely necessary - but NO
we don't offer any help for building a Two. You want to do that, you
are designing your own project. At your own risk.
A better solution here is to simply keep the weight down and use the
wing as drawn. A Rotax 503 (NOT a VW) is the preferred power plant.
FLYING:
This is the kind of flying these very light airplanes are for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjqfUM5xlw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSxM-BrXnd0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps0zQP2SeE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jrHDvyJ4c&feature=related
EVIDENCE:
Excluding the Canadian two seater that crashed recently (not heard
anything more about it yet) - NO airplane built as drawn has had ANY
structural failures.
So help me out here, Fred.
What's my motivation for making a bunch of untested changes????
Or caving in to vindictive demands?
Not going to happen, folks.
FUTURE PLANS:
I'd really like to travel now. Visit some foreign countries with
interesting cultural hermitages and bitch slap a couple of the Queen's
subjects.
--
Richard
(remove the X to email)
*
Fred the Red Shirt
Note also that Google handles the copy to yahoogroups differently
from your newsreader.
On Aug 12, 8:23 am, cavelamb himself <cavel...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
> Ok Fred. I guess I may owe you an apology for being a wee but
> suspicious of your motives.
>
> The one thing a man can never defend himself from is the mongrels
> snapping at his heals.
>
> But you kinda skipped over _MY_ questions:
Of course. I was staying on-topic.
>
> What are YOU building?
> What have you BUILT?
>
> I'd still like to know.
>
Cool. I had always had a casual interest in aviation. Back
a few years ago a cow-orker who is a pilot and a member
of a local flying club mentioned to me that they were working
on a replica of the Wright Flyer. The project was actually
building two wings for display purposes only at Kitty Hawk.
Being a woodworker, I found the construction techniques
to be quite interesting and, from my engineering background
had a minor epiphany, a wing is a beam.
Since then I have been studying homebuilts, primarily in regard
to construction technology. It is fascinating that so many diverse
technologies can be used to produce airframes, given the
rather extreme demands on the design. As to overall design,
aircraft may be second only to spacecraft design in terms
of multidisciplinary demands on the designer.
Aircraft design is also fascinating from the aspect of
optimization. There is no one design that does all things
well, which leads to a wonderful variety of approaches.
The TP fuselage is of interest as it appears to be one of the
easiest/quickest/cheapest to build, and the basic technique
can be adapted to other designs.
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt
>
> Did you happen to notice the date on the rant you referenced up-thread?
> This referenced stuff from five years ago.
Yes.
Did you notice that I participated in it, in a very minor way?
>
> Intentional or not, you are perpetuating an old and very tired vendetta.
>
Actually, you posted the link to the aformentioned rant first. I just
copied it from your article. Further, I would like to help resolve
the
issue, not perpetuate it.
> Regardless of all the noise you have heard here, (and will continue to
> hear) there really aren't any serious corrections to be made.
>
But wouldn't making thos less serious corrections be helpful
to future builders? Would it not save them the trouble of re-
making a couple of parts after finding that they don't fit?
That is all that Mr Hoover is talking about here, he's not
making any accusations of inadequacy in the design,
he wants to resolve what the design is, for the common
meaning of 'is'.
>...
> There was one incorrect dimension of a vertical member back in the aft
> fuselage. That was corrected years ago also. It was really obvious if
> you actually laid the fuselage truss out on a table to build it.
That is the sort of thing being discussed.
> This is not intended to be a high tech, close tolerance, aero-space
> structure. It's basically South Texas farm technology.
> ...
>
> So help me out here, Fred.
>
> What's my motivation for making a bunch of untested changes????
If I understand the issue correctly the motivation to
changing the plans is to correct errors in the drawings,
not in the design. IIUC the design in the published
plans is untested and untestable because a discrepency
in the dimensions makes it unbuildable to the plans.
These sound to be mostly minor changes in dimensions,
possibly due to typos
As you will recall, back in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.homebuilt/msg/6167f41c3b731263?hl=en&dmode=source
You wrote, regarding how your planes were built:
" Because no two have been exactly alike"
Which kind of implies that the _exact_ design has never been built by
you. I never build anything exactly to plans nor any two exactly a
like either. That is not really a criticism. But it certainly can
explain
why on the plans the dimensions for two different sub-assemblies
don't match. IF it is true that they do not.
But back to the issue of dimensional discrepencies:
That is a situation that is frequently encountered in the
field or during assembly. Whenever possible the
drawings are revised to reflect the as-built condition.
As you know, the major nagging issue is the claim that
the dimensions for the carry through do not match the
dimensions for the fuselage so that if both are fabricated
according to the plans they won't fit together.
As you also know, this is entirely independent of the
claims from up North regarding the wing.
Perhaps a photo of that area would help?
Or would it be that hard to check the drawings for that
area against at least one (1) of the planes you built?
--
FF
cavelamb himself
Jay Maynard
> good bye fred
You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
asking?
You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)
cavelamb himself
> On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself <cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>good bye fred
>
>
> You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
> looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
> asking?
>
> You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
> plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
> they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.
What problems did they report, Jay?
Specifically?
clareatsnyderdotontariodotcanada
<jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.com> wrote:
>On 2008-08-12, cavelamb himself <cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
>> good bye fred
>
>You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
>looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
>asking?
>
>You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
>plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
>they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.
Jackson had nothing on Caveman
Stonewall's his first name.
clareatsnyderdotontariodotcanada
For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the
wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too,
from what I remember.
cavelamb himself
So be it...
cavelamb himself
I got up in the middle of the night and went through the drawings again.
And I do not see anything that would prevent the wings from "fitting".
What SPECIFICALLY is the problem you think you remember?
What a pack of yowling mutts!
cavelamb himself
Landing gear won't fit properly?
Any clue you can offer to support this?
The good people here think you have told me all this before.
So, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Morgans
are doing makes you look like a very small person..
I'm not saying who is right or wrong, or implying anything. Believe me, my
intention is sincere.
JMHO.
--
Jim in NC
cavelamb himself
You are right, Jim.
I probably should just ignore it, but it's hard.
It's a no win situation, for sure.
The plans were placed in public domain years back.
There is no longer any official support, although I try to help those
who are actually building as much as possible.
Oh well.
I'll try to do better...
Bob Kuykendall
I've been staying out of this so far, but I feel the same way on all
points.
An interesting contrast is to observe how similar blueprint
discrepancies have been resolved in the Hummelbird community. In its
odd evolution from Teenie to Windwagon to Hummelbird (Hummel) to
Hummelbird (Bill Spring) to Hummelbird (enlarged, as most builders
build them), several errors and omissions have been discovered and
corrections circulated. But it seems that everybody involved
understands that the plans are a good-faith, best-effort attempt to
capture the salient points of the design, and nobody is getting bent
out of shape by it.
Thanks, Bob K.
Fred the Red Shirt
> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:24:18 -0500, cavelamb himself
> > <cavel...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>Jay Maynard wrote:
>
>
> >>>>good bye fred
>
> >>>You know, Fred's asking reasonable questions...and all you're doing is
> >>>looking like you're stonewalling. What's so hard about answering what he's
> >>>asking?
>
> >>>You've gone a long way to slam the credibility of those who say the TP
> >>>plans as published have problems, without actually addressing the problems
> >>>they report. Why? You're only harming your own credibility by doing so.
>
> >>What problems did they report, Jay?
>
> >>Specifically?
>
> > For one thing, the landing gear will not fit properly, and IIRC the
> > wings won't either.Problems with the wing struts and jury struts too,
> > from what I remember.
> > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
>
> I got up in the middle of the night and went through the drawings again.
>
> And I do not see anything that would prevent the wings from "fitting".
>
Well I'm not Clare, nor do I see anything that would prevent the wing
from fitting, but I haven't looked for problems there either.
I do see a problem with the forward carry-thru as dimensioned on
drawing DLG03 Landing Gear and Lift Strut Carry-Throughs
There are two (2) different holes called out as 2 1/8" from the
end of the carry-through. One of those is for attaching the
forward gear leg to the follow-though, the other is for attaching
the follow-through to the fuselage. However, since the fuselage
is only 22" wide and the follow-through is 26" long that puts
the center of that hole only 1/8" from the outside edge of the
fuselage.
I think THAT dimension is wrong. It appears to be the CAD
equivalent of a typo. I suggest it should be 2 3/8". Please
check that.
If you go to the Yahoo Texas Parasol Group and look at the first
photo of Jim's TP in the photos section you will see that the bolt
attaching the carry-though is indeed inboard of the bolt attaching
the gear.
Perhaps I am overly optimistic but I don't think the situation
is as dire as Mr Hoover indicated It looks to me that all that
is needed to to properly locate the hole for attaching the
carry-throughs to the fuselage and then maybe bend the
angles of one follow-through slightly away from 90 degrees
to compensate for the curvature of the lower longeron.
Then it looks like everything will fit together, I don't know
about edge clearances though.
As for the lower gear cluster weldment, I agree that the
drawings, like every homebuilt aircraft drawings i have
seen, are inadequate as compared to REAL weldment
drawings (e.g. no weld symbols are shown). I suppose
the builder would have to figure out for himself to hold
the tubing in its proper orientation while welding, (Or
is that addressed in the manual?)
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
> ...
> I do see a problem with the forward carry-thru as dimensioned on
> drawing DLG03 Landing Gear and Lift Strut Carry-Throughs
>
> There are two (2) different holes called out as 2 1/8" from the
> end of the carry-through. One of those is for attaching the
> forward gear leg to the follow-though, the other is for attaching
> the follow-through to the fuselage. However, since the fuselage
> is only 22" wide and the follow-through is 26" long that puts
> the center of that hole only 1/8" from the outside edge of the
> fuselage.
>
> I think THAT dimension is wrong. It appears to be the CAD
> equivalent of a typo. I suggest it should be 2 3/8". Please
> check that.
Oh, the manual (p 49) suggests drilling through the longerons
first and then drilling the follow-through to match. That works,
right?
> ...
>
> ... I suppose
> the builder would have to figure out for himself to hold
> the tubing in its proper orientation while welding, (Or
> is that addressed in the manual?)
Indeed, that is addressed in the manual, though it looks
to sort of gloss over the question of how you check to see
that the axles are going to be aligned properly.
--
FF
cavelamb himself
>
Thanks Fred.
That detail is called out on page 48 of the manual.
But I'll note it on this drawing.
Maybe it will make my loyal opposition happy...
There is a photo essay on "how to" re: clusters
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasparasol/files/Landing%20Gear/
cavelamb himself
>
> to sort of gloss over the question of how you check to see
> that the axles are going to be aligned properly.
>
> --
>
> FF
Good Grief Please Don't Open That Can Of Worms!
More bandwith has been expended over the Toe-In verses Toe-Out
argument than any other idea on the internet!
Me? I make them as straight as I can.
Cut a piece of water pipe (left over from the clusters) to fit
between the axle clusters and run the bolts in from the outside.
Drill it, bolt it, and call it close enough!
Fred the Red Shirt
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Fred.
> That detail is called out on page 48 of the manual.
> But I'll note it on this drawing.
> Maybe it will make my loyal opposition happy...
Now, to all parties involved in the prior pissing contest,
"Wasn;t that easy?"
Or, as Andy Bray says here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YmEiGgwnBI
--
FF
cavelamb himself
> On Aug 14, 5:35 pm, cavelamb himself <cavel...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>Thanks Fred.
>>That detail is called out on page 48 of the manual.
>>But I'll note it on this drawing.
>>Maybe it will make my loyal opposition happy...
>
>
> Now, to all parties involved in the prior pissing contest,
> "Wasn;t that easy?"
>
> Or, as Andy Bray says here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YmEiGgwnBI
>
> --
>
> FF
Awright, smartie.
Now go build something!
Fred the Red Shirt
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 5:35 pm, cavelamb himself <cavel...@Xearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>...
>
> >>Thanks Fred.
> >>That detail is called out on page 48 of the manual.
> >>But I'll note it on this drawing.
> >>Maybe it will make my loyal opposition happy...
>
> > Now, to all parties involved in the prior pissing contest,
> > "Wasn;t that easy?"
>
> > Or, as Andy Bray says here:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YmEiGgwnBI
>
> > --
>
> > FF
>
> Awright, smartie.
>
> Now go build something!
>
But I'm not done yet, and so long as I have you in a good mood
I figure I might as well press my luck.
Now, I don't see a vertical dimension locating the holes in the carry-
throughs
for the bolts about which the landing gear legs pivot. But there
isn't a lot
to play with, right?
Here is where it gets interesting. The lower longerons are curved.
That
means if those holes are drilled the same for the front and back
longeron
the axes about which those legs pivot will not be colinear, nor even
parallel. I do not agree that it makes the plane unbuildable. After
all,
there are several photos that show the gear built just like it says
in
the manual.
But that does mean that if the fuselage were infinitely stiff, the
legs
would not pivot and the gear would not flex. I presume the gear does
flex, else landings would be a bit hard on the butt as well as the
plane.
So what DOES flex and how, the lower longeron, the carry-thoughs or
both? Also how, and how much and is that a good idea? (Being light
weight construction, even if those bolts were coaxial there would be
flexure at the attachment point.) Now, if you forgive me for again
raising
a much cussed and discussed issue, that also implies that as the gear
flexes the toe-in, toe-out with change, whether for better or worse is
yet
another interesting question.
So long as the subject is the Texas Parasol, are these matters worth
discussing?
--
FF
cavelamb himself
First - you would be surprised how rigid the airframe is.
Sure, all trusses flex. But if you expect this one to flex like a
pop riveted aluminum tube structure you will for sure and certain be
amazed. It doesn't flex at all like you are describing. It flexes
a lot more like a welded 4130 tube structure.
I guess I don't follow why there would have to be flexure in the
structure for the gear to move freely. The gear legs piviot on the
bolts. And, BTW, how far is the gear going to move anyway?
I don't know about any changes in toe-in/toe-out changes with gear
movement. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I've never had a reason
to worry about it. My airplanes all tracked straight.
KISS.
It's real important.
Fred the Red Shirt
>
> ...
>
> First - you would be surprised how rigid the airframe is.
>
>
> I guess I don't follow why there would have to be flexure in the
> structure for the gear to move freely. The gear legs piviot on the
> bolts. And, BTW, how far is the gear going to move anyway?
In reverse order, it must move, else the bungies would serve
no purpose.
Now, imagine two bars arranged in a Vee. Pin the two ends
to a flat surface and pin the two bars together at the apex, but
do not pin the apex it to the surface. The Vee is rigid. Neither
bar is free to pivot about the end pinned to the table.
Now, move the two ends pinned to the table so that they
overlap and pin both to the table t that point. Now they
pivot because the pins are coaxial.
The TP landing gear is a 3-D version of exactly that
situation.
The effect is clear. The magnitude is what makes it
important or not.
>
> I don't know about any changes in toe-in/toe-out changes with gear
> movement. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I've never had a reason
> to worry about it. My airplanes all tracked straight.
>
And I suppose that means the flexure in the airframe is real
small. It would be interesting if someone building a TP were
to look carefully at it while the fuselage is inverted.
> KISS
Yes, that is what is very attractive about the TP. It has one
of the shortest build times of the scratch-builts, less than
many kitplanes, and relies on simple technique.
--
FF
Bob Kuykendall
> ...Here is where it gets interesting. The lower longerons
> are curved. That means if those holes are drilled the
> same for the front and back longeron the axes about
> which those legs pivot will not be colinear, nor even
> parallel...
Non-Euclidean geometry aside, that seems to me to be a rather sub-
optimal design approach. Nothing that a couple of rod ends or rubber
bushings couldn't fix. But it would probably be lighter and more
effective to just make the gear leg holes colinear, and then build,
adjust, or drill the fuselage to maintain that colinearity.
cavelamb himself
Which is the way it is done...
Fred the Red Shirt
You can't do that without changing the dimensions or the shape of
the fuselage, which means you would not be building the fuselage
per the plans.
For instance, you could make the lower longeron straight between
the two carry-throughs. But the plans call for it to be curved. You
could put a wedge-shaped shim between either the forward or the
read carry-through and the lower longeron, but none is called for
in the plans.
You could use angle with a wider leg on one side so as to be able
to skew the bolt, but the size called out in the plans is not wide
enough.
If built according to the plans, the gear legs do not pivot freely.
Just what bends, and how much when they do flex I do not
know. It would be interesting if someone who has one under
construction were to try to measure that while the fuselage is
conveniently inverted.
>
> Which is the way it is done...
>
I haven't seen ANY done that way.
In every photo I have seen of the TP undercarriage not one
shows the pivot bolts co-linear. In every case the bolt axes
were parallel to the lower longeron, and therefor skewed
with respect to each other.
--
FF