Page 12 of 14

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:46 pm
by flyalaz
Hi Daffy,

Again, thanks for the effort to get those pictures. I'll be bringing the wings up to the cottage soon, where I have some renovations to do and should have most of the spring (I hope) to be able to work on it and the plane at the same time. There are still a few things I need to tackle on the fuse before I get to the wings, so it's going to be a little while yet.

I guess I'll use rainy days to work on it. Sunny days will be for flying! Wonder if I'll get any work done on the cottage? Hee hee!

Karl

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:49 am
by JPXman
i finally downloaded the pics of when we put daffy's capstrips on and there was a good shot of this conduit. here it is.

Tyler

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:51 am
by Don
Hi Daffy,
I'm still in the rebuild process. The conduit is a great idea. Is it just PVC?
Thanks, Don

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:51 pm
by daffy1029
Hi Don,
Yes, it is just pvc. I would think just about any plastic tubing would work. I would use the lightest material you can find. The clamps are just aluminium strips riveted to the spar box. Daffy :)

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 pm
by flyalaz
Nice pic Mr T,

I am liking this little mod more and more. Is there a picture available of the complete installation with everything hooked up? I am curious to see how you route it all Daffy. You do have rotax engines right? Do you get any engine glop or bug mush collecting in the tubes, or do you cap it somehow?

I promise, no more questions....maybe.

Cheers,

Karl

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:13 pm
by Guest
Hi flyalaz,
I originally had Rotax engines and that's what I routed the tube for. Since then I went to JPX and no problem. The carbs are on the top with JPX and turned out to be a perfect fit. I will now be going with Solo's and again the carbs are on top. I don't foresee any problems hooking up.
I leave the tube open. If it rains, the water would flow right through not harming anything. If any foreign object were to fall into the tube, the worst thing would be to pull your cables out and clean the tube out. A rag and something like piano wire to push the rag through is all that's needed. I have never had to do this so far.
If you had to close up the tube, one could use foam and stuff it in at the ends.
I really don't see a need for this though.
As far as questions, I am happy to help out anytime. It works both ways.
Myles

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:20 pm
by daffy1029
Hi flyalaz,
By the way I don't have any pictures at all of the plane together with this modification. Maybe this spring....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:38 pm
by flyalaz
Thanks Myles,

Always better to have an abundance of info than a lack thereof. I like the idea of having the cables hidden, and will likely do something the same on mine when I get there. Pictures really are worth a thousand words, and whenever you get a chance to post a pic showing the installation, I am sure a lot of people will check it out and start thinking!

Blue skies,

Karl

PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:52 pm
by rayjb60
I saw the pictures of those wing tanks and realized what was bothering me about doing that.

Those are nice tanks by the way!

Having 5+ gallons of fuel in the wing puts extra load on the already small looking wing attach points on the wing and fuselage, as your taxing or landing.

5 gal fuel weighs about 25 lbs? and then lets say a hard landing imposes a momentary 4G load on impact, so thats 100lbs extra shock load on the wing attach fittings transfered down to the wheels etc.

Personally I dont like stacking ANY odds against me when not necessary.

Better beef up those wing attach tangs and the fuselage/wing interface.

A hard landing with fuel in the tanks could potentially crack the wing attach fittings.....we dont want any inflight failures of that critical piece do we?

I'd rather keep the fuel load on the fuselage where the load on hard landings does not have to go through the wing structure at all....bent landing gear is usually non fatal......cant say the same for the wing tangs though.

Just my 2 cents of safety tips
Fly safe!

Ray

PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:06 pm
by JPXman
its usually not as cut and dried as that when analyzing structures. If you carry more gas, you carry more weight, and that weight has to get "lifted" somehow. So the wings are carrying more weight if you carry an extra 5 gallons of gas (say 10 total).

Sure, if the gas is above those attach bolts, it may look like those bolts are holding more static weight, but the whole weight of the aircraft reacts through those 6 bolts that hold the 2 wings to the aircraft, regardless of where the weight is.

The only thing you have to worry about breaking or cracking is where the gas tanks attaches to the airframe. Beef that area up and you should be OK. If you were to carry an extra 25 pounds of gas in that area and experience momentary load factor of 4g, then the attachment of the gas tank to the structure sees the increased load. If the tank is installed properly, the load will get transferred to the airframe just like the load difference between a 150 pound pilot and a big 260 pound bastard like me gets transferred to the airframe, even though i sit right underneath those important bolts. Those 6 bolts are the same used on the 2-seater and that thing can carry 750 pounds into the air...

Tyler
"Food for thought"