|
Ed
You are probably way ahead of me on this, but if
your 9-10 foot pipes are strong enough to support the door well, it would allow
you to relieve the hydraulic pressure as long as the door is up.
Dean Van Winkle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:25
PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing:
DoorOpenLside.jpg
Ed,
A question out of curiosity, Do you
have the hydraulics set up so that the door is power up, and power down, or is
it just gravity down? Reason I ask is in the event of a hose or pipe break,
that the door does not come crashing down. That it would stay in place, or at
least a restrictor so as to let the door down very gently. Because, if
your luck is anything like mine, the airplane would likely be passing under it
at the time. Not to mention the safety issue. Just curious. Personally,
I think the hydraulic single panel door is the only way to go, provided it is
done safely. Just my opinion.
Ed Anderson
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
Hi
David,
You are right on all counts, fortunately- it is not a timber
beam. Its
actually a engineered box beam very similar to wooden spars
built for
aircraft. But, without quite as much attention to weight
savings {:>). I
used Liquid Nails Subfloor adhesive after discussing
my project/needs with
their technical staff (learned a bit about wood
glues/adhesives) and deck
screws to build the beam. It weighs around 180
lbs.
Its basically a warren truss enclosed in plywood. It just took
less work
(more lumber, but less work), to have the building material
store cut me 16"
wide strips of plywood (4 to a sheet) and then use
those as the webs rather
than cutting out the gussets necessary for each
brace/flange interface to
build an wooden open warren or Pratt truss. It
would be interesting to see
how light the beam could be made, but I've
been working on building hangars
and doors since around March and wanted
to see the light at the end of the
tunnel {:>). Besides, I can't fly
until the door is finished as my aircraft
is trapped
inside!!!
Appreciate your comments
Ed
----- Original
Message -----
From: "david mccandless"
To:
"Rotary motors in aircraft"
Sent:
Sunday, August 13, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing:
DoorOpenLside.jpg
> Hi Ed,
> I do not need a door nor a
hangar, but as the discussion progresses I am
> becoming more
interested.
> I would have thought that a Warren type truss,
fabricated from, say, 3
> inch channel for chords and 2 inch angle
for webs, would have been a
> better and lighter solution than a
timber beam.
> Is that big center beam a laminated truss or a plywood
fabricated beam?
> I am an old structural engineer from 40 years ago,
I have a lifelong love
> of bridges, and have never loss my interest
in beams etc, so this is not
> meant to be criticism but rather to
satisfy my own curiosity.
> BR, Dave McC
>
> On 14, Aug ,
at 5:51 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>> I am convinced (but have
not done a comparative analysis) that this
>> arrangement does
produce less outward force on the top of the door
>> frame/hanger
than a bi-fold. The hydraulic ram ends up at a 47 deg angle
>> to
the ground and so supports approx 70.7 % of the door weight. If the
>> door weighed 600 lbs finished then I estimate the door frame
would
>> support approx 200 lbs and the ram 400 lbs. Since the
"balance" point of
>> the door is along the axis of the beam this
should mean very small
>> outward forces once the beam is
raised.
>
>
> --
> Homepage:
http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and
UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
|