X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1321357 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:06:55 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-111-186.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.111.186]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k7E368qX007029 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101c6bf4f$097482b0$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: DoorOpenLside.jpg Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:09:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C6BF2D.8224EF50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C6BF2D.8224EF50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That it would Dean. I'm not experienced with hydraulics so I have no = idea if its better to keep the pressure in the cylinder and hose or = support the door and release the pressure. Any hydraulic experts know = the effects? Its almost certain that if I release the hydraulic = pressure and let the doors rest on post/poles, then to lower the door, I = will have to bring the pressure back up. I would think that this = cycling of the pump might cause more wear than just leaving the pressure = up. Anyone have any experience/knowledge in this regard? Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dean Van Winkle=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 9:49 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: DoorOpenLside.jpg 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 -----=20 From: Ben Schneider=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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 wrote:=20 Hi David, You are right on all counts, fortunately- it is not a timber beam. = Its=20 actually a engineered box beam very similar to wooden spars built = for=20 aircraft. But, without quite as much attention to weight savings = {:>). I=20 used Liquid Nails Subfloor adhesive after discussing my = project/needs with=20 their technical staff (learned a bit about wood glues/adhesives) = and deck=20 screws to build the beam. It weighs around 180 lbs. Its basically a warren truss enclosed in plywood. It just took = less work=20 (more lumber, but less work), to have the building material store = cut me 16"=20 wide strips of plywood (4 to a sheet) and then use those as the = webs rather=20 than cutting out the gussets necessary for each brace/flange = interface to=20 build an wooden open warren or Pratt truss. It would be = interesting to see=20 how light the beam could be made, but I've been working on = building hangars=20 and doors since around March and wanted to see the light at the = end of the=20 tunnel {:>). Besides, I can't fly until the door is finished as my = aircraft=20 is trapped inside!!! Appreciate your comments Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "david mccandless"=20 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft"=20 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=20 > becoming more interested. > I would have thought that a Warren type truss, fabricated from, = say, 3=20 > inch channel for chords and 2 inch angle for webs, would have = been a=20 > 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=20 > of bridges, and have never loss my interest in beams etc, so = this is not=20 > 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=20 >> arrangement does produce less outward force on the top of the = door=20 >> frame/hanger than a bi-fold. The hydraulic ram ends up at a 47 = deg angle=20 >> to the ground and so supports approx 70.7 % of the door weight. = If the=20 >> door weighed 600 lbs finished then I estimate the door frame = would=20 >> support approx 200 lbs and the ram 400 lbs. Since the "balance" = point of=20 >> the door is along the axis of the beam this should mean very = small=20 >> outward forces once the beam is raised. > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >=20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C6BF2D.8224EF50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That it would Dean.  I'm not experienced = with=20 hydraulics so I have no idea if its better to keep the pressure in the = cylinder=20 and hose or support the door and release the pressure.  Any = hydraulic=20 experts know the effects?   Its almost certain that =  if I=20 release the hydraulic pressure and let the doors rest on post/poles, = then to=20 lower the door, I will have to bring the pressure back up.  I would = think=20 that this cycling of the pump might cause more wear than just = leaving the=20 pressure up.
 
 
Anyone have any experience/knowledge in this=20 regard?
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Dean Van=20 Winkle
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 = 9:49=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Emailing:=20 DoorOpenLside.jpg

Ed
 
You are probably way ahead of me on = this, but if=20 your 9-10 foot pipes are strong enough to support the door well, it = would=20 allow you to relieve the hydraulic pressure as long as the door is=20 up.
 
Dean Van Winkle
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ben=20 Schneider
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 = 7:25=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Emailing:=20 DoorOpenLside.jpg

Ed,

   A question out of curiosity, = Do you=20 have the hydraulics set up so that the door is power up, and power = down, or=20 is it just gravity down? Reason I ask is in the event of a hose or = pipe=20 break, that the door does not come crashing down. That it would stay = in=20 place, or at least a restrictor so as to let the door down very=20 gently.  Because, if your luck is anything like mine, the = airplane=20 would likely be passing under it at the time. Not to mention the = safety=20 issue.  Just curious. Personally, I think the hydraulic single = panel=20 door is the only way to go, provided it is done safely. Just my=20 opinion.

Ed Anderson = <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>=20 wrote:=20
Hi=20 David,

You are right on all counts, fortunately- it is not = a timber=20 beam. Its
actually a engineered box beam very similar to = wooden spars=20 built for
aircraft. But, without quite as much attention to = weight=20 savings {:>). I
used Liquid Nails Subfloor adhesive after=20 discussing my project/needs with
their technical staff = (learned a bit=20 about wood glues/adhesives) and deck
screws to build the beam. = It=20 weighs around 180 lbs.

Its basically a warren truss = enclosed in=20 plywood. It just took less work
(more lumber, but less work), = to have=20 the building material store cut me 16"
wide strips of plywood = (4 to a=20 sheet) and then use those as the webs rather
than cutting out = the=20 gussets necessary for each brace/flange interface to
build an = wooden=20 open warren or Pratt truss. It would be interesting to see
how = light=20 the beam could be made, but I've been working on building hangars =
and=20 doors since around March and wanted to see the light at the end of = the=20
tunnel {:>). Besides, I can't fly until the door is = finished as my=20 aircraft
is trapped inside!!!

Appreciate your=20 comments

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: = "david=20 mccandless"
To: "Rotary motors in = aircraft"=20
Sent: Sunday, August 13, = 2006 6:23=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: = DoorOpenLside.jpg


>=20 Hi Ed,
> I do not need a door nor a hangar, but as the = discussion=20 progresses I am
> becoming more interested.
> I would = have=20 thought that a Warren type truss, fabricated from, say, 3
> = inch=20 channel for chords and 2 inch angle for webs, would have been a =
>=20 better and lighter solution than a timber beam.
> Is that = big center=20 beam a laminated truss or a plywood fabricated beam?
> I am = an old=20 structural engineer from 40 years ago, I have a lifelong love =
> of=20 bridges, and have never loss my interest in beams etc, so this is = not=20
> meant to be criticism but rather to satisfy my own=20 curiosity.
> BR, Dave McC
>
> On 14, Aug , at = 5:51 AM,=20 Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>> I am convinced (but have = not done a=20 comparative analysis) that this
>> arrangement does = produce less=20 outward force on the top of the door
>> frame/hanger = than a=20 bi-fold. The hydraulic ram ends up at a 47 deg angle
>> = to the=20 ground and so supports approx 70.7 % of the door weight. If the=20
>> door weighed 600 lbs finished then I estimate the = door frame=20 would
>> support approx 200 lbs and the ram 400 lbs. = Since the=20 "balance" point of
>> the door is along the axis of the = beam=20 this should mean very small
>> outward forces once the = beam is=20 raised.
>
>
> --
> Homepage:=20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>=20



--
Homepage: = http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:=20 = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C6BF2D.8224EF50--