Re: carbon

Robert Cringely

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I get your point about changing materials moving around the stress concentrations, but what you describe is much more of a problem with heterogeneous use of materials -- adding carbon parts here and there. An ALL-CARBON Q1 should carry its loads exactly like an ALL-GLASS Q1. Yes, there is the prospect of loads rising some on certain metal fittings because of the greater stiffness and possibly the higher speeds, but this is a minor percentage of the total weight of hte airframe and can be handled fairly easily by moving up a gauge or two in metal thickness and using more robust fasteners.


On Dec 18, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Mike Perry wrote:

Earlier Charlie wrote " Carbon should only be used where its properties
are better than other materials it is not the magic material. . . .
Best to follow the plans unless you are a qualified design engineer."
and now "Just bring money and time." Absolutely!

You are talking about a total redesign of the Q type aircraft. Please
don't assume these substitutions are simple. It is actually easy to
make one part too strong so the load is concentrated in another part of
the structure. There will be an article in the next Q-Talk that will
explain exactly how I did that (in a test wing, not a flying airplane).

Earlier Jim Staud wrote: "If they did build an all carbon Q1, Q2, Q200,
or TRI-Q, were they able to stress test it, and what were the results?"
I would add, don't fly in one that had these kind of mods and wasn't
stress tested.

This entire discussion belongs on Q-Performance.

Mike Perry

oneskydog@... wrote:

Just bring money and time.


In a message dated 12/18/2009 1:14:58 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
afarr@... <> writes:

Would it be feasible to pressurize?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Join to automatically receive all group messages.