Re: Wing load testing and max weight
You are correct QAC provided my kit to the original Nevada buyer; and I agree with staying to the published
MTOW limits..for sure until actual finished surfaces are tested. My "parts pile" was missing the tube spars..in
fact.. about half of the kit was missing. RAF was a plans supplier. A wise move on Burt's part.
Scott performing just the Spar test is understood (would be the minimum)...in todays materials and methods
we will have gained in margins to failure. Especially with ribbon/mandrel methods and the superior
autoclave controls now..the prepregs today also far superior than even 10 years ago.
Maybe Gulfstream will sell out the Nordam NTR equipment in Owasso Oklahoma and I'd have the cash to
buy it all for the weight in scrap prices!!?? I'd be tickled pink to be a parts provider to the experimental world.
I was at Nordam on the G600 Nacelle/Cowling for Pratt and Whitney engines back in 2017/2018 during First Article.
The nice thing about Contract Engineering is we get to see all kinds of innovative methods and equipment.
Meredith poured in over $200 million and then had to toss in the towel due mostly to P&W problems with the
geared fan concept. Same problems with the A320 Neo engines. I'd estimate that Nordam spent around $60 million
in composite manufacturing equipment. Gulfstream bought the loan out of bankruptcy and took the facility.
Some factors changed are also the surface finish of the glass used. Many changes in fiber blends since
the 80's and the current finishes offer much better bond in the resin than in the past. That is why I am
encouraged todays build materials and results would be better.
I am itching to test the Dragonfly surfaces as I am prejudiced due to my own project. D-fly "design" are
also possible to build 100% from the home shop environment.. the tooling to set up for Q200 tube spars
being a big hurdle for new builders. Not such a simple task for long time plastic airplane folks with limited
budgets either. Hard to justify tooling up for a one time build.
(Next Contract might be on VC-25 ...again)
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:00 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight
The carbon spar Q200 was introduced by QAC and not Bert Rutan. Scott Swing load tested the spars to failure using a simple method of putting the spar in an elevated aluminum device with loading at the tip until failure. If the spar didn't sag to a defined height after a certain load and time, it passed and was shipped. Several didn't meet spec and I believe Scott even used one in his Q after repair.
I know a little bit about this as my right spar failed at 200 hours under where passenger legs go, due to a stress riser from the aluminum fixture. I repaired mine back then and the plane now has hundreds of hours on it after failure. People should be very careful at gross weights over 1,300 lbs. Just my opinion.