Date   

Re: BROKEN SPAR

HawkiDoug <hawkidoug@...>
 

Damian - Let us know the results when you get them! Thanks!

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- Original Message -----
From: <damiantwinsport@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: BROKEN SPAR


John, in regard to your post ...
1: Ultrasound inspection has come a long way there are now multiple angle array transducers that do not use a liquid medium. There are also newer software and faster PCs that are able to read and translate sounding data into a 2D model.
2: Yes I did mean load transfer.
3: The control surface C section facing aft on the canard lends geometry to the part.
4: I agree there are angles that would be hard or impossible to scan ,but I am most interested in the Z direction view @ 12 oclock


Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 Q200


-----Original Message-----
From: JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:32:09 -0000
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: BROKEN SPAR


Damian,


--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden
flaw
neccessarily.

You are right that no single load test on a built up airframe will
absolutely guarentee structural integrity but it would check that
load case and the flaw orientations which are susceptable to this
test. The trick here is to try and develop checks that would cover
the other options.


neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the
other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in
the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y
direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,

For the same reasons this cannot be an absolute guarentee if the
flaw is buried within the canard structure i.e. 7 - 11 oclock on a
RH canard looking outboard. The center of the spar is a void and
ultrasound needs a solid or liquid medium to conduct.


Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between
these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on
landing,

It is also similarly "unsupported" (if you ignore the contribution
of the canard skins) outboard..... The center of mass does not move,
it is fixed save for fuel burn. Did you mean load transfer?


As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to
reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be
unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Smart move! Without some really smart jigging and equipment
internal ultrasound after construction is unlikely to be practical.

It would help the cause greatly if you could perform a careful
visual inspection inside and out at the BL12 location for the spars
and report your findings. If you see any damage at all, it would be
very help to photograph it as a reference for future boroscopic
examinations. It would also be be invaluable if you find a flaw and
are able to obtain an ultrasonic signature for your flaw.

Keep us posted.


John









Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links










Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: BROKEN SPAR

damiantwinsport@...
 

John, in regard to your post ...
1: Ultrasound inspection has come a long way there are now multiple angle array transducers that do not use a liquid medium. There are also newer software and faster PCs that are able to read and translate sounding data into a 2D model.
2: Yes I did mean load transfer.
3: The control surface C section facing aft on the canard lends geometry to the part.
4: I agree there are angles that would be hard or impossible to scan ,but I am most interested in the Z direction view @ 12 oclock


Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:32:09 -0000
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: BROKEN SPAR


Damian,


--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden
flaw
neccessarily.

You are right that no single load test on a built up airframe will
absolutely guarentee structural integrity but it would check that
load case and the flaw orientations which are susceptable to this
test. The trick here is to try and develop checks that would cover
the other options.


neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the
other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in
the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y
direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,

For the same reasons this cannot be an absolute guarentee if the
flaw is buried within the canard structure i.e. 7 - 11 oclock on a
RH canard looking outboard. The center of the spar is a void and
ultrasound needs a solid or liquid medium to conduct.


Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between
these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on
landing,

It is also similarly "unsupported" (if you ignore the contribution
of the canard skins) outboard..... The center of mass does not move,
it is fixed save for fuel burn. Did you mean load transfer?


As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to
reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be
unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Smart move! Without some really smart jigging and equipment
internal ultrasound after construction is unlikely to be practical.

It would help the cause greatly if you could perform a careful
visual inspection inside and out at the BL12 location for the spars
and report your findings. If you see any damage at all, it would be
very help to photograph it as a reference for future boroscopic
examinations. It would also be be invaluable if you find a flaw and
are able to obtain an ultrasonic signature for your flaw.

Keep us posted.


John









Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links


LS1 Spar

Marinus B. &#92;(Ben&#92;) Bosma <ben@...>
 

I've been watching this with more than a little interest.

Does anyone have a layup schedule for the tubular spar and some rough
dimensions of it?

I have some FEA software that can at least give some numbers on the basic
design.

What's important:

Number of layers of glass.
Type of glass.
Weave or weight.
Resin composition (Epoxy?)

This does not take into account all the other variables such as workmanship,
damage, UV, etc.

I'm interested in knowing what the design intent was and if there is a
fundamental problem.

Thanks,

-Ben

Q1, N124BB, GU


Re: Old Timers

Jim Patillo
 

John,

Knock it off with the "optimism" crap and other negative and pompous
remarks you're making to me and others! I'm really getting tired of
it. As I told you in my e-mail stop the sophmoric stuff. Use those
comments somewhere else.

I too believe there may be a problem but with a lot more emperical
data on this airframe/spar than you posess. We pilots flying LS1s'are
living in the environment, you are viewing it from a distance. You
make the coment "at least half of your spar "is sound so far", you
don't know that so don't make that statement.

The point is I didn't "overload" my airframe before I had a failure.
The airframe never saw loads above those published during those
initial hours and I was very sensitive to the loads on my plane, CG
and otherwise during the flight test phases. It's never had a hard
landing or even been sideways on the runway. Since that time several
of us have flown regulary with higher gross weights. Bob Farnam, Bob
Malechek, Phil Lankford with a "K", myself and others. Why haven't
more of those airframes failed?

The QAC/Designer/Engineer "Tom Jewett" died in the crash of Big Bird
on or just before the time of the Q200 so who knows how they came up
with a design load. Gene Sheehan certainly wasn't capable. Knowing
that group at the time, they may have arbitrarily "picked a safe
number" until they had more time to quantify.

I suspect the reason you haven't heard from any "old timers" is they
have been paying attention and checking their spars and don't even
want to enter this kind of exchange with someone who "isn't involved"
directly. Isn't it interesting you are now raising and making a big
deal out of these concerns two years after I made them public. Where
were you then when Bob Farnam and I came up with the fix for the
spar? Where were you when I did the initial flight testing? Where
were you when I wrote the article to alert others to the possible
problem? What has prompted you to come out on this subject again??

That said, You've raised concerns that are valid and people are
listening. For that I thank you. Now if you're so capable come up
with a plan of assessment that is simple and can be done reasonably
easy and I don't mean static loading it til you really do overstress
the frame!

Jim

"JohntenHave" <Jtenhave@m...> wrote:
Well Jim,

As OJ once said, "I will have stab at this one"

You get marks for optimism! That said, yours is one of the failed
airframes which has been subsequently repaired. At least half of
your
canard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you should
ask,
then answer, Jim.

"What would responsible advice be to someone who had an identical
failure to yours but had yet to detect it?"

In the absence of positive proof to the contrary, there is a real
risk
that there are more of these spars out there. I agree that this is
an
issue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.

In no particular order I suggest that the silence (and I agree, it
is
deafening)could be due to:

a. the fact I am completely wrong in interpreting two primary
structural failures in a fleet of (how many?) flying airframes as
flight critical safety issues which would ground civilian fleets.
(anyone want to put bet with their life?)

b. Different risk perceptions between engineers and pilots.

c. Lack of understanding of failure consequences.

d. Failure to admit that the Q-200 airframe is not as safe as
previously assumed.

e. The problem is not correctly understood.

f. The SMS*

g. don't give a damn

You make a good point about high hour airframes but let me qualify
it.

500 hrs + may mean that they have inadvertently verified their
spars
as sound OR they may not have overloaded their airframes as you
have
done and the residual structure may still be holding. It may also
be
that their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral axis
and
therefore the defect is progressing at a slower rate. It may also
be
that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from yours,
but
that will be cold comfort as a new Q 200 speed record is set in the
vertical.....

What does this mean? It might mean this is just too hard so let's
not
look and maybe it will go away. It might mean that the Q-200 is a
high
risk airframe to fly but owners do not want the face the hard facts.

This can be fixed guys, but before it is fixed the problem needs to
be
acknowledged, defined, the cause verified and repair schemes
developed.

In the meantime it is terribly unwise to overload this airframe,
the
faith you place in it is not justified.

Regards

John

* Stunned Mullet Syndrome



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over
500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!


Re: Accident involving 870BM

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

http://www.thebakersfieldchannel.com/news/4797671/detail.html

Delano is about 60 miles from here (Hanford CA) and just outside Bakersfield.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Doug
Humble
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:17 AM
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] Accident involving 870BM

I was made aware of an accident involving 870BM which is Phil Lankford's Q-200
built by Bob Malechek. I have no information other than the report at this
page:

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/M_
0802_N.txt

Anyone who can get more info please do. It doesn't look as though there are
any fatalities, but it does say there were serious injuries. Everyone say a
little prayer.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974





Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: Old Timers

Larry Severson
 

At 06:10 PM 5/25/2005 +1200, you wrote:
Have there been any similar failures with the GU canard?
Mine broke, but out near the tip. When I went off the runway, one of the
gear went into a depression. Definitely not the same.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: BROKEN SPAR

Sam Kittle
 

I bought a set of spars from Larry Howell with the knowledge that one
had damage (cracks approximately 22" from the large end running toward
the small end). The spar was also without any wrap when received. I
repaired this spar by performing a 45 degree BID wrap from tip to tip, a
second BID wrap from the large end for 2/3's of the length and a
third wrap from the large end for 1/3 the length. I then hot-wired a
30" tapered plug from blue foam, covered the plug with Bid and pushed it
into the large end of the spar.

The big surprise was the yellow wrap on the supposedly good spar peeled
off as though peeling a banana.

Regards,
Sam

Mike Perry wrote:

At 08:17 AM 5/24/2005 +0000, John ten Have wrote:


[snip for clarity] I {Mike Perry} wrote:



Question: If the failure is due to damage induced by the test

apparatus,


would this be damage to the Carbon Fiber or damage to the spar

core? If


the carbon matrix, could we simply apply a carbon-fiber spar cap?

Damage to carbon resin matrix, there is no spar core. You could
design a carbon spar cap. . . .

From what I was told by the only local Q-200 builder I thought the spar
had some sort of center foam structure. That may or may not be
true. However, Jim Patillo indicated there were two kinds of spars in his
article in issue 87:
". . . there were two kinds of carbon spars made for the Q200. One built
by Larry Howell from Dallas, Texas and another spiral wound spar built in
California somewhere. My information according to Scott Swing and Larry
Howell is that the spar failures were with spiral wound units and not the
mandrel wrapped autoclave versions that Larry made. The spiral wrap is
black and the autoclave version is yellow or orange colored, I
think. Larry put on an outer color for sanding purposes."

This raises several interesting questions, the key one being: Can we
identify a subset of spars that require more careful inspection and
replacement? To Jim and James, can you tell us anything identifying about
the spars, esp. external color?

Thanks to all -- Mike Perry









Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links











Re: Old Timers

Allan <afarr@...>
 

Have there been any similar failures with the GU canard?

Allan F.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
JohntenHave
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:52 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Old Timers



Well Jim,

As OJ once said, "I will have stab at this one"

You get marks for optimism! That said, yours is one of the failed
airframes which has been subsequently repaired. At least half of your
canard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you should ask,
then answer, Jim.

"What would responsible advice be to someone who had an identical
failure to yours but had yet to detect it?"

In the absence of positive proof to the contrary, there is a real
risk
that there are more of these spars out there. I agree that this is an
issue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.

In no particular order I suggest that the silence (and I agree, it is
deafening)could be due to:

a. the fact I am completely wrong in interpreting two primary
structural failures in a fleet of (how many?) flying airframes as
flight critical safety issues which would ground civilian fleets.
(anyone want to put bet with their life?)

b. Different risk perceptions between engineers and pilots.

c. Lack of understanding of failure consequences.

d. Failure to admit that the Q-200 airframe is not as safe as
previously assumed.

e. The problem is not correctly understood.

f. The SMS*

g. don't give a damn

You make a good point about high hour airframes but let me qualify
it.

500 hrs + may mean that they have inadvertently verified their spars
as sound OR they may not have overloaded their airframes as you have
done and the residual structure may still be holding. It may also be
that their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral axis
and
therefore the defect is progressing at a slower rate. It may also be
that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from yours,
but
that will be cold comfort as a new Q 200 speed record is set in the
vertical.....

What does this mean? It might mean this is just too hard so let's
not
look and maybe it will go away. It might mean that the Q-200 is a
high
risk airframe to fly but owners do not want the face the hard facts.

This can be fixed guys, but before it is fixed the problem needs to
be
acknowledged, defined, the cause verified and repair schemes
developed.

In the meantime it is terribly unwise to overload this airframe, the
faith you place in it is not justified.

Regards

John

* Stunned Mullet Syndrome



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over
500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!



Quickie Builders Association WEB site
HYPERLINK "http://www.quickiebuilders.org"http://www.quickiebuilders.org






_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe"Q-LIST-unsubscrib
e@...

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005


Re: Old Timers

JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

Well Jim,

As OJ once said, "I will have stab at this one"

You get marks for optimism! That said, yours is one of the failed
airframes which has been subsequently repaired. At least half of your
canard spar is sound - so far! Here is the question you should ask,
then answer, Jim.

"What would responsible advice be to someone who had an identical
failure to yours but had yet to detect it?"

In the absence of positive proof to the contrary, there is a real
risk
that there are more of these spars out there. I agree that this is an
issue of uncertainty but that is the nature of the beast.

In no particular order I suggest that the silence (and I agree, it is
deafening)could be due to:

a. the fact I am completely wrong in interpreting two primary
structural failures in a fleet of (how many?) flying airframes as
flight critical safety issues which would ground civilian fleets.
(anyone want to put bet with their life?)

b. Different risk perceptions between engineers and pilots.

c. Lack of understanding of failure consequences.

d. Failure to admit that the Q-200 airframe is not as safe as
previously assumed.

e. The problem is not correctly understood.

f. The SMS*

g. don't give a damn

You make a good point about high hour airframes but let me qualify
it.

500 hrs + may mean that they have inadvertently verified their spars
as sound OR they may not have overloaded their airframes as you have
done and the residual structure may still be holding. It may also be
that their flaws are located in an area closer to the neutral axis
and
therefore the defect is progressing at a slower rate. It may also be
that the failure mechanism in James's airframe differs from yours,
but
that will be cold comfort as a new Q 200 speed record is set in the
vertical.....

What does this mean? It might mean this is just too hard so let's
not
look and maybe it will go away. It might mean that the Q-200 is a
high
risk airframe to fly but owners do not want the face the hard facts.

This can be fixed guys, but before it is fixed the problem needs to
be
acknowledged, defined, the cause verified and repair schemes
developed.

In the meantime it is terribly unwise to overload this airframe, the
faith you place in it is not justified.

Regards

John

* Stunned Mullet Syndrome



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over
500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!


Re: BROKEN SPAR

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

At 08:17 AM 5/24/2005 +0000, John ten Have wrote:

[snip for clarity] I {Mike Perry} wrote:

Question: If the failure is due to damage induced by the test
apparatus,
would this be damage to the Carbon Fiber or damage to the spar
core? If
the carbon matrix, could we simply apply a carbon-fiber spar cap?

Damage to carbon resin matrix, there is no spar core. You could
design a carbon spar cap. . . .
From what I was told by the only local Q-200 builder I thought the spar
had some sort of center foam structure. That may or may not be
true. However, Jim Patillo indicated there were two kinds of spars in his
article in issue 87:
". . . there were two kinds of carbon spars made for the Q200. One built
by Larry Howell from Dallas, Texas and another spiral wound spar built in
California somewhere. My information according to Scott Swing and Larry
Howell is that the spar failures were with spiral wound units and not the
mandrel wrapped autoclave versions that Larry made. The spiral wrap is
black and the autoclave version is yellow or orange colored, I
think. Larry put on an outer color for sanding purposes."

This raises several interesting questions, the key one being: Can we
identify a subset of spars that require more careful inspection and
replacement? To Jim and James, can you tell us anything identifying about
the spars, esp. external color?

Thanks to all -- Mike Perry


Old Timers

Jim Patillo
 

Its kind of interesting that none "not one of the guys" with over 500
hours on the LS1 spar clock have spoken up. What does this mean?

Jim P. Heading for
Watsonville Airshow this Weekend!


Re: LS1 Spar

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Ben I have some details if you contact me offline.
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: Marinus B. (Ben) Bosma
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:00 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] LS1 Spar


I've been watching this with more than a little interest.

Does anyone have a layup schedule for the tubular spar and some rough
dimensions of it?

I have some FEA software that can at least give some numbers on the basic
design.

What's important:

Number of layers of glass.
Type of glass.
Weave or weight.
Resin composition (Epoxy?)

This does not take into account all the other variables such as workmanship,
damage, UV, etc.

I'm interested in knowing what the design intent was and if there is a
fundamental problem.

Thanks,

-Ben

Q1, N124BB, GU






Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Re: BROKEN SPAR

JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

Damian,


--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden
flaw
neccessarily.

You are right that no single load test on a built up airframe will
absolutely guarentee structural integrity but it would check that
load case and the flaw orientations which are susceptable to this
test. The trick here is to try and develop checks that would cover
the other options.


neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the
other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in
the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y
direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,

For the same reasons this cannot be an absolute guarentee if the
flaw is buried within the canard structure i.e. 7 - 11 oclock on a
RH canard looking outboard. The center of the spar is a void and
ultrasound needs a solid or liquid medium to conduct.


Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between
these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on
landing,

It is also similarly "unsupported" (if you ignore the contribution
of the canard skins) outboard..... The center of mass does not move,
it is fixed save for fuel burn. Did you mean load transfer?


As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to
reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be
unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Smart move! Without some really smart jigging and equipment
internal ultrasound after construction is unlikely to be practical.

It would help the cause greatly if you could perform a careful
visual inspection inside and out at the BL12 location for the spars
and report your findings. If you see any damage at all, it would be
very help to photograph it as a reference for future boroscopic
examinations. It would also be be invaluable if you find a flaw and
are able to obtain an ultrasonic signature for your flaw.

Keep us posted.


John


Re: BROKEN SPAR

britmcman99
 

A good read on NDT for composites found under a Yahoo search on the terms
"composite ndt inspection remote holography"
NDT - A Continuing Responsibility in the Future of Aerospace
Gary Georgeson
_http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1205/1205.htm_
(http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1205/1205.htm)
Phil Lankford


canard/fuse join

Larry Severson
 

I think that I have the only Q2 with holes in the bottom of the fuselage
where the elevator control goes through CS15 to the elevator. So far, I
have not figured out a good way to bridge the gap. I have pictures.
Suggestions.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: BROKEN SPAR

britmcman99
 

Fellows:

Back when I was a young lad I attended some NDT familiarization courses
taught at the Don Bosco Institute of Technology in Pomona, CA. I am not an NDT
inspector, but a Quality Manager and I have had several years at Aerospace
and Commercial companies. We ought to be able to delve a little further into
the prospect of NDT testing since the subject of "Aging Aircraft" is a big
topic and since now many certificated aircraft companies are building with
composite structure.

Check with local commercial Non Destructive Test Labs and see what they
might offer in the way of NDT methods for composites. We might be surprised to
find an affordable method and some eager technicians who would love to get
close to an experimental aircraft.

Phil Lankford
N870BM


Re: BROKEN SPAR

HawkiDoug <hawkidoug@...>
 

Damian - How will you ultrasound the spar? With want device? Please do it before you reinforce to see whats there, if anything. Is the device something we can all get our hands on? Can we rent one and bring it to a fly-in?

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- Original Message -----
From: <damiantwinsport@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: BROKEN SPAR


In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden flaw
neccessarily.
neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,
Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on landing,
As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 Q 200 ( rebuilding)







Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links







Re: BROKEN SPAR

damiantwinsport@...
 

Doug, The ultra sound devices vary from hand held emitters and responders to
static devices that one passes the part through.
Yes, I will take the naked spars for inspection before I attempt to use
them.
There are guys that do field inspections on aircraft either because of
suspected or observed damage or because of FAA use mandated.
The data that is gathered from a scan has to be interpreted much like an
MD. Reads an MRI. Cracks usually show up in a scanned region as a pronounced
spike in the graph printout.
As for doing it at a fly in maybe one of these services might be agreeable
to conducting a group rate deal.
Regards,
Damian Gregory


Re: BROKEN SPAR

damiantwinsport@...
 

In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden flaw
neccessarily.
neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,
Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on landing,
As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 Q 200 ( rebuilding)


Re: BROKEN SPAR

damiantwinsport@...