Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy


 

Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Sam Hoskins
 

Have at it.

Sam

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 10:04 PM Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Jay Scheevel
 

Use the layup schedule that is shown in the plans. It was carefully engineered. and is proven.

From the questions you are asking it is clear that you are not familiar with the purpose of different weaves. You can read up on this in the composite education section of the plans, but even this does not qualify you to redesign anything, so I recommend you not try to change anything.

A roller will tend to wrinkle your fibers which is not good. if you are looking for a way to build it lighter without compromising strength, I suggest you vacuum bag your layups. there is plenty of material on the web to show you how to do this.

Cheers,
Jay

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:

Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Rob de Bie
 

Regarding vacuum bagging, I would be very careful with that too. Full vacuum will compress your foam core, which could lead to a smaller core and wrinkles in your layup. Maybe a partial vacuum will work though.

Rob

At 05:51 17 10 2020, you wrote:
Use the layup schedule that is shown in the plans. It was carefully engineered. and is proven.
From the questions you are asking it is clear that you are not familiar with the purpose of different weaves. You can read up on this in the composite education section of the plans, but even this does not qualify you to redesign anything, so I recommend you not try to change anything.
A roller will tend to wrinkle your fibers which is not good. if you are looking for a way to build it lighter without compromising strength, I suggest you vacuum bag your layups. there is plenty of material on the web to show you how to do this.
Cheers,
Jay
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Cody <cody.craig1985@gmail.com> wrote:

Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance.


One Sky Dog
 

Hi,

I worked as an advanced polymer composites manufacturing engineer for over 40 years. I would advise that meticulous following of the layup plans and removing excess epoxy with the squeegeeing per instructions will yield good results.

Vacuum bags introduce literally tons of forces, many times acting in unknown directions. Your critical airfoil surface may move into something else.

The tri-axial was supposed to be the cats meow. In practice when rolled for shipping and unrolled on the layup the 0 degree fiber bundles buckled and made the surface much rougher than cloth layers. I used it once that was enough.

Regards,

Charlie

On Oct 17, 2020, at 3:20 AM, Rob de Bie <robdebie@...> wrote:

Regarding vacuum bagging, I would be very careful with that too. Full vacuum will compress your foam core, which could lead to a smaller core and wrinkles in your layup. Maybe a partial vacuum will work though.

Rob

At 05:51 17 10 2020, you wrote:
Use the layup schedule that is shown in the plans. It was carefully engineered. and is proven.
From the questions you are asking it is clear that you are not familiar with the purpose of different weaves. You can read up on this in the composite education section of the plans, but even this does not qualify you to redesign anything, so I recommend you not try to change anything.
A roller will tend to wrinkle your fibers which is not good. if you are looking for a way to build it lighter without compromising strength, I suggest you vacuum bag your layups. there is plenty of material on the web to show you how to do this.
Cheers,
Jay
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:

Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance.








Mike Dwyer
 

I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP


On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Rob de Bie
 

I looked some more into the compression of XPS foam when you would vacuumbag it. This PDF report shows really interesting information for an unspecified XPS foam:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/132311786.pdf

I knew that the moduli differed in the three directions, but I did not know it was that much!

At 100 kN/m2 (full vacuum) you're still in the elastic zone in all three directions, but maybe creep comes into play too for a multiple-hour vacuum bag session.

The modulus is lowest in the length direction of the foam block, in the case of a wing that would be spanwise. You would get 1.8% shortening of the span.

Rob

At 12:20 17 10 2020, you wrote:
Regarding vacuum bagging, I would be very careful with that too. Full vacuum will compress your foam core, which could lead to a smaller core and wrinkles in your layup. Maybe a partial vacuum will work though.

Rob

At 05:51 17 10 2020, you wrote:
Use the layup schedule that is shown in the plans. It was carefully engineered. and is proven.
From the questions you are asking it is clear that you are not familiar with the purpose of different weaves. You can read up on this in the composite education section of the plans, but even this does not qualify you to redesign anything, so I recommend you not try to change anything.
A roller will tend to wrinkle your fibers which is not good. if you are looking for a way to build it lighter without compromising strength, I suggest you vacuum bag your layups. there is plenty of material on the web to show you how to do this.
Cheers,
Jay
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Cody <cody.craig1985@gmail.com> wrote:

Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance.




One Sky Dog
 

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie

On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


One Sky Dog
 

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


One Sky Dog
 

Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Chris Walterson
 

Cody --------------  On the Dragonfly we replaced the uni with tri ply and worked out well . Easy to use and fast.

Years ago there was a Waddlow Canard design that didn't use the carbon spare. The dragonfly uses a fiberglass spar and some carbon uni similar to the Waddlow.

As for finishing, I have always peel plyed everything. It helps in getting a correct profile and also getting any excess epoxi out. If you surface is flat and doesn't need to be attached , you can squeege on plastic sheet, but I still prefer peel ply. I have tried the loose micro on top of fresh epoxi and not a great idea.

 I never use a roller, but instead a small two inch brush and a squeege. Often I  will lay on the epoxi and then use a hair blower to get some extra heat  and get better flow and penetration.

I do my finishing much like Sam, however I will add 50% methyle hydrate to the mix. It is the only thing I found that mixes with epoxi and won't eat foam.  Then add the micro and you can have a thinner mix to lay up.   The methyle will evaporate and the epoxi will go to work leaving a surface that is easily sanded, without biting into the glass.

 You may want to  experiment a bit with the ratios to find what works for you. This is not meant for structural and only as filler.

West system is the preferable one although next week I am trying Alpha poxi from Spruce. See how that works out.

 You will find we all have our preference. Doesn't matter the path as long as the final product is the same.

Take care---------------  Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


 
Edited

The video I watched about micro dusting doesn't replace the squeegee. Its a next step to pull and fill that last 1-5% and save time on sanding and finishing. It's supposed to be a better bond since its pulling the little bit of excess up from the base layers.


On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 08:33 One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.




On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Jim Patillo
 


Good morning,

You’ve heard from very qualified glass people on this list and I think I know a little about it myself. They’ve warned you. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. This is basic stuff.

We’ve seen this scenario play out many times over the years, mostly with minimal to negative results. However, if you still feel the need, you may have the qualifications to reinvent the wheel. If that’s the case, go for it but don’t refer to it as a Quickie. Name it after yourself and don’t talk it up until your butt has flown in that seat for many hours. There are people in this list building that could get steered down the wrong path.

It’s only your life on the line. As built, works just fine. You CAN build a light airframe but that only happens if you know what you’re doing. I’m not trying to throw water on your plan but simply speaking from experience.

Good luck and I hope you are listening.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
I built mine!
1,700 hours + on airframe.



Sent from Outer Space


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:20:32 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
The video I watched about micro dusting doesn't replace the squeegee. Its a next step to pull and fill that last 1-5% and save time on sanding and finishing. It's supposed to be a better bond since its pulling the little bit of excess up from the base layers.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 08:33 One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.




On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Frankenbird Vern
 

 
 Charlie or Jim..perhaps others also from the Engineering side of Composites.  My last gig was working with another M.E. 
(Degreed) who was working deep on utilizing the following material at the time. I assisted him with metals at Triumph on the G280 program since he was always from a Composites background. Both of us were at Beech at different times also. Only project we had in common was the Premier 1. I was R&D M.E. and he was Production Director. 

Mitsubishi Electric Automation has appointed new executive personnel to grow and increase its presence in the Americas. In a series of hires and promotions, Mitsubishi Electric Automation Inc. (MEAU) has named key personnel to new executive positions detailed below.
www.sme.org
 Cleo also never heard what exactly stopped this material from arriving on the scene other than the cost.  As all here know.. Composite raw materials have always been high dollar!  But this stuff could have several factors to it's advantage. Weight is one but Lightening Strike is the other. We had some time to chat about various manufacturing methods and my history in Composites Structures was similar but different enough to be a good collective. 

 Maybe next year at FOD in Enid we can chat..I am always willing to learn more. Charlie we have walked a lot of the same roads as well. 

 When I was Contracting in M.E. folks would ask me what I was hired in for and I'd tell them (proudly) I was brought in to be the Village Idiot. I like to keep KISS in mind too. Maybe that is why I've survived 5+ decades in aviation.  

 Jim is correct pointing out the safest weight savings is not to be found in the Structure. Might be better (true for sure in my case) the Pilot doing some "push aways" at the resturant and maybe fewer doo dads in the instrument panel! 

 In the factories during certificated builds we had multi millions at our disposal to chase down ounces. The missions we were tasked and paid to accomplish were totally different than building and flying a Q-bird or Dragonfly. But you are Q.A. and have to consider the cost of what your possible gain, or loss, might be. Plan carefully your actual cost (and value). We had another way to say it.. don't start vast projects with half-vassed ideas.    

 My 2 cents worth on resin methods, that perhaps are viable in a homebuilt setting might be Vacuum infusion. My thoughts on this are because it was the method we built the A380 spars and other items at Spirit in Wichita. Think about having Autoclaves built for those monsters!! (NOT).

 Caul sheet, peel ply, bag and seal.. support the cores (this means making Tooling..so moar Dollars!) during cureout to resin green state.

 I met the crew, including Burt, out at RAF (later; Scaled Composites) when Voyager parts were being made. My work station in Plant 4 was not more than 30 feet from NC1, NC2, and NC3 (Department 45, R&D, Starships).  Raytheon lost BILLIONS on that program..and eventually the demise of Beech came about in part because they refused to listen to people like Burt or John Roncz; who for sure are NOT Village Idiots (like me). RAF are the same folks that wrote your Quickie plans.   

 I still have to build a Vertical, Rudder, and Ailerons for my hangar queen. I will use Infusion as the method but not because it is particularly superior to the plans methods. More like dating that same cute girl from High School again.     

 Jim has it right. Deviate at this level and you should name it OTHER than a Quickie. 

 Lehman Frankenbird will be my chosen  :-)  

 Vern in Mannford, Okleehoma  



From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 12:02 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 

Good morning,

You’ve heard from very qualified glass people on this list and I think I know a little about it myself. They’ve warned you. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. This is basic stuff.

We’ve seen this scenario play out many times over the years, mostly with minimal to negative results. However, if you still feel the need, you may have the qualifications to reinvent the wheel. If that’s the case, go for it but don’t refer to it as a Quickie. Name it after yourself and don’t talk it up until your butt has flown in that seat for many hours. There are people in this list building that could get steered down the wrong path.

It’s only your life on the line. As built, works just fine. You CAN build a light airframe but that only happens if you know what you’re doing. I’m not trying to throw water on your plan but simply speaking from experience.

Good luck and I hope you are listening.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
I built mine!
1,700 hours + on airframe.



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:20:32 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
The video I watched about micro dusting doesn't replace the squeegee. Its a next step to pull and fill that last 1-5% and save time on sanding and finishing. It's supposed to be a better bond since its pulling the little bit of excess up from the base layers.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 08:33 One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.




On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


One Sky Dog
 

Vern,

The article says it all small quantity high price. Not made in commercial quantities.

On Oct 17, 2020, at 3:24 PM, smeshno1@... wrote:


 
 Charlie or Jim..perhaps others also from the Engineering side of Composites.  My last gig was working with another M.E. 
(Degreed) who was working deep on utilizing the following material at the time. I assisted him with metals at Triumph on the G280 program since he was always from a Composites background. Both of us were at Beech at different times also. Only project we had in common was the Premier 1. I was R&D M.E. and he was Production Director. 

Mitsubishi Electric Automation has appointed new executive personnel to grow and increase its presence in the Americas. In a series of hires and promotions, Mitsubishi Electric Automation Inc. (MEAU) has named key personnel to new executive positions detailed below.
www.sme.org
 Cleo also never heard what exactly stopped this material from arriving on the scene other than the cost.  As all here know.. Composite raw materials have always been high dollar!  But this stuff could have several factors to it's advantage. Weight is one but Lightening Strike is the other. We had some time to chat about various manufacturing methods and my history in Composites Structures was similar but different enough to be a good collective. 

 Maybe next year at FOD in Enid we can chat..I am always willing to learn more. Charlie we have walked a lot of the same roads as well. 

 When I was Contracting in M.E. folks would ask me what I was hired in for and I'd tell them (proudly) I was brought in to be the Village Idiot. I like to keep KISS in mind too. Maybe that is why I've survived 5+ decades in aviation.  

 Jim is correct pointing out the safest weight savings is not to be found in the Structure. Might be better (true for sure in my case) the Pilot doing some "push aways" at the resturant and maybe fewer doo dads in the instrument panel! 

 In the factories during certificated builds we had multi millions at our disposal to chase down ounces. The missions we were tasked and paid to accomplish were totally different than building and flying a Q-bird or Dragonfly. But you are Q.A. and have to consider the cost of what your possible gain, or loss, might be. Plan carefully your actual cost (and value). We had another way to say it.. don't start vast projects with half-vassed ideas.    

 My 2 cents worth on resin methods, that perhaps are viable in a homebuilt setting might be Vacuum infusion. My thoughts on this are because it was the method we built the A380 spars and other items at Spirit in Wichita. Think about having Autoclaves built for those monsters!! (NOT).

 Caul sheet, peel ply, bag and seal.. support the cores (this means making Tooling..so moar Dollars!) during cureout to resin green state.

 I met the crew, including Burt, out at RAF (later; Scaled Composites) when Voyager parts were being made. My work station in Plant 4 was not more than 30 feet from NC1, NC2, and NC3 (Department 45, R&D, Starships).  Raytheon lost BILLIONS on that program..and eventually the demise of Beech came about in part because they refused to listen to people like Burt or John Roncz; who for sure are NOT Village Idiots (like me). RAF are the same folks that wrote your Quickie plans.   

 I still have to build a Vertical, Rudder, and Ailerons for my hangar queen. I will use Infusion as the method but not because it is particularly superior to the plans methods. More like dating that same cute girl from High School again.     

 Jim has it right. Deviate at this level and you should name it OTHER than a Quickie. 

 Lehman Frankenbird will be my chosen  :-)  

 Vern in Mannford, Okleehoma  



From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 12:02 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 

Good morning,

You’ve heard from very qualified glass people on this list and I think I know a little about it myself. They’ve warned you. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. This is basic stuff.

We’ve seen this scenario play out many times over the years, mostly with minimal to negative results. However, if you still feel the need, you may have the qualifications to reinvent the wheel. If that’s the case, go for it but don’t refer to it as a Quickie. Name it after yourself and don’t talk it up until your butt has flown in that seat for many hours. There are people in this list building that could get steered down the wrong path.

It’s only your life on the line. As built, works just fine. You CAN build a light airframe but that only happens if you know what you’re doing. I’m not trying to throw water on your plan but simply speaking from experience.

Good luck and I hope you are listening.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
I built mine!
1,700 hours + on airframe.



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:20:32 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
The video I watched about micro dusting doesn't replace the squeegee. Its a next step to pull and fill that last 1-5% and save time on sanding and finishing. It's supposed to be a better bond since its pulling the little bit of excess up from the base layers.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 08:33 One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.




On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Frankenbird Vern
 

Cleo mentioned "buckypaper" and the realities of nanotubes effective control of lightening strike in carbon fiber structures. I am still baffled why no progress..nothing. 

 In my R&D days one of the main issues we had was the fact that Starship "got fat" due in part because of the imbedded aluminum mesh to permit the strike path to distribute rather than concentrate heat in the honeycomb cells (vaporizing the resin of course).

  I made at least 80 test samples of different materials. Of course.. galvanic corrosion and delams are a battle constant with aluminum and carbon fiber, copper is heavy..on and on. The dog chasing it's tail.  

 Even the bond line control fasteners caused grief. Beech ended up using monel blind fasteners. Lots of weight and no structural value after bond cure.  Folks here might be amused that the first flying test Starship was actually hand layup on wooden OAK tools. The centerline Keel was the bond!!! We called the oak tools "the beached whales". The join on that one was a real PIA to say the least. There was no such thing as filiment or ribbon then. No mandrels. The Wright Brothers had more tooling available than we did.    

 I got frustrated at times when it was partly my job to investigate as much and offer possible solutions, only to be shot down in flames. 
Pretty much burnt out on trying much more than was required to stay on the teams thru the years. Pioneers in Aerospace factory life as I learned are the first to get the arrows. 
 
 Chicken rivets... as the monels were called then, could have been the same as GM used on the Corvette carbon fiber. Poly... strong plastic. They also were "pop rivets" and are dirt cheap. I was not allowed to even test them to control the bond line with scrim between Primary IML and support such as floor beams. Just that alone would have saved at least 30 lbs on the build. Nope..not allowed. End of story. 

  Folks here also should be aware what we learned then too... Glass is not immune to big problems from a main branch strike while airborne, and carbon fiber within is like a giant spark plug wire. All of us flying these units really must give any and all electrical storms a wider path than the usual 20 miles. I live in the Midwest so that would sometimes mean parking early. 40 miles from a sparky cloud is too close for my comfort. 

  Being part of the R&D lightening strike team I was told our passed test was done at 10 million volts and 200 amps or some numbers as such and stupid me (remember.. I'm the Village Idiot again) asked  "thats great a sample finally passed..and so...how much does a typical lightening strike in a Summer storm here in Wichita have?"  Tyrd in the punch bowl time.  I was told "Well..no one has actually been able to measure that, but it's the best lab we could find to simulate lightening strikes!".

 When confronted with stupidity vs reality I tended to blurt out the first thing I thought which at the time was "So our customers get hit at flight level 30 or so by a main branch strike at 60 million volts or so and 1000 amps in our fancy new multi million canard machine, and next thing they know they are getting passed by two operating turboprop engines while still strapped in the seat with nothing around them and they are falling to earth!!?   Not good advertising on the six o'clock news."  

 Changing materials carries a set of risks. At least make test samples and see if the performance is up to spec. I have some original orange foam from RAF previously cut to ruff you can use for testing since I will not be needing it. Your welcome to it for the cost of shipping from 74044 zip.   

Vern           

  


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 6:35 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
Vern,

The article says it all small quantity high price. Not made in commercial quantities.

Charlie


On Oct 17, 2020, at 3:24 PM, smeshno1@... wrote:


 
 Charlie or Jim..perhaps others also from the Engineering side of Composites.  My last gig was working with another M.E. 
(Degreed) who was working deep on utilizing the following material at the time. I assisted him with metals at Triumph on the G280 program since he was always from a Composites background. Both of us were at Beech at different times also. Only project we had in common was the Premier 1. I was R&D M.E. and he was Production Director. 

Mitsubishi Electric Automation has appointed new executive personnel to grow and increase its presence in the Americas. In a series of hires and promotions, Mitsubishi Electric Automation Inc. (MEAU) has named key personnel to new executive positions detailed below.
www.sme.org
 Cleo also never heard what exactly stopped this material from arriving on the scene other than the cost.  As all here know.. Composite raw materials have always been high dollar!  But this stuff could have several factors to it's advantage. Weight is one but Lightening Strike is the other. We had some time to chat about various manufacturing methods and my history in Composites Structures was similar but different enough to be a good collective. 

 Maybe next year at FOD in Enid we can chat..I am always willing to learn more. Charlie we have walked a lot of the same roads as well. 

 When I was Contracting in M.E. folks would ask me what I was hired in for and I'd tell them (proudly) I was brought in to be the Village Idiot. I like to keep KISS in mind too. Maybe that is why I've survived 5+ decades in aviation.  

 Jim is correct pointing out the safest weight savings is not to be found in the Structure. Might be better (true for sure in my case) the Pilot doing some "push aways" at the resturant and maybe fewer doo dads in the instrument panel! 

 In the factories during certificated builds we had multi millions at our disposal to chase down ounces. The missions we were tasked and paid to accomplish were totally different than building and flying a Q-bird or Dragonfly. But you are Q.A. and have to consider the cost of what your possible gain, or loss, might be. Plan carefully your actual cost (and value). We had another way to say it.. don't start vast projects with half-vassed ideas.    

 My 2 cents worth on resin methods, that perhaps are viable in a homebuilt setting might be Vacuum infusion. My thoughts on this are because it was the method we built the A380 spars and other items at Spirit in Wichita. Think about having Autoclaves built for those monsters!! (NOT).

 Caul sheet, peel ply, bag and seal.. support the cores (this means making Tooling..so moar Dollars!) during cureout to resin green state.

 I met the crew, including Burt, out at RAF (later; Scaled Composites) when Voyager parts were being made. My work station in Plant 4 was not more than 30 feet from NC1, NC2, and NC3 (Department 45, R&D, Starships).  Raytheon lost BILLIONS on that program..and eventually the demise of Beech came about in part because they refused to listen to people like Burt or John Roncz; who for sure are NOT Village Idiots (like me). RAF are the same folks that wrote your Quickie plans.   

 I still have to build a Vertical, Rudder, and Ailerons for my hangar queen. I will use Infusion as the method but not because it is particularly superior to the plans methods. More like dating that same cute girl from High School again.     

 Jim has it right. Deviate at this level and you should name it OTHER than a Quickie. 

 Lehman Frankenbird will be my chosen  :-)  

 Vern in Mannford, Okleehoma  



From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 12:02 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 

Good morning,

You’ve heard from very qualified glass people on this list and I think I know a little about it myself. They’ve warned you. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. This is basic stuff.

We’ve seen this scenario play out many times over the years, mostly with minimal to negative results. However, if you still feel the need, you may have the qualifications to reinvent the wheel. If that’s the case, go for it but don’t refer to it as a Quickie. Name it after yourself and don’t talk it up until your butt has flown in that seat for many hours. There are people in this list building that could get steered down the wrong path.

It’s only your life on the line. As built, works just fine. You CAN build a light airframe but that only happens if you know what you’re doing. I’m not trying to throw water on your plan but simply speaking from experience.

Good luck and I hope you are listening.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
I built mine!
1,700 hours + on airframe.



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:20:32 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
The video I watched about micro dusting doesn't replace the squeegee. Its a next step to pull and fill that last 1-5% and save time on sanding and finishing. It's supposed to be a better bond since its pulling the little bit of excess up from the base layers.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 08:33 One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.




On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


 

Jim,
I was told specifically to talk to you and Sam Hoskins before even attempting to build per the plans. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just looking at logistics and asking questions before I go down the wrong rabbit hole. I was thinking triaxial glass using the same type of glass as 7715 woven together would hold the fibers in place better. I'm not trying to change the structure itself. Just asking about efficiency, and effective practices. Id love to talk to both you and Sam at length before I do anything! 


Jim Patillo
 

Hi Cody, I would be happy to talk with you.
I’m no expert like Charlie, Vern, Sam and others on this list but I do have a lot of glass time and have made a major critical repair to the carbon spar, due to improper load tests done by Scott Swing at Quickie Aircraft in Mojave. The repair was made at 200 hours and the info is available in the files section of this group if you are interested. My plane does have a lot of time on it and to date have never had a repairable accident in it. The plane is true and straight.

First please give us some background on you and your previous experience so we know how to approach this. Do you have experience building Fiberglas Airplanes, EZE, Glasair, Velocity, etc.

Jim
N46JP - Q200

Sent from Outer Space


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:18:23 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
Jim,
I was told specifically to talk to you and Sam Hoskins before even attempting to build per the plans. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just looking at logistics and asking questions before I go down the wrong rabbit hole. I was thinking triaxial glass using the same type of glass as 7715 woven together would hold the fibers in place better. I'm not trying to change the structure itself. Just asking about efficiency, and effective practices. Id love to talk to both you and Sam at length before I do anything! 


 

I'm an avionics manager for a shop repairing falcon jets. 10's 20's 50's 900's 2000's. I've built replacement cowls for Cessnas down in Jenks, OK. I work with a lot of mechanics who did composite work at Bizjet. This would be my first homebuild. Hence all the questions and inexperience. I have good solid plans for saving weight in avionics and that stuff. But the structure part of it, especially layups I have so many guys up here saying there are better techniques than those from 1985. But those from 1985 have built reliable proven airframes, so I'm not against them by any means.


On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 23:53 Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
Hi Cody, I would be happy to talk with you.
I’m no expert like Charlie, Vern, Sam and others on this list but I do have a lot of glass time and have made a major critical repair to the carbon spar, due to improper load tests done by Scott Swing at Quickie Aircraft in Mojave. The repair was made at 200 hours and the info is available in the files section of this group if you are interested. My plane does have a lot of time on it and to date have never had a repairable accident in it. The plane is true and straight.

First please give us some background on you and your previous experience so we know how to approach this. Do you have experience building Fiberglas Airplanes, EZE, Glasair, Velocity, etc.

Jim
N46JP - Q200

Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:18:23 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
Jim,
I was told specifically to talk to you and Sam Hoskins before even attempting to build per the plans. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just looking at logistics and asking questions before I go down the wrong rabbit hole. I was thinking triaxial glass using the same type of glass as 7715 woven together would hold the fibers in place better. I'm not trying to change the structure itself. Just asking about efficiency, and effective practices. Id love to talk to both you and Sam at length before I do anything! 


Sam Hoskins
 

Cody,

I'm not an expert. I never heard of Biaxial-Triaxial cloth until this discussion. I did a little (very little) Googleing just to see what it is. You have a lot of good background and should make short work of building a Q aircraft.

Here's my cro-magnon take on it.  Since this is your first aircraft, worry more about how to set up your shop, and how to get the time in each day that you need to complete your project.  I do have a real bone to pick about the plans, particularly while building the LS-1 canard, but following the plans is a good place to start.  Having been in this Quickie world for almost 40 years now, we have seen all sorts of guys get excited about building a plane and all the improvements they are going to make, only to have them drop out, so concentrate on the basics.

If you want to build this, especially as a first-time builder,  I strongly recommend using the glass as called out in the plans. It works, pretty much. Which configuration are you building?  Taildragger? Tri-Q? If you have a set of CF spars I did an extensive re-write of the canard plans the last time I built one. The problem with the QAC Q-200 addendum was they kept referring back to the Q-2 plans. Maybe I overdid it, but you can see the result here: http://www.quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2399&Itemid=790

I also wrote up how to perform the Gall wheel alignment during the installation of the wheel pants. Not addressing wheel alignment was a huge screw-up by the QAC. This also shows how to fabricate the Couglin brake mounts. http://www.quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2400&Itemid=791

Good luck with everything. We're looking forward to your progress reports. Where are you located? 

Sam