Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics


 

Today was another chapter in "Duckies" rescue, but the ending of this book isn't written yet despite the set back. So let's start by saying when I bought "Duckie" to rescue, I was happily surprised how little damage there was to the fiberglass and how well it held up. I thought it was almost too good to be true ... well this weekend proved, it wasn't.

As many of you have seen, I was quite happy with my progress ... the controls were back on and moving super crisp, all the fiberglass damaged looked to be fixed and new improvements from after this plane was originally built went in such as a reflexor. Also, I had made good progress on putting the O-200 together with the SDS fuel injection and electronic ignition, I even had gone and marked all the components on the firewall.

So now it was time for the fuel system and that's when I checked the bottom sump drain, with some unexpected findings to call it nicely. Per the picture below, you can see the bottom was seriously warped right where the main tank was. What is this warping I wondered? Did we have a fuel leak that caused this warping asked Jason S?



So while I figured out how to flip the plane on its back, I was still bugging all you with my fuel system questions of where do I put my main tank 3/8 output per fuel injection manufacturer, how do I make my new 1 1/2 in header to main fill pipe etc. I had fun and was a bit delusional thinking that it was just a little warping. But I knew I needed help so I scheduled a work Saturday with my EAA crew and Sam Kittle came too which was awesome.

We flipped the plane on its back, using the ingenious "Sam Kittle" flip engine bracket and went to work ...



After we cut off the warped part ...



And scraped out all the damaged foam ...



Is was pretty clear right away, well clear isn't the right word, but it smelled pretty much right away to the root cause was a fuel leak. The foam after years of sitting still had lots of blue fuel squeezing out of it when we removed it with a putty knife ... yuck! But the moment of truth came with a little pressure test ...



... or mayeb this is a new thing instead of smoke pumps, make "Duckie" a soap bubble machine ;-)

Well back to reality, it is clear that this tank bottom won't make it and no patch job will do. Now I am planning on the next steps, such as resealing and making a new bottom. But in good Robert fashion I am trying to see the silver lining in this ...

Putting in a 3/8 fitting for a pickup won't be a problem anymore
Putting in a new 1 1/2 fill pipe won't be a problem anymore
Inspecting the tanks will be done sooner than later
My final unanswered concern is how well the header tank was built and if its sealed. Next immediate step ... pressure test on the header tank.

Hope you enjoyed my little Saturday story update from "Duckie's Rescue". And to quote Chris W, it's pretty clear that the Quickie found me, I didn't find it because otherwise I would have long given up ;-)

Tomorrow is another day, looking forward to your laughs, encouragement and suggestions. Have a great and safe weekend,
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


 

And here is the inside tank later looked like ...





Glass not wetted out enough with dry spots

--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Jim Patillo
 

Robert, when did you first notice the warp on the belly, cause you and others have been all over this plane and the work you’ve done looks good. The questions you ask are thoughtful.  Just curious. 

Jim


 

None of us had looked under the plane, I first noticed it last week when looking for the drain hole during my fuel system redesign.
--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Jerry Marstall
 

Wonder what the wings look like.


On Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 9:32 PM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
And here is the inside tank later looked like ...





Glass not wetted out enough with dry spots

--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Mike Dwyer
 

Unless I'm mistaken, the tank bottom is the factory fuselage shell.  This layup is factory.  The builder was supposed to brush an added layer of epoxy on the surface tho.
I'd consider looking for an unassembled set of fuselage shells and cut out what you need.  This is a compound curve and a bit hard to make.
Keep at it!
Mike Dwyer

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 08:22 Jerry Marstall <jerrylm1986@...> wrote:
Wonder what the wings look like.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022, 9:32 PM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
And here is the inside tank later looked like ...





Glass not wetted out enough with dry spots

--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


David J. Gall
 

Robert,

That patch of glass you showed that’s “not wetted out enough with dry spots” looks like the original inside layer of the factory fuselage shells. The factory shells were (apparently) not made using BID but using a lighter cloth, and this appears to be a typical bit of that. The shells were manufactured a bit “dry” and it doesn’t surprise me to see such “dry spots.” I have some original factory shells in storage and they look very much the same, absent the damage caused by improper construction and long exposure to fuel. In other words, this appears to be a “normal” fuselage inner skin except for the apparent skipping of some very important steps on the part of the original builder. The inside of the tank was supposed to be sealed during construction by applying liberal coating(s) of Safe-T-Poxy (or EZ-Poxy) and it appears to me that this step was skipped by whoever built this airframe. Or perhaps they used a different epoxy that was inferior in fuel resistance to Safe-T-Poxy (EZ-Poxy) and that layer dissolved and leached away over time.

Since the fuselage shell foam is a urethane that should have been at least fuel “resistant” I would presume that the damage to the foam was caused by long exposure to MoGas (as opposed to avgas that contains less VOCs). So my next concern would be the header tank integrity and the integrity of both the main wing center section and especially the canard center section. Both of these center sections have foam cores that are susceptible to VOCs even in the vapor state without direct contact with liquid solvents. Long-term sitting outdoors with MoGas in the tank could mean that temperature cycling would “pump” VOC vapors throughout the fuselage and could, over time, work it’s way into and degrade the foam cores in the wing and canard center sections without any evidence. I support my hypothesis by observing that there is little or no blue dye present such as would be found if the leaks into the lower fuselage shell had developed with avgas in the tanks. Of course, the canard could have been the recipient of liquid fuel leaking from the header tank, too.

I would urge a rebuild of the header tank since it’s bottom likely has a similar problem as the main tank, and I would urge a very thorough tap test or, better, a sonogram or visual inspection of the wing and canard center section cores. I would also urge a complete replacement of all fuel system components to preclude the possibility that some softened epoxy collected internally in e.g. a fuel selector valve or other fitting (this is a known hazard of some epoxies when exposed to the VOCs in MoGas).

Of course, all of the foregoing is just my opinion and speculation offered for your consideration.

David J. Gall

On Jul 23, 2022, at 10:32 PM, Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:

And here is the inside tank later looked like ...

1752143487.1658629933215.jpeg

483526077.1658629913899.jpeg

Glass not wetted out enough with dry spots

--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


 

To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Jim Patillo
 

Good morning Robert,

When you are mating the tanks to the fuselage, I would considering installing one ply of BID between the tanks and the fuselage and wetting those areas out generously. 

I did that to both of my tanks and haven’t had any leaks as far as I know. 

David is right, this area is asymmetrical and will be hard to reproduce.

Jim


Sam Kittle
 

Robert,

I think the easiest way to duplicate the part of the fuselage that makes up bottom of the fuel tank is to turn a Q200 upside down then make a mold using the bottom of the fuselage.

Sam K


On Jul 24, 2022, at 10:57 AM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Good morning Robert,

When you are mating the tanks to the fuselage, I would considering installing one ply of BID between the tanks and the fuselage and wetting those areas out generously. 

I did that to both of my tanks and haven’t had any leaks as far as I know. 

David is right, this area is asymmetrical and will be hard to reproduce.

Jim


David J. Gall
 

Or carve it from some 6 lb. urethane insulation foam similar to the 2 lb. urethane the original Q1 kit used — 6 lb. to better match the existing PU foam of the factory shell.

Or take a section from a donor shell. There seem to be plenty of those around, from time to time.

On Jul 24, 2022, at 2:18 PM, Sam Kittle <skittle@...> wrote:

Robert,

I think the easiest way to duplicate the part of the fuselage that makes up bottom of the fuel tank is to turn a Q200 upside down then make a mold using the bottom of the fuselage.

Sam K


On Jul 24, 2022, at 10:57 AM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Good morning Robert,

When you are mating the tanks to the fuselage, I would considering installing one ply of BID between the tanks and the fuselage and wetting those areas out generously. 

I did that to both of my tanks and haven’t had any leaks as far as I know. 

David is right, this area is asymmetrical and will be hard to reproduce.

Jim


Jerry Marstall
 

No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm


On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Frankenbird Vern
 

 Jerry.. are you suggesting Robert invert the completed aircraft after repair in a supporting cradle (foam dock floats make excellent supports and can be sold later) and sandbag the Canard and Wing to static load?

 Vern
 (Boeing, Systems Engineering, OKC)


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Q-list <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


 

That's an interesting idea and would make me feel better for sure! Will look up a sand bag load test for sure.
photo
Robert Schmid

+1 (408) 805-5450 | robert@...

theschmids.org

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive." - Elbert Hubbard.


On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 7:51 AM Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:
 Jerry.. are you suggesting Robert invert the completed aircraft after repair in a supporting cradle (foam dock floats make excellent supports and can be sold later) and sandbag the Canard and Wing to static load?

 Vern
 (Boeing, Systems Engineering, OKC)

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Q-list <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Frankenbird Vern
 

 There was a study done and I believe it was uploaded in the archives. The study was printed in one of the Q-news issues. Jay will remember and probably Sam also.  They loaded up the canard.. and measured the deflection as the sandbags were loaded across the
span. There are photos of the test being done in the "Q-talk" issue..

 IF your structure is sound then the deflection will be uniform and equal. The structure should also return back to its original unloaded position. This is why measurements are taken during the static loading test. The study involvesl loading the lower surface and is where the sandbags are added. We know from that point that the structure will withstand the design limit load without failing. It will not show negative G load limits..but at least some the basic ability of the surface would be known. Bad sounds indicates a delam. Better in the test on the ground than in the air. 

 What they found was the design limits are well within expectations at 1100 lbs MTOW. Q's have certified to 1200 MTOW. No problems.    
 To my project..and this is JUST my logic because this is an Experimental aircraft.  My canard, being a different construction (Dragonfly) and ply schedule, BUT still having the same 18 foot span should meet a 1250+lbs MTOW. We will find out because I will static load test before installation.  The Dragonfly Canard bolts to the fuselage structure as does the main Wing. The testing is therefore easier to perform.  
 
  Main construction difference is the Dragonfly is an "I-beam" carbon fiber with (in my case) the spar caps having additional plys and extending all the way to the tips (because my span is reduced from the 22 foot design to the 18 foot Quickie Q2 span, both Canard and Wing).    
 
 FrankenBird is based on a "heavy load" MKII Canard..with the stubby fiberglas legs. I will remove the MKII stub legs and the Canard will never experience short "kips" landing loads because my main landing gear are part of the engine mount supporting the Corvair 6 cylinder engine.  The gear are very similar to the RV6 design.. which is actually the Wittman Tailwind W8/W10 and Buttercup spring steel tube design. 

 Its there Robert.. the testing was done and confirmed the Structure is robust to the design limits...predicated that your bond to the foam integrity and skin is healthy and the foam itself is not destroyed by the solvents.   


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Robert Schmid <robert@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:35 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
That's an interesting idea and would make me feel better for sure! Will look up a sand bag load test for sure.
photo
Robert Schmid

+1 (408) 805-5450 | robert@...

theschmids.org

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive." - Elbert Hubbard.


On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 7:51 AM Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:
 Jerry.. are you suggesting Robert invert the completed aircraft after repair in a supporting cradle (foam dock floats make excellent supports and can be sold later) and sandbag the Canard and Wing to static load?

 Vern
 (Boeing, Systems Engineering, OKC)

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Q-list <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Jim Patillo
 

Vern,

In the dissertations you give on large aircraft structures...”predicated that your bond to the foam integrity and skin is healthy and the foam itself is not destroyed by the solvents”! You said something I could understand. If you don’t know the builder or someone who does or did, beware. 

You hit the nail on the head. Therein lies the problem. 

Jim
N46JP Q200


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:49:20 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
 There was a study done and I believe it was uploaded in the archives. The study was printed in one of the Q-news issues. Jay will remember and probably Sam also.  They loaded up the canard.. and measured the deflection as the sandbags were loaded across the
span. There are photos of the test being done in the "Q-talk" issue..

 IF your structure is sound then the deflection will be uniform and equal. The structure should also return back to its original unloaded position. This is why measurements are taken during the static loading test. The study involvesl loading the lower surface and is where the sandbags are added. We know from that point that the structure will withstand the design limit load without failing. It will not show negative G load limits..but at least some the basic ability of the surface would be known. Bad sounds indicates a delam. Better in the test on the ground than in the air. 

 What they found was the design limits are well within expectations at 1100 lbs MTOW. Q's have certified to 1200 MTOW. No problems.    
 To my project..and this is JUST my logic because this is an Experimental aircraft.  My canard, being a different construction (Dragonfly) and ply schedule, BUT still having the same 18 foot span should meet a 1250+lbs MTOW. We will find out because I will static load test before installation.  The Dragonfly Canard bolts to the fuselage structure as does the main Wing. The testing is therefore easier to perform.  
 
  Main construction difference is the Dragonfly is an "I-beam" carbon fiber with (in my case) the spar caps having additional plys and extending all the way to the tips (because my span is reduced from the 22 foot design to the 18 foot Quickie Q2 span, both Canard and Wing).    
 
 FrankenBird is based on a "heavy load" MKII Canard..with the stubby fiberglas legs. I will remove the MKII stub legs and the Canard will never experience short "kips" landing loads because my main landing gear are part of the engine mount supporting the Corvair 6 cylinder engine.  The gear are very similar to the RV6 design.. which is actually the Wittman Tailwind W8/W10 and Buttercup spring steel tube design. 

 Its there Robert.. the testing was done and confirmed the Structure is robust to the design limits...predicated that your bond to the foam integrity and skin is healthy and the foam itself is not destroyed by the solvents.   

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Robert Schmid <robert@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:35 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
That's an interesting idea and would make me feel better for sure! Will look up a sand bag load test for sure.
photo
Robert Schmid

+1 (408) 805-5450 | robert@...

theschmids.org

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive." - Elbert Hubbard.


On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 7:51 AM Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:
 Jerry.. are you suggesting Robert invert the completed aircraft after repair in a supporting cradle (foam dock floats make excellent supports and can be sold later) and sandbag the Canard and Wing to static load?

 Vern
 (Boeing, Systems Engineering, OKC)

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Q-list <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Jerry Marstall
 

Jerry is not an engineer and shouldnt be making structural recommendation.  But, in this particular scenario, I certainly would want something beyond a tap test to validate wing integrity before I climbed aboard. Jm


On Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 9:51 AM Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:
 Jerry.. are you suggesting Robert invert the completed aircraft after repair in a supporting cradle (foam dock floats make excellent supports and can be sold later) and sandbag the Canard and Wing to static load?

 Vern
 (Boeing, Systems Engineering, OKC)

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Q-list <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Mike Steinsland
 

Just wondering.....would a belly board be something to consider since all that is now cut out?

What are the thoughts on belly boards anyways?

On Mon., Jul. 25, 2022, 10:18 a.m. Jerry Marstall, <jerrylm1986@...> wrote:
No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Frankenbird Vern
 

 I function more on the Manfacturing Engineering side of flying machine building, Jim.  That is because my background is a mechanic first and always will be. But because I have also been assigned totally into the design world (specifically on 737NG floor beams) I have had a taste of the challenges there also. Who you'll never see me challenge is the Stress D.E.  If they say the numbers are bad then it's gospel. Meeting over..get to work on the changes. I've done a lot of MRB work shipside and in the field. 

 Building composite structures sometimes the issues are not obvious and I admit it took me some time before I became comfortable with them. It's great that you and the other experienced builders can assist Robert with this in person because each one is worthy to
fly. To me it is really sad seeing a once loved and airworthy airplane sitting in the tall weeds slowly disintegrating. I imagine all pilots feel
that way too.     


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 12:26 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
Vern,

In the dissertations you give on large aircraft structures...”predicated that your bond to the foam integrity and skin is healthy and the foam itself is not destroyed by the solvents”! You said something I could understand. If you don’t know the builder or someone who does or did, beware. 

You hit the nail on the head. Therein lies the problem. 

Jim
N46JP Q200

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:49:20 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
 There was a study done and I believe it was uploaded in the archives. The study was printed in one of the Q-news issues. Jay will remember and probably Sam also.  They loaded up the canard.. and measured the deflection as the sandbags were loaded across the
span. There are photos of the test being done in the "Q-talk" issue..

 IF your structure is sound then the deflection will be uniform and equal. The structure should also return back to its original unloaded position. This is why measurements are taken during the static loading test. The study involvesl loading the lower surface and is where the sandbags are added. We know from that point that the structure will withstand the design limit load without failing. It will not show negative G load limits..but at least some the basic ability of the surface would be known. Bad sounds indicates a delam. Better in the test on the ground than in the air. 

 What they found was the design limits are well within expectations at 1100 lbs MTOW. Q's have certified to 1200 MTOW. No problems.    
 To my project..and this is JUST my logic because this is an Experimental aircraft.  My canard, being a different construction (Dragonfly) and ply schedule, BUT still having the same 18 foot span should meet a 1250+lbs MTOW. We will find out because I will static load test before installation.  The Dragonfly Canard bolts to the fuselage structure as does the main Wing. The testing is therefore easier to perform.  
 
  Main construction difference is the Dragonfly is an "I-beam" carbon fiber with (in my case) the spar caps having additional plys and extending all the way to the tips (because my span is reduced from the 22 foot design to the 18 foot Quickie Q2 span, both Canard and Wing).    
 
 FrankenBird is based on a "heavy load" MKII Canard..with the stubby fiberglas legs. I will remove the MKII stub legs and the Canard will never experience short "kips" landing loads because my main landing gear are part of the engine mount supporting the Corvair 6 cylinder engine.  The gear are very similar to the RV6 design.. which is actually the Wittman Tailwind W8/W10 and Buttercup spring steel tube design. 

 Its there Robert.. the testing was done and confirmed the Structure is robust to the design limits...predicated that your bond to the foam integrity and skin is healthy and the foam itself is not destroyed by the solvents.   

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Robert Schmid <robert@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:35 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
That's an interesting idea and would make me feel better for sure! Will look up a sand bag load test for sure.
photo
Robert Schmid

+1 (408) 805-5450 | robert@...

theschmids.org

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive." - Elbert Hubbard.


On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 7:51 AM Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:
 Jerry.. are you suggesting Robert invert the completed aircraft after repair in a supporting cradle (foam dock floats make excellent supports and can be sold later) and sandbag the Canard and Wing to static load?

 Vern
 (Boeing, Systems Engineering, OKC)

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Q-list <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics
 
No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Vern,

 

That load test was done on a main wing that had been on a plane flown for many ours and retired by donating to San Jose state aero engineering department. I think there is a folder in the files section. It tested beyond design limits with no permanent deflection. I think there may have been a static test on a Q2 a number of years ago in Switzerland, where that is required for every homebuilt to be licensed, but this was not documented to my knowledge.

 

Cheers,
Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frankenbird Vern
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:49 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics

 

 There was a study done and I believe it was uploaded in the archives. The study was printed in one of the Q-news issues. Jay will remember and probably Sam also.  They loaded up the canard.. and measured the deflection as the sandbags were loaded across the

span. There are photos of the test being done in the "Q-talk" issue..

 

 IF your structure is sound then the deflection will be uniform and equal. The structure should also return back to its original unloaded position. This is why measurements are taken during the static loading test. The study involvesl loading the lower surface and is where the sandbags are added. We know from that point that the structure will withstand the design limit load without failing. It will not show negative G load limits..but at least some the basic ability of the surface would be known. Bad sounds indicates a delam. Better in the test on the ground than in the air. 

 

 What they found was the design limits are well within expectations at 1100 lbs MTOW. Q's have certified to 1200 MTOW. No problems.    

 To my project..and this is JUST my logic because this is an Experimental aircraft.  My canard, being a different construction (Dragonfly) and ply schedule, BUT still having the same 18 foot span should meet a 1250+lbs MTOW. We will find out because I will static load test before installation.  The Dragonfly Canard bolts to the fuselage structure as does the main Wing. The testing is therefore easier to perform.  

 

  Main construction difference is the Dragonfly is an "I-beam" carbon fiber with (in my case) the spar caps having additional plys and extending all the way to the tips (because my span is reduced from the 22 foot design to the 18 foot Quickie Q2 span, both Canard and Wing).    

 

 FrankenBird is based on a "heavy load" MKII Canard..with the stubby fiberglas legs. I will remove the MKII stub legs and the Canard will never experience short "kips" landing loads because my main landing gear are part of the engine mount supporting the Corvair 6 cylinder engine.  The gear are very similar to the RV6 design.. which is actually the Wittman Tailwind W8/W10 and Buttercup spring steel tube design. 

 

 Its there Robert.. the testing was done and confirmed the Structure is robust to the design limits...predicated that your bond to the foam integrity and skin is healthy and the foam itself is not destroyed by the solvents.   


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Robert Schmid <robert@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:35 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics

 

That's an interesting idea and would make me feel better for sure! Will look up a sand bag load test for sure.

photo

Robert Schmid

+1 (408) 805-5450 | robert@...

theschmids.org

 

 

 

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive." - Elbert Hubbard.

 

 


On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 7:51 AM Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:

 Jerry.. are you suggesting Robert invert the completed aircraft after repair in a supporting cradle (foam dock floats make excellent supports and can be sold later) and sandbag the Canard and Wing to static load?

 

 Vern

 (Boeing, Systems Engineering, OKC)


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Q-list <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Well, This Will Made My Heart Sink ... Trying to repost with Pics

 

No voids from tap test is inconclusive related to good fiberglass bonding if the wings have never been  stressed (as in flight).  The failure of the builder to properly wet the fuel tank layup my be an indicator of his quality of construction .  Jm

 

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 9:46 AM Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:

To start, this plane was never flown and the fuel tank system was never fully connected except for a test run.

When I took the outer skin off, there was still blue colored fuel present, so Avgas for sure, and I was able to cut back enough to get to virgin white foam.

On the wings, there is no deformation in any way, we tapped it thoroughly.

All in all, it looks the damage is isolated to the part you see open, and yes I am very suspicious of the header tank now as well.

The good news, my concerns how to install bigger 3/8 outlets ... Not such a big deal anymore 😂


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.


--
Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid
(408) 805-5450

www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos
www.theflyingfriscos.com

Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.