#BEADTOOL 4 FORUM SKIN#

Posted 08:13 (#3953449) Subject: Breaking tire beadsДЄm wondering what everyone thinks is the simplest most economical method of breaking tires off the rim? With a long enough lever, my 200 pounds can press sheet aluminum.You are logged in as a guest. Mount the MDF mandrel close to the hangar wall. Next morning, drain water and remove press-formed metal pieces.ДЄ third alternative is a huge lever press with one end bolted to the hangar wall and the far end containing a stirrup. I wonder if you could use a huge water tank to apply the same pressure? Set it up in the evening and turn on the water. If overhangs are long enough, they might overlap far enough to rivet together in the centre of the wing.ДЄlternatively, hydraulically press the sheet aluminum against the MDF mandrel. Hammer beat the over-hanging metal until it resembles a rib. Then clamp them around the rib mandrel - about 6 inches from the end. Start with roughly 4 foot (1 metre) wing skins and wrap them around a leading edge mandrel.

Molds would be CNCed from high-density particle-board. 030 step, you don't even have to joggle wing skins. Though I was imagining a simpler configuration more closely resembling the Bede-4 wing sections with straight skins and only a simple 90 degree bend to internal ribs. Maybe a nose-section, an upper rear section, and a lower rear section, all in small 24'/60 cm span pieces for easy shipping? That way you wouldn't need to go with a symmetrical airfoil.Д¬lick to expand.Nice sketch dear cluttonfred, Then again, shipping big wing skins is also problematic for a kitplane, so doing the corrugated components in smaller sections could make more sense. Cover the front section from the flat around the leading edge to the bottom flat with fabric for clearer aerodynamics. It's not hard to imagine wing skins with integral stiffeners from the leading edge to the main spar, then a short flat section on top of the spar, then integral stiffeners again to the aileron spar.

#BEADTOOL 4 FORUM SKIN#

The general consensus was that it could make sense for a factory in a production or kitplane context that can bang out one wing skin shape on a big press or mold and use it four times per plane, which could be worth the downsides of the inherently symmetrical airfoil for a low-cost plane, but for a homebuilder a constant chord wing identical except for the mirror-image spars probably makes more sense.

TF, if you run a search for Emigh Trojan you'll find a number of old threads including a couple on the external ribs and the symmetrical tapered wing sections. the 'reasons why?!' HE is the reason I chose to become an aero engineer in the middle of the aerospace crash of the 1970s. As a kid I learned a lot about aircraft design from Dad's T-18 and the other Thorp designs he kindly discussed with me.

The aircraft was exceptionally light, tough, stable, stall resist and relatively fast ]. and of course the designer for the T-11, T-211, T-18, wing Derringer and the Fletcher FU24 and FU-25. JT was the layout designer for the Piper Cherokee and the Rockwell Commander 112. I suspect that modern sheet metal fabrication methods could have expedited/simplified and manufacturing,]вЂ¦ and made them then dead-nuts dimensionally consistent and smoothД«TW. JT could have made the design 'work successfully' in todays sport aircraft category. FAA certification costs/complexity were stupid back in the 1960s. but when he spoke people listened!!!ДЇor the complexity of skin manufacturing, the T-11/-211s were simple to assemble, rugged, exceptionally light and fun to fly. He was certainly NOT stupid or egotistical and he was very soft spoken. Click to expand.WonderousMountainвЂ¦ I think You never met/knew John Thorp.

Beadtool 4 forum