G&L 1/5 DHC chipmunk - diary of a build.
10-08-2014, 05:23 AM
#901
Banned
Nonsense ? ? ?
First I would like to say how sorry I am for your loss Tony, I also followed your build so I know you put heart and soul into that airplane.
Comments from Zor
Stalling is not the results of heavy weight (high wing loading). It is the result of exceeding the stalling angle of attack of the wings.
Yes, but it is much more likely to happen on a heavily loaded wing then a light loading. Heavy wing loadings are just not that forgiving, it's just that simple Zor...
Some crash damage reduction methods.
Forget that nonsense Zor, building to fly not crash is the answer. The heavier they are, the harder they hit the ground when things go wrong. Running your biplane out of fuel and softly crashing into the treetops is a much different scenario than crashing directly into the ground so you may as well build to fly and enjoy and enjoy the benefits of a lighter loaded wing...
Bob
Comments from Zor
Stalling is not the results of heavy weight (high wing loading). It is the result of exceeding the stalling angle of attack of the wings.
Yes, but it is much more likely to happen on a heavily loaded wing then a light loading. Heavy wing loadings are just not that forgiving, it's just that simple Zor...
Some crash damage reduction methods.
Forget that nonsense Zor, building to fly not crash is the answer. The heavier they are, the harder they hit the ground when things go wrong. Running your biplane out of fuel and softly crashing into the treetops is a much different scenario than crashing directly into the ground so you may as well build to fly and enjoy and enjoy the benefits of a lighter loaded wing...
Bob
What is nonsense to one is a lot of good sense to others.
Building and designing for flight while simultaneously designing for resistance to crash damages makes a lot of good sense. I design for myself _ _ _ I do not design for series production.
All designs are compromise to be decided by the designer(s).
Some designs are aimed at mnimum production cost or for production methods.
It is not surprising to see builders making so many changes while building a kit.
It is due to their experience and acquired knowledge.
If you build and make changes for a purpose like reducing crash damages it is your decision of what modifications you decide upon.
No one has the right to criticize a buuilders decision.
I often suggest what I do but never try to impose it on anyone and tell them their ideas are nonsense.
Regards from Zor.
10-08-2014, 08:10 AM
#904
Yes a new plane (ARF) is in the works to fill the void.I decided on an ARF as a flight test bed for Angie.
Hanger 9 Piper Pawnee 33%.
This is will get the DLE85, my Futaba receivers and telemetry. I will get it all working and fly this while I finish Angie.
TB
10-08-2014, 08:16 AM
#905
Zor, I never build in anticipation to a crash. I build strong because my planes are heavier then most. No mater how strong you build something has to give. The wing on the chippie was one of the strongest wings I have ever seen or built. It sheared off at the end of the spar and outside of the
main gear blocks. That was the weakest area. A crash is a crash, not much one can do except avoid the crash in the first place.
TB
main gear blocks. That was the weakest area. A crash is a crash, not much one can do except avoid the crash in the first place.
TB
10-08-2014, 12:08 PM
#907
Hello Bob,
What is nonsense to one is a lot of good sense to others.
Building and designing for flight while simultaneously designing for resistance to crash damages makes a lot of good sense. I design for myself _ _ _ I do not design for series production.
All designs are compromise to be decided by the designer(s).
Some designs are aimed at mnimum production cost or for production methods.
It is not surprising to see builders making so many changes while building a kit.
It is due to their experience and acquired knowledge.
If you build and make changes for a purpose like reducing crash damages it is your decision of what modifications you decide upon.
No one has the right to criticize a buuilders decision.
I often suggest what I do but never try to impose it on anyone and tell them their ideas are nonsense.
Regards from Zor.
What is nonsense to one is a lot of good sense to others.
Building and designing for flight while simultaneously designing for resistance to crash damages makes a lot of good sense. I design for myself _ _ _ I do not design for series production.
All designs are compromise to be decided by the designer(s).
Some designs are aimed at mnimum production cost or for production methods.
It is not surprising to see builders making so many changes while building a kit.
It is due to their experience and acquired knowledge.
If you build and make changes for a purpose like reducing crash damages it is your decision of what modifications you decide upon.
No one has the right to criticize a buuilders decision.
I often suggest what I do but never try to impose it on anyone and tell them their ideas are nonsense.
Regards from Zor.
Bob
10-08-2014, 03:53 PM
#908
Banned
I do not think that you and I can pursue this as a discussion.
I highlighted some of your text above in blue
I can think of many reasons to build to crash or to design for lots of damage in a crash.
That IS NOT what I have been talking about.To the contrary I talked about including in the design or in the build some methods of reducing the risks of damage.
Of course it does not make sense to . . . as you wrote . . .
" simply giving my opinion on building to crash ".
I have no idea where you got in your mind that I talked about building to crash.
I talked about modifications done by many builders to reduce crash damages.
I interpreted your original comments as my suggestions were nonsense.
Wishing you a great time in this fine hobby.
Zor
10-09-2014, 03:45 AM
#909
Dear Bob,
I do not think that you and I can pursue this as a discussion.
I highlighted some of your text above in blue
I can think of many reasons to build to crash or to design for lots of damage in a crash.
That IS NOT what I have been talking about.To the contrary I talked about including in the design or in the build some methods of reducing the risks of damage.
Of course it does not make sense to . . . as you wrote . . .
" simply giving my opinion on building to crash ".
I have no idea where you got in your mind that I talked about building to crash.
I talked about modifications done by many builders to reduce crash damages.
I interpreted your original comments as my suggestions were nonsense.
Wishing you a great time in this fine hobby.
Zor
I do not think that you and I can pursue this as a discussion.
I highlighted some of your text above in blue
I can think of many reasons to build to crash or to design for lots of damage in a crash.
That IS NOT what I have been talking about.To the contrary I talked about including in the design or in the build some methods of reducing the risks of damage.
Of course it does not make sense to . . . as you wrote . . .
" simply giving my opinion on building to crash ".
I have no idea where you got in your mind that I talked about building to crash.
I talked about modifications done by many builders to reduce crash damages.
I interpreted your original comments as my suggestions were nonsense.
Wishing you a great time in this fine hobby.
Zor
Best Regards,
Bob
Last edited by sensei; 10-09-2014 at 03:49 AM.
10-09-2014, 07:06 AM
#910
I did a thorough inspection of the airframe as I disassembled Johnny 5
I will take advantage of this knowledge and use it for future builds. One thing about a plane like this when you have a crash and at first look it doesn't look to bad and it seams repairable. A thorough inspection has to be done to determine any hidden damage or anything that has to be fixed that might have been jarred loos in the crash even if one were to proceed with repairs the frame would have to be striped of all components like batteries, fuel system and all electronics to gain access to the entire frames internal workings.
So I am looking for wear issues like any wires that may have been rubbing, I check the batteries for wear and any signs that there was going to be trouble later down the line. The batteries checked out fine, fuel system was good, all the wires were well protected from vibration. All the servos were goo with exception to the elevator servo mount. One screw came loos. Structurally the fuselage had a nice crack at the wing dowels this is all carbon fiber reinforced so some major forces were being applied as she cartwheeled. Some other minor cracks in the fuselage that were not structural.
After I striped the frame I glued the wing back together and It is ready for the final resting place at the field. I will mount it this weekend.
TB
I will take advantage of this knowledge and use it for future builds. One thing about a plane like this when you have a crash and at first look it doesn't look to bad and it seams repairable. A thorough inspection has to be done to determine any hidden damage or anything that has to be fixed that might have been jarred loos in the crash even if one were to proceed with repairs the frame would have to be striped of all components like batteries, fuel system and all electronics to gain access to the entire frames internal workings.
So I am looking for wear issues like any wires that may have been rubbing, I check the batteries for wear and any signs that there was going to be trouble later down the line. The batteries checked out fine, fuel system was good, all the wires were well protected from vibration. All the servos were goo with exception to the elevator servo mount. One screw came loos. Structurally the fuselage had a nice crack at the wing dowels this is all carbon fiber reinforced so some major forces were being applied as she cartwheeled. Some other minor cracks in the fuselage that were not structural.
After I striped the frame I glued the wing back together and It is ready for the final resting place at the field. I will mount it this weekend.
TB
10-10-2014, 08:54 AM
#913
It does look good. But it is still a crying shape to see all the work that went into it to see it wind up there. Especially to see how few flights it had on it before it died. I guess the old saying is true, "The good dye young"!
Tony, I look forward to following your next project.
Ken
Tony, I look forward to following your next project.
Ken
10-10-2014, 09:05 AM
#914
It's all a part of being a builder. We know how much we put of ourselves into and airplane and we know we can lose it in the blink of an eye. And when it happens we pick up the pieces and build another airplane. It's part of who and what we are. Maybe that is why there are so many ARF/ATR fliers, they don't or can't make that can kind of commitment.
10-10-2014, 12:10 PM
#917
It does look good. But it is still a crying shape to see all the work that went into it to see it wind up there. Especially to see how few flights it had on it before it died. I guess the old saying is true, "The good dye young"!
Tony, I look forward to following your next project.
Ken
Tony, I look forward to following your next project.
Ken
My P-47 is next up once I get a few things out of the way, thank you for your support.
TB
10-10-2014, 03:09 PM
#918
Ken yes it is a shame but this is part of it. So many say to me that I am crazy to fly such a plane and they would be scared stiff and could never fly such a plane. This is why I fly them just like Gary said, there is nothing like it. From day one I never fly in fear, I know that a build I spent months building and thousands of cash can go down in flames on takeoff of a maiden, or last two or three flying season, maybe more. All I can do is honer the build and go to the next one.
My P-47 is next up once I get a few things out of the way, thank you for your support.
TB
My P-47 is next up once I get a few things out of the way, thank you for your support.
TB
How many times have you seen guys crash and ARF and then been back out with a new one within just a few days?? heck, I saw a guy crash one on Saturday and he ran to the hobby shop and Sunday morning he had a brand new ARF in the air Sunday morning. But I digress, I didn't mean to get this discussion off topic with a Kit vs. ARF talk. But just going along with what we were all saying about enjoying the building of an airplane. I know there are plenty of times that I simply enjoy sitting at the building board building a new plane.
Ok, off the soapbox now!!!
Ken
10-11-2014, 01:33 PM
#920
Banned
This hobby was initiated by builders and the satisfaction of building is as intense as flying and last a lot longer.
Try building sometime if you have not by now.
Zor
10-11-2014, 02:02 PM
#921
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Try building sometime" he says to one of the better, more experienced builders on RCU. That's funny. maybe you should try reading through some of his builds, you might learn something.
10-11-2014, 03:32 PM
#922
Banned
I would gladly apologise if any links direct me to some of his work.
As i wrote " if you have not by now ". A picture is not an evidence of building.
Zor
Last edited by Zor; 10-11-2014 at 03:41 PM.
10-11-2014, 03:34 PM
#923
My dear gone friend Minnflyer (Mike Buzzeo, may he Rest In Peace) had a great way of looking at this, and I've taken up he out look on it. He used to say that building more of a hobby part of this and flying is more of a sport of it. And I think that we look at it like that's what it looks like to me. I use that guideline to separate the two in my mind at least.
Ken
Ken
