I just picked up a tiger 2 from a out of town friend.After lookig it over I noticed the fire wall is a little loose.Should I use ca glue if so what typ or is there some thing better to use.
Sorry for the newbe question

Thanks
lug

Epoxy is your best bet if it can be worked INTO the seam. If the seam is too tight but a small seam is present use medium CA. DO NOT use accelerator. If there is no opening dribble in a LITTLE thin CA the entire length of the seam. Once the seam is tight go back and reinforce with tri-stock at all firewall seams using epoxy to attach. Finally, re-seal the firewall from fuel leaks. Use 30 min epoxy for this which can be thinned by application of heat.

Thank you, one more question?What is tri-stock?Man I feel like a newb.

it's small triangle shaped balsa, used to reinforce corners

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXJD16&P=7
Took a minute to find an example with a good picture

1/4" tri-stock would be good for you from the LHS. You need about a foot but it comes in 3 foot pieces.

I`m with Bruce , 30 min epoxy is a given for firewalls . Tri stock in the inside corners works well too.
CA is great for balsa, but ply needs the slow cure time of 30 min to asorb the epoxy. Rule of thumb, be it paint , glues , ect. the slower cure the better the product.

Thank you all.I am feeling better about getting into the hobby knowing the answer is only a few clicks away.

when given a choice when adding tri-stock, I use Basswood,or simmilar hardwood.
it is stronger than balsa and does the same thing,strenthens the joint at the fuse.

I dont see how to get the fuel tank out but I think can pull off the motor and put a small amount of tri-stock and epoxy on motor side of firewall.

Here is a couple of additional little tricks: When new balsa tri stock is added to a reinstalled or just repaired firewall, on the exposed new balsa tristock surface on the back side of the firewall that was epoxied on drip thin CA on all the exposed surface this will harden the tristock a bit soaking into the tristock and helping to prevent ripouts.

With an old airplane repairing a loose firewall as is recomended above is good but any type of glue is not going penitrate as well and the firewall itself may be a bit oil soaked. A very effective additional trick is to pin the firewall. Drill two or three 1/16 holes from outside the nose sides directly into the firewall. Tap toothpicks or 1/16 hardware store doweling into each hole and drip a drop or two of thin CA from the outside. Just sand the ends smooth and patch the film covering if that is what you have.

John

Tri-stock on the engine side of the firewall won't do any good. The tri-stock needs to be where the firewall connects to the fuselage on the inside of the fuselage. Another thing you can do to strengthen the firewall is to pin the firewall to the fuselage. After you have worked glue into the gaps between the fuselage and firewall you will need install pins. These are actually pieces of wooden dowel, 1/16"-1/8" depending on the size of the firewall. Drill a hole through the fuselage into the firewall. Then put a bit of epoxy into the hole and then drive the dowel in. Then cut the dowel off flush with the fuselage sides. 2-3 on each side of the fuselage will usually do.

Hope this helps

Ken

Lug,
Several years ago I was in Visalia visiting friends and at that time they had a pretty good hobby shop.
If it's still there they should have the tri-stock and probably be willing to explain what you need to do.
The advantages of shopping locally.
Good Luck,
KW_Counter

How is it you always seem to have the right graphic available?

Ken,

I think I gotta disagree with you on something...

You said tri-stock on the engine side of the firewall wouldn't do any good. I think it'd actually be more effective.

Just to make sure we're talking the same language, I drew a quick picture, and included it. This picture is looking down from above on a typical tractor style engine airplane setup. The motor is pulling the aircraft toward the bottom of the picture. The yellow pieces are the tri-stock.

In this setup, the tri-stock is on the engine side of the firewall.

In this setup, the forces of energy would try to shear the glue joint. This is a stronger joint and harder to break. If the tri-stock were on the back of the firewall, the force would be trying to pull the joint apart, a tension joint. Tension or stretch joints aren't as strong as shear joints.

vmsguy - according to my dynamics classes in college 2 centuries ago (at least it feels that way) you are dead on. In addition it is easier, on an assembled plane, to install these pieces accurately on the engine side. Pinning from the sides would also add strength.

I was there today very nice people.They where out of 1/4 tri-stock

Did you buy 3/8 and trim it a bit? Improvise a bit, not a NASA rocket.

No. I am going to fresno on friday it's a larger town with big hobby shops.There isn't much room in the engine compartment 3/8 looked way big

I had another thought as I was driving home this evening.....

If you look at my picture, what I propose is accurate only if the fuselage extends beyond the firewall. People here have called them "cheeks."

But what if the fuselage doesn't have "cheeks?" (Like an ugly stick.) In that case, Ken is right, putting any tri-stock on the front of the firewall wouldn't make any difference. There'd be nothing for the side of the tri-stock to be glued to. In Ken's example, putting the tri-stock behind the firewall and gluing the sides to the fuse and the front to the firewall will at least give *some* added strength. If there are no cheeks, then indeed, put tri-stock on the inside. "Better than nothing." and add the pins as Ken suggested. That will give you the shear strength you're looking for.


Sorry Ken...!

If you don't have tri-stock on hand, you could layer in a couple pieces of 1/8 flat stock. Trim as needed... etc.. And you've achieved the same thing...

Oh.. onelugnut... if you can.. post pictures.. We's likes pictures...!!!

You have nothing to be sorry about. This is exactly the situation I was talking about. I didn't take into consideration planes that have cheeks on them. So I should apologize to you too. We're both right, and we're both wrong!!!!

Ken

Has anybody mentioned that the tiger may not be the best first plane?

I know the tiger is an awesome craft but as i've read on 99% of the posts that talk about the tiger, they are good as 2nd planes.

You may want to look into a trainer as a first plane. Welcome to the hobby!

I have a GWS E-starter on the way[sm=teeth_smile.gif]