Hi Glenn
Yeh. I think you did but I don't just what :-)
I'm pretty sure a bolt in double shear apparently is proportionately
stronger than two single ones in single shear of the same dia. I presume the
Australian authorities knew what they were on about when they insisted on
thisbut then agai
Hi Mark,
Did you use steel spacers; or would aluminum work or will it "crush" over time?
Thanks,
Ron
--- On Sat, 10/2/10, Mark Langford wrote:
> From: Mark Langford
> Subject: KR> WAF spacers
> To: "KRnet"
> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010, 9:30 PM
> Replacing the two bolts with one
> longe
OK Guys..bear with me. the concept of the Experimental Aircraft program
is for Personal Education, and I am certainly learning something I had
not considered before. A slightly different way for me to view this is
that the spacer between them tends to make the two separate WAFS act
more like a
OK, this isn't the greatest picture, but check out
http://www.n56ml.com/900hour/100717140m.jpg . It shows a thin aluminum
angle used to position a 3/8" nutplate for each WAF bolt, and one continuous
WAF bolt for what was a place for two (in single shear). Astute viewers
will notice there's to
Thank you Mark. With your info, I did a short Google search and came up
with this article:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/NutsandBolts/Nuts&Bolts_signed.pdf
So the point is that with one bolt on each fitting, only that one
fitting must lose friction in order to load its bolt in shear.
Thank you Mark.
I was actually in the process of drawing up the WAF's in SolidWorks to
illustrate the difference, but you nailed it right there.
Cheers.
Pete.
On 3/10/2010 13:30, Mark Langford wrote:
> Replacing the two bolts with one longer one and a spacer replaces two bolts
> in single shear
Replacing the two bolts with one longer one and a spacer replaces two bolts
in single shear (not the best) with one bolt in double shear, which is far
better. Although I knew it already, I relearned that lesson when I checked
my flaps after 930 hours and found the oilite bushings elongated and
Pete wrote:
>It's the addition of the tube spacer that adds the strength not the
> length of the bolt. What it effectively does is take an area that has
> two potential failure modes and replaces it with one.
> Cheers.
>
O k..but that is not SHEAR STRENGTH we're talking about, and I cant se
It's the addition of the tube spacer that adds the strength not the
length of the bolt. What it effectively does is take an area that has
two potential failure modes and replaces it with one.
Cheers.
Peter Bancks.
Ballina, Oz.
On 3/10/2010 12:49, Glenn Martin wrote:
> I can see how a thicker
John Martindale wrote:
> A long time ago before "experimental" came along (like in the 1980s), the
> Australian authorities did mandate a change to the bolt arrangement that
> specified a spacer tube between each pair of WAFs and a longer single
> through bolt instead of two short independent bolts
My copy of KITPLANES came today and I did a quick read of the
article. With the exception of that one statement, I thought the
article was quite positive overall and cast a good light on the
KR. I guess we'll see what the public reaction is long term.
Larry Flesner
Hi Mark
A long time ago before "experimental" came along (like in the 1980s), the
Australian authorities did mandate a change to the bolt arrangement that
specified a spacer tube between each pair of WAFs and a longer single
through bolt instead of two short independent bolts.
I think this ref
Picked up my 64 Corvair 110 in Chicago today. Headed to Minneapolis tomorrow
to
get the plane. Will post some pics after I get back to KC.
Craig
Mark,
I could not tell for sure what Troy did from his pictures so good to get the
scoop. Now that I look again, I see the word "extended" on the caption so
must have been my learning disability rearing its head again! ;-)
So, to be really clear. It is "acceptable" to extend the per-plans
horizon
Steven,
I have seen Jeff's site (and looked again after receiving this) am pretty
sure he built a whole new horizontal (including longer spars). Jeff: Please
clarify if you're listening.
Yes, that was me - the one and only Subar-Sonic!! :-) Thanks!
Jon
> -Original Message-
> From: krn
Did you ever think that someone would write an article and include a
controversial item just to see how many were reading and would pop
up and defend an opposite view, Virg
Hello KR netters
I am looking to trade my TriQ200 project for a KR2s project. The TriQ is
complete but for the instruments, plumbing and engine. Next weekend, the
9th of Oct. I will be able to take photos of the TriQ.
The canard, wings, tail section, fuel tanks and lines to firewall are in. I
h
I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet but we can always submit an article
with know examples of how well the wing attachments work. Right now we are
preaching to the choir and need to get the message out to the masses,
Todd
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Larry H. wrote:
>
>
>
>
> __
From: Michael Taglieri
Mike,
I am not sure anyone on this list is concerned about the wing attach fittings
and bolts, we know better. I think what some are aggrevated about is the
mis-information or mis-representation about the wings in general. The writer
I think people may be getting too concerned about that line about the
wing-attack bolts. On the whole, the article was VERY favorable, and it
should encourage many people to look into the KR who weren't considering it
before. But if you write to the magazine, I would also mention that most
K
20 matches
Mail list logo
