I hate to snivel But....

I folded the wing on my new Chevelle tonight! I could just scream!!!!!! It was showing a lot of promise despite my never ending PA problems.

Actually I was trying to get an engine run after finding last week that my con rod bushing was worn which explained my gutless performance at Brodaks. It was a pig after flying so well in Lexington the week before! So I installed the engine I had professionally rebuilt over a year ago when it took a dump prior to the 2001 Nats and it was still a wash. So Pops says, take my engine out, put it in yours and get some practice. (He isnt planning to fly at the Nats) So I put up a respectable flight and figure, "Great, I am on track and can possibly actually finish trimming this plane and practice as well before the possibility of another dismal Nats performance! Not to be, not to be, Not To BEEE!!!!! Wing folded in the last corner of the triangle. For crying out loud I could use a genuine break. Started building this just before my brief visit to last years Nats to get me stoked.

I seldom whine but if print could swear loudly you would be hearing it now!

I feel your pain guy....and don't be afraid to come over for a group hug.

>I seldom whine but if print could swear loudly you would be
>hearing it now!

I'd say you have a pretty good case to justify a little whining.

John ,
It sounds a bit like my history ,2001 I broke a line in practice,last year I had a flameout & beautied in my first official Nats flight.
I'm a believer that hard work & percievance will get any one where they want to go.
My new plane is comeing along ,just found a prop that works on my Satio.56. I might evan make it to the Nats this year depending on how my job interviewe goes tomorrow morning.
Good luck,
John

That's awful. I merely broke the tail off mine tonight going through a door. No big deal; I'll have it fixed in time to leave for the Nats Thurs.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 07:08 AM (CDT)
 
John,

Sorry about the loss, its bad enough to fight all the gremlins. A (pilot error) crash hurts but at least you know what happened. Nothin' wrong with a little snivelin' at a time like this.

Make sure you do a thorough post-mortem after you get over the shock. A folded wing may be fairly common in Free Flight where foil thichnesses are in the 4-8% range, but I'd sure want to see if I had a design flaw or just picked that bad wood for the spar(s). Wings don't just break, but you already know that.

>That's awful. I merely broke the tail off mine tonight
>going through a door. No big deal; I'll have it fixed in
>time to leave for the Nats Thurs.

My first real nice all painted stunter was broken in half in a fender bender. It was two days old.

Maybe get softer doors. Dang, Howard...

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 08:32 AM (CDT)
 
>I folded the wing on my new Chevelle tonight! I could just
>scream!!!!!!

Ah, yes. My stomach starts hurting just thinking about it.

About this time last year I had a similar experience. Thus, the Shear Panic was born... I still have nightmares.

Steve Moon had the same the year before. I really believe it has effected the practice schedule this year. No one is really interested in pushing the new airplanes in the super crappy air we are getting this year.

Can you bring the old Chevelle? It was a good one wasn't it?

Oh boy, John, been there done that! Maybe at the nats we can share a brew and I'll tell you my lifetime stories of such disasters...it ain't pretty.

Just for some silver lining to this cloud, I wonder if you could share some details about the construction of the wing? Maybe we can analyze the failure a bit.

One of my "things", for instance, is insisting that the wing be covered from tip to tip before installation in the fuselage. If the ship is assembled and then covered you've manufactured a huge stress riser right at the fuse joint where the entire load of each and every maneuver is concentrated.

If the wing is covered only "up to" the fuse side the wing will be strengthened considerably "up to" the fuse side. The balsa structure between the two fuse sides remains soft and fungible . A stress riser at that point is created be cause the wing is of two different levels of stiffness...with and without covering. The fuse, of course, acts like a great big karate chop in the middle and, if loads great enough are applied as in a sharp third corner of the hourglass (this is almost ALWAYS when it happens) the wing fails at this stress riser and the ship is history.

Any chance the above might apply?

My regrets.

A brief addendum to the above.

I fully expect that at some point my Pond Scum Trivial Pursuit might very well fail in the manner I've described. This ship was initially a red, white and blue and called the Great Expectations. It was covered with paper from tip to tip as is my usual method.

When it was stripped and repainted in the various lovely pond scum hues I had to recover it (with polyspan which I won't ever do again). This was applied only up to the fuse side since I wasn't about to disassemble it!

So far the wing hasn't failed (obviously) even though it flies some pretty tight corners. I attribute that to two reasons. First, the internal sparring is laminated balsa a carbon fibre full span, each side with substantial maple splices/bellcrank mount at the joint. There is a smaller such spar just forward of the trailing edge. The cf will have to fail before the wing can totally fail.

Second, that darned Polyspan isn't very darn rigid. I have to heat it periodically with my hot air gun just like moneykote because it just gets loose and "flumpy" when it even sees the sun coming up! When it actually gets hot it loses any measure of taughtness it might have had. As a result, unlike silkspan covering, the P-span actually doesn't add a lot of rigidity to the balsa structure. Even though the P-span is very puncture resistant I don't plan on using it again for these reasons.

By the way (if we can learn just a little more from your unfortunate incident) that "variable taughtness" covering distinctly changes the flight characteristics of the airplane. When it is taught (early morning or cloudy cool day) the airplane is much more rigid and the corners more positive and predictable. When it loosens up (sunny or hot and muggy), so does the precision of the corners. When it is taught on one side and "flompy" on the other....don't ask!

In my last missive, please substitute the word "taut" and its various derivatives for the miss used "taught". That's what happens when you're using a computer that isn't registered and you can't edit your screw ups.

Sorry,

Although Matt's wing that folded two years ago at the FAI trials did not have the covering all the way across as Ted suggests (and that may have helped) we finally traced the ultimate failure to a spar joint that had failed (glued with CA) internally. He had heard a "pop" a few weeks earlier, which was undoubtedly this spar. Then the additional flexing took its toll. Matt has gone to use the fiberglass cloth method of strengthening the center section. Several layers of tin cloth with football shaped edges overlapped, with the bottom layer longer than the top layer. We don't have any long term testing on this yet, but his "new" plane has over 41 gallons of fuel through it (probably 850 flights) and holding. (Of course, the previous one folded at a little over a thousand, so this is no definitive answer. This one also had a new method of wing construction, which, itself, puts a different knot on the equation.)

But the autopsy suggested by Ted is a good idea. I hate to see anyone's plane crash. But, if it does, and if it was structural failure and we can learn from it, we all benefit.

See you at the Nats.

>In my last missive, please substitute the word "taut" and
>its various derivatives for the miss used "taught". That's
>what happens when you're using a computer that isn't
>registered and you can't edit your screw ups.
>
>Sorry,
>
>Ted

Darn...I thought it was a nice play on words.

As in: Your experience with Polyspan taught you just how much it changes when warm air hits it.

>By the way (if we can learn just a little more from your
>unfortunate incident) that "variable taughtness" covering
>distinctly changes the flight characteristics of the
>airplane. When it is taught (early morning or cloudy cool
>day) the airplane is much more rigid and the corners more
>positive and predictable. When it loosens up (sunny or hot
>and muggy), so does the precision of the corners. When it
>is taught on one side and "flompy" on the other....don't
>ask!
>
>Ted

Ted,
Could the loss of precision of the corners be attributed to the higher density altitude of the afternoon compared to the morning "coolness"? I'm sure the loose covering doesn't help. Just thinking the two work together to cause the problem.

Ref Ted's comment on covering the wing right through the fus - I couldn't agree more. From my earliest engineering days, the logic Ted describes has seemed true to me. Furthermore, if covered with tissue or fabric, the dope will soak through into the wing sheeting, and will act as a continuation of the glue used to fix the wing to the fus., so you also get a good bond of the wing to the fus.

Question - What about I-Beams? Although they have a spar of some depth, they have nothing like the bending strength of top and bottom mounted surface spars and'or sheeting, and no continuation of the structure through the fus, other than the relatively weak spar. It appears to me that I-Beams must derive a lot of bending strength from the covering acting in tension either top or bottom, depending on the manoeuvre. But none of this strength is carried through the fus. We're well and truly back to Ted's point about no continuation through the fus and stress raisers! I-Beams must have a definitive stress point at the wing/fus intersection.
I've had a litle correspondance on I-Beams recently, and my conclusion has been that possibly we do not do any accurate stress analysis, but just know what's strong enough from experience, and thus end up with something that's actually over-engineered. Anyone have any thoughts? One thing is for sure, I-Beams look SO GREAT I MUST build one one day.
Then of course we have the iron-on films. I don't know of any glue good enough to stick to film running through the fus., (and I'm not confident the glue used to stick films to wood is strong enough to be considered "structural") so with film I now cut out out film at the centre section, exposing bare wood. Lucky so far, - no failures, must be due to the sheeting alone being strong enough to resist both the stress raised and the flight loads.
I look forward to the result of any post-mortem on why John's wing folded. Always eager to learn from other's experiences, (especially things like wings folding!).
Best wishes, Ian R.

>Ref Ted's comment on covering the wing right through the fus
>- I couldn't agree more.

Thanks Ian, I thought they were ignoring me!

> Then of course we have the iron-on films. I don't know
>of any glue good enough to stick to film running through the
>fus., (and I'm not confident the glue used to stick films to
>wood is strong enough to be considered "structural") so with
>film I now cut out out film at the centre section, exposing
>bare wood. Lucky so far, - no failures, must be due to the
>sheeting alone being strong enough to resist both the stress
>raised and the flight loads.
> I look forward to the result of any post-mortem on why
>John's wing folded. Always eager to learn from other's
>experiences, (especially things like wings folding!).
> Best wishes, Ian R.

The iron ons raise an interesting dichotomy. They're really just fine covered just to the fuse after assembly. Reason is simple, they add so little to the rigidity of the wing that the stress riser is minimized to a point where the structure of the wing will hold up just fine.

Ted :

LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-03 AT 01:25 AM (CDT)
 
>>Ref Ted's comment on covering the wing right through the fus
>>- I couldn't agree more.
>
>Thanks Ian, I thought they were ignoring me!

I didnt ignore you Ted. Wouldnt dream of it,just answered this question elsewhere. No, it was not covered through the center section but the stress riser also appears to be outside the fuse center section to my eyes. See one of my other replies for my observations of the wreckage and where the fold appears to have originated. Further I think Ians observations may be quite to the point and I agree that doped paper is tough and there are many built like mine that have not broken and are built of thinner material also. Just watched Bob & Bills I Beam video again last night after I sniveled.
I think IBeam wings have plenty going for them that a thin high aspect D tube with 1/16th shear web does not, despite the lack of doped tissue through the center section. Tell me if you think some of my observations might hold some merit once you read what I tried to explain from the wreckage.
>
I will certainly never argue that I should not have spanned over the center section but I have not always done this, never had a wing buckle, and the one wing I did double veil through the center section has a visible riser that simply has not buckled yet!

LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-03 AT 09:00 AM (CDT)
 
>>>Ref Ted's comment on covering the wing right through the fus
>>>- I couldn't agree more.
>>
>>Thanks Ian, I thought they were ignoring me!
>
>I didnt ignore you Ted. Wouldnt dream of it,just answered
>this question elsewhere. No, it was not covered through the
>center section but the stress riser also appears to be
>outside the fuse center section to my eyes. See one of my
>other replies for my observations of the wreckage and where
>the fold appears to have originated. Further I think Ians
>observations may be quite to the point and I agree that
>doped paper is tough and there are many built like mine that
>have not broken and are built of thinner material also. Just
>watched Bob & Bills I Beam video again last night after I
>sniveled.
>I think IBeam wings have plenty going for them that a thin
>high aspect D tube with 1/16th shear web does not, despite
>the lack of doped tissue through the center section. Tell me
>if you think some of my observations might hold some merit
>once you read what I tried to explain from the wreckage.
>>
>I will certainly never argue that I should not have spanned
>over the center section but I have not always done this,
>never had a wing buckle, and the one wing I did double veil
>through the center section has a visible riser that simply
>has not buckled yet!

Hi John,

Don't read anything into that "ignoring" comment. It was supposed to be a "wink, wink" tongue in cheek comment. Sorry.

I agree with someone who wrote that a picture would be worth several thousand words by now. Kind of hard to envision exactly what the rupture looked like.

Re the double veiled stress riser you mentioned.

I think a better way of saying what I've been getting at is that the wing needs to be as uniform in flex as possible from tip to tip. Any significant change at a "defined" point across the span will result in extra stress being put on that point when the wing is loaded. Thus anything that might produce such a stress riser should be carefully engineered so that the loads are less likely to result in failure. In the case of double covered veil (not an idea I embrace very much by the way for the reasons I'm discussing) the edges of the covered area should be angled or tapered in a spanwise direction so that the shear load is biased and spread out spanwise.

I've seen some glider type wings, for instance, that utilize extra layers of glass/carbon in the center section which are extended oval shapes with the pointy ends of the ovals situated at the high point of the wing. The first oval might extend halfway out each wing or so. Subsequent layers are progressively shorter ovals.

Hope you can envisage what I'm getting at. the point is, obviously, to avoid a straight chord shear line at a point of maximum load such as close to the fuse side where mass is concentrated.

If a wing has constant spanwise rigidity any load applied to it is uniformly distributed and the flexion that results will be equally distributed as a result. Thus, a strong argument for a wing equally flexible--or, looked at the better way--equally rigid from tip to tip.

Finally, I've heard of a lot of wings folding in my 50 years of stunt flying. Of those I've been close enough to to examine not a single one was covered tip to tip. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened but I've not seen one and I'd be very surprised to receive a documented example. Sounds like cheap insurance to me plus, it's a lot easier to cover and dope when it's in one piece.

>>>>Ref Ted's comment on covering the wing right through the fus
>>>>- I couldn't agree more.
>>>
>

>
>Finally, I've heard of a lot of wings folding in my 50
>years of stunt flying. Of those I've been close enough to
>to examine not a single one was covered tip to tip. Doesn't
>mean it hasn't happened but I've not seen one and I'd be
>very surprised to receive a documented example. Sounds like
>cheap insurance to me plus, it's a lot easier to cover and
>dope when it's in one piece.
>
>
>
>Ted

Hey, wasn't it you that told me you thought Reinhards wing folded prior to impact at last years Nats. He always covers prior to installation in the fuse and usually double covers the whole wing.
Maybe you have seen at least one!

Just curious...Why do you double cover? What is the gain?

>Just curious...Why do you double cover? What is the gain?

Well, when I was using K&S medium silk span it was not always large enough to cover a wing panel with the grain running the right way so as not to get sags in the open bays. So I ran it on a bias across the wing and double covered when using the thin stuff for strength. Also it fills really nice with less dope and no weight gain to speak of. Weigh a sheet of thin some time. Brodaks new medium silkspan hardly has any grain direction at all and to me feels and applies like thin. Pops used it first and it had tiny holes in many places so he double covered. I just double covered for strength, running what appeared to be a grain direction at oppsite bias like center TE to LE tip and vice versa. Also for pin hole and fill purposes.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 09:46 AM (CDT)
 
>I folded the wing on my new Chevelle tonight! I could just
>scream!!!!!! It was showing a lot of promise despite my
>never ending PA problems.

You have my sincere condolences.

To echo Crist and Ted, I too would be interested in the post-mortem and your determination as to why the wing failed. Might save us all some grief in the future.

Sorry for your loss.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 11:41 AM (CDT)
 
Thanks to all for your sympathy. I never expect such a thing but some commiseration is so appreciated. This was my first geodetic lost foamer and made entirely of 3/32 and it was stiff as a wedding night erection before I covered it so had no idea that it might be weak.I might blame punk light balsa but Pops got into my wood while building his and Sig was back ordered at the time and I never got my order until the plane was in one piece. In short, I used heavier wood than I would have liked!

First off, while I have the banana yellow Chevelle as a back up I was never pleased with its performance nor do I have any of four PA61's running well enough that I am willing fuss with in order to get to the Nats so plan to bring my Ruskie powered 97 model in all its hangar rash glory and fly the piss out of it!

Wreckage at my feet here. First off, it buckled from the root at the LE back to the spar at the BC mount on the top and from the LE back about an inch on the bottom out on the outboard side of course. The break is clean at the glue joint with the glue still in place and a 1/16 sliver of sheeting still in place top side center section. Spars and shear web snapped at the first full rib outside the fuse where the spars and bellcrank mount stub ends meets and then directly straight back to the TE. BC is still firmly in place.

In the past I have used carbon veil over the center section but this has proven to create a stress riser outside the fuse area on my yellow model. While it has not buckled the stress riser is evident and only a matter of time before it goes. So I elected not to induce one in this model and simply put a light coat of epoxy over the wing section within the fuse.

The TE is quite narrow at roughly 7/16 x 1/4 with a heavy veil and CA along its vertical length prior to installation. Then installed slightly oversized and trimmed back so as not to force a less than perfectly straight TE into position and inducing a warp. The flap snapped approximately six inches outside the break at the TE so I dont think this is where the break began or it would have snapped cleanly right along with the TE.

The top sheeting buckled pretty cleanly just about 1/4 inch outside the fillets and the bottom sheeting stayed in place until just past where the center section sheeting ends at the first open bay.

In looking this over, obviously I should have applied a center section glassed cloth or tape but I am beginning to think that the load might not have snapped it where it did were the spars not running a straight line from tip to tip and behind the CG and center of lift. Were they positioned at the high point of the wing where the highest loads in a turn would be this might not have happened. Those of you familiar with the Geobolt wing construction know what I am talking about. It appears to have snapped under load just squarely where the hard point created by the oblong triangular BC mounts meet the spars. While it pulled away at center section joint back to the spars I think this was secondary as the TE break and and spar break point are nearly in line. Molded LE and half ribs held up just fine.
Just noticed that there is nearly straight line derived from the flap break to the BC mount stub and the very beginning of the root rib although the flap snapped square to the TE. However the TE broke six inches closer to the fuse. Wish my scanner was working properly, I would post pictures for a better post mortem analysis.
.

Its probably repairable as the fuse is in tact with the inboard stab snapped off on impact but I fear a three or four oz weight gain might not yeild a performance model. Maybe, I will give it a hard look come September.

While the entire wing was not covered prior to installation it was double covered with Brodaks silk span. I dont like Polyspan either Ted. Did my Magician this way as a test and its just not tight enough. I had the plane on its back and thoroughly cleaned prior to fatal flight and observed no stress cracks or wrinkles in the paper.

Any other second guesses would be welcomed.

Inobard or outboard wing?

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 12:34 PM (CDT)
 
>Wreckage at my feet here. First off, it buckled from the
>root at the LE back to the sparat the BC mount on the top
>and from the LE back about an inch on the bottom out on the
>outboard side of course. The break is clean at the glue
>joint with the glue still in place and a 1/16 sliver of
>sheeting still in place top side center section. Spars and
>shear web snapped at the first full rib outside the fuse
>where the spars and bellcrank mount stub ends meets and then
>directly straight back to the TE. BC is still firmly in
>place.

Is there a rib that lines up vertically with the fuse sides? Just curious.

>The TE is quite narrow at roughly 7/16 x 1/4 with a heavy
>veil and CA along its vertical length prior to installation.

That is weird that you think the TE is narrow. To me it was a huge TE when I first built one of these wings. All the Bear TEs were 3/16 by 1/4 or smaller once sanded out.

>Then installed slightly oversized and trimmed back so as not
>to force a less than perfectly straight TE into position and
>inducing a warp. The flap snapped approximately six inches
>outside the break at the TE so I dont think this is where
>the break began or it would have snapped cleanly right along
>with the TE.
>
>The top sheeting buckled pretty cleanly just about 1/4 inch
>outside the fillets and the bottom sheeting stayed in place
>until just past where the center section sheeting ends at
>the first open bay.
>
>In looking this over, obviously I should have applied a
>center section glassed cloth or tape but I am beginning to
>think that the load might not have snapped it where it did
>were the spars not running a straight line from tip to tip
>and behind the CG and center of lift. Were they positioned
>at the high point of the wing where the highest loads in a
>turn would be this might not have happened. Those of you
>familiar with the Geobolt wing construction know what I am
>talking about. It appears to have snapped under load just
>squarely where the hard point created by the oblong
>triangular BC mounts meet the spars. While it pulled away at
>center section joint back to the spars I think this was
>secondary as the TE break and and spar break point are
>nearly in line. Molded LE and half ribs held up just fine.

I have read this many times. It seems as though you built the trailing edge very strong. Then you built the BC mount per Hunts instructions with the oblong mounts that halted at the end of the center sheeting. Then just some molded leading edge and no LE spar correct?

You have a seriously strong TE and hard point at the at the end of the BC mount then a soft spot just ahead of the spar on the molded LE. It looks to me as though it(wing) cannot distribute the pressure away from the "soft spot" The hard point on the BC mount is holding fine the TE with carbon is holding fine and the Molded LE is going to be way weaker than the other two. The beating on the "Soft Spot" never ends. It finally just buckled it. I bet you money it would have buckled it with the spars at the high point like you were talking about earlier. Even glassed and it would have broke from the inside but it just would have taken longer. The heavy duty TE coupled with the long hard point from the BC mount put all the stress on the sheeting just ahead of the spar. That was why I was asking about the verticle rib in alignment with the fuse side. I dont know if it would have helped. Just wondering.

I have looked at the Hunt BC mount and I dont use it. Not because I have a better way. But because I block it up so much inside the fuse that adding all that extra mount in the wing seemed to add weight, and it looks like it could have been a hard point on your wing. I just mount between the two ribs and move on.

>
>I am obviously going to reevaluate my design and
>construction ideas.

I dont really know if this is true but overdesigning one part(carbon TE coes to mind) will cause the others around it to be weaker. The pressure will find the weak spot and hammer it until it breaks. I am sure you already know this but I am just thinking out loud here.

The way that wing builds I dont know why you would need to reinforce the TE even more. The TE goes on last and once it is on there it is so strong.

>While the entire wing was not covered prior to installation

You should very seriously consider doing all of your covering prior to installation. Overlap the center about an inch on either side. You even double covered it right? Now you have a killer TE a strong BC mount(plywood)that is the width of the center sheeting and double covered to the fillet. Your strong TE goes through the fuse, your strong long BC mount goes through the fuse. The LE sheeting is the weakest point. It and the spar buckeled first...IMHO. If you are to carbon the TE again you might want to carbon the spar also. Or not carbon either. I am just thinking out loud again.

>it was double covered and the entire wing is 3/32 with a
>molded LE. I had the plane on its back and thoroughly
>cleaned prior to fatal flight and observed no stress cracks
>or wrinkles in the paper.

One more thing. If the glue seperated from the LE sheeting and the fist couple of ribs or half ribs the wing is toast and it will blow off at any time.

That sucks you lost that plane. I feel your pain.

I hope you arent too discouraged with this wing and the way it builds. I find it to be the best way to build built-ups...IMHO..

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 03:25 PM (CDT)
 
>Is there a rib that lines up vertically with the fuse sides?
> Just curious.

Nope its an angled rib.
>

>
>That is weird that you think the TE is narrow. To me it was
>a huge TE when I first built one of these wings. All the
>Bear TEs were 3/16 by 1/4 or smaller once sanded out.

All Chevelles were 1/2" thick at the TE where the ribs adhere to it. >>Then installed slightly oversized and trimmed back so as not
>>to force a less than perfectly straight TE into position and
>>inducing a warp. The flap snapped approximately six inches
>>outside the break at the TE so I dont think this is where
>>the break began or it would have snapped cleanly right along
>>with the TE.
>>
>>The top sheeting buckled pretty cleanly just about 1/4 inch
>>outside the fillets and the bottom sheeting stayed in place
>>until just past where the center section sheeting ends at
>>the first open bay.
>>

>per Hunts instructions with the oblong mounts that halted at
>the end of the center sheeting. Then just some molded
>leading edge and no LE spar correct?

Correct!
>
>You have a seriously strong TE and hard point at the at the
>end of the BC mount then a soft spot just ahead of the spar
>on the molded LE. It looks to me as though it(wing) cannot
>distribute the pressure away from the "soft spot" The hard
>point on the BC mount is holding fine the TE with carbon is
>holding fine and the Molded LE is going to be way weaker
>than the other two. The beating on the "Soft Spot" never
>ends. It finally just buckled it. I bet you money it would
>have buckled it with the spars at the high point like you
>were talking about earlier. Even glassed and it would have
>broke from the inside but it just would have taken longer.
>The heavy duty TE coupled with the long hard point from the
>BC mount put all the stress on the sheeting just ahead of
>the spar. That was why I was asking about the verticle rib
>in alignment with the fuse side. I dont know if it would
>have helped. Just wondering.

My thoughts here, not accusation is that the center of pressure being in front of the spar might be of consequence.
>
>I have looked at the Hunt BC mount and I dont use it. Not
>because I have a better way. But because I block it up so
>much inside the fuse that adding all that extra mount in the
>wing seemed to add weight, and it looks like it could have
>been a hard point on your wing. I just mount between the
>two ribs and move on.

Thats my usual method also.

>>I am obviously going to reevaluate my design and
>>construction ideas.
>
>I dont really know if this is true but overdesigning one
>part(carbon TE coes to mind) will cause the others around it
>to be weaker. The pressure will find the weak spot and
>hammer it until it breaks. I am sure you already know this
>but I am just thinking out loud here.
>
>The way that wing builds I dont know why you would need to
>reinforce the TE even more. The TE goes on last and once it
>is on there it is so strong.

I agree....but looking for plausible/possible solutions.
>
>>While the entire wing was not covered prior to installation
>
>You should very seriously consider doing all of your
>covering prior to installation. Overlap the center about an
>inch on either side. You even double covered it right? Now
>you have a killer TE a strong BC mount(plywood)that is the
>width of the center sheeting and double covered to the
>fillet. Your strong TE goes through the fuse, your strong
>long BC mount goes through the fuse. The LE sheeting is the
>weakest point. It and the spar buckeled first...IMHO. If
>you are to carbon the TE again you might want to carbon the
>spar also. Or not carbon either. I am just thinking out
>loud again.

Definitely a consideration but the majority of the breakage was outside the fuse, not inside. Even with the center joint covered the majority of the breakage appears to be a nearly straight line about three inches outside the fuse. Stub BC mount and all epoxied over this area should have carried the load even if the very front of the LE was starting to go at the center joint I an inclined to think. Bottom sheeting is still mostly attached to the fuse as it snapped on an inside triangle corner and then appears to have pulled wood away from the glue joints upon flopping upward. Take aparts have a similar stub in nearly the same place epoxied to the spar.
>
>
>One more thing. If the glue seperated from the LE sheeting
>and the fist couple of ribs or half ribs the wing is toast
>and it will blow off at any time.

I had good adhesion to the ribs. I made sure of this prior to installing into the fuse.
>
>I hope you arent too discouraged with this wing and the way
>it builds. I find it to be the best way to build
>built-ups...IMHO..

I love it but I am wondering! Also the outboard wing is still in tact with almost no damage and even the gear is still in place with no damage to the wheel pants or mounting.

>>Is there a rib that lines up vertically with the fuse sides?
>> Just curious.
>
>Nope its an angled rib.

I dont know if it helps but I try to get an alignment rib with the fuse. I dont kow if it does anything, but it helps the old brain pan sleep at night.

>All Chevelles were 1/2" thick at the TE where the ribs
>adhere to it.

That's big TE stuff.

>>>The top sheeting buckled pretty cleanly just about 1/4 inch
>>>outside the fillets and the bottom sheeting stayed in place
>>>until just past where the center section sheeting ends at
>>>the first open bay.
>>>

That tells me that it broke on the top first, right? Do you think so also?

>
>My thoughts here, not accusation is that the center of
>pressure being in front of the spar might be of consequence.

Could very well be. It just seems there would be more folded wings out there. There are alot of wings built this way. But it still could be the culprit here.

>>The way that wing builds I dont know why you would need to
>>reinforce the TE even more. The TE goes on last and once it
>>is on there it is so strong.
>
>I agree....but looking for plausible/possible solutions.

Looking for solutions to what problems?

>Definitely a consideration but the majority of the breakage
>was outside the fuse, not inside.

Exactly. When you install the wing the center becomes rock solid! Then you cover to the fuse joint. That portion is rock solid. There will alwasy be a stress riser if your covering ends somewhere in the center area without overlapping or going all the way across the wing. Where it stops, even under a fillet, can cause a stress riser. The covering helps to make the wing have one solid consistant layer all across the structure. This will always help distribute the pressure evenly across the wing.

Even with the center joint
>covered the majority of the breakage appears to be a nearly
>straight line about three inches outside the fuse. Stub BC
>mount and all epoxied over this area should have carried the
>load even if the very front of the LE was starting to go at
>the center joint I an inclined to think. Bottom sheeting is
>still mostly attached to the fuse as it snapped on an inside
>triangle corner and then appears to have pulled wood away
>from the glue joints upon flopping upward. Take aparts have
>a similar stub in nearly the same place epoxied to the spar.
>>
>>
>>One more thing. If the glue seperated from the LE sheeting
>>and the fist couple of ribs or half ribs the wing is toast
>>and it will blow off at any time.
>
>I had good adhesion to the ribs. I made sure of this prior
>to installing into the fuse.
>>
>>I hope you arent too discouraged with this wing and the way
>>it builds. I find it to be the best way to build
>>built-ups...IMHO..
>
>I love it but I am wondering! Also the outboard wing is
>still in tact with almost no damage and even the gear is
>still in place with no damage to the wheel pants or
>mounting.
>
>
>

Like Larry said it should not just fold up without a reason. There was built weak spot in there somewhere or a really strong spot....IMHO...this caused an uneven distribution of pressure across the wing.

I hope you are still coming to the Nats...

It will always be a tough call without actually seeing it happen on the plane in flight.

John,

1) A photo here might be worth 10K words to us..

2) Do you plan to try to repair this wing or replace it entirely?

3) If you plan to replace it entirely, and you have a "sound" inboard panel, it might be worthwhile to test that panel to destruction and see exactly how it breaks.. If the break looks symmetrical to the outboard, your wing structure has a design problem. (Easy to say, probably very difficult to fail that wing, particularly without hurting the rest of the ship..)

The (few) folding wings I have observed have given some warning, with excess deflection. Yours apparently failed abruptly without any warning at all.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a silencer?"

>John,
>
>1) A photo here might be worth 10K words to us..
>
>2) Do you plan to try to repair this wing or replace it
>entirely?
>
>3) If you plan to replace it entirely, and you have a
>"sound" inboard panel, it might be worthwhile to test that
>panel to destruction and see exactly how it breaks.. If the
>break looks symmetrical to the outboard, your wing structure
>has a design problem. (Easy to say, probably very difficult
>to fail that wing, particularly without hurting the rest of
>the ship..)
>
>The (few) folding wings I have observed have given some
>warning, with excess deflection. Yours apparently failed
>abruptly without any warning at all.

Sorry Larry no pics as yet and my scanner is on the fritz anyway. Not going to shoot a roll of film for this incident and have no choice but take my lumps anyhow.

>
>[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]
>
>"If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a
>silencer?"

There may be enough here to hazard a guess at what happened. In a lot of "minimal" engineering, things are borderline. This sometimes happens in space frame and monocoque racing cars, and combinations of the two. Not so much nowadays, but thinking back to the Maserati Birdcage and Colin Chapman era. I think the Birdcage was always O.K. but the folk myth concerning the Lotus cars was that Chapman's philosophy was "If it don't break it's too heavy!". I read somewhere there were some disatisfied drivers who had come to grief in Loti. The idea is not to have any structural member you don't need, i.e. all structural members must take the maximum stress allowed, and nothing is redundant. If you miscalculate on what the maximum stress will be and have no safety factor, you get a failure.
In England we had a series of failures with an innovative new type of bridge construction called "Box Girder". It could be considered as a type of monocoque. It offered significant economies compared with conventional constructions, but subsequently needed severe revisions of the Code of Practice to which they were built. Our wings might be considered as a type of box girder. What is the most frequently heard expression in our civilisation? "blah blah blah...IT MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN". Just note how often you hear this.
Another example of minimal design in nature is bones from bird wings. These really are only strong enough for the intended purpose, nothing more. If you ever seen one sectioned, you will see a light thin walled virtually hollow bone, but at the end where the greatest stress occurs, there are a series of internal struts bracing the sides of the tube apart and preventing buckling. The bone is a "space frame-monocoque".
The front part of John's wing can also be considered a monocoque. Monocoques can fail catastrophically if the skin is overstressed and buckles, which is what John's failure sounds like. The wing is cantilevered out from the fus, so bending stress is minimum at the tip, increasing to a maximum where it joins the fus. Although the greatest stress is nearest the fus, the presence of the fus itself may have stabilised that part of the wing, like the struts in the bird wing. Perhaps the failure occurred about 6"? outboard because that was where the stress (without the restraint of the fus side) was enough to cause the monocoque skin to buckle?
Incidentally, I note there was no L.E., and I wonder, was it 1/16" sheet or 1/20" John?
Good luck to anyone determined enough to plough through this to the end, hope it makes sense. It's purely a "stab in the dark" at an explanation. Any comments anyone?
Oh yes, omitted from my previous comment, - Commiserations John!
Regards to all, Ian R.

It was 3/32 sheet...

>There may be enough here to hazard a guess at what happened.
>In a lot of "minimal" engineering, things are borderline.
>This sometimes happens in space frame and monocoque racing
>cars, and combinations of the two. Not so much nowadays, but
>thinking back to the Maserati Birdcage and Colin Chapman
>era. I think the Birdcage was always O.K. but the folk myth
>concerning the Lotus cars was that Chapman's philosophy was
>"If it don't break it's too heavy!". I read somewhere there
>were some disatisfied drivers who had come to grief in Loti.
>The idea is not to have any structural member you don't
>need, i.e. all structural members must take the maximum
>stress allowed, and nothing is redundant. If you
>miscalculate on what the maximum stress will be and have no
>safety factor, you get a failure.
> In England we had a series of failures with an innovative
>new type of bridge construction called "Box Girder". It
>could be considered as a type of monocoque. It offered
>significant economies compared with conventional
>constructions, but subsequently needed severe revisions of
>the Code of Practice to which they were built. Our wings
>might be considered as a type of box girder. What is the
>most frequently heard expression in our civilisation? "blah
>blah blah...IT MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN". Just note how often
>you hear this.
> Another example of minimal design in nature is bones
>from bird wings. These really are only strong enough for the
>intended purpose, nothing more. If you ever seen one
>sectioned, you will see a light thin walled virtually hollow
>bone, but at the end where the greatest stress occurs, there
>are a series of internal struts bracing the sides of the
>tube apart and preventing buckling. The bone is a "space
>frame-monocoque".
> The front part of John's wing can also be considered a
>monocoque. Monocoques can fail catastrophically if the skin
>is overstressed and buckles, which is what John's failure
>sounds like. The wing is cantilevered out from the fus, so
>bending stress is minimum at the tip, increasing to a
>maximum where it joins the fus. Although the greatest stress
>is nearest the fus, the presence of the fus itself may have
>stabilised that part of the wing, like the struts in the
>bird wing. Perhaps the failure occurred about 6"? outboard
>because that was where the stress (without the restraint of
>the fus side) was enough to cause the monocoque skin to
>buckle?
> Incidentally, I note there was no L.E., and I wonder,
>was it 1/16" sheet or 1/20" John?
> Good luck to anyone determined enough to plough through
>this to the end, hope it makes sense. It's purely a "stab in
>the dark" at an explanation. Any comments anyone?
> Oh yes, omitted from my previous comment, -
>Commiserations John!
> Regards to all, Ian R.

Thanks for the kind words Ian. The molded LE and all sheeting is 3/32" thickness. Should have been more than adequate. I will never rule out a lack of doped paper overlap through the center section but have my doubts and may even drag the carcass to the Nats for evening conversation.

John,

I'm very sorry to hear this.

BUT, folded wings should NEVER happen. There must have been a construction flaw, or damage you weren't aware of, or something.
(I already know there was nothing wrong with your building techniques.)

I'd be interested in hearing your analysis of this failure.

What actually happened?

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Give us the luxuries of life and we will dispense with the necessities." -Oliver Wendell Holmes

John,
3 years ago at the Palmer Classic my Concours winning Diva (65 powered version) gained entrance into airplane heaven. I had a 6-hour drive home to think about things. I unloaded the car, made a sandwich and started cutting balsa. Seven weeks later there was new Diva. I truly feel your pain but you gotta get back on the horse now!! It didn’t kill you so you must be stronger!

Re. Sniveling, I just got back from that same Palmer Classic. I put in a very good first flight. The judges scored me with a 57 point spread!!! For the first time I did some sniveling myself. Just for a little bit though. Then I sucked in what apparently is a fairly sizable gut for me and went over and flew FAI combat with a kid less than half my age, who’s a lot smarter than me and has the moves and reflexes of a hungry Cheetah. Also flew his dad who is my age with similar reflexes! Found out I could still hold my own with both or them. Now I’m trying to figure out how to get to the team trials on the 4th of July weekend!

John.... I thought that you only crashed at my feet? You don't love me any more?

I believe that Winfred xoomed a planned Nat's entry into terra firma 12-15 years ago a week prior to the Nats. He created an award winning aeroplane in that time, and captured his usual fifth flying it.
Tradition? I don't know...

Are the previous Chevelle's scrapped?

See Ya

I remember Windy told me it was his LJ "Black Sunday" that he smacked...and in twenty days start to finish he built "Louisiana Lightning" and won the Concours and 5th in Open at Lake Charles.

>I remember Windy told me it was his LJ "Black Sunday" that
>he smacked...and in twenty days start to finish he built
>"Louisiana Lightning" and won the Concours and 5th in Open
>at Lake Charles.

I think it was the "Killer Bee" that was built so fast after the "atomic welding" debacle caused the loss of "Black Sunday."

It didn't kill you so
>you must be stronger!

I had to say that very thing to myself every morning when I was laid off. I was breathing, and I did croak in the middle of the night, so I must be getting stronger.

There truly is nothing to say at the loss of new season's airplane before the new season has really begun. Mostly, we all just stand around and stare... trying not to make a lot of eye contact. I had a similar experience last week when I finally broke down and admitted that the Mr. Hyde would need major surgery to fix some control ills. To say I was a little miffed would be an understatement. It was all over very quickly though, like a tetanus shot, and all is fixed now better than new.

Often it is difficult to respond to misfortune. Some people respond with stories that downplay your misfortune, others say it's part of the game. My advice would be (even though you did not ask), next year, build two airplanes at once. I have noticed we all fly better with a perfectly capable backup waiting in the wings.

Dust off the old Chevelle and get your butt to Muncie.

John,

I too feel your pain. Last year on June 25th I stuffed my Nats plane into John Simpson's flying field up to the leading edge of the wing due to a no wind wake turbulence encounter. I had to go with a back-up plan just as did Brad - Except I didn't have to build a new plane. Just fly one that I hadn't flown in a year and a half. Since I was forced into flying it, I have improved flying it somewhat due to better trim managment. It still doesn't fly like I want it too, so I am now in the process of buiding another plane. The only trouble is the new plane can't possibly be finished until at least the 04 Nats maybe even after that! Sorry to hear of the demise of a nice plane. That's always a tragic thing!

John, I was at the Lexington contest also (The tall redneck from Fl with the Oriental profile). That Chevelle was beautiful and flew just great and I am sorry as hell you wacked it.
Incidentally thank you for sharing your tent with me as NO SHADE exists at that field (unless you bring it or crawl under your car between flights).
Hey it ain't all bad-you got a good lookin' woman to help ease the pain.
BudS

>John, I was at the Lexington contest also (The tall redneck
>from Fl with the Oriental profile). That Chevelle was
>beautiful and flew just great and I am sorry as hell you
>wacked it.
>Incidentally thank you for sharing your tent with me as NO
>SHADE exists at that field (unless you bring it or crawl
>under your car between flights).
>Hey it ain't all bad-you got a good lookin' woman to help
>ease the pain.
>BudS

Why thank you Bud! Grab some shade with us anytime!It was a pleasure to meet you and you flew very well. You could easily compete in Advanced in my opinion. Yes, the good looking woman has been quite at easing pain. She even offered to drive down last night so I could cry on her shoulder. What a Babe!

>>John, I was at the Lexington contest also (The tall redneck
>>from Fl with the Oriental profile). That Chevelle was
>>beautiful and flew just great and I am sorry as hell you
>>wacked it.
>>Incidentally thank you for sharing your tent with me as NO
>>SHADE exists at that field (unless you bring it or crawl
>>under your car between flights).
>>Hey it ain't all bad-you got a good lookin' woman to help
>>ease the pain.
>>BudS
>
>Why thank you Bud! Grab some shade with us anytime!It was a
>pleasure to meet you and you flew very well. You could
>easily compete in Advanced in my opinion. Yes, the good
>looking woman has been quite at easing pain. She even
>offered to drive down last night so I could cry on her
>shoulder. What a Babe!

I'll definitly take you up on the shade offer. Say, wasn't that your tent that went a-flyin' away in the wind?
John wrecked his tent at one contest and his plane preping for the next one.
Anyway thanks for the comment about my flying. I am learning a lot from people like yourself and our club members. I may go to the Nats and fly intermediate one more time-then move up and take my whuppin's like a man.
See ya John
Bud Shipley

Ted wrote:

>The iron ons raise an interesting dichotomy. They're really
>just fine covered just to the fuse after assembly. Reason
>is simple, they add so little to the rigidity of the wing
>that the stress riser is minimized to a point where the
>structure of the wing will hold up just fine.

Aha.. And by extension, silkspan/tissue that DOESN'T extend through the fuse causes a stress riser right where the wing enters the fuse. Thanks. Never thought of that before...

Speaking of iron-ons - does anyone have more details about Henry Nelson's new covering film?

>Aha.. And by extension, silkspan/tissue that DOESN'T extend
>through the fuse causes a stress riser right where the wing
>enters the fuse. Thanks. Never thought of that before...
>

Exactly, Isky!

Maybe I missed something somewhere but how do you attach the fuselage to the wing if you have covered clear over the center section?
You are attaching the fuselage to the covering and not the balsa sheet.
TIA
Bud Shipley

>Maybe I missed something somewhere but how do you attach the
>fuselage to the wing if you have covered clear over the
>center section?
>You are attaching the fuselage to the covering and not the
>balsa sheet.
>TIA
>Bud Shipley

The wing is covered, several coats of dope applied but short of any gloss forming. The paper is still pourous on its surface.This secures the covering uniformly to the balsa surface and provides the uniformity of structure from tip to tip that is required.

The fuse location is then marked and the gluing area punctured several dozen times with a straight pin. The glue (I use slow drying alphatic resin for all important structural joints) penetrates the pin holes to provide a secure joint with the fuse.

The only time this joint might require more attention would be if the wing merely sits on the fuse...as with a Stunt Wagon. In this case the wing is not "captured" by the structure as is the usual practice with stunters where the fuse goes over both the top and bottom of the wing. With a "captured" wing the glue joint pretty much only needs to be good enough to keep the wing from sliding out of the fuse .

Don't underestimate the strength of gluing to the paper by the way. As long as the glue has some grain to bite into it'll be plenty strong enough for our usual application. Remember, pretty much all the strength of an I-Beamer comes from the "paper" covering!

>>Maybe I missed something somewhere but how do you attach the
>>fuselage to the wing if you have covered clear over the
>>center section?
>>You are attaching the fuselage to the covering and not the
>>balsa sheet.
>>TIA
>>Bud Shipley
>
>The wing is covered, several coats of dope applied but short
>of any gloss forming. The paper is still pourous on its
>surface.This secures the covering uniformly to the balsa
>surface and provides the uniformity of structure from tip to
>tip that is required.
>
>The fuse location is then marked and the gluing area
>punctured several dozen times with a straight pin. The glue
>(I use slow drying alphatic resin for all important
>structural joints) penetrates the pin holes to provide a
>secure joint with the fuse.
>
>The only time this joint might require more attention would
>be if the wing merely sits on the fuse...as with a Stunt
>Wagon. In this case the wing is not "captured" by the
>structure as is the usual practice with stunters where the
>fuse goes over both the top and bottom of the wing. With a
>"captured" wing the glue joint pretty much only needs to be
>good enough to keep the wing from sliding out of the fuse
> .
>
>Don't underestimate the strength of gluing to the paper by
>the way. As long as the glue has some grain to bite into
>it'll be plenty strong enough for our usual application.
>Remember, pretty much all the strength of an I-Beamer comes
>from the "paper" covering!
>
>Ted
Ted
Where does one get alphatic resin? This sounds like it would work on a profile as well. Thanks-Bud

BTW John-I laud your venting about your plane. In my work as a guidance counselor venting is emphasized (versus "internalizing" the trauma). And wrecking an airplane you have your best effort in (time, money, creativity, sacrifice etc.) IS a trauma-not like a death or major life setback-but kinda like Rembrant would have felt if one of his paintings was waterlogged or burned. Life goes on but it sure as hell bums you out for a while.
Maybe we ought to have a special thread just for pitching a fit!
Bud

>>>Maybe I missed something somewhere but how do you attach the
>>>fuselage to the wing if you have covered clear over the
>>>center section?
>>>You are attaching the fuselage to the covering and not the
>>>balsa sheet.
>>>TIA
>>>Bud Shipley
>>
>>The wing is covered, several coats of dope applied but short
>>of any gloss forming. The paper is still pourous on its
>>surface.This secures the covering uniformly to the balsa
>>surface and provides the uniformity of structure from tip to
>>tip that is required.
>>
>>The fuse location is then marked and the gluing area
>>punctured several dozen times with a straight pin. The glue
>>(I use slow drying alphatic resin for all important
>>structural joints) penetrates the pin holes to provide a
>>secure joint with the fuse.
>>
>>The only time this joint might require more attention would
>>be if the wing merely sits on the fuse...as with a Stunt
>>Wagon. In this case the wing is not "captured" by the
>>structure as is the usual practice with stunters where the
>>fuse goes over both the top and bottom of the wing. With a
>>"captured" wing the glue joint pretty much only needs to be
>>good enough to keep the wing from sliding out of the fuse
>> .
>>

I am surely not going to argue this point, but isnt the simple act of gluing the wing into the fuse joint creating a stress riser in and of itself?

>>Don't underestimate the strength of gluing to the paper by
>>the way. As long as the glue has some grain to bite into
>>it'll be plenty strong enough for our usual application.
>>Remember, pretty much all the strength of an I-Beamer comes
>>from the "paper" covering!
>>
>>Ted
>Ted
>Where does one get alphatic resin? This sounds like it
>would work on a profile as well. Thanks-Bud
>
>BTW John-I laud your venting about your plane. In my work
>as a guidance counselor venting is emphasized (versus
>"internalizing" the trauma). And wrecking an airplane you
>have your best effort in (time, money, creativity, sacrifice
>etc.) IS a trauma-not like a death or major life setback-but
>kinda like Rembrant would have felt if one of his paintings
>was waterlogged or burned. Life goes on but it sure as hell
>bums you out for a while.
>Maybe we ought to have a special thread just for pitching a
>fit!
>Bud

Thanks Bud....having been a younger man than I am currently, I recognize the loss of integrity associated with blowing off steam improperly and have paid that price in its many forms. None the less I am surely not ashamed to let somebody know I was upset, hurt, or otherwise a human being. Besides, I know this a safe crowd to vent frustration as the serious modelers have all been where I am at one time or another.
Bud

LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-03 AT 10:48 PM (CDT)
 
Bud wrote:

"Ted
Where does one get alphatic resin? This sounds like it would work on a profile as well. Thanks-Bud"

Bud,

Sig Bond and Tite Bond are both aliphatic resins. The latter can be found at any hardware/home center> There is probably a myraid of others, but I'm familiar and have used these two.

Chevelle,

Absolutely, the fuse itself makes a pretty fair stress riser. Feel free to omit it.

On the other hand, ignoring the compounding of the problem that papering up to that stress riser causes is not unlike the logic that says: "heck, I haven't died from smoking, I might as well drink to excess and then go for a walk on the freeway"!

>Chevelle,
>
>Absolutely, the fuse itself makes a pretty fair stress
>riser. Feel free to omit it.
>
>On the other hand, ignoring the compounding of the problem
>that papering up to that stress riser causes is not unlike
>the logic that says: "heck, I haven't died from smoking, I
>might as well drink to excess and then go for a walk on the
>freeway"!
>
>Ted

(Laughing out loud)I have been trying to find a way to omit this silly hard linkage from the wing to the control surfaces but cant get away from the beauty it adds to flying surfaces. Maybe an I Beam Half Fast is the answer?

Ok...another snivel, I havent kicked the smoking habit yet and moderately delve into the foreign brews and fine wines. I have managed to omit the jaunt down the freeway though! Besides you cant seriously participate in this hobby without some obsessive compulsive tendencies, a touch of anal retentiveness and insanity!

LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-03 AT 01:07 PM (CDT)
 
>Besides you cant seriously participate in this hobby without
>some obsessive compulsive tendencies, a touch of anal
>retentiveness and insanity!

Seems to be a requirement actually.

Doug Moon sent me an e-mail the other day. He said his job has changed from PBX admin to "analist" (Doug can't spell).

I said "no kidding". I also nearly soiled myself I was laughing so hard.

That's almost better than U-ASS-A-MING.

>
>>Besides you cant seriously participate in this hobby without
>>some obsessive compulsive tendencies, a touch of anal
>>retentiveness and insanity!
>
>Seems to be a requirement actually.
>
>Doug Moon sent me an e-mail the other day. He said his job
>has changed from PBX admin to "aalist" (Doug can't spell).
>
>I said "no kidding". I also nearly soiled myself I was
>laughing so hard.
>
>That's almost better than U-ASS-A-MING.

If you are going to take Public shots at me and how I cant spell then maybe you sould check your own work before posting.

Read your post and you will see where you blew it...

>If you are going to take Public shots at me and how I cant
>spell then maybe you sould check your own work before
>posting.

Maybe you just can't type. Either way, it was funny.

You're a funny guy!

If I only had a bag for all of the gems Steve, Doug, Mike Scott and Bob G. unload sometime...keeps me smiling even when the wind is coming over the tracks... (waxing)

Maybe I "sould" check my work...

LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-03 AT 09:00 PM (CDT)
 
>>
>>>Besides you cant seriously participate in this hobby without
>>>some obsessive compulsive tendencies, a touch of anal
>>>retentiveness and insanity!
>>
>>Seems to be a requirement actually.
>>
>>Doug Moon sent me an e-mail the other day. He said his job
>>has changed from PBX admin to "aalist" (Doug can't spell).
>>
>>I said "no kidding". I also nearly soiled myself I was
>>laughing so hard.
>>
>>That's almost better than U-ASS-A-MING.
>
>If you are going to take Public shots at me and how I cant
>spell then maybe you sould check your own work before
>posting.

LMAO....You two are both on the Aalist of Analists! Dont worry Doug...Bradley spends his fair share of time in the barrel!
>

>Bud wrote:
>
>"Ted
>Where does one get alphatic resin? This sounds like it would
>work on a profile as well. Thanks-Bud"
>
>Bud,
>
>Sig Bond and Tite Bond are both aliphatic resins. The latter
>can be found at any hardware/home center> There is probably
>a myraid of others, but I'm familiar and have used these
>two.
>
>Thanks for the tip Old Sourdough and Ted-I'll definitely check it out.
Bud

Len, All

How did this end up in the Snivel thread?????????????????????????

I think someone might believe that aliphatic resin on a wing/fuse joint could somehow be better, not induce a stress riser, make a better joint, or something?
????

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Vuja De: That feeling you've never been here before."