Holy crap. I'm 5 seconds in and there's Wendall Anschutz (spelling?) the old Kansas city news anchor from when I was a kid. I remember that blue plane of his. My brother used to mow the grass around his hangar. Nice guy.
Wow great video! Cool to see those old instructions videos. As an aircraft mechanic i still learn new things everytime i see such videos :) Thanks for sharing (y)
I dont mean to be offtopic but does anybody know of a method to get back into an Instagram account?? I stupidly forgot the login password. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer me
@Joseph Lewis Thanks for your reply. I got to the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff atm. Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
this is a great video to use as a tutorial I seen this many times a great source of info, for those of us that build airplanes! thank you once again..cheers!!
@@albonyo Not a cub, or any welded tube, fabric and wood structure. The only designs this glass/epoxy, hot-wire cut foam composite method is used on, are the Quickie Q1, Long-EZ (Open-EZ), and parts of the KR-2.
I am a DH Mosquito enthusiast, and I wonder if it would be viable to make a full size aircaft at a fraction of the cost of trditional construction and it wouldn't rot. I believe they make spitfires and hurricanes in this way. what are your thoughts?
Depends on the specific application. Wing and fuselage skins, as well as shear webs will often have it crossed 90-degrees to the previous layer. With both layers being +/-45 degrees to the direction of shear-load. In other applications, such as spar caps, it's all layered 100% uni-directional.
I WOULD LIKE SOME INFO ON EXACTLY WHAT CARBON FIBER APPLICATION OF THE CARBON FIBER I SHOUD USE FOR THE PROJECT I AM INTERESTED IN......CAN YOU REC0MEND WHO I SHOULD CONSULT /?
Depends on what you want to do. You just want to make a cool-looking part, use black fiberglass instead. If you want to make a structural part, do you really need the strength-to-weight ratio? Carbon fiber is really expensive and requires more skill to work with. You need to think about fiber alignment and other stuff like getting it to bend around your intended radius, it's less pliable than glass. Generally, if it's not load-bearing, figure it out in glass, first. You're probably going to need to figure out vacuum-bagging and resin infusion, too. By the time you get that far, you may realize you don't actually need carbon fiber for your project or that you can use it just as reinforcement. Getting the air out of your resin and your resin/fiber ratio better will go a lot farther. Remember, composite construction is about leveraging material strengths against other's weaknesses: Fibers bring tension and flexibility, resin brings compression strength to the fibers. The fiberglass/resin brings better point-loading, compression and tension to foam, the foam increases shear strength of the glass/resin. All that carbon-fiber is going to do is increase your tension load capacity for a given mass. If your design does not properly take advantage of tension in the first place, if you haven't figured out the rest of the system, then you're just wasting money.
You probably don’t need or want carbon fiber at all. Side by side with S glass carbon fiber losses at everything but rigidity. S glass(higher end fiber glass yet still much cheaper) has higher tensile strength, better flex before fail, and is lighter given proper lay up methods are used. Now this doesn’t mean you still don’t need and or want Carbon fiber. If you just want a look then carbon fiber is carbon fiber and go for it. If you just want the look you can still laminate the item with the proper amount of S glass and or E glass( again just really good fiber glass that’s better than carbon fiber on many applications but not as good as S glads) but use the carbon on the outside or exposed side for appearance. Vacuum bag method yields a incredibly strong tensile strength item but it flexes like crazy. Sandwich coat resolves this but in traditional methods leaves voids of air. A carefully thought out combination of the two can yield a incredibly strong item that meats many demands. Nomax honey comb is another core material that solves the compression issues with foam, but no idea if it’s what you need and or want. Honestly there are so many variables that without more information no one can possibly help you. Design and structure is bound by the mission and without knowing this there is nothing anyone can do to help you and nothing you can do to help yourself. As a engineer I implore you to first state your mission then find what it is that best achieves this mission no matter where this takes you. If you find that other materials or methods is the best solution then please use them. If you just want to make say cool looking(not insulting you here as mission is the most important thing) light fixtures then please use the method and material that best suits your needs. If structure is your goal I implore you to research S glass/E glass. You may find that these two items meet your needs perfectly. You may also find that Carbon fiber or Kevlar also meet your needs. It’s all about the mission, find what meets your needs and then over build it to a level that still allows you to meet your goal. I have saw many engineers use hugely expensive materials simply because they were sold on a idea not because it was the best solution.
Carbon Fiber in an Open Wet Layup is not going to reach it's full potential, and it is true that S-2 Glass will perform as good or better in that application. But PrePreg Carbon in an Autoclave is going to be better than almost anything except Boron fiber in compression.
Before nitrile gloves. Back then all they had to work with epoxy was heavy rubber gloves that would puncture over time and expose you to toxins. The hand coating they used was safer back then. It’s still good practice to use it under your nitrile gloves today. My bigger concern is no respirator in use.
He completely lost me at 20:00. Why is bonding the piece at 90 degrees? Also, while making the spar, it would have helped to get different angles. I can't tell what is getting glass clothe and what isn't.
"90 degrees" as apposed to what? Forgetting that there are many 90 degree angles, both in a plane and other things, it's a 40 year old demonstration of joining two pieces together, 90 degrees being the literal center point out of the possible 180 degrees worth of angles. And it's all getting glassed. No bare foam. Besides, now theres a thing called vacuum bagging.
The work tip at .. pr88 gel ... Do Not use with Latex gloves... When doing other types of work. Proven to cause a skin rash. Be careful with glove and liquid glove you use.
And then Dick Van Grunsven came along with the RV series made of old fashioned aluminum and with the tail in the back and simple rivets and there are now 10,000 of them flying and on average a new one gets c of a every day. And they leave ezs in the dust.
Put it up against a Polliwagen. 100HP will do 230 plus MPH, cruise at 190 easy, build out for about 60 grand with nice avionics, and out perform anything Vans has. Vans are nice planes but you are putting a Lego kit together and not actually building a plane. If that's what you want to do great. Grab a sling, a vans, or any of the other kits out there. If you want to build a plane pick up a plan and actually build it.
tony jacobs I guess you have never built one. Mine is slow build kit pre cnc and it is a huge undertaking. You get wing ribs, fuse formers and some weldments. That’s it. Even the newer ones that are not quick built are 1500 hrs of work. Hardly a lego set, except that most things fit. As for the polliwagen, it was a disaster. No way would it do 230mph with an O320 let alone 100hp. There is a very good reason why it went away. I can see your experience is based on reading adds in magazines, vs real world. Do some googling. Try “whatever happened to the polliwagon”. I did and it was pretty entertaining. Lots of crashes, lots of examples that never came close to the performance claims. If you think it will “outperform anything vans has” you are on crack. 10,000 RVs have been completed and flown. They all fly as advertised. No other design comes close to those numbers. How many polliwagons are flying? How many were built? How many crashed? The RV series is the most successful homebuilt in history and the polliwagon is a sad joke
Richard VanGrunsven made a brilliant little sport-plane in the original RV-3. (The RV-1 was kind of a stits playboy hob-job). And the follow-on -4, -6/6A were all very good for their eras. But they all had their problems, most of which was Spar failures in the -3, then weight and balance in the 4. None of them are "genius" designs in their own right. But Vans went against the trend of higher aspect ratios and kept with the stubby low aspect ratio 4.4 hershey-bar wing for gentle stall, STOL, and Roll performance. There are many advantaged to rectangular wings. (But not structural advantages). And Richard capitalized on those strengths while minimizing their weaknesses (short spans, long chords, light wing loading, over powered for their size). The entire kit is just simple available aluminum extrusions and rivets. And enough custom fiberglass and welded parts to keep Vans as the primary source of kits and center of the RV economy. Unlike plans-built aircraft which inevitably have no support due to lack of income over time. While builders require more and more assistance as the years drag on and their dollars were already spent on plans a decade ago, thus generate no added revenue for the plans seller, only headaches.
@@jj4791 Twat, the 80's was for some the best HIFI decade for all time, and stereo recordings where popular long time before, But this it does not matter. as the recording is now digital, all one has to do is when editing to click on "dual mono" and now the video clip has two audio channels :) No. I do not eat washing machine detergent, that is strictly a american thing, now my frustrated friend jog off, shoot some cans in the back yard and smoke your pot.
