John,
Bill and Sue's work is truly commendable and worthy of our praise. My 2 cents
worth
are:
With the tank being contained within the same space, all your points of concern
I believe are somewhat a dampener, a bit pedantic,
and academic, but pertinent to UK builders I suppose. I am only too glad that I
dont build in the UK where the absence of an Experimental category denies common
sense addressing of genuine problems. You guys really need to lobby for an
experimental category! If the replacement of a flexible brittle tank prone to
causing quite a few of our builders distress, luckily sofar only on the ground,
in the same position relative to CoG and attachment wise, causes you distress,
move your project downunder, or over the pond is my suggestion. Leave the
bureaucracy behind and we'll happily accept you ;-)
Tony R
Across the pond from our Kiwi mates.
P.S. By way of an example, the stresses at points of attachment, the module, is
capable of supporting the ultimate fail safe load far in excess
of our 4G limit. 15 kg of additional fuel supported on the back of that same
bulkhead
is academic in my opinion. Its even a bridged load, shared with the roof
of the pitch pushrod tunnel aft of the rear footwells, as I call them.
> On 23 Mar 2014, at 19:17, "John Wighton" <john@wighton.net> wrote:
>
>
> Great job on the tank. It looks excellent and gives a useful increase in
> volume.
>
> How do you intend to prove it complies with the requirements? I note the
> pictures
show a test rig, possibly for functional tests? The tank will need to be
pressure tested, easily achieved using a long tube and a calculated head of
liquid (please use water for the test and remember to recalculate for the higher
density).
>
> The larger volume will need the basic static strength calculations to be
> revisited.
Hhigher inertia loads and different CG location will alter the loads being
carried by the forward structure.
>
> What is the weight of the bare tank?
>
> I dont know where your project is based, for builders in the UK this would
> definitely
be classified as a modification.
>
> Regards
> JW
>
> --------
> John Wighton
> Europa XS trigear G-IPOD
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420880#420880
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|