Light wing build

mike mcs repair · Dec 29, 2010

tcraft128 said:
I would love to cover my plane in clear!

would bet the bottom of wing could take it for a little while... attach it like Maule does there tail feathers, one strip at a time...

maybe outside prop wash area...

have your demo plane done like that for shows and flyins....

Glidestone · Jan 3, 2011

Dave Calkins said:
Been flying a Wag-Aero Cuby. Wood Wing. The wing leading edge radius is larger than Piper. The Aviat Husky used the same airfoil section as Cuby/Wag. I can't say anything bad about it.

This Cuby has 0-290D2 Lycoming. Just got new Exp. pistons and fresh cylinders from Lycon. All reports are that it RIPs! It was pretty good before with tired cylinders and Gurney flaps. about 1000 lbs. empty. on 31's with Baby Buswheel.

Dave. Could you elaborate on the exp. pistons and cylinders. By fresh do you mean new or overhauled? Talk on here a few years back, of machining an 0-290D2 to accept 0-320 cylinders. Wonder if anyone has done this yet? Thanks.

D.A. · Jan 3, 2011

Glidestone said:
Dave. Could you elaborate on the exp. pistons and cylinders. By fresh do you mean new or overhauled? Talk on here a few years back, of machining an 0-290D2 to accept 0-320 cylinders. Wonder if anyone has done this yet? Thanks.

Actually, the "New Exp Pistons" caught my eye too. I didn't say anything because I just figured I don't get out much, but I didn't realize Lycon made their high compression pistons for the O-290. If they do, that's kind of cool. O-290's tend to be more reasonably priced and if you could throw a set of Lycon pistons in it and have somewhere north or south of 150/160 horse power, well, like I said, that's kind of cool!

With regard to fly cutting the case for O-320 cylinders, seems I read somewhere in the small print that the O-290 and O-320 case are actually based on the same casting? The cylinder base hold down pattern is the same. However, pistons would be a whole lot faster/easier/cheaper. By the time you're chucking your O-290 case halves onto a Bridgeport to open them up for the O-320 cylinders, you could have probably started out with an O-320 I guess.

D.A. · Jan 3, 2011

Marty, checked out your build site - nice work and nicely documented. Thanks for sharing. I ordered the Wag plans today and stopped by and BS'd with Jerry Burr about nose rib profiles and so on. We traced out a stock rib on construction paper and then Jerry held a piece of the cuff material against the paper/stock rib and I traced that as well. My son Chris is actually in charge of the wing program. We're trying to decide whether we should cut out nose ribs with the cuff profile already incorporated or cut them out stock (Piper stock) and add provisions in the L.E. skin to screw the cuff on afterward. Either way, the Wag plans should be here by the end of the week and Jerry sent me home with a stock rib to trace over the Wag pattern.

Looking at the pictures on your build site I noticed that there are some pretty substantial doubler plates at the wing attach and strut attach points. Are those on Wag's Sport Trainer plans also or are those 2+2 specific enhancements. If they're 2+2 specific, I think I'd like to order the 2+2 wing drawings (if they'll sell them individually) and build those wings for our SC. Your wings look great!

David

C-FIJK · Jan 3, 2011

2+ 2

if you want to get a good head start minus the engine they have here it is posted today
http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=listing&main
WAG AERO 2+2 PROJECT • ACCEPTING OFFERS • Wag Aero 2+2 project, fuselage in primer for storage, some welding left. Wings with wooden spars, stored in racks, some gluing left. Engine 0300-A firewall forward removal from Cessna 170B, TT3050 hours, TSO1662. It has been stored inside heated building, good engine, no prop. Some cover supplies, 18 gal wing tanks, gear, seats, windshield. $9900.00 Aqua 2200 floats, ferry time only, stored inside, struts, fittings, pork chops(for 170B). $9900.00 Package deal $16,000.00 • Contact Ritchie O. Putnam, Friend of Owner - located Madison, ME USA • Telephone: 2074313610 . • Posted January 3, 2011

Marty57 · Jan 4, 2011

Hi David,
The doubler plates on the spars are just 1/16" ply but they are different than the Sport Trainer and Wagabond spars. I also added extra plates on the inside of the spars at the flap and aileron hangers. Call Tom O'Niel at Wag and talk to him about the 2+2 wing drawings. If that falls through, let me know. I talked to him at Osh and he said that the lightest wing by far is all wood; it will be interesting to see the end results.

I looked at the pictures of the 2+2 on Barnstormers. It looks pretty good. The wing has the wood bow, same as mine; different than the glass tips on the 2+2. I don't see the spoiler cross members (they could be missing) The doubler plates on the spar are not 2+2 design but rather the Wagabond. There are a few other things on the wing that make me think it is a Sport Trainer or Wagabond mix wing rather than a 2+2 wing. This is not necessarily a bad thing as my wing is not pure 2+2 either. Fuselage looks right but might be over built in back with some extra cross members in the turtle deck area. I also don't like the idea of the Cont. O300 engine but that's just my preference.
Marty57

C-FIJK · Jan 4, 2011

I agree with Marty on the engine if you want nice spoilers i got some complete and also aileron and flap handles hangers also metal and ailerons also built up

8856Charlie · Jan 4, 2011

Is this what you guys are talking about for leading edge skins, This is the leading edge tank bay weighs 15 oz., Have the mold for the trailing edge tank bay done and tip bow transition done. Transition parts weigh 4 oz each. False spar for flap bay and 5' leading edge skin molds in process, now if i can just get the FAA to buy off on it. Combined with the carbon fiber tank covers looks like a total of 18# lighter for a set of wings.

qsmx440 · Jan 4, 2011

What are we lookimg at in the pictures? 4' LE carbon fiber? The shape does not look like my nose ribs. Radius is to small. BUT very interesting. I would think the TE need testing or engineering as they have hinges braced off of them. Have you figured that out. Anyway I would be very interested in LE if you are building them. Chris got me surfing the net for CF info. Are you using straight weave or twill (hope twill is the right word. I would expect straight weave since there's no shape)? 18 # is significant savings!

Bushwhacker Air · Jan 4, 2011

The shape does not look like my nose ribs. Radius is to small

Those are perfect. The shape allows them to conform to the LE without you having to worry about getting full contact from a profile that is slightly off, and the radius centers them on the nose profile. They are the same shape as my aluminum LE's.

qsmx440 · Jan 4, 2011

Thanks Chris.

D.A. · Jan 4, 2011

Marty57 said:
Hi David,
Call Tom O'Niel at Wag and talk to him about the 2+2 wing drawings.

Sorry for the late reply, back to 6x12s at the big "B". Really cuts into my goofing off time! I appreciate the tip about the 2+2 on Barnstormers. The PA14 is one of the coolest ships Piper ever built and the 2+2 falls right in step as well. For right now, Chris and I are going to stick with a PA18. However, I'm really glad I saw your wing pictures which prompted the idea of building the wood SC wings with whatever GW enhancements the 2+2 has. Also thanks for Tom O'Niel's name. I'll give him a call a tell him what I'm doing. Perhaps they'll sell the 2+2 wing drawings alone.

Great group here.

David

Dave Calkins · Jan 10, 2011

Glidestone said:
Dave. Could you elaborate on the exp. pistons and cylinders. By fresh do you mean new or overhauled? Thanks.

Sorry for the long wait for an answer.

Overhauled cylinders, pistons that give 10:1 compr. ratio. I flew it a couple of days ago. It is good. Needs the carburetor richened up a bit....a good sign that it is making more power than before.

Roger Peterson · Jan 10, 2011

Dave, whenever I go 9.5:1 or 10:1, I have to lean the carburetor down as it takes less gas at the higher compression. A least I thought it did. Also have to retard the timing as the burn is lot quicker.

Dave Calkins · Jan 10, 2011

I'm not able to lean it at the moment. Ambient in the 5-10 F range, the other cylinder/piston combo could be leaned.

I'm not sure I believe that higher compression/more horsepower equals less fuel burn.

qsmx440 · Jan 10, 2011

I have ordered all my parts for building my wings. I decided to just build stock as to the drag wires, compression struts, drag tube in tank area etc. (no thought given to tanks. They will have to be stock or stock like). While ordering raw materials for the parts I am planning on machining, everything was fine until I got to the "drag wire pulls". Drawing for the "double" is #10161 and specs .062 302 annealed stainless 2d finish (whatever 2d is). Anyway I found the stuff at online metals for over 100$ for a very small sheet. Commercially this part is available for around $10 and since I only need 18 of them it's starting to look like these might be one of the finished parts I build. Nasty stuff to cut anyway. Anyone have any ideas where I might find that material on the cheap?

Marty57 · Jan 10, 2011

The same parts on the wood spar J3 and the 2+2 wing are made from mild steel although a different shape. Not sure why they are SS. I'm also not clear on your post. If the material is over $100 and the finished parts are only $180 is the saving's really worth your time if the material is as difficult to cut as you stated? I have made many parts that looking back now it would have been better just buying. I think this might be one of those parts; just my opinion. Marty57

D.A. · Jan 10, 2011

Dave Calkins said:
Sorry for the long wait for an answer.

Overhauled cylinders, pistons that give 10:1 compr. ratio. I flew it a couple of days ago. It is good. Needs the carburetor richened up a bit....a good sign that it is making more power than before.

What HP does an O-290 put out with 10:1?
Thanks.

qsmx440 · Jan 10, 2011

Marty57 said:
The same parts on the wood spar J3 and the 2+2 wing are made from mild steel although a different shape. Not sure why they are SS. I'm also not clear on your post. If the material is over $100 and the finished parts are only $180 is the saving's really worth your time if the material is as difficult to cut as you stated? I have made many parts that looking back now it would have been better just buying. I think this might be one of those parts; just my opinion. Marty57
View attachment 612

Yes I agree about buying them and I probably will cause I have always disliked working stainless. Once you start a cut you can't stop. It work hardens and if you stop it just wants to break cutters. Threading on a lathe is a lot of fun. Had to make a bunch of threaded bushings for a large sailboat I used to have. I worked it out but it wasn't much fun. The wood wings apparently use a different setup than the aluminum. Don't know why Piper bothered with stainless for these parts when they have a bunch of steel against aluminum everywhere else in the wing. ?? Oh well, I'm not goona second guess them on this build. I liked the looks of yours when I first saw them a year ago.

Dave Calkins · Jan 11, 2011

D.A. said:
What HP does an O-290 put out with 10:1?
Thanks.

Depends on who you're talking to.

This one needs a bit more prop, I think. That leads me to think in the 155-160 HP range.......but that's a guess.

If I put a 82/42 on and it statics-out like a 160HP O-320..........does that mean it puts out 160?

D

D.A. · Jan 11, 2011

Dave Calkins said:
Depends on who you're talking to.

This one needs a bit more prop, I think. That leads me to think in the 155-160 HP range.......but that's a guess.

If I put a 82/42 on and it statics-out like a 160HP O-320..........does that mean it puts out 160? D

That's just cool - I don't care who you are!

Thanks Dave.

D.A.

MainlandCub · Jan 11, 2011

qsmx440 said:
Yes I agree about buying them and I probably will cause I have always disliked working stainless. Once you start a cut you can't stop. It work hardens and if you stop it just wants to break cutters. Threading on a lathe is a lot of fun. Had to make a bunch of threaded bushings for a large sailboat I used to have. I worked it out but it wasn't much fun. The wood wings apparently use a different setup than the aluminum. Don't know why Piper bothered with stainless for these parts when they have a bunch of steel against aluminum everywhere else in the wing. ?? Oh well, I'm not goona second guess them on this build. I liked the looks of yours when I first saw them a year ago.

Why don't you just make them out of 4130 and either plate them or paint them?

qsmx440 · Jan 12, 2011

MainlandCub said:
Why don't you just make them out of 4130 and either plate them or paint them?

That thought did occur to me but like ususal I threw it out based on my fundmental lack of engineering knowledge in metalurgy. It's not just about tensil strength. Maybe they used stainless for corrosion problems (steel against aluminum web?) or ??. Maybe stainless resists vibration damage better. 4130 should be stronger but Piper must have had a reason. I would be interested in knowing if anyone else has used or seen used 4130 for the pulls. I know a similiar part is steel in the wooden spar version. I was actually surprised when I read the material call out sheet and it was stainless. I had just assumed it would be 4130. When I looked up the price of 302 sheet I was even more surprised. I'm thinkin it's corrosion, (steel against alumminum spar web).

MainlandCub · Jan 12, 2011

qsmx440 said:
That thought did occur to me but like ususal I threw it out based on my fundmental lack of engineering knowledge in metalurgy. It's not just about tensil strength. Maybe they used stainless for corrosion problems (steel against aluminum web?) or ??. Maybe stainless resists vibration damage better. 4130 should be stronger but Piper must have had a reason. I would be interested in knowing if anyone else has used or seen used 4130 for the pulls. I know a similiar part is steel in the wooden spar version. I was actually surprised when I read the material call out sheet and it was stainless. I had just assumed it would be 4130. When I looked up the price of 302 sheet I was even more surprised. I'm thinkin it's corrosion, (steel against alumminum spar web).

Actually stainless against aluminium is a more "volatile" combination than carbon steel against aluminium. Like you, I have pondered "why stainless?". I think it was done so they didn't have to paint them.

4130 is stronger than 302, so if it were me and cost and ease of working dictated 4130, I would use it. You'd want to cad-plate them though (or zinc would also be good). Make sure you bake them if plated commercially. I guess just paint would be OK.

Over to you,
Andrew.

behindpropellers · Jan 12, 2011

Crash said:
Were talking about intermediate "nose ribs" between each "full rib". I have the 1948 PA-14 factory wing blueprints, they show no intermediate "nose ribs". My complete Dakota Cub PA-14 rib kit came with zero "nose ribs", just like they list on the attached link.

http://www.dakotacub.com/images/pricing - wing & rib assy.pdf

Take care,

Crash

Crash-

The point I was trying to make was that by strengthening the nose of the full ribs you do not need the intermediate nose ribs.

Tim

qsmx440 · Jan 12, 2011

MainlandCub said:
Actually stainless against aluminium is a more "volatile" combination than carbon steel against aluminium. Like you, I have pondered "why stainless?". I think it was done so they didn't have to paint them.

4130 is stronger than 302, so if it were me and cost and ease of working dictated 4130, I would use it. You'd want to cad-plate them though (or zinc would also be good). Make sure you bake them if plated commercially. I guess just paint would be OK.

Over to you,
Andrew.

I don't mean to argue beyound getting a good discussion and many different voices recommendations and ideas about any changes I make to original specifications. So, that said, I would like to consider making these parts from 4130. Is 4130 superior in every way? I am particularly concerned with vibration work hardening. Am I over thinking a part that attaches to a puny #6 piece of wire? If so and if 4130 is really superior I will use it and collect more "amateur produced" easy to make parts towards the % in the ever important "appendix 8". And Andrew did you make these parts from 4130 for your metal spar/rib plane? Mike if you are following this, do you have any opinions? Thanks all...

qsmx440 · Jan 12, 2011

behindpropellers said:
Crash-

The point I was trying to make was that by strengthening the nose of the full ribs you do not need the intermediate nose ribs.

Tim

Can someone explain the importance of the extra nose ribs? Are they for speed or to allow higher gross weight (probably not), or to allow thinner sheetmetal for the leading edge material to keep it's shape? If to allow thinner LE aluminum what is the weight trade off? Piper used them on some applications and not others. It would be nice to arrive at a conclusion so future searchers of this thread could find answers.

Marty57 · Jan 12, 2011

Regarding the tabs out of SS; why not just use the 4130 and, or good measure, use the next thickness up. Remember, many of the Piper "design" decisions were made by the bookkeepers; not necessarily the engineers. Sure, the engineers needed to ok the change but many materials will likely do any given application, weight and cost are related factors. Example is using a cheaper and heavier material over a lighter but more expensive material; If cost is biggest concern then it goes the heavy direction. Substations are also made when a surplus of one material (government surplus for instance after WWll) is made over another material.

I looked over the biplane builders site and could not find any SS fittings used for this application; everything was 4130 or simply wood blocks with a washer. If a wood block will work in a 160hp aerobatic biplane I would think that 4130 would work just as well as SS. There are some pretty good metal working sites available, you might want to see if anyone out there might be able to give you some engineering basis for the decision. Me, I would use the next thicker 4130 and sleep ok with the decision unless there is a glaring difference in strength.
Marty57

qsmx440 · Jan 13, 2011

Well I'm "leanin-to-agreein". Marty

MainlandCub · Jan 13, 2011

Those wire pulls..........

qsmx440 said:
I don't mean to argue beyound getting a good discussion and many different voices recommendations and ideas about any changes I make to original specifications. So, that said, I would like to consider making these parts from 4130. Is 4130 superior in every way? I am particularly concerned with vibration work hardening. Am I over thinking a part that attaches to a puny #6 piece of wire? If so and if 4130 is really superior I will use it and collect more "amateur produced" easy to make parts towards the % in the ever important "appendix 8". And Andrew did you make these parts from 4130 for your metal spar/rib plane? Mike if you are following this, do you have any opinions? Thanks all...

All the Super Cubs I have done have been type certified, so I've used genuine parts. I have a vague recollection of being a few short of these at some point (the clevis holes tend to elongate if they've been in a prang) and made some per the Piper drawing from Stainless. I don't think I had the problems sourcing it that you are having.

The Piper originals in stainless are a lot more malleable than 4130, but I really can't see anything wrong with using 4130. My Pitts has a similar wire pull at the root end made from 4130. I'd just make sure the edges are polished to eliminate any stress raiser, and personally, I'd cadmium plate them, even if painted over the top.

I would not however go up a gauge as the wire pulls fit between the drag strut and the spar and there is a gap made in the end of the drag strut for just the exact thickness wire pull fitting. 4130N is stronger than that stainless. 4130N has an ultimate tensile strength of 90 KSI, just make sure that the stainless called out in the drawing is less than that. You can find the strength of that stainless on-line pretty easily and MIL-HDBK-5, the aerospace engineers bible is also on line.

Cheers,
Andrew.

Light wing build

Registered User

chugiak AK

Registered User

North of T.O.

Free America

Free America

Registered User

Lewisporte N.L.

Nipomo, Ca

Registered User

Lewisporte N.L.

Registered User

Attachments

Registered User

Registered User

New York

Registered User

Free America

Registered User

Anchorage, Alaska

Registered User

Sweeny, Texas

Registered User

Anchorage, Alaska

Registered User

Nipomo, Ca

Attachments

Free America

Registered User

Registered User

Anchorage, Alaska

Free America

Registered User

New Zealand

Registered User

Registered User

New Zealand

Registered User

NE Ohio

Registered User

Registered User

Nipomo, Ca

Registered User

Registered User

New Zealand

Similar threads