chapmanite
Member
Evening Folks,
Let me preface this by saying that I'm in the learning about design phase of design at the moment, throwing questions in the air like mad and trying to find answers. I've been successful on that front for the most part, but this one is eluding me: Why built-up box-section longerons, since box-section spars work so well? My first though was that perhaps longerons take substantial loads in too many directions, and that orienting ply grain or laminate thickness to take all of them would make it too heavy, or too complex. The next, relating to the latter, is that replacing, say 240 in^3 of 27 lb/ft^3 spruce with a greater volume of balsa and capping it with birch ply would just be too heavy. Finally, would they be weight-efficient, but in general too hard to construct for the weight shed?
Thanks for your input,
chapmanite
Let me preface this by saying that I'm in the learning about design phase of design at the moment, throwing questions in the air like mad and trying to find answers. I've been successful on that front for the most part, but this one is eluding me: Why built-up box-section longerons, since box-section spars work so well? My first though was that perhaps longerons take substantial loads in too many directions, and that orienting ply grain or laminate thickness to take all of them would make it too heavy, or too complex. The next, relating to the latter, is that replacing, say 240 in^3 of 27 lb/ft^3 spruce with a greater volume of balsa and capping it with birch ply would just be too heavy. Finally, would they be weight-efficient, but in general too hard to construct for the weight shed?
Thanks for your input,
chapmanite
