Aluminum Tube & Gusset Airbike / Legal Eagle / Parasol Thread

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

karmarepair

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
146
Location
United States
I'd argue that a 3 tube fuselage is much faster and easier to build if you have the right jig.

...and before the naysayers jump in to say it's way too complicated and they can do it faster and better with a hammer and 2x4's, blah, blah, blah...
Once the fuselage model is done it only takes an hour or two to pull a jig off of it, and that only has to be done once. Another hour or two to cut the jig (less than an hour if it's XPS foam from the box stores). So, from fuselage model in CAD to a finished jig would take an afternoon. The second guy, who doesn't need to draw the jig, could do it on his lunch hour.

This one is a welding jig so it's beefier than it needs to be for a T&G fuselage.
View attachment 89508

T&G would be light enough that you wouldn't need castors, you could make one like this out XPS foam
View attachment 89509

It's fast, simple, cheap and works like charm
View attachment 89510
I assume this is the Neirrh. I'm pretty impressed, me.

Some of the clusters look like they would be HARD to handle in Tube and gusset; I'm thinking in particular of the joint between the aft Cabane and the upper longeron.
upload_2019-10-14_16-58-16.png

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

pwood66889

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
1,633
Location
Sopchoppy, Florida, USA
The "Big Cluster" behind the 3-longeron frame is indeed a difficulty. It can end up as big as a basket ball! A solution is to extent the tube on top past the wings, LePelican style. And there are franes I have seen where there is a triangle behind the pilot and a pentagon in front.
 

FritzW

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,896
Location
Las Cruces, NM
I assume this is the Nanni.
...as I slide my chair out of the way and bust a beer bottle on the edge of the table. I'm sure you meant Neirrh instead of Nanni ;) lol

Some of the clusters look like they would be HARD to handle in Tube and gusset

Thoughts?
The hard part about that cluster is getting to it with a torch, you need three elbows on each arm. ...and have eyes that don't need bifocals.

I think it could be pretty easy with T&G but it'd take a little machine work. Which wouldn't be a problem if a CNC machine was involved in the rest of the design anyway.
 

Bill-Higdon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Salem, Oregon, USA
The "Big Cluster" behind the 3-longeron frame is indeed a difficulty. It can end up as big as a basket ball! A solution is to extent the tube on top past the wings, LePelican style. And there are franes I have seen where there is a triangle behind the pilot and a pentagon in front.
The high wing Longster also was built this way
 

karmarepair

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
146
Location
United States
The high wing Longster also was built this way
Hmm. I'm looking at my copy of the 1933 Flying Manual, and Henderson Longster is square until the first station aft of the pilot. And the "baseball" cluster is the intersection of 8 tubes! It's shown gusseted, in steel, pinned and brazed. It also uses a Pratt/Howe truss with verticals vice the Warren truss Fritz is using. That MAY make gusset design easier.
 

karmarepair

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
146
Location
United States
...as I slide my chair out of the way and bust a beer bottle on the edge of the table. I'm sure you meant Neirrh instead of Nanni ;) lol
Corrected. And make sure and bust the bottle with your stroke down and away from the edge of the table, not straight down. Better you don't know how I know.

The hard part about that cluster is getting to it with a torch, you need three elbows on each arm. ...and have eyes that don't need bifocals.

I think it could be pretty easy with T&G but it'd take a little machine work. Which wouldn't be a problem if a CNC machine was involved in the rest of the design anyway.
I'm sure you could work it out, but I'm skeptical. I'm thinking LAYERS of overlapping gussets on that joint. Any two tubes must form a plane. Long could do things in steel on the Longster on his gussets aluminum will not stand for.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,414
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
We can compare the fuselage from the Nierrh to a four longeron Baby Ace fuselage, and see the difference in the complexity of the clusters...



It looks to me like the four longeron system may have a couple more tubes in the parts count, but the clusters seem less difficult, since some portion of even the more complex clusters can be done while the sides are flat on a building table.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,227
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
The hard part about that cluster is getting to it with a torch, you need three elbows on each arm. ...and have eyes that don't need bifocals.
BINGO. The key to so many things about flying is learning where to look. Same thing goes for welding, and, as you said, being able to see clearly is essential.


BJC
 

karmarepair

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
146
Location
United States
My actual intent was to include all sorts of small single seat high wing airplanes, ALSO including the style of the Baby Ace, Sky Scout, Texas Parasol, Heath Parasol, etc.

Not by any means intended to be limited to "straddle" style airplanes. The thread idea was about using tube and gusset Graham Lee / Baslee construction style on something other than a WW1 replica.

The original thought was that the Texas Parasol was a wonderful idea for a quick and cheap and easily built structure, but using extruded or bent angle would create a risk of the truss members being more susceptible to twist and buckling than a tube.
Some notes on the Texas Parasol. First, what's wrong with it is NOT the fuselage, although there were quibbles about rivets (see http://www3.sympatico.ca/murray.j/rivets.htm) For details on what IS wrong with the cabanes and the wings, see http://www.raa.ca/magazine_pdf/Sept-Oct-12 Lowres 2.pdf

The fuselage is mostly constructed of 3/4 x 1/8 6061-T6 Angle. As a FIRST ORDER approximation, the nearest square tubing in WEIGHT per linear foot (.2) is .75" by .062 wall. ROUND tubing that diameter and wall thickness runs .165#/foot. The original angle design did NOT reduce longeron size proceeding aft to the tailplane. Just going to round .062 tubing would cut at least 10 lbs off the fuselage weight.

I was thinking the gussets could be just circles of sheet. Drill to suit, or perhaps punch them (with a Roper Whitney punch and a template) to suit any of the intersection angles the truss requires.

Rivets - Cherry N and Avex rivets in Stainless LOOK like they have the shear strength of an aluminum driven rivet (and the Texas Parasol used either TWO 1/8" or ONE 5/32" driven rivet per joint), but their fatigue resistance is poor and part of the reason is they don't retain their mandrels, and even if they DID, the mandel does NOT extend past the shear plane of the fastened sheets. And they don't compress the sheets together as well as a driven rivet.

I'd like to try these https://www.vintagetrailersupply.com/Olympic-Rivets-p/vts-179.htm?gclid=Cj0KCQjwuZDtBRDvARIsAPXFx3ANBh-LVMlzO3Wo9Im-wpj_90siPnOyjewCGccckvtGS9Wpz4JNHf0aAuRKEALw_wcB . The mandrel breaks ABOVE the manufactured head, and you trim them down. Shear numbers are great, and likely to stay that way. Better than anything cheaper (ss pops same size =$.14 ea qty 100), cheaper ($ .30 ea) than anything better (Cherry max <which needs special tooling> $.60 - .80 ea). Standard AN rivets are about $.03 ea for comparison.

Graham Lee, just before he died, used his construction style on a cute little runabout, the Miranda, which to my knowledge has never been completed, although forums show several projects started. I've long been intrigued by it, and I think it would suit one one of the larger 2 cylinder conversions, perhaps a Kohler Command Pro CH 750 (747cc) or 680 (674cc) running an Ace redrive (plane is designed around a BIG prop for such a little plane). https://www.nieuports.com/copy-of-sopwith
upload_2019-10-14_23-3-13.png
 

addicted2climbing

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,054
Location
Glendale, CA
We can compare the fuselage from the Nierrh to a four longeron Baby Ace fuselage, and see the difference in the complexity of the clusters...



It looks to me like the four longeron system may have a couple more tubes in the parts count, but the clusters seem less difficult, since some portion of even the more complex clusters can be done while the sides are flat on a building table.
VB Here is the Skylite Fuselage which is also a Parasol. Just needs to be increased in size 15% or so to get it out of the ultralight category an into using the DP1 engine. Tube size changes as well, but with tube and gusset it will be a new build anyhow.. Im just at the other end of the airport may as well start with this and I give you the plans....
Skylite Fuselage - Tube Frame, Single Tail Tube 050218.JPG
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,013
Location
Memphis, TN
Three or four tube depends on what you can give up on weight as much as ease. A Legal Eagle if built light should come out ten pounds under the 103 weight. Looked at differently , the average builder has a free ten pounds to glob glue and paint on before being overweight. The cluster at the back of the LE could be split into more than one point. Slight different look but your not preserving the look of a Spitfire.

On welding, people saying they can’t weld, are you saying the joints fall apart or just don’t look pretty? Most welding in the homebuilt world did not look pretty until about ten to fifteen years ago when only professional welders took over building welded planes. It really has made a mess of the thought process. Pretty is great, but the job is melting two pieces of metal together. If it’s strong , it’s strong. Any real welded homebuilt airplane done by an amateur, shows a progression of skill. It is one of the keys of a real amateur built airplane. Badge of honor if you will.

As for angle or round. If the angle structure never can make it to the point of twist, it should be a non issue. Debating tube over angle just means different engineering magic was performed. Picking like or dislike on bad engineering makes no sense. Rivet designed structures design the rivet to be the weak link by a few pounds of strength. The rivets are supposed to give and be replaced without damaging the other structures. An out of the ordinary hard landing having rivets go before tubes is what is supposed to happen. It might suck to cut fabric to get there to fix, but if the margins are right , you should not have to replace the tubes. Now if you go and fly twenty more times, you get what you pay for when it eats the rivet holes out. Wonder why it collapsed that last flight.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,414
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Other folks here with formal training can feel free to correct me, but I do believe I have learned that aircraft riveted joints should be designed for "bearing failure" of the base metal sheet/tube and NOT "shear failure" of the fastener. Shear failure means that when the load reaches a certain point the first rivet fails, which puts the same total load on a fewer number of rivets, so the second rivet fails sooner than the first, which puts the load on even fewer rivets and then the third rivet fails really fast, and the structure "un-zips" almost instantly.

As I said, anyone who has the education to verify or contradict this, please do so ASAP :)
 

erkki67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,095
Location
Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
2 - 2,5 D rivet diameter edge distance, 4 -6 D rivet diameter stance. A row of min 4 blind fasteners is a good start. Rivet diameter is 3 t of the thinnest component to be clamped, or next bigger suitable diameter available.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,133
Location
USA.
Has to be a Coupe.
My first model airplane was a Cleveland 32" wingspan kit of a Clip Wing Monocoupe with I was 8 years old that I received for my birthday. I am still in love with that aircraft.
I was at an airshow when I was 15 years old and got to talk to the pilot of this Monocoupe for a while after he landed because of loosing a fuel cap while doing rolls.


https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/monocoupe-110-special
 

plncraze

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,819
Pops, was the pilot of the Monocoupe the same guy who did the handcuffed acrobatic routine?
And who is going to respond to VB's comment about loads in a fitting? I keep thinking "peel" like in composites when seeing this fittings with all the rivets.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,133
Location
USA.
The pilot of the Monocoupe was W.W. " Woody" Edmondson from VA. When he was doing the rolls and lost his fuel cap and spilling fuel , he was rolling around the Pitts, "Little Skinker". This was in 1955.

He is correct about high loads on a line of rivets and peeling. Have to calculate the load on each rivet, sometimes the load can be different.
 
Top