• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

Bending-beam spar carry through schemes

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
10,744
Location
World traveler
bending beam.jpg

We have had a number of discussions of bending-beam spars over the years, here are two:

https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20232&highlight=bending+beam
https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7248&highlight=bending+beam

I am assuming that torsion and drag loads are carried through pinned fittings at the wing roots that allow each wing half to flap up and down, it's the bending beam center spar that prevents them from flapping. My specific question is on various ways to connect those two wing halves and that center spar. Logically, here are a few I can think of:

1) One piece spar, no break at all
2) Centerline break
3) Breaks at both wing roots
4) Horizontal overlap (spars and wings staggered slightly fore-and-aft)
5) Vertical overlap (bottom spar cap attached to one wing, top spar cap to the other)

1) is certainly lightest, but I want to keep the wing panels within the size of a 20' shipping container and that makes for an awfully short span unless you go with a 3-piece wing, probably not worth it for normal light aircraft aspect raios.
2) is probably heaviest as the fittings are highly-stressed, but with no overlap you gain more wing span for the same panel length, which may be a useful trade off.
3) seems structurally inefficient with two sets of highly-stressed fittings as well as being awkward to assemble/disassemble.
4) seems doable if you don't mind a tiny little bit of asymmetry but I am not sure if it's worth the complication compared to 2).
5) seems like an interesting option but I am not sure if it's worth the complication compared to 2) either.

My thoughts are based on eyeballing, nothing more, so a more educated opinion backed up by actual math would be a big help.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top