General Design Questions for Project

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by birdus, May 17, 2018.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. May 17, 2018 #1

    birdus

    birdus

    birdus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    I'm working on designing a 70% F4U Corsair made of carbon fiber. I asked a question in another thread regarding foam vs. honeycomb. The conversation drifted into more general design, so I'm moving that conversation here. Following is where the thread was heading.

    But first, some basic ideas about the plane:

    - all carbon fiber and foam
    - Graphlite rods in the spar, but maybe steel or aluminum joining the outer spar sections to a central spar section
    - no fabric control surfaces
    - no folding wings
    - no oil cooler inlets in the wings
    - real, functioning F4U-like landing gear
    - engine will be a Vedeneyev M14P




    I definitely want to take advantage of what carbon fiber offers and not oversize things.


    I was thinking of making the fuselage in two halves, each of which would be foam sandwich, then joining the two halves with additional layers of carbon fiber at the seam. I don't know what sorts of longerons would be necessary or what they would look like with this kind of construction. Would they even be necessary?


    For the wings, I was thinking of making four panels per wing: upper/lower for the inboard wing section, and upper/lower for the outer wing section (inner and outer delineated by the low point where the landing gear mount).


    As far as fuel tank(s), I was thinking of a single tank in the fuselage for simplicity. I realize I would need a stronger spar for that. Wing tanks would increase the complexity a fair amount. Am I better off with a single tank in the fuselage and greater simplicity or a tank in each wing and greater complexity?

    Thanks,
    Jay
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2018
  2. May 18, 2018 #2

    proppastie

    proppastie

    proppastie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Location:
    NJ
    As a designer by trade, (not aircraft, machines, mechanical product) I would say these decisions are for you to make. Design is personal, and all design is compromises. I personally do not like to design by committee. The devil is in the details and every thing you have mentioned is possible if properly executed. You need to decide what you want to do, make preliminary drawings/sketches do a preliminary stress and then do it again with changes until it is optimized to your satisfaction. Most here are not thinking very deeply about your project so it is doubtful you will get much help toward your goal.
     
    birdus likes this.
  3. May 18, 2018 #3

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    6,480
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    I would think that you would set some target performance parameters. Weight empty (you mentioned 2200 pounds gross, IIRC), stall speed, cruise speed, designed load factors, stall speed, minimum RoC, etc.

    A “real, functional F4U-like landing gear” will add weight, complexity and cost.

    Composite and M14 make me think or the Radial Rocket as a good example (except for the bent wing) of what you are thinking of.


    BJC
     
  4. May 18, 2018 #4

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    3,315
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    That is a big elephant to eat.
     
    cheapracer likes this.
  5. May 18, 2018 #5

    DeepStall

    DeepStall

    DeepStall

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Colorado
    Have you seen http://corsair82.com/ ? Seems like a phone call to that builder could help influence your design.
     
  6. May 18, 2018 #6

    birdus

    birdus

    birdus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Thanks for the encouraging words. I appreciate it!

    Jay
     
    proppastie likes this.
  7. May 18, 2018 #7

    birdus

    birdus

    birdus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Yeah, I mentioned the Radial Rocket in the other thread. I think I'll be lighter, but I imagine some similarities. I've also been filling out some spreadsheets created by engineers (available online) trying to flesh out some of these numbers. Guess I just need to keep at it.

    I know the landing gear will be a challenge, but I think that would be the icing on the cake. Some of the components, I think I can make myself. Maybe I can get oleos from another GA plane. We'll see.

    Thanks,
    Jay
     
  8. May 18, 2018 #8

    birdus

    birdus

    birdus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    I have! I've been through his site multiple times. I'm trying to glean what I can from his experience. It's loads of fun watching other people's builds. Mine will be quite a bit smaller than his, but I know there are still things I can pick up from him. And of course, he stopped quite short of completion.

    Thanks,
    Jay
     
  9. May 18, 2018 #9

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,991
    Likes Received:
    3,244
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    Jay,

    One piece wing is lightest. Next best is two piece with main spars overlapping each other through the fuselage, pinned to each other and to the fuselage. The more joints, the more weight and fuss making everything work. Four piece? Make you crazy.

    If I were doing this project, I would do a two piece wing and bend the spar. Bending Graphlite rods puts stresses into the rods, using up some of the load carrying capacity. The math is straightforward but can be fussy, but the strengths of carbon cloth laminates can also be iffy. I would probably use the smallest diameter rod offered and then check stresses in the rods at scale radii. If they are too high, then maybe you can use an even larger radii at the bottom bend without compromising the look too much...

    Billski
     
  10. May 18, 2018 #10

    birdus

    birdus

    birdus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    No doubt about it, but I'm having a lot of fun at least thinking about it! One bite at a time, right?

    Jay
     
  11. May 18, 2018 #11

    birdus

    birdus

    birdus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Hey, Bill.

    I just posted a response to your comment about this in the other thread (since this specific issue came up there earlier). Bottom line, the radii are larger than I had thought. Jim agrees with you—that a one-piece spar is the way to go if possible. Based on some numbers he gave me, it looks like the initial stress will be well under 12%. So, I'm going to shoot for that. I'll just need to throw some more rods in there to make up for the initial stress (compared to starting with a straight wing). I suspect I may need thicker foam and/or more layers of wrap, too. The point being, some combination of those things will be necessary to make up for that "pre-stress." (essentially what you told me) I feel encouraged about going with a one-piece spar.

    Thanks,
    Jay
     
    wsimpso1 likes this.
  12. May 19, 2018 #12

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,699
    Likes Received:
    958
    Location:
    Warren, VT USA
    The pulltruded rod strategy might not work. But you can get carbon tow bundles in any size you want or you can use carbon UD fabric/tape and make it work with enough FOS.

    The gear while tricky is a fun design project. The existing gear is a well documented design so you can get it done simpler than the original. The rotating element is just a simple rotating single axis gimbal at the top end.

    One piece wing will work well. You can do hotwire molds for all the skins and do the spar as one or two pieces depending on space and then have a doubler or joiner in the middle buried in the fuselage where you have to space for it. CG for that small of a design will be tricky and a single tank might be a problem. One thing you can do is say mold tanks into the bottom skins of the inner wing panels with internal ribs so that they are structural. The ribs can be anti slosh baffles. You are only limited by your imagination, flight loads, and what you can figure out how to build tools for. That's the great part about composites, you just work from the outside in and start solving problems.

    You haven't mentioned flaps. That is your real nemesis on a project like that. Take a look at the F4U flaps. Tricky. And they had folding wings for carrier ops and they all stayed hooked up in both folded and mission ready positions.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2018
    wsimpso1 likes this.
  13. May 20, 2018 #13

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Consider the original.

    The center section of the wing is a very complex structure that is part fuselage, and carried the wing, landing gear, and engine loads. ( plus complex ducting for ram air to the supercharger & oil cooler )

    The landing gear and wing fold hinges/connection are all in that center section.

    The prototype had fuel in the wings, but wanting both better range and armament, changed on the production version to guns in the outer wings and a simple big fuel tank in front of the cockpit, right on the CG. This also moved the cockpit back and hurt visibility, a problem for a fighter and carrier aircraft.

    It seems to me that it would be "simpler" to design the wing spars straight in the outer wings panels, to plug into the center section as removable like most sailplanes, overlapping spare and pin joints. Or hinges like the original, but then you have hanger height issues.

    And design the center section including landing gear mounts as one piece, curved rods and all, so the plane can sit on the gear with the wings removed. This also simplifies building, as you can be on the gear earlier in the build.

    Building the wing as two separate curved parts that join at the center seems like the hard way for multiple reasons. That two piece wing works ok on a FW-190 replica, if not optimum, because the wing panels and spare are straight & under the fuselage, but then again, you're not up on the landing gear into much later in the build.

    I could be all wrong with my reasoning. The original was a series of cascading compromises, and took a long time to develop. It also had a very long production run and service life.
     
  14. May 22, 2018 #14

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,991
    Likes Received:
    3,244
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    Birdus,

    I had skipped the whole issue of fuselage construction, longerons, etc in your initial post, but want to address them briefly.

    The fuselage, like each wing, is a beam. Big weight at the front, wing lift a little ways aft, other weights scattered along it, and the tail download aft. Sum vertical forces to zero by adjusting wing lift, sum moments to zero by adjusting tail downforce, and you know the shear and moment diagram for the fuselage. Unlike the wing, which is a slender beam, fuselages tend to be pretty deep and max bending moments tend to be smaller. The result is most fuselages do not end up with pieces that look like beams, but you still can analyze them that way. In welded truss fuselages, truss theory works fine, but in monocoque fuselages, it does get more complicated... They are usually a big thin wall tube, which means buckling and crippling can find you before raw strength does. In sheet metal, you end up with several longerons and a bunch of frames/bulkheads and stiffeners all designed to keep the skin from going into elastic collapse. Chapter 8 Of Peery and Azar talk about this as do the other airframe design texts.

    Since you are building in composites, sandwich skin makes the skin panels way more stiff in bending, and can eliminate the need for most of the frames and almost all of the longerons. The firewall will still be needed, so we keep that. Most of us still go ahead with a frame or bulkhead at the instrument panel, at the seat back, at the tail and one in between seatback and tail. After that, the elliptical shape of the fuselage cross section tends to be self supporting and may take care of itself. We must cut out the tube for a canopy - when you try to figure out how to make up for the lack of the upper third of the tube there, you beef up the cockpit edges, viola, longerons from in front of the cockpit through to somewhere behind the cockpit. If a fuselage fuel tank is used like in the original F4U's and you make it removable (a good idea), that area will likely have the upper skin detachable too, or might even be the top of the fuel tank, so maybe you will have longerons from the firewall back through the aft end of the cockpit cut out.

    For my side-by-side arrangement, I ended up with a wide relatively uncurved floor, and put in a tunnel from firewall to the aft baggage bay bulkhead, and that broke the flat floor into several small enough panels that stresses and deflections were acceptably small. The edge of the tub is reinforced heavily from the firewall past the cockpit opening and tapers to nothing going aft of the cockpit. So, I have two longerons 4" apart on the center of the floor and two more along the cockpit sole. Frames only where I mentioned before.

    Beginning to define the way you build it... Many of us build a boat from firewall to tailpost, fill it with wing carrythrough, other structures and systems, tail, controls, plumbing and wiring, and everything else, and then add the turtle deck, forward deck, and canopy. Eventually, the whole thing sits on its gear and looks like an airplane.

    I would advise against trying to build it in left and right halves for a couple reasons. First, you will basically have to build and install all of the stuff that goes inside and attach it to one side of the fuselage or the other, and then figure out how to get inside and attach that stuff to the other sidewall at assembly. Now some certified birds are/were built this way in factories with precision jigs for assembly, etc. But I would advise against it for a one-off done by a homebuilder. Much more straightforward and easy to visualize and assemble in a boat.

    None of this is to say that you would not build the fuselage tub in pieces and put them together, just that you may want to leave the top open and able to stand freely by itself for most of the construction.

    Billski
     
  15. May 22, 2018 #15

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    In pictures of the original, you often see tape in a big square on top of the fuselage, in front of the cockpit. That's tape to seal the seam around the top of the drop in fuel tank.

    Sure looks like a nice place for an access panel to get to the instruments.

    The center section is a big triple "U'.... Actually "VUV" in shallow shape as seen from in front.

    The fuselage is an open boat with bulkheads at the firewall, front & rear of cockpit, and the fuselage behind the cockpit was longeron & bulkheads, with the skin spot welded on, made from stamped metal sheets. The internals were installed through the open framework before skinning.

    Changing to composite construction, the open tub design as suggested above, makes a lot of sense.

    If you choose to make the rear fuselage a one piece elliptical tube, just be sure you can reach/crawl inside to put in the few things you Have to put back there. Like control runs & brackets. ( if you're large, like me, the open tub, removable turtle deck makes more sense, even if you need to mold in a few longerons to make up the loss in elegant tube structure. )
     

Share This Page



arrow_white