Subject: Re: [harryproa] Unstayed masts
From: Rob Denney
Date: 3/2/2014, 8:53 PM
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au

 




On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:36 PM, <gravitygroper@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Hi Rob,

Just wanted to ask about unstayed masts and possible ways of reducing the cost and complexity to build.

As far as i can tell, we use carbon for these masts mostly due to the high modulus, rather than the high strength. This is so that we can avoid an excessively flexible mast whilst keeping the diameter as small as possible. Sure carbon is lighter too, but i believe its the defelection which is driving the design and so is directly related to the "E" and "I" - "material modulus of elasticity" and "area moment of inertia" respectively.


All correct.   


So i had a think about things, and the biggest drama related to infusing these heavy carbon UD laminates... the rest of it seems pretty straight forward. Also the cost of so much carbon is pretty high. So then i thought, why not make the bottom of the masts from UD glass, of thicker wall and transition the laminate around a carbon C-spar somewhere above deck level so we can maintain the stiffness higher up on the mast - where the quantity of carbon is much less anyway. With the largest loads at the deck bearing, the really heavy carbon laminates down there add up to most of the carbon in the mast - whereas the flexibility problem relates to the entire length.

This would work, but the increase needs to be in diameter rather than wall thickness.  The carbon masts on the Vis are 19mm thick at the deck bearing.  The max diameter is at the deck, it can taper from there to both ends, but the transition from big diameter glass to small diameter carbon would be "interesting" to say the least and the overlap may well be the same amount of carbon as if the whole thing was carbon.   The reason we don't use a double or triple taper is because it is far easier to build a single taper which needs no mould or mandrel.  It is also much easier to manipulate the material.   If you can get round this (not difficult), then a large diameter, tapering quickly to the boom, will save some material.   A split mould is a lot easier to build and allows bulkheads to be installed (saving a lot of local beefing up), but has the hassle of the join.  If you do a split mould, add the entire outer layer of +/- 45 after the two pieces are joined.


 So ive been reading some stuff from the aircraft homebuilders and seen what they are upto. They are onto this pultruded carbon rod which they use for the spar caps. They mostly use glass for the shear webs in their wing spars. This pultruded carbon rod is almost TWICE the strength of standard UD carbon laminate,  its 1900Mpa minimum in compression,2100Mpa tension - so we only need half as much to do the same work. As it comes in rectangular rods/bars on a long large coil or spool, you simply roll it off the spool and cut the lengths you need, and glue the rods together with neat epoxy.... presto you have a spar cap of super strength. Seems a very simple task to wet lay or vacuum bag a tapered C-spar using this stuff - the aircraft guys are doing it everywhere...

So then take the C-spar of carbon, and put it inside a glass skin mast to stiffen it. Very minimal use of carbon, and only a tad heavier than an all carbon mast. All glass laminate is easy to infuse, bond the c-spar in as you build the rest of the wing in 2 halves.

Just wanted to know if youve investigated anything along these lines, and if so what have you found which might make this impossible of otherwise impractical?

I built rods for the masts on the early harrys using alloy channel as a mould and clamps for pressure.  Worked pretty well, but on the bigger masts, they need some off axis laminate between the layers of carbon (a layer of 200 glass at +/- 45 every 2mms of thickness).  There is also a fair bit of bog required to make them round.   Tapering thickness and diameter can be done, but is very dusty. 

C spars are not ideal as an open section is not very rigid, D section is much better.   If you can get the rod at a decent price, then go for it.  Although I suspect that you would get a much better job if you infused it in one or two pieces.  For reference, uni carbon is $45/kg, plus gst and freight.  

rob

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a new topic Messages in this topic (3)
.

__,_._,___