europa-list
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73

Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
From: Karl Heindl <kheindl@msn.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:52:40

Can anyone explain to me how the tailplane can possibly move outward by even 
a millimeter when the pip pin head is resting firmly against a solid wall on 
the inboard side, whether this is epoxy, glass, wood or anything else ? 
Where are these huge forces that would pull this pin sideways through the 
surrounding foam body ? Is a loose TP6 really such a big problem, apart from 
making it difficult if not impossible to rig the tailplane ?

Regards,
Karl


>From: "Sidsel & Svein Johnsen" <sidsel.svein@oslo.online.no>
>Reply-To: europa-list@matronics.com
>To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Europa-List: Europa Tailplane - Mod 73
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:54:16 +0200
>
>14 Hantone HillWhile there may be doubt whether the shallow lip on the 
>inside of TP6 will be adequate as a tailplane retention, it is worth 
>reading EA2004's reasoning behind Mod 73 carefully:  Retention of the 
>tailplane by TP6 (and the pip pin securing TP6 to the torque tube) AND a 
>secondary retention by the pip pin and its surrounding composite structure 
>alone, should the primary retention not hold.  The mod is therefore as much 
>a strengthening of the structure around the pip pin and a proper transfer 
>of forces acting on the pip pin into the tailplane skin, as it is a mod for 
>better bonding of TP6 to the tailplane.
>
>This is the reason why the instructions make a point of not removing any 
>bid/epoxy around the hole on the underside, in the event the pip pin ball 
>should not open on the underside of the new layup, but instead buy a longer 
>pip pin.  Removing bid/epoxy here would defeat that secondary retention 
>function of the mod.
>
>As I understand it, this view is also reflected in FSB-006 Issue 3 section 
>5:  Mod 73 need to be done if the upper pip pin recess does not satisfy the 
>stated requirements.  I think, however, that PFA ought to have required 
>ovalization of the torque tube holes even if Mod 73 may be omitted if the 
>requirements of Section 5 are complied with -ovalization should be done in 
>any event, I think.
>
>Regards,
>Svein
>LN-SKJ

_________________________________________________________________
Tell Hotmail about an email that changed your life!  
http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>