Spar

Discussion area for builders of Pietenpol aircraft, both beginners and experienced folks. Share ideas, ask questions and help build the Pietenpol community.
Post Reply
JTMaz
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:16 pm

Spar

Post by JTMaz » Tue May 09, 2017 8:32 pm

Almost finished with my fuselage and will be starting on the ribs soon. I have seen both the 1" routed and 3/4" spars being used. I will be building a three piece wing. Does one size have any advantage over the other?

User avatar
taildrags
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Spar

Post by taildrags » Thu May 11, 2017 10:44 pm

JT- a little bird tells me that there may be an article (or series of articles) on Piet wing spars in an upcoming issue of the BPA Newsletter, but it sounds like you're ready to get started and you need to make a decision on spars pretty quickly so you can build your ribs to fit your spars. I'm surprised no one else has jumped in here, but my take on it is this. If you plan on using spruce for your spars, 1" stock is going to be expensive and then you get to see quite a bit of that expensive wood get milled away into sawdust as you route out the webs. It makes for beautiful spars and makes them lighter and more efficient without diminishing their bending strength much at all, and if you like to work with wood, routing out the webs will be a labor of love. If you want to build as closely to plans as you can, routed spruce spars are quite nice.

Solid or built-up 3/4" spars are a more economical alternative to either solid or routed 1" spars and there are various ways to go with those. Mike Cuy and others have shared details of built-up I-beam spars using plywood webs and spruce or fir spar caps (flanges). There are many benefits to going this route if you can set up a jig to make proper scarfs so you can use shorter pieces of wood. It's much easier to find shorter pieces that have clear straight grain than it is to find long ones, so careful scarfing is a good way to save money on your spars. There are weight differences between solid and built up spars, weight differences between spruce spars and fir spars, weight differences between one-piece wings and 3-piece. Which one you go with depends on your goals and objectives.

As you'll hear often around Piet builders, there are many ways to get things done and it's really just your choice as to how you do them. Even studying the various options can be part of the enjoyment of building these airplanes, and -as in my case- even writing about it is enjoyable!

pilotman
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Spar

Post by pilotman » Mon May 15, 2017 8:18 pm

Does anybody know if anyone has used a 3/4" extruded aluminum spar in a Pietenpol? For example, Carlson Aircraft Inc. sells them. I don't recall the spar dimensions for a Piet off hand but they do have several sizes available (is 3/4"x4 1/2"x14' close?) It just seems like a good way to go, and at $103 it competes favorably with Spruce's $106 piece of wood of the same size.

Any reasons that wouldn't work?

User avatar
taildrags
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Spar

Post by taildrags » Tue May 16, 2017 11:19 pm

'pilotman'- the section properties of the extruded spar, and the properties of the material that it's made of, would be required in order to calculate the competency of the spar to carry the design loads. Carlson's literature says those spars are 6061-T6 aluminum and they post the strengths in shear and tension, so that part's done. The section modulus would need to be calculated, and I'm assuming you're referring to the 4-A spar with a depth of 4-1/2". I can calculate the section properties if I know which spar you're interested in.

EAB4
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:08 pm

Re: Spar

Post by EAB4 » Thu May 18, 2017 1:28 pm

Pilotman-
I don't know if they are on this board or not but I know Terry Hand and Bob Dewinter are both using the A-4 aluminum spars in their wings.
hopefully they are on the board and can give some details

User avatar
Terry Hand
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Spar

Post by Terry Hand » Thu May 18, 2017 3:03 pm

Builders,

The question came up about aluminum spars, and Earl Brown asked me if I would not mind chiming in, so I will do so -

Yes, I am using the aluminum extruded spars. However, I purchased mine from D&E Aircraft (https://www.de-aircraft.com/index.html) out of Lake Worth FL. I wrote a piece for the Newsletter under the previous administration, but somehow it never got printed, so I will attach it below. Some of the suppositions and figures came from about 2 years ago, so some of my numbers may have changed a little bit. But the gist of the article is the same. I will repeat it in its entirety below -

______________________________
A Discussion On The Use Of Aluminum Spars On The Pietenpol Air Camper

In my profile that I wrote on the Pietvair Forum recently, I mentioned that I planned on using aluminum extruded I-beam wing spars on my aircraft. That started a series of emails between Bob Dewenter and myself in which I explained the why and how of my choice. Below is a discussion taken from those emails and expanded a bit. Hopefully it will create further discussion on the forum. Let’s be clear at this point - I am not necessarily advocating that anyone else use aluminum wing spars. I am simply explaining the logic behind my choice -

Why Am I Using Aluminum Wing Spars?

1. They are a proven design on certified aircraft. There are 2 sources of aluminum I-beam wing spars that I know of. There may be more, but these are the two that I am familiar with. They are D&E Aircraft of Florida (http://www.de-aircraft.com/) located in Lake Worth FL, and Carlson Aircraft (http://carlsonaircraft.com/), located in East Palestine, OH. Many builders are familiar with both companies as sources for aluminum lift struts. In looking at their websites, you can see that these manufacturers are the source for aircraft such as the Legend Cub, Dakota Cubs, and Backcountry Cubs (formerly Turbine Cubs of Wyoming), the J3 and the PA15 Vagabond (experimental variants, anyway). In researching on the internet, information indicates that around 1946 Piper switched from wood spars to aluminum spars. William or someone else on the forum may be able to confirm this or expand the discussion on that point, in any case.

2. Cost of Aluminum Spars vs Wood Materials. Let’s look at an apples to apples cost comparison. Or at least as “Apples-to-Apples” as we can get.
D&E Aircraft advertises aluminum spars that fit my Riblett 613.5 airfoils in the necessary dimensions and at the following prices-

Spar Blank - 4.625" X 204" - $120.00 each / Subtotal $240.00
Spar Blank - 5.683" X 204" - $130.00 each / Subtotal $260.00
Total $500.00
(D&E Aircraft only sells 17 foot spars)
Carlson Aircraft advertises the similar sizes in the necessary lengths (the spars in the three-piece plans are 13’ 2.5 “, or 158.5”. So a minimum 14 foot, or 168” length of spruce is required for each spar) at the prices below-
Spar Blank - 4.500" X 168" - $103.00 each / Subtotal $206.00
Spar Blank - 5.683" X 170" - $119.00 each / Subtotal $238.00
Total $444.00

(Note - these prices do not include shipping and handling, which can double the cost in some cases. I was fortunate that I was able to have my spars delivered to this year’s Sun-n-Fun and then delivered to me in Atlanta by a friend at no cost. Thanks Skip and Cinda Gadd!)

Compare the cost of solid 1” spars (to be routed) in similar necessary sizes from Aircraft Spruce-
1” X 6.00” X 168” - $199.50 each - Subtotal $399.00 1” X 5.50” X 168” - $168.00 each - Subtotal $336.00 Total $735.00
Compare the cost of solid 3/4” spars in similar sizes from Aircraft Spruce-
3/4” X 6.00” X 168” - $175.00 each - Subtotal $350.00
3/4” X 5.50” X 168” - $161.00 each - Subtotal $322.00
Total $672.00

What about built up I-Beam spars? On another Pietenpol forum there is floating around a design for a built up spar. It consists of a plywood shear web from 1 sheet of 1/2” X 48” X 96” and 1/4” X 1.00” X 224 Feet of spruce capstrip assembled with T88 epoxy
1 sheet of 1/2” X 48” X 96” - $310.00 each - Subtotal $310.00
1/4” X 1.00” X 224 Feet (ACS only sells in full foot sections. the 13’ 2.50” flanges require purchasing 16 each 14 foot sections) -
$0.90 per linear foot - Subtotal $201.60 T88 Epoxy - $38.70 for the quart kit - Subtotal $ 38.70
Total $550.30

(What needs to be pointed out with this design is that at some point along the length of each spar you will have to scarf a joint in to make the full 13’ 2.5” length. Not impossible, but it does add another layer of difficulty to this method. Just a point to think about.)
The overall point to be made is that the price of the aluminum extruded I-beams is slightly cheaper than similarly sized spruce. Your materials cost may be less depending on your ability to find acceptable wood locally and at a cheaper price.
(Again, these prices do not reflect shipping and handling costs)

3. Weight. Here is a comparison of the weight of each type of spar. The aluminum weights come from the Carlson Aircraft website as shown below. It is assumed that the D&E spars are of a similar weight. The weights of the wood come from the current online Aircraft Spruce Catalog.
-Aluminum spars weigh between 0.93 and 1.00 oz per linear inch. Therefore, using the 1 oz. weight times the total length of the four spars (4 x 158.5”) is 634 inches. 634 ounces equals 39 pounds, 10 ounces. You will be using 30 each 5/16” X 1” X 5.5” plywood slats and 30 each 5/16” X 1” X 4.5” slats for attaching the ribs to the spars (more on that later). A 5/16” X 24” X 48” plywood sheet weighs 30 pounds, or 1.33 ounces per cubic inch. The slats would weigh approximately 33 ounces or 2 pounds 1 ounce, for a total weight of 41 pounds, 11 ounces. The weight of any T88 epoxy used to attach the slats to the aluminum spars is not included.
-Spruce weighs 27 pounds per cubic foot. so a 1” X 6” X 158.5” solid spruce spar weighs 14 pounds, 14 ounces, while a 1” X 5.5” X 158.5” spar weighs 13 pounds, 9 ounces. 2 of each spar has a total weight (before any routing is done) of 56 pounds, 14 ounces.
-If you decide to use the 3/4” solid, unrouted spars, each 3/4” X 6” X 158.5 “ spar weighs 11 pounds, 2 ounces, and each 3/4” X 5.5” X 158.5” spars weighs 10 pounds, 4 ounces. the four spars together weigh 42 pounds, 12 ounces.
-If you build up your I-beam spars, a sheet of Aircraft grade plywood (7 ply) in the size noted above weighs 50 pounds. If you add 631.5 cubic inches of spruce capstrips for the flanges (1/4” X 1” X 2526 inches [158.5” X 4 flanges per spar X 4 spars]), the flanges weigh 9 pounds, 14 ounces. The built up I-beam, therefore, weighs roughly 59 pounds, 14 ounces. That does not include the weight of the T-88 used in the assembly.
So what does all the math tell me? It tells me that aluminum spars are slightly lighter than 3/4 spars and even lighter than 1 inch or built-up I-beams. At most the difference is roughly 18 pounds. If you are looking for lighter, then the aluminum is the lightest of the bunch. A little bit lighter compared to some, and a lot lighter compared to other methods.

4. Time. Ask any builder how long it took him to build up his I-beam spar, or rout his one inch thick solid spar. I don’t have that answer, because everyone is a little different. However, I can answer this question - From the time the aluminum spars arrive at your shop/hangar, how long before you can use them to assemble your wing? The answer is almost immediately. They come to you ready to cut to length and begin assembly of your wing. I know that it is not exactly true in that you have to cut 60 slats for attaching the ribs to the spar, but it certainly is quicker than I-beam assembly or routing of solid spars.

(I will interject here that this was written before I had begun work on the spars so the response was a bit naive. There is more work than just sliding your ribs onto a couple aluminum spars. You have to add a plywood spacer at every point that a rib attaches to the spars, as well as wood spacers for compression struts and the internal support pieces as shown on the plans. There is work to be done to prep the spars for use, but having said that, for reason number 5 listed below, I would still make the same choice to use them.)

5. The “Hand Factor” is removed. This is more a criticism of me than anything else, so that is why I put it last on my list of reasons. If you are a master builder, woodworker, etc. and are confident of your skills, then just pass on by this point. This is, in my opinion, a risk management assessment, not really an advantage of one type of spar over another. I am comfortable with the quality of my work. If I were not, then I would never get in any airplane that I had built. Although being comfortable with the quality of my work, it does not change the fact that I am human and humans make mistakes. Did I rout my solid spars correctly, or did I just make expensive sawdust? Did I use enough T88 in assembling my I-beam spar? Was it mixed properly? Was the temperature in my hangar right when I assembled? Did I use enough clamps? The right clamps? Too much/too little pressure? Did I square up the spar prior to assembly? I know that T88 is incredibly forgiving, and I know that in the 1930's high school dropouts in the heart of the Great Depression assembled wooden airplanes in factories. I get all of that. I just feel more comfortable that a factory extruded aluminum spar is less likely to have human flaws affecting its construction. At least MY human flaws. YMMV.

So, how do I plan to assemble my wings using extruded I-beam aluminum spars? Did I pique your interest? Read my next thread. It should be up late tonight or early tomorrow. Stay tuned.
__________________________________

I hope that the info above at least answers a few questions. I am not the engineer that Oscar is, so I can't do the analysis that he can. I am using them based on discussions with William Wynne as well as the fact that this type of spar is used on hundreds of J3 Cubs and similar aircraft, all similar in size and weight as the Pietenpol.
Last edited by Terry Hand on Fri May 19, 2017 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Semper Fi,

Terry Hand
Athens GA

User avatar
taildrags
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Spar

Post by taildrags » Thu May 18, 2017 11:46 pm

Terry: why didn't you submit this for publishing in the newsletter? Excellent!

User avatar
Terry Hand
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Spar

Post by Terry Hand » Fri May 19, 2017 8:07 am

Oscar,

Since you asked...

I sent it to Jon over a year ago when he requested articles.
Semper Fi,

Terry Hand
Athens GA

User avatar
Pat Weeden
Site Admin
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:04 pm
Location: Oregon, Wis.
Contact:

Re: Spar

Post by Pat Weeden » Fri May 19, 2017 8:11 am

I was just going to ask if I could use this in the next newsletter. Is this ok?
Pat Weeden, Site Admin
Brodhead Pietenpol Association

User avatar
Terry Hand
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Spar

Post by Terry Hand » Fri May 19, 2017 9:28 am

Pat,

I would be more than happy for you to do so. I have a series of postings on the pietvair website that chronicle the build up and assembly process. I am happy to share those as well if you have an interest.
Semper Fi,

Terry Hand
Athens GA

User avatar
taildrags
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Spar

Post by taildrags » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:03 pm

I have started writing the second installment of a multi-part review and analysis of the Air Camper wing. The first part may be published this winter in an upcoming issue of the BPA Newsletter if Pat finds it satisfactory and has room for it. The first part is an analysis of the strength of the wing (and, by extension, the spars) on the original 1932 Flying & Glider Manual wing. The second installment, tentatively titled "Variations on a Theme", explores some of the different spar configurations that are used on the airplane, including the extruded aluminum spar. I was just re-reading Terry's earlier post about why he elected to go with aluminum spars and realized that I had forgotten that the deeper Riblett airfoil permits the use of a deeper spar. I've analyzed the 4.625" deep aluminum spar but Terry is using the 5.683" deep spar on the front (main spar). So it's back to the calculator to analyze the deeper spar! I sent Terry some preliminary information about strength and weigh comparisons of several spar options, but NOT the arrangement that he is using. So, inside note to Terry: my findings are that the spar you're using is VERY adequate in this application. To find out just how "very" it is, stay tuned for the second article in the series ;o)

User avatar
Terry Hand
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Spar

Post by Terry Hand » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:11 am

Oscar,

The front spar is 5.683" and the rear spar is 4.625" due to the smaller space. I would have had to "force" the taller spar into the rear position (Dan Sheridan used the taller spars for both and it fit fine, he said - must be that he has a better jig than I do ;0P ), and I was not comfortable doing that. Since I know the front spar takes the lion's share of the load, I am glad that it was not the other way around - the shorter spar carrying the majority of the load, and the taller taking less. Besides, it would most likely be an odd-looking airfoil that needed a spar set up like that!
Semper Fi,

Terry Hand
Athens GA

User avatar
taildrags
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Spar

Post by taildrags » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:53 am

Terry; yes, depending on which information one references, at a high angle of attack and positive G loading, the main spar carries anywhere from 84% to as much as 95% of the load. Your aft spar is fine.

Post Reply