Original Posted By: oil can
How about redwood? Has anybody used that yet to build? Any input onthis wood for aircraft construction?Brent ReedHow about redwood? Has anybodyused thatyet to build? Any input on this wood for aircraftconstruction?BrentReed________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Redwood
Pietenpol-List: Re: Redwood
Original Posted By: Richard DeCosta
You should consider reading the articles on selecting and grading woodsuitable for aircraft construction carried in the last three months ofSport Aviation. I think the specific weight of redwood might be alittle high. Douglas fir can meet the milspecs and would prove a moresuitable replacement for spruce if cost savings is what you are after,rumored to me 30% of the cost of and only 10% heavier. Given that theshipping cost is the same for spruce and Douglas fir from an aircraftwood supplier and the overall expenditure should be around $1000(correct me if I am wrong). Unless you know what you are doing youshould follow the advice of the articles and avoid the temptation tobuy wod from non aircraft suppliers. Cold brittlement might notbother you if you want to fly in the summers only since a piet rarelygoes to altitude, but the flaw would haunt me especially if I did notknow how the plane would be operated if it changes hands.---Brent Reed wrote:>> How about redwood? Has anybody used that yet to build? Any inputon this wood for aircraft construction?> > Brent Reed> ==Matt Naiva B.Eng (Mechanical)Piet1929(at)usa.netEAA MEMBER SINCE 1986Piet plans Holder since 1986________________________________________________________________________________
You should consider reading the articles on selecting and grading woodsuitable for aircraft construction carried in the last three months ofSport Aviation. I think the specific weight of redwood might be alittle high. Douglas fir can meet the milspecs and would prove a moresuitable replacement for spruce if cost savings is what you are after,rumored to me 30% of the cost of and only 10% heavier. Given that theshipping cost is the same for spruce and Douglas fir from an aircraftwood supplier and the overall expenditure should be around $1000(correct me if I am wrong). Unless you know what you are doing youshould follow the advice of the articles and avoid the temptation tobuy wod from non aircraft suppliers. Cold brittlement might notbother you if you want to fly in the summers only since a piet rarelygoes to altitude, but the flaw would haunt me especially if I did notknow how the plane would be operated if it changes hands.---Brent Reed wrote:>> How about redwood? Has anybody used that yet to build? Any inputon this wood for aircraft construction?> > Brent Reed> ==Matt Naiva B.Eng (Mechanical)Piet1929(at)usa.netEAA MEMBER SINCE 1986Piet plans Holder since 1986________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Redwood
Original Posted By: Greg Cardinal
Brent, I can tell you first hand that redwood will not work. I am in the signbusiness and use redwood almost exclusively. When I asked a EAA tech. advisorabout it's usage in aircraft, he said I might be able to use it for a rearview mirror mount. (After he quit laughing.) There are a recent series of good articles in Sport Aviation on alternativewoods, covering selection, properties,etc. Check it out.Ron E. ________________________________________________________________________________
Brent, I can tell you first hand that redwood will not work. I am in the signbusiness and use redwood almost exclusively. When I asked a EAA tech. advisorabout it's usage in aircraft, he said I might be able to use it for a rearview mirror mount. (After he quit laughing.) There are a recent series of good articles in Sport Aviation on alternativewoods, covering selection, properties,etc. Check it out.Ron E. ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Redwood
Original Posted By: Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu
Brent,I think the question will raise a little dispute. The one answer youreceived considering specific weight gives cause to ask, what is theirreference? The specific weight of redwood is less than that of DouglasFir if my Reference book is correct. That reference is attributed togovernment data. I wish when people gave their answers they would givenumbers to support their thought and where those numbers came from.Again, as far as the "statement" of the EAA tech, What is the reasonbehind the opinion? If a cubic foot of air dried spruce weighs 26 lbs. and a cubic foot ofair dried redwood weighs 26 lbs. and a cubic foot of air dried DouglasFir weighs 34 lbs. the reason cannot be based on weight. If the sheer strength of spruce is 1,000 lbs. and the sheer strength ofDouglas fir is 1200 lbs. and the sheer strength of redwood is 1100 lbs.it cannot be that redwood in not strong enough.Much redwood comes from older growth trees and have ring counts of 16and better.So, since the answer to the question of redwood was so obvious to theEAA tech. as to make it a joke, can someone please be specific as to thereason redwood is unexceptable for the building of light aircraft? I hope I am not the only one out here that doesn't want to accept ananswer just because somebody says that it is so. If I am just call memister skeptic.Ron GipsonBrent,I think the question will raise alittledispute. The one answer you received considering specific weightgivescause to ask, what is their reference? The specific weight ofredwood isless than that of Douglas Fir if my Reference book is correct.Thatreference is attributed to government data. I wish when peoplegave theiranswers they would give numbers to support their thought and where thosenumberscame from. Again, as far as thestatement ofthe EAA tech, What is the reason behind the opinion? If a cubic foot of air dried spruceweighs 26lbs. and a cubic foot of air dried redwood weighs 26 lbs. and a cubicfoot ofair dried Douglas Fir weighs 34 lbs. the reason cannot be based onweight.If the sheer strength of spruce is1,000 lbs.and the sheer strength of Douglas fir is 1200 lbs. and the sheerstrength ofredwood is 1100 lbs. it cannot be that redwood in not strongenough.Much redwood comes from older growth trees and haveringcounts of 16 and better.So, since the answer to the questionof redwoodwas so obvious to the EAA tech. as to make it a joke, can someone pleasebespecific as to the reason redwood is unexceptable for the building oflightaircraft? I hope I am not the only one outhere thatdoesn't want to accept an answer just because somebody says that it isso.If I am just call me mister skeptic.RonGipson________________________________________________________________________________
Brent,I think the question will raise a little dispute. The one answer youreceived considering specific weight gives cause to ask, what is theirreference? The specific weight of redwood is less than that of DouglasFir if my Reference book is correct. That reference is attributed togovernment data. I wish when people gave their answers they would givenumbers to support their thought and where those numbers came from.Again, as far as the "statement" of the EAA tech, What is the reasonbehind the opinion? If a cubic foot of air dried spruce weighs 26 lbs. and a cubic foot ofair dried redwood weighs 26 lbs. and a cubic foot of air dried DouglasFir weighs 34 lbs. the reason cannot be based on weight. If the sheer strength of spruce is 1,000 lbs. and the sheer strength ofDouglas fir is 1200 lbs. and the sheer strength of redwood is 1100 lbs.it cannot be that redwood in not strong enough.Much redwood comes from older growth trees and have ring counts of 16and better.So, since the answer to the question of redwood was so obvious to theEAA tech. as to make it a joke, can someone please be specific as to thereason redwood is unexceptable for the building of light aircraft? I hope I am not the only one out here that doesn't want to accept ananswer just because somebody says that it is so. If I am just call memister skeptic.Ron GipsonBrent,I think the question will raise alittledispute. The one answer you received considering specific weightgivescause to ask, what is their reference? The specific weight ofredwood isless than that of Douglas Fir if my Reference book is correct.Thatreference is attributed to government data. I wish when peoplegave theiranswers they would give numbers to support their thought and where thosenumberscame from. Again, as far as thestatement ofthe EAA tech, What is the reason behind the opinion? If a cubic foot of air dried spruceweighs 26lbs. and a cubic foot of air dried redwood weighs 26 lbs. and a cubicfoot ofair dried Douglas Fir weighs 34 lbs. the reason cannot be based onweight.If the sheer strength of spruce is1,000 lbs.and the sheer strength of Douglas fir is 1200 lbs. and the sheerstrength ofredwood is 1100 lbs. it cannot be that redwood in not strongenough.Much redwood comes from older growth trees and haveringcounts of 16 and better.So, since the answer to the questionof redwoodwas so obvious to the EAA tech. as to make it a joke, can someone pleasebespecific as to the reason redwood is unexceptable for the building oflightaircraft? I hope I am not the only one outhere thatdoesn't want to accept an answer just because somebody says that it isso.If I am just call me mister skeptic.RonGipson________________________________________________________________________________