Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Pulsar weights and engine choices.
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Pulsar-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

mjb777

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 54
Location: Dubai UAE

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:02 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Hi guys, 



I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.



I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine.



I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me. 



I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time.



I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same. 



I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.



I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.



Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......



On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. 



If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount.



The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. 



If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.



I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the  original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.



I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!



Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. 



It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.



So.......



If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? 



Regards,



Matt.

_________________
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

gregsmi

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 262
Location: Topeka, KS

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:28 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you  before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues.

  

 The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the  molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage  was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an  engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you  intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the  912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight,  if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip.

  

 I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the  Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds  more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this  application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine.

  

 I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this  airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the  Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe. 

  

 Greg

  

  In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  mattbrock777(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com)



I'm a    total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the    interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance,    (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your    experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.



I    have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and    the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582    90 series engine.



I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he    says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified    LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better    off with me. 



I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement    than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has    no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end    needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully    overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my    Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we    have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be    on the cards when we have the time.



I have been looking closely and    talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall    forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing    spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same.    



I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a    couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine.    It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty    much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.



I have talked    with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even    registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental    category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any    Airport in Australia.



Now for my question......theory etc........(Be    gentle with me!)......



On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding    wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.    



If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting,    extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase    over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar    amount for a bed style mount.



The original documentation for my Kit    says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. 



If I was to build    my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive    the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components    then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax    582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.



I realise that the majority    of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount    for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats    very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the  original    582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g    is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.



I have a great article    article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that    they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass strips into the    fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load    of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is    1736Lb!!!



Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be    LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. 



It's not even worth    investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as    opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing    the original +6 to +4.



So.......



If all of this is taken into    consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see    STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of    +4g/-2g? 



Regards,



Matt.



--------

Pulsar 1    Kit.

Captain B777.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance    Engineer.





Read this topic online    here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889

	


 [quote][b]

kdpalmer(at)mweb.co.za
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:34 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Hi Matt,

             Greg is quiet right - you are only reduceing your safty factor 

by over 33%



Keith



---

Eddie Gose

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 4

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:13 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Greg:

 

Just a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is currently for sale. It is advertised as a “XP” but seller claims it has wood spars. The current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood spars/912 would limit pay load some…your thoughts?

 

Eddie 

 

From: owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GREGSMI(at)aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25 AM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

 

Thank you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you joined the list. I will try to now answer your new issues.



 



The airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you intending to use the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip.



 



I understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this application, if you want to go with a four stroke engine.



 



I do not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the Aerovee engine, you must find another airframe. 



 



Greg



 



In a message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com) writes:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com)



I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.



I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine.



I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off with me. 



I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time.



I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same. 



I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.



I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.



Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......



On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. 



If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount for a bed style mount.



The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. 



If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.



I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the  original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.



I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!



Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. 



It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.



So.......



If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g? 



Regards,



Matt.



--------

Pulsar 1 Kit.

Captain B777.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889

  [/b][/b][/b][b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List[b] 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

 [quote][b]

gregsmi

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 262
Location: Topeka, KS

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:30 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

You are limited to 900 pounds gross with the wood spars. There may have  been a few shipped with wood spars, you should ask to see the cowling, if it has  a hump in the middle for spark plugs, it is a 582 cowl. 

  

 It has been so long now it is going to be difficult to know what you are  getting. If the cowl is 582 you can bet the fuselage is six oz. glass and not  XP. Also, if there are no wing tanks, it will not accommodate a 912. 

  

  In a message dated 8/14/2012 11:13:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  E-Gose(at)tamus.edu writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		        

Greg:   

    

Just    a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is currently    for sale. It is advertised as a â€œXPâ€ but seller claims it has wood spars. The    current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a    bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My    question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood    spars/912 would limit pay load someâ€¦your thoughts?   

    

Eddie       

          

From:    owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of    GREGSMI(at)aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25    AM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Pulsar-List:    Pulsar weights and engine choices.



   

       

Thank    you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you    joined the list. I will try to now answer your new    issues.

      

 

      

The    airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with    a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not    strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that    is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you intending to use    the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was    installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the    spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip.

      

 

      

I    understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the    Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds    more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this    application, if you want to go with a four stroke    engine.

      

 

      

I do    not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is    a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the Aerovee    engine, you must find another airframe. 

      

 

      

Greg

      

 

         

In a    message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com)    writes:

    	  Quote: 	
		       

-->      Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com)



I'm a      total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the      interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance,      (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your      experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.



I      have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars,      and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old),      Rotax 582 90 series engine.



I was given this Kit by the original      purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as      I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends      kits then its better off with me. 



I would rather a 4 stroke engine      of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so      long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the      crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to      have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals and other      perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am      Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to      cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we      have the time.



I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar      1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of      these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and      I am sure there were more who have done the same. 



I personally      really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and      have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs about 8      Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same      SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.



I have talked with the Aussie      SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the      Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I      have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in      Australia.



Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with      me!)......



On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden      spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. 



If I      was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine      weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the      Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount      for a bed style mount.



The original documentation for my Kit says the      design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. 



If I was to build my      Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive      the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components      then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original      Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.



I realise that the      majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build      a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs,      (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for      the  original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for      the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.



I      have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero      Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and      glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of      20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with      a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!



Keep in mind that the total aircraft      weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.      



It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as      at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more      conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.



So.......



If      all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on,      do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion      at a design limit of +4g/-2g?      



Regards,



Matt.



--------

Pulsar 1 Kit.

Captain      B777.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.





Read      this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889

  [/b][/b][/b][b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List[b] 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0[/b][/b][/b][/b] 	


 [quote][b]

gregsmi

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 262
Location: Topeka, KS

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:40 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Eddy, just remembered, I saw the same Pulsar. I know the original builder  and have tried to contact him in the past to get an idea of what it is all  about. It is possible he has an early XP, before they went to glass spars. If  the kit was bought piece meal, it could be anything. Wing tanks and the bed  mount 912 suggest an early XP but without talking to the builder, I do not know  what it is. In any event, the wood spars limit the aircraft to 900 pounds gross,  and only if it has extended spar caps.

  

  In a message dated 8/14/2012 11:13:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  E-Gose(at)tamus.edu writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		        

Greg:   

    

Just    a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is currently    for sale. It is advertised as a â€œXPâ€ but seller claims it has wood spars. The    current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a    bed mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My    question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood    spars/912 would limit pay load someâ€¦your thoughts?   

    

Eddie       

          

From:    owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of    GREGSMI(at)aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25    AM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Pulsar-List:    Pulsar weights and engine choices.



   

       

Thank    you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you    joined the list. I will try to now answer your new    issues.

      

 

      

The    airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with    a lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not    strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that    is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you intending to use    the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was    installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the    spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip.

      

 

      

I    understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the    Pulsar airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds    more than the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this    application, if you want to go with a four stroke    engine.

      

 

      

I do    not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is    a ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the Aerovee    engine, you must find another airframe. 

      

 

      

Greg

      

 

         

In a    message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com)    writes:

    	  Quote: 	
		       

-->      Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com)



I'm a      total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the      interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance,      (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your      experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.



I      have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars,      and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old),      Rotax 582 90 series engine.



I was given this Kit by the original      purchaser as he says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as      I am a qualified LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends      kits then its better off with me. 



I would rather a 4 stroke engine      of larger displacement than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so      long, even though it has no visible corrosion through any ports or on the      crankshaft or visible big end needle bearings I think it would be prudent to      have the engine fully overhauled for at least the seals and other      perishables before I would take my Wife flying with it. I also am      Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we have some large ground to      cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be on the cards when we      have the time.



I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar      1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of      these kept the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and      I am sure there were more who have done the same. 



I personally      really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a couple of times and      have looked closely at the great quality of this engine. It weighs about 8      Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty much the same      SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.



I have talked with the Aussie      SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even registering the      Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental category as I      have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in      Australia.



Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with      me!)......



On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden      spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar. 



If I      was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting, extra engine      weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase over the      Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar amount      for a bed style mount.



The original documentation for my Kit says the      design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. 



If I was to build my      Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive      the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components      then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original      Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.



I realise that the      majority of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build      a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs,      (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for      the  original 582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for      the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.



I      have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero      Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and      glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of      20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with      a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!



Keep in mind that the total aircraft      weight at +4g will be LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.      



It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as      at -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more      conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.



So.......



If      all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and so on,      do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion      at a design limit of +4g/-2g?      



Regards,



Matt.



--------

Pulsar 1 Kit.

Captain      B777.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.





Read      this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889

  [/b][/b][/b][b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List[b] 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0[/b][/b][/b][/b] 	


 [quote][b]

barryjedwards(at)lineone.
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:20 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Hi Eddie,

  

 I have a fairly early Pulsar XP with the 912 engine (actually the 1st XP  tail-dragger ever to fly). Mine has wood spars but which also had a layer of 9oz  glass cloth bonded on each side (as per the AD manual), it also has the plywood  skins. The gross weight is 960lbs. Itâ€™s been flying for over 1000hrs now in the  space of 20 years. If yours has wing tanks it is almost certainly an XP, but  yes, do check the cowl. To take the extra engine weight, the uni-glass â€˜strapsâ€™  were doubled up as well as the fuselage glass being slightly heavier.

  

 Hope this helps you.

  

 Barry

 G-XPXP Tail-dragger UK, 1020hrs.

    

  From: Gose, Eddie (E-Gose(at)tamus.edu) 

 Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:12 PM

 To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com (pulsar-list(at)matronics.com) 

 Subject: RE: Pulsar weights and engine  choices.

  



   

Greg: 

  

Just  a quick follow on question. I am aware of a Pulsar airframe that is currently  for sale. It is advertised as a â€œXPâ€ but seller claims it has wood spars. The  current owner says that the airframe is set up for a 912. The photos show a bed  mount configuration. The seller claims glass wing skins and wing tanks. My  question is did Pulsar sell an XP kit with wood spars? Seems to me the wood  spars/912 would limit pay load someâ€¦your thoughts? 

  

Eddie   

    

From:  owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of  GREGSMI(at)aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:25  AM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Pulsar-List:  Pulsar weights and engine choices.



 

   

Thank  you Matt for answering several of my questions I had sent to you before you  joined the list. I will try to now answer your new  issues.

  

 

  

The  airframe you have was made for the 582. As such, it came out of the molds with a  lighter glass than the 912 model. In other words, the 582 fuselage was not  strong enough to support the 912. Now, you are wanting to mount an engine that  is 40 pounds heavier than the 912 in a 582 fuselage. Are you intending to use  the header tank also? The fuel was moved to the wings when the 912 was  installed. Also, the spars you have limited to 900 pounds gross weight, if the  spar caps go to the outboard edge of the wing tip.

  

 

  

I  understand your desire to go with the economical Aerovee engine, but the Pulsar  airframe will not support the weight. The Jabiru 2200 weighs 10 pounds more than  the 582 installed weight, which makes it a good candidate for this application,  if you want to go with a four stroke engine.

  

 

  

I do  not know any other way to put this, installing the Aerovee in this airframe is a  ticket for disaster, on so many levels. If you want to use the Aerovee engine,  you must find another airframe. 

  

 

  

Greg

  

 

   

In a  message dated 8/14/2012 5:03:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com)  writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     

-->    Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777" mattbrock777(at)gmail.com (mattbrock777(at)gmail.com)



I'm a    total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of you for the    interesting reading your discussions have provided me with, and in advance,    (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can gain from your    experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may have built.



I    have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length spars, and    the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20 years old), Rotax 582    90 series engine.



I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he    says that if he hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified    LAME , (A and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better    off with me. 



I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement    than the Rotax 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has    no visible corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end    needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully    overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would take my    Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it against me), and we    have some large ground to cover and a couple of around Australia trips will be    on the cards when we have the time.



I have been looking closely and    talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall    forward conversion. One of these kept the original full length spruce wing    spars and had no issues, and I am sure there were more who have done the same.    



I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a    couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this engine.    It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost and has pretty    much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.



I have talked    with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue with it, even    registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH" Amateur built experimental    category as I have an ATPL licence which means I can fly the Aircraft into any    Airport in Australia.



Now for my question......theory etc........(Be    gentle with me!)......



On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding    wooden spars and composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.    



If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting,    extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb increase    over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and probably a similar    amount for a bed style mount.



The original documentation for my Kit    says the design MTOW at a +6g load limit is 900Lbs. 



If I was to build    my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I figure that to acheive    the same stress loading as would be experienced by ALL structural components    then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs which is way beyond the original Rotax    582 and also with the Aerovee conversion.



I realise that the majority    of the increased load would be on the lower cowl if i was to build a bed mount    for the Aerovee, so if the engine installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats    very pessimistic!!), then the load on the lower cowl for the  original    582 at approx 132Lb engine weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g    is 868Lbs. That is a 76Lb difference AT +4g.



I have a great article    article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where Aero Designs mentions that    they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage bond and glass strips into the    fuselage shell provide an ultimate load capability of 20G with the 582, a load    of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is    1736Lb!!!



Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be    LESS than the Rotax 582 configuration at +6g. 



It's not even worth    investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at -2g negative limit as    opposed to the original -4g limit this is even more conservative than reducing    the original +6 to +4.



So.......



If all of this is taken into    consideration, along with C of G limits and so on, do any of you see    STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee conversion at a design limit of    +4g/-2g? 



Regards,



Matt.



--------

Pulsar 1    Kit.

Captain B777.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance    Engineer.





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889

  [/b][/b][/b][b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List[b] 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0[/b][/b][/b][/b]

   [quote][b]

avkozloff(at)roadrunner.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:10 pm Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Matt:

    I have Pulsar I kit #190 with the Rotax 582 that I bought in 1990.



    I finished the plane in 2004 (I can explain the delay if you really  

want me to); but before I flew it, I had the engine overhauled with new  

gaskets, an added thermostat, and most importantly, a stouter crankshaft  

that required cageless needle bearings on the ends to bring it up to the  

newer "Blue Head" specifications.



     I've got about 650 hours on the plane to date and went for an  

additional engine rebuild during the past Eight ( years.

     My only problems to date are two (2) rectifier failures that prevented  

the battery from charging.

     Luckily, in each case, I had a backup battery for the Dynon EFIS that  

allowed me to land safely.



     Using Jim Schmitt's suggestion, I had the GSC propeller thinned down  

and I now cruse at 100K using 4 gph at lower altitudes.



     Some time ago, Greg Smith, the Guru of all things Pulsar related,  

pointed out that the fuselage laminate for the 582 powered Pulsar I was  

lighter than the succeeding models and that larger engines than 66 HP were  

not recommended. (Someone put a BMW motorcycle engine in one and ended up  

breaking the fuselage, as I recollect).



     Good luck on your project, I'm sure you are going to enjoy building  

and flying this delightful and agile aircraft.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:02:41 -0700, mjb777 <mattbrock777(at)gmail.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Hi guys,



 I'm a total newbie to this Forum and firstly I'd like to thank all of  

 you for the interesting reading your discussions have provided me with,  

 and in advance, (hopefully), for the wisdom and experience that I can  

 gain from your experiences with the Pulsar and other aircraft you may  

 have built.



 I have a complete Pulsar 1 Tail Dragger Kit, with Spruce full length  

 spars, and the originally supplied, brand new, (albeit some 15 - 20  

 years old), Rotax 582 90 series engine.



 I was given this Kit by the original purchaser as he says that if he  

 hasn't built it by now, he never will and as I am a qualified LAME , (A  

 and P), and have some experience with friends kits then its better off  

 with me.



 I would rather a 4 stroke engine of larger displacement than the Rotax  

 582, and after sitting around for so long, even though it has no visible  

 corrosion through any ports or on the crankshaft or visible big end  

 needle bearings I think it would be prudent to have the engine fully  

 overhauled for at least the seals and other perishables before I would  

 take my Wife flying with it. I also am Australian, (don't hold it  

 against me), and we have some large ground to cover and a couple of  

 around Australia trips will be on the cards when we have the time.



 I have been looking closely and talking to some Pulsar 1 builders who  

 have used the Jabiru 2200 firewall forward conversion. One of these kept  

 the original full length spruce wing spars and had no issues, and I am  

 sure there were more who have done the same.



 I personally really like the Aerovee 2.3 and have flown this engine a  

 couple of times and have looked closely at the great quality of this  

 engine. It weighs about 8 Kg more than the Jabiru, but is 50% the cost  

 and has pretty much the same SFC and I can maintain and overhaul it.



 I have talked with the Aussie SAAA about my plans and they have no issue  

 with it, even registering the Pulsar with the Aerovee in the "VH"  

 Amateur built experimental category as I have an ATPL licence which  

 means I can fly the Aircraft into any Airport in Australia.



 Now for my question......theory etc........(Be gentle with me!)......



 On this Forum I have seen a few posts regarding wooden spars and  

 composite spars, weight limits etc. for the Pulsar.



 If I was to put the Aerovee into the Pulsar 1, with engine mounting,  

 extra engine weight etc. perhaps this would equate to a 30Kg/ 66Lb  

 increase over the Rotax 582 for a conventional frame style mount and  

 probably a similar amount for a bed style mount.



 The original documentation for my Kit says the design MTOW at a +6g load  

 limit is 900Lbs.



 If I was to build my Pulsar with the Aerovee but to a +4g limit, then I  

 figure that to acheive the same stress loading as would be experienced  

 by ALL structural components then I could build to a MTOW of 1350Lbs  

 which is way beyond the original Rotax 582 and also with the Aerovee  

 conversion.



 I realise that the majority of the increased load would be on the lower  

 cowl if i was to build a bed mount for the Aerovee, so if the engine  

 installed weighs say 217lbs, (I think thats very pessimistic!!), then  

 the load on the lower cowl for the  original 582 at approx 132Lb engine  

 weight at +6g is 792Lb and for the Aerovee at +4g is 868Lbs. That is a  

 76Lb difference AT +4g.



 I have a great article article here, in Contact Magazine issue 2 where  

 Aero Designs mentions that they calculate that the lower cowl/ fuselage  

 bond and glass strips into the fuselage shell provide an ultimate load  

 capability of 20G with the 582, a load of 2640Lb!!!. The Aerovee  

 configuration at +4g with a factor of 2 is 1736Lb!!!



 Keep in mind that the total aircraft weight at +4g will be LESS than the  

 Rotax 582 configuration at +6g.



 It's not even worth investigating the negative G limit scenarios as at  

 -2g negative limit as opposed to the original -4g limit this is even  

 more conservative than reducing the original +6 to +4.



 So.......



 If all of this is taken into consideration, along with C of G limits and  

 so on, do any of you see STRUCTURAL issues with my plan of the Aerovee  

 conversion at a design limit of +4g/-2g?



 Regards,



 Matt.



 --------

 Pulsar 1 Kit.

 Captain B777.

 Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380889#380889



 Alex Kozloff

P.O. Box 866	
	


Santa Paula, CA 93061(USPS)



416 East Santa Maria Street Hangar # 31

Santa Paula, CA 93060 (UPS & FedEx)



(805) 525-1415

(949) 400-6364 Cell

mjb777

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 54
Location: Dubai UAE

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Thanks for all the input so far guys I really appreciate it.



I'd be very interested to learn more about the structural failure of the BMW conversion. I believe it was a landing incident and who knows what sort of strut type engine mount, or fuselage anchor points had been 'engineered'. If anyone has pictures or a website link that would be great.



Can someone explain to me why, if the weight of the hypothetical Aerovee converted Pulsar at +4g is LESS than the 582 configuration at +6g, then why is there disaster looming with the wood spars?



MTOW limits in this class of aircraft are only for the design limit G and safety factor after all.



My spars have the Bi caps and I am aware that there are XP's out there with the spruce spar at 960lb WITH A +6g LIMIT AT THIS WEIGHT.



So if I carry out a suitable strengthening of the forward fuselage to carry and distribute the extra loads at +4g with a factor of 2, (about 150lbs) ...........whats the problem?



I know I am playing devils advocate here but the History books are loaded with stuff that we 'couldn't do'!!  



Matt.

_________________
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

kdpalmer(at)mweb.co.za
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:27 pm Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Matt,

        Personally with what you want to do you must speak to the designer 

to get approval or get yourself a mechanical engineer to do the calculations 

for you, and in either case do load tests after construction to get approval 

from your local authorities, before registration, as a new design aircraft. 

This is what would be required in my country.

       You can't expect homebuilders and pilots to answer these questions .



Keith



PS there are two types of wood spars 1 st the capping did not go to the end 

of the spar - 2nd upgrade capping went to the end of the spar/wing tip



---

mjb777

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 54
Location: Dubai UAE

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Thanks Keith,



I fully intend to do as much analysis of this as I can and fortunately the SAAA has engineers on hand to assist with this sort of thing. I pretty much want to hear opinions, and will not hold anyone responsible for such. 



My kit has the full length reinforced spars.



I know there are at least a couple of Pulsar 1's out there with the Jabiru conversion and I'd really like to hear from some of those guys about their experience so far?



Matt.

_________________
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

briana(at)xtra.co.nz
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:54 pm Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Matt,



There are other considerations anyhow. The VW is a lot wider. How are you going to keep it within the dimensions of the cowling. The present cowling will only just fit a Rotax 912. How are you going to strengthen the firewall to distribute the loads into the fuselage? The Series 1 and the XP were designed with the engine bed mounted. The loads are carried into the fuselage via unidirectional glass "beams" through the firewall and into the fuselage structure. The firewall itself is only 1/4" glass/foam sandwich, strengthened to carry the noseleg loads.



How are you going to maintain the correct CofG location with that much extra weight in the nose ?



Why bother trying to re-engineer it for something that it was never designed for.



Brian

XP, #456, 912

On 15/08/2012, at 6:47 PM, mjb777 wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Thanks for all the input so far guys I really appreciate it.

 

 I'd be very interested to learn more about the structural failure of the BMW conversion. I believe it was a landing incident and who knows what sort of strut type engine mount, or fuselage anchor points had been 'engineered'. If anyone has pictures or a website link that would be great.

 

 Can someone explain to me why, if the weight of the hypothetical Aerovee converted Pulsar at +4g is LESS than the 582 configuration at +6g, then why is there disaster looming with the wood spars?

 

 MTOW limits in this class of aircraft are only for the design limit G and safety factor after all.

 

 My spars have the Bi caps and I am aware that there are XP's out there with the spruce spar at 960lb WITH A +6g LIMIT AT THIS WEIGHT.

 

 So if I carry out a suitable strengthening of the forward fuselage to carry and distribute the extra loads at +4g with a factor of 2, (about 150lbs) ...........whats the problem?

 

 I know I am playing devils advocate here but the History books are loaded with stuff that we 'couldn't do'!!  [Wink]

 

 Matt.

 

 --------

 Pulsar 1 Kit.

 Captain B777.

 Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380945#380945

kdpalmer(at)mweb.co.za
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:20 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Opinion are meaningless unless from a qualified person - and for a "Captain 

B777. - Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer"  asking these questions of 

Homebuilders and Pilots ????.  I would say you are on your own !



---

kdpalmer(at)mweb.co.za
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:55 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

BTW your last comment - the Jabiru is an approved conversion all specs and 

drawings are available from the agents.

---

mjb777

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 54
Location: Dubai UAE

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:16 am Post subject: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

I appreciate all input that you guys have given me regarding this matter.



I don't see how my qualifications mean anything when I am simply seeking information from those with experience in this area and also with similar modifications that have been made in the past.



If anyone has more information they'd like to provide regarding Jabiru or Rotax conversions that they know of with wood spar Pulsars, I'd really like to hear from you.



Matt.

_________________
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

gregsmi

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 262
Location: Topeka, KS

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:52 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Matt, with the kit came a set of manuals. If they are the correct manuals  for that kit, hard to say after 20 years, but those manuals will give the kit's  design limitations.You must know that designing an aircraft is a series of  compromises, each change impacting other things. It is extremely complicated. I  have worked five years on a design project with a very gifted design engineer  and you would be amazed at the 'do overs' a minor change has caused.

  

 The Pulsar builders and pilots have an outstanding safety record and we  tend to guard it jealously. We love the aircraft and the people that fly them.  Most of us had the luxury of consulting with the aircraft designer while we were  building. If we screwed up or wanted to deviate from plan, we could call the  factory and the designer would evaluate the issue based on the impact to the  whole aircraft design. Unfortunately, this great support is no longer  available.

  

  As several people have pointed out, you need to be talking to an engineer  that has all of the specifications and testing that went into the design, and  that is not available. If you cannot build the plane per the manuals then I  would like to suggest you donate it to someone that will follow the manual. You  paid nothing for it so you are out nothing. Maybe you could sell it and buy the  aircraft that is designed for your requirements.

  

 Please do not be offended by this suggestion. We have lost some Pulsar  friends and our biggest concern is for all to be safe. You are wanting to  modify the Pulsar way beyond it's design limitations and there is no way  that can be done on this forum. 

  

 Greg 



  

  

 In a message dated 8/15/2012 5:17:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  mattbrock777(at)gmail.com writes:

   	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777"    <mattbrock777(at)gmail.com>



I appreciate all input that you guys    have given me regarding this matter.

I don't see how my qualifications mean    anything when I am simply seeking information from those with experience in    this area and also with similar modifications that have been made in the    past.



If anyone has more information they'd like to provide regarding    Jabiru or Rotax conversions that they know of with wood spar Pulsars, I'd    really like to hear from you.



Matt.



--------

Pulsar 1 TD    Kit.

Captain B777.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance    Engineer.





Read this topic online    here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380952#380952

	


 [quote][b]

gregsmi

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 262
Location: Topeka, KS

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:34 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Just one more answer for your calculations. The 6 G load you are looking at  is ULTIMATE load, the point where the spar fails. FAR 23 requires a 1.5 safety  factor which puts the operating limit load at 4 G. By reducing  the ultimate load to 4 G, you now have an operating limit load of 2 G, not  a safe situation. I hope that clarifies things for you.

  

 Greg 

  

  

  

  In a message dated 8/15/2012 9:52:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  GREGSMI(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Matt, with the kit came a set of manuals. If they are the correct manuals    for that kit, hard to say after 20 years, but those manuals will give the    kit's design limitations.You must know that designing an aircraft is a series    of compromises, each change impacting other things. It is extremely    complicated. I have worked five years on a design project with a very gifted    design engineer and you would be amazed at the 'do overs' a minor change has    caused.

    

   The Pulsar builders and pilots have an outstanding safety record and we    tend to guard it jealously. We love the aircraft and the people that fly them.    Most of us had the luxury of consulting with the aircraft designer while we    were building. If we screwed up or wanted to deviate from plan, we could call    the factory and the designer would evaluate the issue based on the impact to    the whole aircraft design. Unfortunately, this great support is no longer    available.

    

      As several people have pointed out, you need to be talking to an engineer    that has all of the specifications and testing that went into the design, and    that is not available. If you cannot build the plane per the manuals then I    would like to suggest you donate it to someone that will follow the manual.    You paid nothing for it so you are out nothing. Maybe you could sell it and    buy the aircraft that is designed for your requirements.

    

   Please do not be offended by this suggestion. We have lost    some Pulsar friends and our biggest concern is for all to be safe.    You are wanting to modify the Pulsar way beyond it's design    limitations and there is no way that can be done on this forum. 

    

   Greg 



    

    

   In a message dated 8/15/2012 5:17:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time,    mattbrock777(at)gmail.com writes:

       	  Quote: 	
		  -->      Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777"      <mattbrock777(at)gmail.com>



I appreciate all input that you guys      have given me regarding this matter.

I don't see how my qualifications      mean anything when I am simply seeking information from those with      experience in this area and also with similar modifications that have been      made in the past.



If anyone has more information they'd like to      provide regarding Jabiru or Rotax conversions that they know of with wood      spar Pulsars, I'd really like to hear from      you.



Matt.



--------

Pulsar 1 TD Kit.

Captain      B777.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.





Read      this topic online      here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=380952#380952

	


 	  Quote: 	
		  



ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List

s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
	


 [quote][b]

mjb777

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 54
Location: Dubai UAE

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Thanks for your insight Greg and I very much appreciate the following and pride of the Pulsar guys out there. I haven't heard a bad word about the aeroplane other than some of the negative experiences that guys have had with 2 strokes over time.



A quick question with your last comment. I have numerous official Aero Designs pulications that state the "G-Limits (Tested) +6.0/-4.0". There is never a mention in any of these brochures or my construction and operation Manuals, (that I can see anyway), that mentions +4.0G?



Could you provide me with a reference as even if I proceed to the original design specifications then this is very important.



Regards and thanks again for your input.



Matt.

_________________
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

gregsmi

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 262
Location: Topeka, KS

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:11 am Post subject: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

The ultimate load is 6G. FAR part 23 requires one and half G safety margin  which puts the operating limit load at 4 G. The operating limit is derived from  the ultimate load limit. When it says tested, Aerodesigns was stating 6G is the  point of failure. On many occasions, Aerodesigns had talked about testing, and  in dealing with composites, how any damage would be cumulative. It was always  stressed that the Pulsar is not an acrobatic aircraft which is where you might  see the higher G loads. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  In a message dated 8/16/2012 1:24:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  mattbrock777(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Pulsar-List message posted by: "mjb777"    <mattbrock777(at)gmail.com>



Thanks for your insight Greg and I very    much appreciate the following and pride of the Pulsar guys out there. I    haven't heard a bad word about the aeroplane other than some of the negative    experiences that guys have had with 2 strokes over time.



A quick    question with your last comment. I have numerous official Aero Designs    pulications that state the "G-Limits (Tested) +6.0/-4.0". There is never a    mention in any of these brochures or my construction and operation Manuals,    (that I can see anyway), that mentions +4.0G?



Could you provide me with    a reference as even if I proceed to the original design specifications then    this is very important.



Regards and thanks again for your    input.



Matt.



--------

Pulsar 1 TD Kit.

Captain    B777.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.





Read this    topic online    here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381005#381005



	


 [quote][b]

mjb777

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 54
Location: Dubai UAE

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:22 am Post subject: Re: Pulsar weights and engine choices.

Thanks Greg, I understand.



I had another look at my Operating manual and see that +4/-2 is in there.



Without holding you to it, would you be more positive with my Pulsar 1 being modified with the Jabiru conversion?



Matt.

_________________
Pulsar 1 TD Kit.
Captain B777.
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Pulsar-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum