The Murphy Builders Site

Received: from RebelAir@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 1QNEa03537
for <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:56:25 -0500 (EST)
From: RebelAir@aol.com
Message-ID: <fe801386.36a24069@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:56:25 EST
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Engineering Book
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows 95 sub 19

Hi Ken

Sorry to bother you again about this, but, I misplaced the info you gave me
about the book on basic engineering principles. Would you please mind
giving
me the title and authour is possible? I would sure like to go pick it up.

As an example, I was talking to Carey at MAM on Friday about the floatfix
and
I suggested stainless steel rivets. He said no because of the use of
disimilar metals?
I don't understand. I would like to learn more. I am sure we could build
better, less maintenance prone aircraft armed with more information.

By the way Ken, Carey said that you do not need 12 rivets forward and behind
of the ones already in the doorpost. He suggested 8 or so altogether is
enough. Hard to understand what they send you sometimes and what they tell
you over the phone. I think I will go by what feels right in the space
allowed. Carey did say that the rivets thru FUS-9 must be interpitched with
additional rivets for the full length of the doorpost. This is now going in
the manual. Nice of them to let us know?!

Those guys still continue to frustrate me with their lack of information
dissemination.

Cheers


Brian #328R



-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from dialup.voyager.co.nz (ts1p10.net.ashburton.voyager.co.nz
[203.21.25.174]) by host02.net.voyager.co.nz (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id
JAA06491 for <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:41:10 +1300
(NZDT)
Message-Id: <199901172041.JAA06491@host02.net.voyager.co.nz>
From: "Alister Yeoman" <yeoman@voyager.co.nz>
To: "Murphy Rebel" <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Subject: Re: Engineering Book
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:41:31 +1300
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Brian,

Hope you dont mind me butting in but I have just been through process of
interpitching the rivets on the door post, it makes a big difference in
this area.

One of the reasons Murphy says to not use stainless steel rivets is because
they give no indication that anything is going wrong. For example, lower
down on my doorpost I got 'smoking' of the aluminium rivets in the
doorpost, that told me quite clearly that something was moving. But just
above that, where the door hinge is held on with SS rivets there was no
indication at all that anything was wrong, yet when I went to remove these
they were very loose and turned freely. Thats not good.

I am not sure but I also believe that the two metals dont get on that well
together, It pays to make sure the two mating surfaces are well primed.

On the subject of interpitching the doorpost rivets there is quite a bit of
room on the doorpost to move the rivets positions fore and aft if you like,
in effect giving two rows of rivets, I found this to be very effective.

When I did the job on the doorpost I used 5/32 monal (spelling?) rivets in
every second hole, but left 1/8 aluminium in the others because although
they may not have the strength of the larger rivet they will at least tell
me if any movement is occuring.

Cheers

Alister Yeoman

----------

From: RebelAir@aol.com
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: Engineering Book
Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 8:56 AM

Hi Ken

Sorry to bother you again about this, but, I misplaced the info you gave

me

about the book on basic engineering principles. Would you please mind

giving

me the title and authour is possible? I would sure like to go pick it

up.

As an example, I was talking to Carey at MAM on Friday about the floatfix

and

I suggested stainless steel rivets. He said no because of the use of
disimilar metals?
I don't understand. I would like to learn more. I am sure we could

build

better, less maintenance prone aircraft armed with more information.

By the way Ken, Carey said that you do not need 12 rivets forward and

behind

of the ones already in the doorpost. He suggested 8 or so altogether is
enough. Hard to understand what they send you sometimes and what they

tell

you over the phone. I think I will go by what feels right in the space
allowed. Carey did say that the rivets thru FUS-9 must be interpitched

with

additional rivets for the full length of the doorpost. This is now going

in

the manual. Nice of them to let us know?!

Those guys still continue to frustrate me with their lack of information
dissemination.

Cheers


Brian #328R

Received: from SHMC_EXR1 by ns.peacehealth.org
via smtpd (for [208.207.124.254]) with SMTP; 17 Jan 1999 23:11:49
UT
Received: by shmc-exr1.peacehealth.org with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2232.9)
id <C64GTTM4>; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:10:56 -0800
Message-ID:
<F8F69E623EE5D011B03300A0247313D50105D2D9@SJH_MC_EX1.peacehealth.org>
From: "Morehouse, Daniel G" <DMorehouse@peacehealth.org>
To: "'murphy-rebel@dcsol.com'" <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Subject: RE: Engineering Book
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:10:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain

I don't know about the dissimilar metal issue (don't they use SS rivets in
other spots?) but it did make sense what Grant mentioned when I asked him
about this a few months ago (I posted this then too, in October/November?).
The SS is much stronger than the aluminum, duh, so it wouldn't show smoking
rivet syndrome as an indicator of fatigue. Instead you'd end up with a
ripped piece of aluminum sheet metal and intact SS rivets. Sounded
reasonable to me.

Cheers,
Dan
R280

----------
From: RebelAir@aol.com[SMTP:RebelAir@aol.com]
Reply To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 1999 11:56 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: Engineering Book

As an example, I was talking to Carey at MAM on Friday about the floatfix
and
I suggested stainless steel rivets. He said no because of the use of
disimilar metals?

Received: from albedo.net (ppp191.albedo.net [206.51.22.210])
by juliet.albedo.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA24292
for <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:13:11 -0500
Message-ID: <36A2A3C4.D4108C89@albedo.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:00:20 -0500
From: klehman@albedo.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: " (Murphy Rebel)" <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Subject: Re: Engineering Book
References: <fe801386.36a24069@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

No bother at all Brian

The book is "Engineer to Win" by Carroll Smith. Lots of excellant mechanical
info but haven't seen anything on galvanic corrosion in it yet although he
does
explain fretting corrosion. Any good article on corrosion will include a
noble
metal chart. I think AC 43-13 has a partial chart. In effect the farther
apart
the metals on the chart, the higher the electrical potential (battery) when
the
metals touch, and the higher the rate of galvanic corrosion. Aluminum and
stainless are very far apart on the chart. You can get away with some
stainless
as it is the aluminum that corrodes and there is a lot more aluminum. I am
using
cad plated screws instead of stainless screws for exactly this reason
however.
Stainless screws into steel nutplates with a nylon washer under the head
would
be acceptable to me though as well.

These guys at MAM seem to have problems counting rivets! 12 rivets are now 8
rivets on each side! Sheesh! A little more economising and the floatfix
won't
even be necessary. I believe I already concluded that my rivets in the
triangular windshield braces were too close to put rivets between the
existing
ones. Thanks for the info; I will definately at least replace them with
5/32"
rivets though.

Ken

Received: from RebelAir@aol.com
by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 9WRKa20555
for <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:27:09 +1900 (EST)
From: RebelAir@aol.com
Message-ID: <2b7abae5.36a6826d@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:27:09 EST
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Engineering Book
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows 95 sub 19

Hi Dan

I agree completely with what you are saying when we are talking about thin
pieces of metal i.e. the rivet then would be much stronger than the parent
material. It could be argued however in thick pieces such as the area of
the
doorpost (FUS-9) to the main cage, that the thicker material would easily
overpower the standard Al rivet.

What do you think? Appreciate your thoughts.

Brian #328R

Received: from RebelAir@aol.com
by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 6RMAa04795
for <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:37:24 +1900 (EST)
From: RebelAir@aol.com
Message-ID: <de89a069.36a684d4@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:37:24 EST
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Engineering Book
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows 95 sub 19

Hi Ken

I like your sense of humour about economising to the point that the floatfix
will no longer be necessary. By the way, what I meant to say about
interpitching the rivets in the doorpost is only thru the full length of the
FUS-9. I am not sure if I made that clear. (After the MAM telephone call I
was not clear what they really wanted). I know these folks mean well and
are
relying on our experience, or I should say, on the experience of our flying
Rebel friends, for important feedback with respect to problem areas etc.

Thanks for you feedback on the Engineering book. I just hope that by the
time
I finished reading it, that it is not too late to fix my mistakes which the
book has revealed.

Thank you again.

Take care


Brian #328R

PS I don't envy your prospect of another 14,000 rivets waiting to be placed
in your float kit! Yes you are nuts!

Received: from [206.40.137.200] by woodinville.netos.com
(Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c)
ID# 0-38159U2500L250S0) with ESMTP id AAA131
for <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:38:17 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:38:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Engineering Book
From: "Dan Morehouse" <dan.morehouse@netos.com>
To: "(Murphy Rebel)" <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19990123203816642.AAA131@[206.40.137.200]>

Good point, Brian.

Although my experience is near nil (that is if I learn more it will get up
to nil), I wonder what larger aluminum rivets would do.

Cheers,
Dan

----------

From: RebelAir@aol.com
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Engineering Book
Date: Thu, Jan 21, 1999, 1:27 AM

Hi Dan

I agree completely with what you are saying when we are talking about thin
pieces of metal i.e. the rivet then would be much stronger than the parent
material. It could be argued however in thick pieces such as the area of

the

doorpost (FUS-9) to the main cage, that the thicker material would easily
overpower the standard Al rivet.

What do you think? Appreciate your thoughts.

Brian #328R

Received: from ibm.net (slip129-37-163-199.on.ca.ibm.net [129.37.163.199])
by out5.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA143870 for
<murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 05:41:13 GMT
Message-ID: <36AAB24E.6E73D3DA@ibm.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:40:31 -0500
From: Wray Thompson <wrayt@ibm.net>
Reply-To: wrayt@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: " (Murphy Rebel)" <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Subject: Re: Engineering Book
References: <19990123203816642.AAA131@[206.40.137.200]>
<36AA3A9D.2783@gte.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mickey the 7" piece you have (W-150 or CC-54 when cut) is most likely the
right part.
..120 is very close to 1/8" (.125) and is a very snug fit on the torque
tube. Be sure
you debur the inside edge and don't chromate it until your ready to assemble
because
I found even this little bit of paint made it impossible to get over the
torque tube.
You might even have to run a bit of emery cloth around the inside to make it
fit. I
don't think it was listed in my inventory as W-150 either but rather as just
a 7"
tube. See my online manual below Wing Figure 35 steps 89 through 92 where I
commented on the tight fit. ...Wray

mickey chadwell wrote:

Hello to all. I think it is about time to introduce myself, for I have
been lurking for a long time now. My name is Mickey Chadwell and I am
building #R534. This site is so informative that all my ??'s have been
answered before I can ask them. I have reached a point where someone in
here can help. To get to the point. The sleeve made out of part w150
(cc54), all I can find in my parts bin is a tube 7"x21/4"x1/8. The ID is
the same as the OD on the torgue tube. This part was #'ed w171. I can't
find w171 listed in parts inventory. The tubu mat. in question should be
.120x2 1/4"x7", w150. I can't make a sleeve out of the tube provided. It
won't slip over the end of the torgue tube. I quess a call into MAM is
in order.

Mickey
#R534

--
Wray Thompson ...Rebel 306 ...home page http://www.globalserve.net/~cobbg/

Received: from sunshine (1Cust238.tnt7.hou3.da.uu.net [153.36.229.238])
by smtp2.gte.net with SMTP id JAA12414
for <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:05:44 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <36AB36AC.62A9@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:05:16 -0600
From: mickey chadwell <flyboy47@gte.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: " (Murphy Rebel)" <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Subject: Re: Engineering Book
References: <19990123203816642.AAA131@[206.40.137.200]>
<36AA3A9D.2783@gte.net> <36AAB24E.6E73D3DA@ibm.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wray Thompson wrote:

Mickey the 7" piece you have (W-150 or CC-54 when cut) is most likely the

right part.

.120 is very close to 1/8" (.125) and is a very snug fit on the torque

tube. Be sure

you debur the inside edge and don't chromate it until your ready to

assemble because

I found even this little bit of paint made it impossible to get over the

torque tube.

You might even have to run a bit of emery cloth around the inside to make

it fit. I

don't think it was listed in my inventory as W-150 either but rather as

just a 7"

tube. See my online manual below Wing Figure 35 steps 89 through 92 where

I

commented on the tight fit. ...Wray

mickey chadwell wrote:

Hello to all. I think it is about time to introduce myself, for I have
been lurking for a long time now. My name is Mickey Chadwell and I am
building #R534. This site is so informative that all my ??'s have been
answered before I can ask them. I have reached a point where someone in
here can help. To get to the point. The sleeve made out of part w150
(cc54), all I can find in my parts bin is a tube 7"x21/4"x1/8. The ID is
the same as the OD on the torgue tube. This part was #'ed w171. I can't
find w171 listed in parts inventory. The tubu mat. in question should be
.120x2 1/4"x7", w150. I can't make a sleeve out of the tube provided. It
won't slip over the end of the torgue tube. I quess a call into MAM is
in order.

Mickey
#R534

--
Wray Thompson ...Rebel 306 ...home page http://www.globalserve.net/~cobbg/

Thanks Wray, for the info and the web site. I have been wearing out your
construction section.

Mickey
#534