I was able to lie down in the tail cone because I weigh 160 lb. What I did to hedge my bet was to use a tail stand plus cut two 8" wide x 8ft long strips of 3/8" plywood and lay them down on the inside of the fuselage. The plywood helped to spread my weight over a larger area.
David Ed Burkhead wrote: > > Thanks for that great information. I would encourage you to post it to > the list. > > Another question: How did you lie down in the tail cone without bending > the lower frames? (I weigh about 245 and I always have to be careful not > to damage stuff I step, sit or lie upon.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Ed, > > See comments below: > > > > Ed Burkhead wrote: > > > > > > One design I've liked > > > riveted a big 6-8" plate to the skin just aft of frame F with the pull > > > being linear along the skin and plate -- that looked very strong. > > > > That's the design Syd Cohen did. I first had my DER do the > > computations on that design first, but the more I looked at > > the actual fabrication, the less I liked it. For one, I > > would have to carefully cut a thin rectangular hole in frame > > F with a die grinder and add a reinforcing plate - OR - > > unrivet part of frame F and pass the plate between F and the > > skin. Then there was a large triangular rivet pattern on the > > skin to match paint on. It worked out structurally but it > > wasn't pretty or easy. > > > > > I've been logically partial to the 'linear pull along a flat plate' > > > method. The worst feature of that or yours is: what happens if the tail > > > cone separates? > > > > The strength of the joints is such that (I think the skin > > will deform long before the tailcone leaves the aircraft). > > Due to unknowns in the original certification, the DER only > > computed 9G deceleration plus a safety factor, > > > > > > > > John Wright, Sr., favors an installation where the anchor point is the > > > rear of the steel member that forms the window sill. With that, the pull > > > is diagonal with a side vector, but since one's shoulder is against the > > > side wall anyway, I wouldn't expect any bodily damage from that. > > > > That installation would be OK with an "over one shoulder" > > belt. Mine is for a four point that requires a pull on the > > center line of the seats. I believe this is much better > > safety-wise. It's unlikely that there will be much side > > component in a crash. > > > > > It looks like, with your design, parts cost would be minimal except for > > > the harness and inertial reel. Could I ask how much the physical > > > fabrication and installation of the parts cost (not including the > > > designated engineering representatives bill)? > > > > The detail is in the package - I approximate below. The cost > > below was for two harnesses (pilot and copilot). > > > > I think I paid $35 to a local FAA licensed sheetmetal shop > > for four bent stiffener plates - I drilled and finished > > them. > > > > The rod material is around $35. I turned )needed about .007 > > removed to thread properly) and threaded it myself. > > > > All the hardware was around $40. > > > > The belts were around $250 each, but the Wag Aero ones (no > > inertia reel and harder to use hardware) are around $85 > > each. > > > > I did all the fab and installation myself, but paid my AP > > for a half hour for help in riveting and another half hour > > for inspection and signature. It probably took me > > approximately 8 hours to do all the work, but I wasn't in a > > hurry and did it over several weekends. > > > > David > > -- > Ed Burkhead > Peoria, Ill. > Ercoupe N3802H, 415-D __________________________________________________________________________ ______ To unsubscribe from this list please send mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________ Enlighten your in-box. http://www.topica.com/t/15
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
