Piedmont Temptation construction questions

[Lee Davis]

Eric nailed all the high points.

The purpose of the cross bracing on the deck and rear radio compartment
formers has to do with the layup of the fuselages.  It can be cut out.

The former at front of the stab doesn't need to be there.  We put it in
the construction drawings because it's common practice to have
one...whatever.

I only recently found out about the misprint of the former template
sheet.  It wasn't scaled properly for legal size paper and is correct in
current kits.  If you send me an email I can reply with the original
template file attached in PDF format.

Bottom line...the fuselage skin REALLY IS structural.  Don't overbuild
the plane.  You'll add weight to no advantage.

Lee Davis
Piedmont Models
lee at piedmontmodels.com
 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Henderson,Eric
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:43 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: RE: Piedmont Temptation construction questions
> 
>  Answers in caps
> 
> 
> Hi,
> I have a question for you more experienced pattern builders.
> 
> My Temptation plans do not indicate what kind of reinforcement,
> if any, should be built into the rear of the fuselage.
> 
> 1. Is the fuse strong enough to be used as is, with no reinforcement?
> YES IT IS STRONG ENOUGH - I DEAD STICK-TREE-TESTED MINE ;-)
> 
> 2. Or, should I be putting a horizontal plate/ladder to stiffen
> the sidewalls? NOT NEEDED AT ALL.
> 
> 3. If #2, then can I safely remove the "X" cross brace at the rear of
the
> hatch, since it pretty much blocks access to the rear of the fuse?
> IN MY CASE I REPLACED THE X WITH SERVO RAILS VERY SOLID IN THAT AREA
> 
> I had a bad experience with a previous composite fuse whose
> manufacturer claimed "no reinforcement needed". The fuse broke
> about 6" aft of the wing after just a few flights (no snaps
> or rough handling), so I'm leery of repeating the same construction
> practice without hearing from others first.
> 
> One other question:
> 
> 4. Is the little tail former shown on the plans and paper template
really
> needed? In addition to looking hard to install, it looks like it might
> block the pushrod and pull pull cables.
> I WOULD FIT IT BECAUSE IT PREVENTS CRUSHING FROM SIDE FORCES THAT THE
STAB
> CAN EXERT WHEN PLANES COMES ANY SUDDEN STOP. DOES NOT MESS UP PUSHROD
OR
> PULL-PULL
> 
> Thanks for any info or additional tips.
> 
> YOU MIGHT LIKE TO PUT IN TWO CROSS PIECES ON THE CANOPY/TOP-DECK
OPENING
> AND REMOVE THE CENTRAL ONE TO ALLOW EASIER TANK FITTING AND SELECTION.
> 
> I FITTED TWO 1/4" BALSA CROSS PIECES TO THE WING-ADJUSTERS-BLOCKS TO
> PREVENT FLEXING UNDER HIGH LOADS.
> 
> ENJOY - ERIC. P.S. HAVE MANY PICTURES OF PROTOTYPE BEING CONSTRUCTED
AND
> MY 1.60 VERSION IF YOU WANT THEM.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --Derek
> 
> PS. The supplied paper firewall template for this plane was
> about 30% too small. Not even close to the right size.
> Not a problem, just amusing.
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> 
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#