General Aviation Thread

t68

Well-Known Member
some of these things are already starting to appear as mainstream within niche entities, (3D parts ad-hoc manufacturing springs to mind)

my own view is that for ad-hoc 3D printing to become more mainstream for parts manufacturing then that requires a corresponding drop in 3D scanning costs and portability

7 Technological Advances Changing the Landscape of the Aviation Industry - Avionics
Yep 3D printing is coming up I leaps and bounds and some of the more unusual things doing with it.

Delage Type-S: The 103-year-old grand prix car saved by a 3D printer - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #22
Yep 3D printing is coming up I leaps and bounds and some of the more unusual things doing with it.

Delage Type-S: The 103-year-old grand prix car saved by a 3D printer - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

wooki and I were both involved with 3D printing with a titanium based ceramic. a number of years ago. at that stage australia via CSIRO were leading the world in symmetrical and complex printing of shapes. a few years later they were able to print out a 3D sintered metal dragon for a sick girl who loved dragons - now they are commercially printing out titanium based body parts. I know of only one other country that can do this

once they bring down the cost of 3D scanning and make it easier to integrate that into 3D printing then the gates will open up

eg the USN is looking at 3D printing spare parts for out of production components
 

Blue Jay

Member
wooki and I were both involved with 3D printing with a titanium based ceramic. a number of years ago. at that stage australia via CSIRO were leading the world in symmetrical and complex printing of shapes. a few years later they were able to print out a 3D sintered metal dragon for a sick girl who loved dragons - now they are commercially printing out titanium based body parts. I know of only one other country that can do this

once they bring down the cost of 3D scanning and make it easier to integrate that into 3D printing then the gates will open up

eg the USN is looking at 3D printing spare parts for out of production components
Just curious, how would these 3D printed spare parts perform if they are components that need to undergo high stress? Since it is additive manufacturing, wouldn't the parts fall short in quality?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24
Just curious, how would these 3D printed spare parts perform if they are components that need to undergo high stress? Since it is additive manufacturing, wouldn't the parts fall short in quality?
I am assuming that they are components that aren't under critical failure conditions.

eg you can print off in plastic, sintered metal and titanium ceramic - all have different load and sheer tolerances
 
I am assuming that they are components that aren't under critical failure conditions.

eg you can print off in plastic, sintered metal and titanium ceramic - all have different load and sheer tolerances
That may well be, but since those parts haven't undergone an engineering analysis, and aren't PMA you would need either a field approval, an STC or change your registration to experimental in order to be legal in the USA. Until the FAA changes its rules (along with foreign goverment's similar agencies) making your own parts could be trouble, rendering your plane unairworthy.

Art
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
That may well be, but since those parts haven't undergone an engineering analysis, and aren't PMA you would need either a field approval, an STC or change your registration to experimental in order to be legal in the USA. Until the FAA changes its rules (along with foreign goverment's similar agencies) making your own parts could be trouble, rendering your plane unairworthy.

Art
au contraire

when we forming up parts on the printer they were subjected to sheer and impact tests

ie the same tests that would be done against a billet artifact

(and I am talking about maritime and land warfare applications specifically)
 
au contraire

when we forming up parts on the printer they were subjected to sheer and impact tests

ie the same tests that would be done against a billet artifact

(and I am talking about maritime and land warfare applications specifically)
I see. I was referring to general aviation applications. The FAA as ridged rules regarding replacement parts on certified aircraft. Berm there with them more than once with my plane.

Art
 

Oberon

Member

Blue Jay

Member
Hello everyone,

I'd like to reach out to the pilots in these forums and ask about flatspin recovery procedures, as I recently had a discussion involving this and there was conflicting information coming from different people, and wanted to get a third input. I personally have no real-world flight experience save for flight simulators, for what that is worth.

First of all, I am referring specifically to flat spins. Frisbees. Not generic spins.

Now before I entered into the discussion I mentioned above, I thought that general procedure would be to set throttle to idle, not to touch the ailerons, to set rudders to full opposite of the spin and keep them there, then push down on the stick to try and pitch your nose down. The idea would be to counteract your spin and eventually get your aircraft into a dive, from which you could recover from the stall. This is in line with PARE developed by NASA.

One of my interlocutors, however, told me that PARE was for generic spins. He asserted that in a flat spin, you'd want to apply full power in order to increase airspeed. Elevator down to decrease AoA and further increase airspeed with gravity's help. Then you'd want to apply rudder into the spin to further enable increasing airspeed (opposite rudder would increase drag). This made sense to me, but went contrary to my previous knowledge. The only thing we agreed on was that we'd need to burn a lot of altitude either way.

Any input from you guys?
 
Some of the earlier training in Beechcraft Barons resulted in flat spins which were not recoverable. I have not, nor will I engage in any flat spin training in a Baron, since I don't think they are recoverable.

I don't know of any civilian schools which teach flat spin recovery, as most of them are not recoverable.


Art
 
Interesting piece on a new supersonic civilian demonstration jet. The article does not mention any new anti-sonic boom development. One has to wonder if flying at twice the speed of sound can justify the higher cost. Will it be higher or lower than Concorde? The project seems well funded and apparently there are people willing to buy 76 of them.

http://www.intelligent-aerospace.co...gines-carbon-fiber-3d-printed-components.html
It's going to hold 55 passengers. Expect costs 2, 3, 4, maybe even 5 times Concorde's costs, probably more than a private jet. This won't work. People who can afford that cost will get their own fast jet. Several on the drawing boards with deposits.

Art
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Airbus will buy a controlling stake in Bombardier's C-Series. Jets for the US market will be built in Alabama. The Canadian government will have to approve this. It appears Boeing has screwed themselves and taxpayers in Quebec and to a lesser extent Canadians in other provinces won't have to be funding Bombardier.

Europe's Airbus to buy majority stake in Bombardier CSeries program - Business - CBC News

Well that's a win for Trump, he can now show that his policy are working manufacturing is returning to the US. And the plane will have to compete without government subsidies.
 
Top