I have a pure glider version, too, that came in at just 21 oz (again, toss the liteply fuselage sides). I really think the HOB 2X6 is underrated. We're still towing with it, though it's strictly a specialty item, since the gassie tugs have WAY more pull power. (Sig 1/4 scale Cub on Aveox power and 36 cells). Or have I awakend from my 10 year slumber to a world where such pods can perform well even at a mile high above sea level So is my dream of a light electric powered pod for my 2X6 or the 2 meter ship in my closet awating to be built a pipe dream. I can use a high-start again, but I am lazy and prefer not to have to do all the work of setting up one if I don't have too. If I have to do an 049 then I might as well go back into a Kadet. I have a love for clean power and no greasy slimy clean up after running an 049 engine. I now live on the other side of Colorado next to Wyoming (Where Men are Men, Women are Women and sheep run scared ) They quickly gave me the altitude story followed by offering to sell me a Cox 049 pod. I tried to talk about electrics with the local hobby shop and they are nice, but clueless. I keep thinking about getting a electric power pod for the 2X6 I am working on. Well I am getting back into gliders after all these years and going through the magazines and web sites it appears things have greatly improved during my ten year snoozeīattries have most certainly shrunk and motors look like they have improved. The result was a bird that flew well under power, but was fast and hot when the power died do to the brick inside it. The battery was one of those R/C car bricks and I was flying on the Western Slope of Colorado at a wee bit higher than sea level. I would check the geotech structural design parameters to ensure the were using reasonable structural analysis.The first and last glider I flew over 10 years ago with a battery powered motor was an Electra. I would would on piles w-sections encased in concrete of similar height, but on flat area to withstand E-80 train loads, and the sections were much lighter. In other words, do you have an concrete encased w-section below ground line, and exposed above ground, making a total pile length of 43.5 feet? Or are the W-sections connected via a base plate at the top of the piles? I guess either of these methods would affect the size, but I agree the W-section is a little hefty. You said that the wall is 13 feet, but is the w-section extending to the bottom of the hole. Also to fully mobilize passive pressure you need some movements, so even with that, a significant reduction makes sense. I would expect you looked at slope stability at a few places to, including above and below the wall. Do you think that amount of soil is able to resist these rigid drilled shafts? The upper edge of the slope is only about 9 feet from your wall. I would ignore the passive resistance of at least of few feet of that slope totally - I would be that conservative in this case. Will you rely on this slope being stable over the long-term? There might be shallow slides/sloughing in that region. The downhill slope is 1.5:1, that is quite steep. I agree with others, that this design is very risky.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |