Re: PT lower fuselage fairing

An archive of all the messages posted in the old Fairchild Club Yahoo Group. It is not possible to start a new topic in this forum (please use one of the other forums for new threads), but you can continue to post on existing topics.
Post Reply
cagog
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:15 am

PT lower fuselage fairing

Post by cagog »

'I am working on building my lower fuselage fairing. I am using a set of borrower patterns. What I am still trying to figure out is the correct thickness of plywood for the station formers. The blueprints I have call for 1/8 ply.The structural repair manual states this as well.But the few samples I have seem to be made from ply up to 5/16. Is there a service bulletin I am not aware of to increase the thickness. Or possible they are built by individuals that would like a bit more robust structure.'
Jamie Treat
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:14 pm

Re: PT lower fuselage fairing

Post by Jamie Treat »

'The original bulkheads are very light weight and will not hold up over time.
Remember, the engineers did not have any thoughts of these birds being 60+
years old. I would go with the heavier plywood. Birch is stronger than
Mahogany, but it is heavier. I currently use metric ply. Has more plys per
inch.



JST



From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of cagog@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 6:13 PM
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [fairchildclub] PT lower fuselage fairing





I am working on building my lower fuselage fairing. I am using a set of
borrower patterns. What I am still trying to figure out is the correct
thickness of plywood for the station formers. The blueprints I have call for
1/8 ply.The structural repair manual states this as well.But the few samples
I have seem to be made from ply up to 5/16. Is there a service bulletin I am
not aware of to increase the thickness. Or possible they are built by
individuals that would like a bit more robust structure.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]'
Post Reply