Howdy Ron- I am in the same boat spar-wise, plus I get hit with 40% exchange, customs, brokerage.... usual x-border joys, only to find the gouys at customs have hacked it up to make sure it can't be used for furniture or something (dont laugh--with the softwood trade agreement I've heard of it being done. iddiots thought 12' was too long for a plane, so lets give 2x6') I can get it locally at up to $65/ board foot for certified (nah, think I'll pass). What I am doing is going with a mahog and birch built-up spar. A core of 3/4" mahogony, with laminations of 1/8" baltic birch ply each side. It adds a bit of weight, but if you use the front and rear faces as datums and just make the "innards" 1/2" shorter It should work out just fine alabiet about 6-7lbs per wing heavier (but $500-$600 cheaper!!!). --After pricing suitable softwood around here, I have a distinct feeling I'll be using very little of it. Plane might end up a bit on the heavy side, but I am a 165 lb beanpole, have been since 15 and likely to stay that way so I can afford to splurge a teeny bit on the empty weight. Besides, 1/2 the fun is the fiddling with it ;-) Mike -----Original Message----- From: william hunt <angelsonmysix@yahoo.com> To: FlyBaby <FlyBaby@listbot.com> Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 10:04 PM Subject: Re: Fly Baby Fakers (was Fly Baby vs. Volksplane) >FlyBaby > >Hey Everybody, New member here. Anybody from >Massachusetts or New England please chime in. I have a >finished fuselage and am about to start the wings. Two >questions 1. aircraft Spruce wants almost as much to >ship the spars as it is to buy them, lots of boat >shops out here would they possibably carry spruce that >would fit the bill? 2. Looks like my best buy on an >engine is an O-235c, am i looking at a weight problem >(I am building exactly to plans,I think it looks great >the way it is). Hey that Volksplane looks excellent! > >--- Ron Wanttaja <ikvamar@gte.net> wrote: >> FlyBaby >> >> Frank Stutzman wrote: >> > What are the interface difficulties you mentioned >> > in your note, Ron. Rigging aileron linkages are >> the only thing that I can >> > think of that would be that much of a headache. >> >> The main one I was thinking of was going from a box >> spar (wide) to a >> plank spar (narrow). Unless you come up with some >> massive kluge that >> joins the plank spar to BOTH the front and rear webs >> of the box spar, >> you'll have to just connect it to one web of the >> forward spar and one >> web of the aft spar. Access to the end of the spar >> pin is complicated >> by the box, unless you make a long enough spar pin >> to go through both >> both the webs in one spar. >> >> Matching the airfoil shape will take a bit of work, >> too. The front spar >> is a bit forward of the maximum thickness of the >> airfoil, which would >> make it a bit easier than if it was right at the >> thickest point. >> >> Finally, if you project the box spar all the way >> through the cabin, >> you'll see that it needs to occupy some of the space >> currently used by >> the control stick and linkage. >> >> None of these is unworkable (after all, there has >> been at least one such >> Fly Baby built) but could really, REALLY slow up >> your building process >> as you try to solve these problems. >> >> Ron Wanttaja