In the can, or on the airplane?
What brand / formulation?
This is a pretty good general reference: http://www.systemthree.com/reslibrary/literature/The_Epoxy_Book.pdf
Life in use depends on a lot of things - epoxy resins don't like UV exposure or heat. A composite structure may have a life limit.
Nice read, but I didn't see any reference to age.
Need specifics
Saw one done by one of the euro geek assemblages of sailplane pilots/engineers that claimed 50,000 hours lifespan for composite airframes. Longer then metal, we'll have jet packs before the things are worn out.
My only clue is my 1959 Glasspar G3, which has taught about 100 people to waterski, and now gets the crap beat out of it regularly on Priest Rapids Lake. From 15 ft it looks like new.
Anyone know a good reference for the Epoxy resin life?
If you have no input why waste your time?Is this another one of your quizzes? Not biting!
If you have no input why waste your time?
Tom- I'm deciding if giving input is _going_ to be a waste of time. If this is one of your trolling quizzes, like the link below, I won't bother giving input since you know the answer.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62031
Now, how far would I trust a composite construction built by someone I dont know in his garage who has no established QA process and which cured under undocumented heat and humidity conditions ? I would trust it enough to hang it under the ceiling of an aviation themed bar or maybe turn it into a really fancy weathervane on top of my hangar.
As I talk to fellow pilots and mechanics I'm finding more and more of that attitude towards old composite aircraft.
Thus the thread, But I see no bases in fact for it.
Beech could not deliver on it's FAA contract to make this determination. That was a big deal.
Treat it as you like. I really don't give a rat's A$$ what you do or don't do. there are people here that I value their opinions on subjects that I am not familiar with.
you, not so much.
Yes it is too bad,, that you could not resist the temptation to inject your personal feelings into this thread.That's too bad, Tom
Yes it is too bad,, that you could not resist the temptation to inject your personal feelings into this thread.
When you have no answer to the first post, why post as you did?
Do you feel you must place your judgement on each post I make, Must I make posts that pass your requirements ?
Who are you to judge anything any one posts here? You hide behind a moniker and snipe at any one you feel is not in your good graces? At least there are several people here that have the personal integrity to use there names and be responsible for their opinions.
To,- is this the information you are looking for?
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a303247.pdf
IIRC that paper refers to polyester resin laminate with fiberglass structures, not epoxy.
Some of the oldest layups we have are old surf boards dating to the 50s. are they still as strong as when they were made? Seems no one knows.
Let's vary the question,
If you found a 30 year old LongEZ (as in a barn find) would you fly it? engine problems not considered.
How would you verify the A/F as airworthy/safe to fly?
D'oh! You're right.
True. That's one reason I think the 1972 polyester formulation you mentioned a couple of times is mostly anecdotal. I'm not saying nothing happened, but I will say lots of things happened. Some manufacturers started using chopped glass for hulls. I think, but can't prove, they knocked the MEKP concentration down which would affect cure time unless it was heated as you alluded (or increase the cure time), without the polyester formulation being changed. They may well have changed the polyester formulation as well although I find nothing to support that either.Yeah, I remember that paper from way back when I was working on a blister program in the late 80s.
The thing with laminates is there are so many bloody variables, you have multiple resins and multiple reinforcing materials and then the schedule provides an exponent to the variables of the results of the other two factors which all gets factored against environmental conditions both during construction and operation.
Yep, until someone manages to hole it, does a bad repair, and the wood dry rots. I've seen more than one "soft" deck.To me, the best long term laminate structure is wood with resorcinol, a urea based glue, with a Kevlar skin epoxied to it lol.
Pre 72 polyester boats don't blister. Polyester resin was changed to meet the VOC requirements of the Clean Air Act. After that room temp cures of polyester matrices have pockets of uncured styrene which requires bringing it up to 90°C on a post cure. That is the ONLY way to solve a blister problem, everything else is expensive snake oil.True. That's one reason I think the 1972 polyester formulation you mentioned a couple of times is mostly anecdotal. I'm not saying nothing happened, but I will say lots of things happened. Some manufacturers started using chopped glass for hulls. I think, but can't prove, they knocked the MEKP concentration down which would affect cure time unless it was heated as you alluded (or increase the cure time), without the polyester formulation being changed. They may well have changed the polyester formulation as well although I find nothing to support that either.
Yep, until someone manages to hole it, does a bad repair, and the wood dry rots. I've seen more than one "soft" deck.
Wash your boat with salt water, and if you live on a fresh water lake, throw a bag of salt in the bilge, problem solved. As for soft decks, foam core is worse than wood.
That's why I said "deck". Next time it rains, you get fresh water again.
Speaking of foam, and to get this thread closer to back on track, aren't many EAB planes made with foam cores? I seem to remember hearing that some of those are going bad, for the same reason as the foam decks you mentioned.
I'd think this would matter as much as the age of the plane and how it was stored and maintained.