# Flying a Hard Flat



## CLEFFEL (Oct 8, 2007)

When flying a hard flat, what is the best way to secure the aircraft cable to the flat? 

Eye bolt to the top rail? 

Run the aircraft cable through the top rail and stile and secure to the bottom rail?

Chewing gum? 

TIA!

-Chris


----------



## Traitor800 (Oct 8, 2007)

Through the top rail and any toggles, to a d-ring mounted on the bottom rail. Usually it goes from botom up d-ring, quicklink, turnbuckle, aircraft cable.


----------



## icewolf08 (Oct 8, 2007)

Just to reiterate, you always want to pick up any flying piece from the bottom if you can. You can't do that with drops, but any hard pieces should be picked up from the bottom.


----------



## gafftaper (Oct 8, 2007)

Rosco sells all the hardware you need.


----------



## derekleffew (Oct 8, 2007)

Courtesy of http://www.rosebrand.com/

The one pictured on the left goes on the bottom of the flat. The one pictured on the right is mounted at the top. The cable comes down thru the top ring and then terminates, usually to a turnbuckle attached to the bottom device. The top device is needed to keep the flat vertical. Use bolts and nuts not screws. Always fly joints under compression. *If at all in doubt, consult a qualified rigger.*


----------



## montnc02 (Oct 8, 2007)

If you are reffering to flying a Hollywood style flat you generally want to make your rigging hardware attachments in the stiles of the flat, not the rails, unless you are using significant reinforcement between the rails and the stiles. Flown from the rails would place the rail to stile joint in compression however 1x4 has a low bending moment along its minor axis, making the bottom rail a less than ideal location to restrain the forces of lifting, especially the dynamic forces that moving scenery is subject to.


----------



## derekleffew (Oct 8, 2007)

Good catch, montnc02. I hadn't considered a "Hollywood" style flat. If that's the case use what's pictured below at the bottom of the stile in the center of the 1x4 and drill 1/4" holes in alignment thru the top rail and all stiles. Although it's called a "Top Hanger Iron" by the manufacturer, it should only be used at the top of very lightweight pieces.


----------



## Footer (Oct 8, 2007)

With all of this hardware, make sure it is stove bolted into your scenery, not screwed. Putting drywall screws in shear... not the best thing ever.


----------



## Van (Oct 8, 2007)

Footer4321 said:


> With all of this hardware, make sure it is stove bolted into your scenery, not screwed. Putting drywall screws in shear... not the best thing ever.


 

I've always used 1/4-20 bolts, put them all the way through the wood, torque them way down so the nut embeds itself into the wood. Grab the end of the bolt with Vice-grips, wiggle it back and forth to break it off and leave it just a little proud of the nut. Hit the end of the bolt with a grinder, but don't make it flush with the nut. Then whack the end of the bolt to flare it, basically "peening" it to the nut. Viola' , Ain't comming loose.

The above construction technique, was brought to you by a great old MC I worked with once building an opera. His name was Gordan, I can't remember his last name. He forgot more stuff than I think I'll ever know. 


As with any Rigging technique, please consult a licensed qualified rigger if you have any doubts or questions about what you're doing. As Mr. Foy Said, "If you ever walk into a theatre, look up into the rigging and say " I wonder if I could...", Don't, 'cause I don't wonder, I know."


----------



## montnc02 (Oct 8, 2007)

Too much torque can actually do more damage to to a bolt than, and make a rigging situation more dangerous than not enough torque. If you are concerned about the bolt coming free and the scenery falling use locktite, or a locking nut, although I have found that even that is generally excessive. Remember that 1/4" grade 2 hardware has an allowable shear load between 160 and 370 lbs, depending on where the load is centered, and the type of shear (single or double) under ideal circumstances. By modifying a bolt (cutting) heating a bolt (grinding) and cold forging a bolt (hitting) you are changing the bolts physical properties. By altering the bolt in these ways you are altering its modulus of elasticity, which is determined by its physical characteristics. Your new case hardened bolt my never ever come off that scenery again, but it also my by several times more brittle than it was when it was installed, making it less able to bend and recover to the forces of a flat bouncing off a deck, or fouling with an adjacent batten. Whenever the properties of a bolt come into question, go up a grade if going up a size is not an option. Increasing to a grade 5 fastener increases the strength of the bolt nearly 1.5 times, and going to grade 8 (the only grade approved for over head lifting) increase nearly 3 fold.


----------



## derekleffew (Oct 8, 2007)

montnc02, I was remiss earlier by not welcoming you to the board; (Welcome!) and may I suggest you post in the "New Members" area. Tell us who you are, what you've done, and what you want to do. To "pay it forward," it's your only chance to "toot your own horn," so go ahead and brag some. I lived/worked in Chicago from 1984-1991, so if you want to start a thread in the Off Topic area <hint> several of us will participate.

Others will ask you odd questions. Don't be alarmed, just answer as honestly as you can.

And now, back to *rigging a hard flat to fly*.


----------



## Logos (Oct 8, 2007)

Can I ask what you guys describe as a "Hollywood flat".

Standard flat construction that I know I would fasten 2 D-rings to the bottom rail and similar to the top and run the rated steel cable through the top and fasten to the bottom d rings. On one of the d- rings on the bottom I would use a bottle screw to allow for readjustment of square. 
This is flat construction. What is your Hollywood Flat?


----------



## derekleffew (Oct 8, 2007)

"Hollywood-Style" flat construction refers to rails, stiles, and toggles, ON EDGE, rather than on face. Structural members are generally 1x4 softwood, so while a "regular flat" would be 1" thick (3/4" framing + 1/4" Corner Blocks and Keystones. A "Hollywood" flat would be 3 1/2" thick. Hollywood flats are always covered in some type of hardboard: Masonite, Luan, MDF, sometimes with canvas or muslin over that, but never canvas or muslin alone. "Flat" flats can be covered in any of the above, alone or in combination.


----------



## Logos (Oct 8, 2007)

That makes sense. Thanks. I call them box section construction. and tend to build them out of 1 x 3 but yes cover them with a hard cover ie luan ply.


----------



## Footer (Oct 8, 2007)

Logos said:


> That makes sense. Thanks. I call them box section construction. and tend to build them out of 1 x 3 but yes cover them with a hard cover ie luan ply.



1x3 is what I usually see, they are somtimes also called studio flats as well.


----------



## Van (Oct 9, 2007)

It's funny that we call them Hollywood flats, of all the flats that I have built for movies most of them were built just like stud walls only with 1X4 instead of 2X4. Most have been double sided, too. I guess I've done too much "interior shoot" stuff. I really need to upload some of my carp stuff into the Wikki, with pictures. I've covered most of these flats and hardware terms. It's just not perfect yet.


----------



## gafftaper (Oct 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> That makes sense. Thanks. I call them box section construction. and tend to build them out of 1 x 3 but yes cover them with a hard cover ie luan ply.



1x3? is that centimeters? millimeters? meters? hectares? You couldn't be... No... Logos... Wait that's not Metric at all!! Are you taking medicine from that scary old woman "kept for breading" again?


----------



## Logos (Oct 9, 2007)

****, I have been sprung.

Given my age I tend of course to think in both metric and Imperial as I grew up with Imperial and 1 x 3 is easier to say than 19 x 75. I just went with the flow.


----------



## Footer (Oct 9, 2007)

gafftaper said:


> 1x3? is that centimeters? millimeters? meters? hectares? You couldn't be... No... Logos... Wait that's not Metric at all!! Are you taking medicine from that scary old woman "kept for breading" again?



cubits, he reverted really far back.


----------



## gafftaper (Oct 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> ****, I have been sprung.
> Given my age I tend of course to think in both metric and Imperial as I grew up with Imperial and 1 x 3 is easier to say than 19 x 75. I just went with the flow.



Did you hear that people? 

1X3 is "EASIER" to say. That's right the metric system apparently is not "Easier" as Mr. Logos had earlier implied. 

Secondly, the Nuremberg trials made it clear that "I just went with the flow" is not an acceptable excuse. 

No! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Mr. Logos used the term 1x3 because deep in his heart it was the natural thing for him to say. In a moment of weakness he let down his guard and the truth came from his heart in the form of Imperial measurement. Not that unnatural Metric voodoo!

The prosecution would like to reserve the right to call this witness again later.


----------



## derekleffew (Oct 9, 2007)

See people, what you need to understand about Gafftaper, (and I'm sorry Gaff--but it's time people knew) is that *he actually has 12 fingers*, six on each hand, and therefore just cannot comprehend mathematical expressions involving base10 numbers.

It's not his fault, he was born that way. In this case, it's NATURE over nurture. One day soon, scientists will isolate the gene responsible in his DNA. Too late to help Gafftaper, but scientific advances may be able to prevent such occurrences of mutations in the future--when _everyone_ will use only *The Metric System. *Oh, and also; soon a new _species_ will evolve with 8 fingers on each hand. _Members_ will be known as _*Hexadecimists*_ and will work exclusively with *ACN--Architecture for Control Networks*, which will have replaced DMX-512A.


----------



## Hughesie (Oct 9, 2007)

gafftaper said:


> Did you hear that people?
> 
> 1X3 is "EASIER" to say. That's right the metric system apparently is not "Easier" as Mr. Logos had earlier implied.
> 
> ...


 

oh logos what have you done, now he will never shut up about this

EDIT YOUR POST, COVER THE EVIDENCE


----------



## gafftaper (Oct 10, 2007)

Ahhh... my 2000th post. I think I'll use it to gloat and declare victory over the metric system because the imperial system has now been declared EASIER!! 

It's good to live in a world where I'm right and the metric system is more difficult to use. 

It's time to party!!!


----------



## Hughesie (Oct 10, 2007)

my retort

0.000001


----------



## Logos (Oct 10, 2007)

What can I say, I'm old, I'm tired, I've been working too hard. I'm going to have a lie down now.


----------



## CLEFFEL (Oct 10, 2007)

derekleffew said:


> ... and will work exclusively with *ACN--Architecture for Control Networks*, which will have replaced DMX-512A.



Ha! You must be thinking WAY in the future. Flying cars, ACN, what will they come up with next?!


----------



## Radman (Oct 10, 2007)

CLEFFEL said:


> Ha! You must be thinking WAY in the future. Flying cars, ACN, what will they come up with next?!


Somebody hasn't read the latest trade magazines yet (not that I have actually READ the article yet... but I got the title at least...).


----------



## jwl868 (Oct 10, 2007)

gafftaper

Don't get me wrong - I am on your side about the Grand imperial system and stinking metric system…

But did you have to use American lumber to make your point this time ?: I mean, a 2 x 4 isn’t really, well, 2 x 4.

Joe


----------



## gafftaper (Oct 10, 2007)

jwl868 said:


> gafftaper
> Don't get me wrong - I am on your side about the Grand imperial system and stinking metric system…
> But did you have to use American lumber to make your point this time ?: I mean, a 2 x 4 isn’t really, well, 2 x 4.
> Joe



Shut up Joe don't give him any ammo. Besides, Dimensional or Nominal, he still chose to use the grand imperial system because it's "EASIER"!!


----------



## Radman (Oct 10, 2007)

Drawing stuff with crayons is easier than using CAD and previz, but I doubt you'll ever see any renderings in Crayola...


----------



## jwl868 (Oct 10, 2007)

gafftaper said:


> Shut up Joe don't give him any ammo. Besides, Dimensional or Nominal, he still chose to use the grand imperial system because it's "EASIER"!!



If I give them any ammo, it'll be 30- or 50-caliber. Besides, trying to figure out American lumber could set the metricians back decades.

Joe


----------

