Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:40 AM - Re: Three point landings - another free opinion (Mlfred@aol.com)
2. 06:01 AM - Re: Three point landings - another free opinion (Randy Pflanzer)
3. 06:46 AM - Re: Three point landings - another free opinion (Boyd C. Braem)
4. 08:17 AM - Re: Three point landings (MeangreenRV4@aol.com)
5. 09:07 AM - Re: Three point landings - update from Lee Taylor (Lee Taylor)
6. 09:46 AM - CG (Larry E. James)
7. 10:41 AM - Re: Three point landings - another free opinion (Randy Lervold)
8. 10:41 AM - Re: Three point landings - another free opinion (Randy Lervold)
9. 11:00 AM - Re: Three point landings - another free opinion (Rob Miller)
10. 11:27 AM - Re: CG (LesDrag@aol.com)
11. 12:11 PM - Re: CG (Tom Martin)
12. 12:29 PM - Re: RV-List: Spinner install on Hartzell C/S (John Starn)
13. 01:23 PM - Re: Re: RV-List: Spinner install on Hartzell C/S (Lee Taylor)
14. 09:58 PM - (Ron Patterson)
15. 10:50 PM - Re: RV-List: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (John Starn)
16. 11:28 PM - CORRECTION: my comments about 3-point landings (Lee Taylor)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three point landings - another free opinion |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Mlfred@aol.com
In a message dated 5/15/2003 5:34:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
bcbraem@comcast.net writes:
> Mlfred--
>
> You really have to think of your career. How many people on this list
> know that you sorta hepped a little with the Exxon Tiger??? You Texas
> boys keep it close to home.
>
> But, anyway, I have to disagree with that tailwheel comment--while,
> theoretically, you can drag the tailwheel down the runway, (and it makes
> a nice picture for your friends) the bearings in Van's standard
> tailwheel really don't like that.
Hey Boyd:
Thanx for the plug re: the Flyin' Tiger. I figure Bruce might start telling
folks at SOME point who actually built the thing! That was a fun project,
with true napkin quality drawings!
As for the wheel bearings, the compnay that makes the dang things sells a kit
to install sealed bearings (yep, real bearings) for about $15, if memory
serves. If there is enough interest, I'll stock a few, and sell 'em to the
needy. Sure does make things quieter, and neater!
And, get some of those Michelin Air-Stop tubes too! You'll air your tires 2x
a year at most.
Cheers
Mark
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three point landings - another free opinion |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
I expected a bunch more comments on the three-point landings topic. I
guess I'm not afraid to show my ignorance so I'll comment.
I only have about 250 hours of tail wheel time so I am definiely a low
timer. While the beauty of a true three-point landing can't be
debated, neither can the effect of a botched one on your gear and
engine mount. Mark is right. To do a true three-pointer, you have to
drag the tailwheel in. And all that bouncing on the mains can't help
out the engine mount and hardware.
To save the wear and tear on my RV, I adopted a "modified Three-point"
landing, which is what I believe most Rv'ers use. Technically, it is a
tail wheel low wheel landing. If you search the RV-List archive,
you'll find tons of comments.
Ego aside, I don't mind admitting that I can't perform a true three-
pointer on a regular basis. On the other hand, I can grease the wheel
landing every time and it is much easier on my engine mount. If I have
to stop it in a short distance, I can. I just don't see the point when
there is over 3,000' of asphalt in front of me.
Randy
F1 Rocket
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three point landings - another free opinion |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Randy--
The problem is that the geometry of the wings and the airfoil and blah,
blah, blah (anfle-of-attack)--you can't really do a "true" fully stalled
landing (3-pointer) in a RV/Rocket. It's better in the Rocket with the
taller titanium gear but still just not quite enough--still just misses
that little edge of the envelope. So, basically, you have to cheat. I
mean, you don't know how much grief I got from my fellow pilots when I
started to try different landings and even to switch from one to the
other on the landings--man, I bounced all over the place and the guys
used to come out and line up alongside the runway when I was doing my
touch-n-goes (or, flop-and-bangs) and they would sit there with their
thumbs up or down and one guy even brought a number board (1-10)..
Don't worry--that nice, fat wing on the RV/Rocket gives you a very big
sink rate when you're slow and you have to use power, sometimes, where
you wouldn't have to in a similar spam-can machine. Ya just gotta
experiment a little. Practice at altitude with the nose really high,
stay on your rudder (don't use ailerons when your slow), get slow and
then just use the throttle to go up and down, staying just a hair above
stall.
Boyd
RV-Super 6
Randy Pflanzer wrote:
>--> Rocket-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
>
>I expected a bunch more comments on the three-point landings topic. I
>guess I'm not afraid to show my ignorance so I'll comment.
>
>I only have about 250 hours of tail wheel time so I am definiely a low
>timer. While the beauty of a true three-point landing can't be
>debated, neither can the effect of a botched one on your gear and
>engine mount. Mark is right. To do a true three-pointer, you have to
>drag the tailwheel in. And all that bouncing on the mains can't help
>out the engine mount and hardware.
>
>To save the wear and tear on my RV, I adopted a "modified Three-point"
>landing, which is what I believe most Rv'ers use. Technically, it is a
>tail wheel low wheel landing. If you search the RV-List archive,
>you'll find tons of comments.
>
>Ego aside, I don't mind admitting that I can't perform a true three-
>pointer on a regular basis. On the other hand, I can grease the wheel
>landing every time and it is much easier on my engine mount. If I have
>to stop it in a short distance, I can. I just don't see the point when
>there is over 3,000' of asphalt in front of me.
>
>Randy
>F1 Rocket
>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three point landings |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: MeangreenRV4@aol.com
In a message dated 5/15/2003 9:57:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
chrissnorris@yahoo.com writes:
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: Christopher Norms <chrissnorris@yahoo.com>
>
>
> Does anyone have some advice on the technique for
> eliminating the bounce on three point landings? I've
> been flying power-off landings, but always seem to
> end up with the nose coming back up on me. Is a
> little power the solution? In the citabria, I can
> dial landings all day long, so looking for the magic I
> don't have yet!
>
> thanks,
> chris
>
>
The technique for eliminating the bounce on three point landings?
I believe it is good instruction and practice....practice and more practice.
Even the most seasond pilots bounce, just not as high as others.
Tim Barnes
Meangreen RV4
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Three point landings - update from Lee Taylor |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@idcomm.com>
This is fun! Hope you guys know that you have touched on one of
my favorite career topics, landings. The only consistent point in
flying where you are really REQUIRED to demonstrate your piloting
ability.
To go a little further in the landings discussion, let's review
exactly what happens in a full three-point landing.
First, very rarely does a plane COMPLETELY STALL on an initial
touchdown. Those of you that have pointed out that the stall angle is
higher than the ground sitting angle are correct. What we arrive at in
a full three-point attitude landing is an AIRSPEED at which the plane
will no longer sustain the LIFT to keep the plane airborne, hopefully
1-2" above the ground. Since this is usually a PARTIAL STALL of part of
the wing, (usually starting at the tips working inward), this PARTIAL
loss of lift is dramatic enough to cause a "good, solid arrival" if not
properly timed.
This can be easily felt in most taildragger planes because the
initial rollout is frankly a little flaky, until enough speed is bled
off that the wing actually does fully stall. In a plane like the
Citabria or my Cessna 180, there is a definite point in the rollout when
the plane actually settles its weight fully onto the gear after
touchdown. In a low-wing plane like the Rocket, this bleed-off can be
even more impressive, because the ground effect on a high-speed rollout
is very highly pronounced.
O-K, how can the landing be fine-tuned? First off, lets assume
for now that we are only going to talk about the full three-point
landing. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING to take into consideration is
AIRSPEED CONTROL. Do you have, and tightly control, the EXACT airspeed
that is proper for your plane and landing situation? HOW DO YOU KNOW
what is proper? Did someone tell you, or are you analyzing exactly how
your plane performs to arrive at the proper airspeed FOR YOUR PLANE?
(and load, and CG condition, and wind conditions, and a dozen other
affecting considerations).
This really is fairly simple. If your landings tend to be
flare-and-plop arrivals, with very little float in the flare, you are
probably a little too slow on very short final. If you tend to
flare-and-float, then that final speed is a little too high. Neither is
a good thing! The slower than desired speed gives you very little
leeway in adjusting your flare, sink rates tend to be high, (which urges
you to pull the nose up a little higher to "slow the sink", DEFINITE
OUCH!), there is very little leeway to fine-tune the flare, and it takes
very little judgment mistake to turn a slow approach into a disaster.
The higher than desired speed sets you up for ballooning tendencies
which will get you into situations where you have lost too much speed,
TOO HIGH! And OUCH! Is the proper statement when that happens.
Remember that the landing is a fine demonstration (or,
sometimes, an embarrassing demonstration!), of Aircraft Inertial Energy
Control. Get too slow, the energy is too low to be able to effect a
good landing. Too fast, and there is TOO MUCH energy. You are trying
to arrive at that perfect balance that will give you exactly the right
amount of energy/control to allow the perfect landing.
In high-performance planes like the Rocket, control of that
energy is much more critical than most planes. That's why they are more
fun.
The point has been made that other types of landings can be made
more consistently in a smoother manner. Yes, that is true, but my point
is that the full three-point landing is the most demanding of piloting
ability, the most efficient in making the flying/rolling transition, and
therefore is the one that is the most fun. It is the one that I practice
most commonly. I KNOW I can do the other kinds satisfactorily!
Having said that, I also want to make the strong point that
THERE IS NO "BEST" WAY to make a landing. You need to know ALL the
various techniques, be PROFICIENT in all the techniques, and USE THE ONE
THAT IS BEST for your immediate needs. Only by knowing and practicing
all the techniques are you fully familiar with your plane and its/your
abilities. Once you are proficient in ALL of the techniques, spend
a lot of time sorting out exactly what works best for you, and you are
most comfortable with, and develop your own technique, unique to you and
your plane, and KNOW that you can use the other techniques whenever you
want, then you are a pilot.
Most importantly, whenever you "bobble" something, SIT DOWN AND
ANALYZE OUT exactly WHAT, HOW and WHY it happened. The same analytical
thinking should follow something that worked out well. "WHY did it
happen that way?" Only by thoroughly understanding the fine details of
why something happens can you arrive at comprehension. Comprehension is
what gives you control. If you are just "rote flying" the way that
someone told you was the "right way", then you really don't understand
what you are doing. And lack of understanding is the only really
dangerous thing in flying.
Lee Taylor
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
required 4.7, MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE, TRACKER_ID)
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
First, it was neat this morning to see 17 messages in the Rocket List ....
and all concerning airplanes. Whoooo hoooo !!
I have a question probably best answered with input from several Rocket
drivers; regarding CG. I am building an HR2 with Mark's firewall and gear
legs. Standard HR2 configurations establish a tailwheel weight in the 20#
to 30# range. Standard F1 configurations establish a tailwheel weight in
the 50# to 60# range (please correct me here if I'm incorrect on either
count :-). I would like to end up with a tailwheel weight of 30# to 35#
with the following configuration: Lycon IO-540, MT 3-blade prop (at least
I'm pretty sure), and FI gear geometry (Mark's firewall and gear legs and an
Indy engine mount). The primary item up for moving is the battery, and this
is my reason for asking at this time. My rough thumb-in-the-air says that I
might be able to put the battery up on the firewall with this combination
and wind up with my tailwheel weight at the targeted 30#. Any helpful
advice is greatly appreciated.
Larry E. James (Bellevue, WA HR2, fuselage)
New Concepts Prototyping and Production
phone 206 633 3111
fax 206 633 3114
larry@ncproto.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three point landings - another free opinion |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
> As for the wheel bearings, the compnay that makes the dang things sells a
kit
> to install sealed bearings (yep, real bearings) for about $15, if memory
> serves. If there is enough interest, I'll stock a few, and sell 'em to the
> needy. Sure does make things quieter, and neater!
Mark, I'll take a set, and could sell at least a half dozen more to local
builders.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 310 hrs.
www.rv-8.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three point landings - another free opinion |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
> To save the wear and tear on my RV, I adopted a "modified Three-point"
> landing, which is what I believe most Rv'ers use. Technically, it is a
> tail wheel low wheel landing. If you search the RV-List archive,
> you'll find tons of comments.
After trying every technique I could think of this is EXACTLY what my RV-8
likes best, unless I have my 245 lb buddy in the back seat, and in that case
it's more of a true 3-pointer. But in every other loading scenario there's
no question that the tail-low wheel landing just plain works best and is
what the aircraft seems to naturally want to do. Why fight it, it seems to
work quite well?
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 310 hrs.
www.rv-8.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three point landings - another free opinion |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Rob Miller <rmill2000@yahoo.com>
Same story for me, I couldn't agree more
Rob Miller
-8 N262RM "Bad Cat" 62 hours
Do not archive
--- Randy Lervold <randy@rv-8.com> wrote:
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
>
> > To save the wear and tear on my RV, I adopted a "modified Three-point"
> > landing, which is what I believe most Rv'ers use. Technically, it is
> a
> > tail wheel low wheel landing. If you search the RV-List archive,
> > you'll find tons of comments.
>
> After trying every technique I could think of this is EXACTLY what my
> RV-8
> likes best, unless I have my 245 lb buddy in the back seat, and in that
> case
> it's more of a true 3-pointer. But in every other loading scenario
> there's
> no question that the tail-low wheel landing just plain works best and is
> what the aircraft seems to naturally want to do. Why fight it, it seems
> to
> work quite well?
>
> Randy Lervold
> RV-8, 310 hrs.
> www.rv-8.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://search.yahoo.com
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: LesDrag@aol.com
The RV-4 plans show the battery behind the firewall on the floor in the
center. You can mount the Master Relay, Starter Relay and Alternator
Regulator there, also.
Assuming that you keep access to these area open for later maintenance.
I expect to mount all of the above items next to the elevator bellcrank on my
HR2. (Very difficult mainteneance/battery replacement.) But will be
monitoring the empty CG for the final location.
Jim Ayers
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Tom Martin" <fairlea@execulink.com>
Larry
Without doing the math I would not recommend moving the battery forward.
When you compare tail weights of an F1 and a HRII you are comparing two
different aircraft due to the position of the main gear. However the flight
CofG is more or less the same and they tend to be nose heavy in flight.
When you do a weight and balance the final determination is the centre of
gravity and that is what you have to be concerned with.
Tom Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry E.
James
Subject: Rocket-List: CG
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
First, it was neat this morning to see 17 messages in the Rocket List ....
and all concerning airplanes. Whoooo hoooo !!
I have a question probably best answered with input from several Rocket
drivers; regarding CG. I am building an HR2 with Mark's firewall and gear
legs. Standard HR2 configurations establish a tailwheel weight in the 20#
to 30# range. Standard F1 configurations establish a tailwheel weight in
the 50# to 60# range (please correct me here if I'm incorrect on either
count :-). I would like to end up with a tailwheel weight of 30# to 35#
with the following configuration: Lycon IO-540, MT 3-blade prop (at least
I'm pretty sure), and FI gear geometry (Mark's firewall and gear legs and an
Indy engine mount). The primary item up for moving is the battery, and this
is my reason for asking at this time. My rough thumb-in-the-air says that I
might be able to put the battery up on the firewall with this combination
and wind up with my tailwheel weight at the targeted 30#. Any helpful
advice is greatly appreciated.
Larry E. James (Bellevue, WA HR2, fuselage)
New Concepts Prototyping and Production
phone 206 633 3111
fax 206 633 3114
larry@ncproto.com
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Spinner install on Hartzell C/S |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
First question: NO ! ! !
We, Gummibear and I have mounted a spinner three times. The first time was
during construction. The second was the same spinner and plate after it had
made contact with the cowl. Repaired same and re-installed. Backing plate
was cracked and the spinner "wobbled". Bought the second spinner/backing
plate from Mark (F-1 fame). Much better plate and spinner than the first
one. "HIGHLY" recommend this one. (This one had a forward bulkhead support
that is a tight fit on the prop hub nose piece).
In all the cases we put a pointer soildly mounted to almost touch the
pointed end of the spinner. With switch off (key removed) we pulled the top
plugs and slowly rotated the engine by hand. Centered spinner on pointer
(adjusted pointer and spinner several times) until the engine was turned and
the pointer and the spinner points were in line. Held the spinner on the
backing place with cleko clamps until perfect alignment obtained then
drilled holes for regular cleko's.
The other method to align spinner and not turn the engine would be to
somehow suspend the aircraft and rotate the whole thing using the same fix
pointer. 8+) What's the problem with rotating the engine ? We pulled the
plugs to eliminate the airframe "shake" against compression. KABONG
(GBA) HRII Flying. Please Archive, this might help someone in the future.
----- Original Message -----
From: <DWENSING@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Spinner install on Hartzell C/S
> --> RV-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
>
> When installing the spinner on a Hartzell C/S model HC-C2YK-1BF ......Is
it
> safe to assume that when the spinner is firmly seated against the front
> bulkhead and aligned with the back plate that the nose of the spinner is
> concentric with the crankshaft? I do not want to rotate the engine to
check
> this out.
> Dale Ensing
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Spinner install on Hartzell C/S |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@idcomm.com>
RE: Spinner alignment.
John's comments are right on, in all details. The only change I
would make is to make the pointer a dial indicator, it is easier to
adjust things that way. Oh, by the way, an obvious consideration is
that the pointer/dial indicator is right at the forward tip of the
spinner. Don't try to make the measurement halfway back on the spinner,
for instance.
The only stipulation to make about rotating the engine is to
rotate it IN NORMAL ROTATION DIRECTION ONLY. This is important because,
normally, you have a vane-type vacuum pump mounted. The vanes in these
pumps are designed to operate IN THE NORMAL DIRECTION ONLY, they are
rather brittle carbon, and forcing them to rotate in the wrong direction
is a great way to jam and destroy them. Other accessory items might also
require proper direction rotation only also.
You HAVE to rotate the engine in order to find an exact neutral
position for the spinner, so that it won't wobble. I have never seen
any other method that will work. If you use either the pointer, or the
dial indicator, and adjust the spinner until either method shows no
wobble, and are then careful to do the rest of the mounting work as John
described, you are almost guaranteed a beautiful, wobble-free spinner.
Any other method is not precise enough, and a wobbling spinner is both
an eyesore, a safety concern, and a demonstration for all to see every
time the engine runs that you were careless and/or didn't know what you
were doing when you did it.
Lee Taylor
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Ron Patterson <scc_ron@yahoo.com>
Hello Guy's!
I just moved my RV-4 from the Garage to the Hayward Airport to complete the engine
and avionics and get this baby in the air. Anyone with a lead on an IO-320
or 360 / and any 2-1/4 inch instruments would be appreciated.
Ron Patterson N8ZD (reserved)
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
I've put in lots of heat exchange units/systems during my years as a
plumbing/heating & A/C contractor. Raced Corvettes and the like. With all
the plumbing lines, required pumps, valves, controls and the exchangers
you'll wind up with a single place -8 or -8A that only an FAA (147# or so)
sized pilot could fly it. K.I.S.S. or buy a P-51. You'll have all the heat
exchanger problems you can handle with a Mustang. Delta T gets smaller as
outside air temp goes up. At 30,000' the OAT is of help BUT 30,000' requires
lots of other stuff and you could wind up with an RV version of the German
Komet. 8+) KABONG (G.B.A.) HRII Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <LeastDrag93066@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Wing cooling (another wacky idea)
> --> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
>
> I believe the Supermarine Racer (floatplane) used the fuselage skins for a
> cooling surface.
>
> From my heat and mass transfer courses (a long time ago), there are fluid
> flow benefits to a heated object in water, or cooled object in air.
>
> Conversely, heating an object in air adversely affected the boundary
layer.
> Increased the likelihood of boundary layer flow separation. Generally
> increased drag for that surface. Stuff like that.
>
> Jim Ayers
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | CORRECTION: my comments about 3-point landings |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@idcomm.com>
In my previous comments about three-point landings, I mentioned
that in a slow-deceleration stall such as in the flare, the stall begins
at the tip, and the gradual loss of lift is what causes the plane to
settle to the runway.
Don't know where my head was on that statement, but it was
dramatically wrong in one area. The loss of lift, "stall", does NOT
originate at the tips, it almost invariably starts at the WING ROOT, not
the tips. Any other stall configuration would mean that you would have
a nasty tip drop when the stall started.
Much egg on face!
One other comment by a highly knowledgeable individual brought
up the very technically correct point that there are virtually no modern
planes that actually stall on landings, simply because they never
achieve the airflow angle of attack on landing that will actually
generate a stall. Stall being correctly described as the point at which
the airflow actually separates from the airfoil. This is completely
true- - what actually happens is that the airspeed degenerates to the
point that there is not sufficient LIFT being generated to keep the
plane airborne, and it descends because of this until it is stopped by
the ground. Which is HOPEFULLY just an inch or two away. An actual
stall virtually never occurs on landings.
This is a totally correct statement based on actual physics--it
is just a little easier to "simplify" the concept by saying that the
plane stalls on landing. If you are to FULLY understand what goes on
during a landing, then a complete understanding of stall, which can ONLY
occur when stall angle of attack is exceeded, is necessary. This,
however, gets pretty involved, and the basic concept of the plane "no
longer being able to fly" because it is no longer able to supply
sufficient lift on touchdown is the basic knowledge needed. It isn't
technically correct, but we do commonly refer to the
loss-of-adequate-lift-to-maintain-flight on landings, as a landing
stall.
Lee Taylor
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|