Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:33 AM - Re: Hurricane (Craig Schneider)
2. 03:40 AM - Op Limits (Craig Payne)
3. 04:54 AM - Re: Op Limits (A. Dennis Savarese)
4. 05:01 AM - Re: Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50) (Jon Boede)
5. 05:12 AM - Re: Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50) (cjpilot710@aol.com)
6. 07:44 AM - Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay (Jill Gernetzke)
7. 11:11 AM - Re: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay (Tim Gagnon)
8. 11:33 AM - Re: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay (flir47)
9. 11:57 AM - Re: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay (Tim Gagnon)
10. 01:24 PM - Re: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay (flir47)
11. 02:14 PM - Re: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay (Tim Gagnon)
12. 03:38 PM - Re: Hurricane (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
13. 04:05 PM - Re: Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50) (Brian Lloyd)
14. 05:34 PM - Bernoilli, His Equation, Air Moving in Pipes and Flight (Craig Winkelmann)
15. 07:22 PM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (c44588)
16. 07:36 PM - Re: Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (A. Dennis Savarese)
17. 08:10 PM - Re: Hurricane (Lynn Allen)
18. 08:46 PM - Re: Bernoilli, His Equation, Air Moving in Pipes and Flight (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
19. 08:56 PM - Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F (bill wade)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riW0uw__tPc
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Sent: Wed 9/19/2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Hurricane
On YouTube, i just saw the video of the Hawker Hurricane accident at Shoreh
am.
It looks like he attempted a Slip S. Hit a accelerated stall at about the
60 degree nose down point. The broke right about 20 degrees and looked lik
e it went in at that angle. It happened very quickly. Good guy and airpla
ne gone.
Guys the earth and aerodynamics don't know your name or who you are. They
are unforgiving of violations.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
S169" target="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
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 |
|
My packet of *stuff* goes out today to the local FSDO. I want to be sure I have
all in order by 2008, which is probably when I will hear from them on this. I
sent in an amended program letter once and they sent it back, saying I had the
wrong FSDO and they had no record of my airplane! I had to send a copy of my
op limits and A/W cert, signed by someone at that FSDO. Seems my folder got lost...
Not expecting miracles here.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
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 |
|
Sounds about normal Craig.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: yak-list
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:40 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Op Limits
My packet of *stuff* goes out today to the local FSDO. I want to be
sure I have all in order by 2008, which is probably when I will hear
from them on this. I sent in an amended program letter once and they
sent it back, saying I had the wrong FSDO and they had no record of my
airplane! I had to send a copy of my op limits and A/W cert, signed by
someone at that FSDO. Seems my folder got lost...
Not expecting miracles here.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
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: | Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50) |
There being 144 square inches in a square foot, it'd only take a third of
one PSI to do the job.
That having been said, I concur that Mr. Newton does most of the work with
only a little help from Mr. Bernoulli. Although I'd claim that the actual
lifting is done by the Magnus Effect -- the Coanda Effect only explains how
the Magnus Effect gets it's "grip" on the wing when doing the lifting.
I was always amused by that diagram in the book that shows the two tiny
people, one walking on the top of a wing and one walking on the bottom,
where the one on the top has to walk farther and therefore walks faster.
The part they leave off is that tiny person walking on the top of the wing
is aggressively flung downward when reaching the rear of the wing, thereby
generating an equal and opposite upward flingingness.
Perhaps that last bit is too violent for today's schoolbooks. :-)
"And why does an airfoil produce the Magnus Effect?" I foolishly asked once.
Someone wiser than I pointed out, "We call it an airfoil BECAUSE it
produces the effect."
Jon
PS. I've been told that dragging Coanda and Magnus out during the oral
portion of a checkride is the best mechanism discovered to date for annoying
the examiner into thinking you're a smartass.
>From: Brian Lloyd <brian-1927@lloyd.com>
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50)
>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:10:36 -0700
>
>
>
>On Sep 19, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
>>
>>You're 0 for 2. Bernoulli's principal has nothing to do with the line
>>restriction to the bottle and airplane wings use the Coanda effect, not
>>Bernoulli. Get out your calculator and calculate the amount of "vacuum"
>>that must exist to lift a wing with loading of 50 psf. Wings can't make
>>that much lift with Bernoulli.
>
>Generation of lift is a very interesting topic. I can imagine a thread on
>how lift is produced consuming lots of bandwidth as well as producing a
>fair amount of heat. (These kinds of things tend to produce more heat than
>light on the subject.) Still, it might be both interesting and
>enlightening at some level.
>
>OTOH, I suspect that there will also be much testosterone and ruffled
>feathers.
>
>Regardless, I think that the topic is really interesting as there are
>several non-obvious physical properties at work and I would like to
>discuss my ideas on the matter with someone.
>
>--
>Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
>brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
>PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
>
>
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: | Re: Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50) |
In a message dated 9/20/2007 8:02:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jonboede@hotmail.com writes:
I always think in terms of a water skier. He "planes" on the water and a
"airplane" - - well planes on the air. But I'm just a simple guy with a si
mple
mind. And though I've heard of Newton and Bernoulli, this is the first I'v
e
heard of Magnus and Coanda. "Flingingness"???
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jonboede@hotmail.com>
There being 144 square inches in a square foot, it'd only take a third of
one PSI to do the job.
That having been said, I concur that Mr. Newton does most of the work with
only a little help from Mr. Bernoulli. Although I'd claim that the actual
lifting is done by the Magnus Effect -- the Coanda Effect only explains how
the Magnus Effect gets it's "grip" on the wing when doing the lifting.
I was always amused by that diagram in the book that shows the two tiny
people, one walking on the top of a wing and one walking on the bottom,
where the one on the top has to walk farther and therefore walks faster.
The part they leave off is that tiny person walking on the top of the wing
is aggressively flung downward when reaching the rear of the wing, thereby
generating an equal and opposite upward flingingness.
Perhaps that last bit is too violent for today's schoolbooks. :-)
"And why does an airfoil produce the Magnus Effect?" I foolishly asked once
.
Someone wiser than I pointed out, "We call it an airfoil BECAUSE it
produces the effect."
Jon
PS. I've been told that dragging Coanda and Magnus out during the oral
portion of a checkride is the best mechanism discovered to date for annoyin
g
the examiner into thinking you're a smartass.
>From: Brian Lloyd <brian-1927@lloyd.com>
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50)
>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:10:36 -0700
>
>
>
>On Sep 19, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
>>
>>You're 0 for 2. Bernoulli's principal has nothing to do with the line
>>restriction to the bottle and airplane wings use the Coanda effect, not
>>Bernoulli. Get out your calculator and calculate the amount of "vacuum"
>>that must exist to lift a wing with loading of 50 psf. Wings can't make
>>that much lift with Bernoulli.
>
>Generation of lift is a very interesting topic. I can imagine a thread on
>how lift is produced consuming lots of bandwidth as well as producing a
>fair amount of heat. (These kinds of things tend to produce more heat tha
n
>light on the subject.) Still, it might be both interesting and
>enlightening at some level.
>
>OTOH, I suspect that there will also be much testosterone and ruffled
>feathers.
>
>Regardless, I think that the topic is really interesting as there are
>several non-obvious physical properties at work and I would like to
>discuss my ideas on the matter with someone.
>
>--
>Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
>brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
>=94 Antoine de Saint-Exup=C3=A9ry
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay |
Group,
One thing that popped to mind in the discussion on the Operating
Limitations/AW was how many people I have known that did not get new OL
issued when they bought the aircraft and moved to it to their new base
of operations. I think a seller should enlighten a buyer to this
requirement.
I received a call on the 55 on eBay yesterday. Subsequently, I looked
at the ad. 2 items:
1. This engine is a candidate for a prop strike teardown. Seeing the
amount of damage on the one blade and being told the guy hit a solid
object merits an inspection. If interested we can do this work.
Contact me offlist, if you would like more information.
2. The deformation between the fuselage and the rear of the right
wing. I would not bid on this airplane unless I was going to scrap it
or have someone qualified in metal and structures take a look at the
damage and give an assessment. The leading edge damage is no problem.
Jill Gernetzke
M-14P, Incorporated
4905 Flightline Drive
Kingman, AZ 86401 -7417
(928)-681-4400
Fax(928)681-4404
www.m-14p.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: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay |
I agree it is more for scrap and spares than a rebuild. Even after a rebuild (HUGE
$$$$$), would anyone want to pull hard G's in it?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135501#135501
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay |
Tim Gagnon wrote:
> I agree it is more for scrap and spares than a rebuild. Even after a rebuild
(HUGE $$$$$), would anyone want to pull hard G's in it?
Yes I wouldn't care.
Note Jill said " or have someone qualified in metal and structures take a look
at the damage and give an assessment"
If it is repaired properly it won't matter. It is only a psychological issue for
the buyer at that point.
--------
You built and fly an RV.......BIG DEAL!!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135505#135505
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: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay |
That would always be in the back of my mind.
Also, it would a tough airplane to sell when you were done with it. That is unless
you lied about its history. Lord knows it happens.....
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135509#135509
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay |
Well I have to wonder if it would be hard to sell the P47 pulled up from Lake Michigan..restored
to flying condition. Or a Me109 pulled out from the woods after
60 years?
My guess is not likely. These 52's and 50's come from Russian with less than a
complete history. Yet we repair them and fly the snot out of them.
I'm sure that there are some unreported history from the ones coming out of the
homeland. This is where intellect has to prevail.
Looking at the pic's of this 55.... I would guess it is trashed.
Peace of mind is worth something but usually those type of people will never have
it anyway.
--------
You built and fly an RV.......BIG DEAL!!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135529#135529
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Operating limitations, Yak 55 on eBay |
The warbirds you mentioned are virtually new airplanes when they are done with
them....and NEVER flown like they were while operational.
I am sure you could spend the coin to make that -55 "new" again, but you would
have an airplane that is still only worth 50K.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135537#135537
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 |
|
I hesitate to add anything to this, but since I enjoy low level
aerobatics quite a bit, I will pass on something that has kept me from
becoming a statistic many times, and will most people if followed
properly.
When you are close to the ground, and you are going to do anything other
than straight and level flight, always direct your energy "up", and
never DOWN.
It's a simple saying really... But it happened to stick in my mind, and
I have always adhered to it except when practicing something new, and
have carefully gained a LOT of altitude before attempting anything
"new".
The infamous movie clip of a YAK-52 performing a Split S to landing is
an example of just the OPPOSITE of what is described above.
So unless you are a world class aerobatic pilot, if you follow the
"directed energy" rule when showing off, you stand a much better chance
to live through it and brag about it later.
This is not a lecture. It's just passing on something that has saved my
life more than once.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Schneider
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:36
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Hurricane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riW0uw__tPc
________________________________
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Sent: Wed 9/19/2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Hurricane
On YouTube, i just saw the video of the Hawker Hurricane accident at
Shoreham.
It looks like he attempted a Slip S. Hit a accelerated stall at about
the 60 degree nose down point. The broke right about 20 degrees and
looked like it went in at that angle. It happened very quickly. Good
guy and airplane gone.
Guys the earth and aerodynamics don't know your name or who you are.
They are unforgiving of violations.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
________________________________
S169" target="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
p://forums.matronics.com/
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: Lift (was: MF'ing air system! Yak-50) |
On Sep 19, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jon Boede wrote:
>
> There being 144 square inches in a square foot, it'd only take a
> third of one PSI to do the job.
>
> That having been said, I concur that Mr. Newton does most of the
> work with only a little help from Mr. Bernoulli. Although I'd
> claim that the actual lifting is done by the Magnus Effect -- the
> Coanda Effect only explains how the Magnus Effect gets it's "grip"
> on the wing when doing the lifting.
>
> I was always amused by that diagram in the book that shows the two
> tiny people, one walking on the top of a wing and one walking on
> the bottom, where the one on the top has to walk farther and
> therefore walks faster. The part they leave off is that tiny
> person walking on the top of the wing is aggressively flung
> downward when reaching the rear of the wing, thereby generating an
> equal and opposite upward flingingness.
>
> Perhaps that last bit is too violent for today's schoolbooks. :-)
>
> "And why does an airfoil produce the Magnus Effect?" I foolishly
> asked once. Someone wiser than I pointed out, "We call it an
> airfoil BECAUSE it produces the effect."
>
> Jon
>
> PS. I've been told that dragging Coanda and Magnus out during the
> oral portion of a checkride is the best mechanism discovered to
> date for annoying the examiner into thinking you're a smartass.
Well, I have been considering it from a quantum/statistical point of
view, i.e. by the behavior of the individual air molecules and how
the mean free path increases above the wing as a result of
"shadowing". (I'm not sure how better to describe it.) I can "see"
the pressure gradient as a decrease or increase in the mean free path
of each molecule and its result on the mean velocity vector for the
air mass as a whole as a result of increased or decreased numbers of
collisions. This also lets me visualize the pressure distribution is
a function of the mean number of collisions between the surface and
the individual air molecules. It is difficult to describe but easy to
picture in my mind. I haven't heard of anyone approaching the problem
this way before. It makes it very clear in my mind as to how the
whole air mass ends up with a "downward" change in the mean velocity
vector and then Isaac does the rest.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
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 |
|
| Subject: | Bernoilli, His Equation, Air Moving in Pipes and Flight |
This web page gives a nice animated view of Bernoulli's Principle in
action. Also, click on the link at the bottom for a discussion of "How Do
Airplane Wings Really Work."
This should settle the debate on if Bernoulli's Principle applies to air
moving from a supply tank to an actuator on a wing through a pipe with or
without a constriction in the pipe..
I also think a number of folks stated that the pressure rises in the
constriction, it does not....the pressure falls and the velocity of air
increases. From my engineering days, we always said, "big pipe, big
pressure."
As for how a wing works, I never got into all the boundary layer stuff, but
it is a complicated thing that hangs on our planes and gives us the gift of
flight. Bernoulli only plays a small part (if at all). However, it is the
easiest way to explain it with out a bunch of mumbo jumbo so the FAA and
everybody else continues to promote Bernoulli as the reason our planes fly.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmc1919/venturi.html
ENJOY!!!!!!
Craig Winkelmann, CFI
--
"The fruit of love is service. The fruit of services is peace, and peace
begins with a smile."
- Mother Theresa
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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Be careful.......
Had to send my OPSLIM into FAA this last spring following change of N number (requires
new OPSLIM and Airworthiness Certificate), noticed by local FSDO after
4 years, and recieved much more restrictive OPSLIM back. Included requirement
that local FSDO receive notice of AND approve of any maintenance flights, etc.
Took me as an attorney the better part of 5 months of intense work with the
FAA in association with EAA/Warbirds staff and AOPA legal to get it corrected.
I will wait until the subsequent automatic deletion of the requirement happens;
in the meantime I would feel pretty good arguing that the FAA letter rendered
warbird operating radius limits no longer enforceable.
Just know that a lot of subjectivity apparently still exists in the issuance of
warbird operating limitations. Be careful......
Jack Coe
CJ-6A :shock: :shock:
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135589#135589
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: | Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Jack,
Good for you for challenging and winning against the FAA. As for waiting
until it's automatic, be careful because as long as your aircraft's OL's are
not rewritten, they will remain in force. When the FAA rewrites the Order,
the only way your present OL's we be made null and void is for your present
OL's to be reissued.
As for the Memorandum, I completely agree with you the by reading the first
paragraph, the proficiency area restriction no longer enforceable. That
would have been the easy and less paperwork way of doing things. But not
too many people will argue it in a court of law.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "c44588" <orcaspilot@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:20 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
> Be careful.......
>
> Had to send my OPSLIM into FAA this last spring following change of N
> number (requires new OPSLIM and Airworthiness Certificate), noticed by
> local FSDO after 4 years, and recieved much more restrictive OPSLIM back.
> Included requirement that local FSDO receive notice of AND approve of any
> maintenance flights, etc. Took me as an attorney the better part of 5
> months of intense work with the FAA in association with EAA/Warbirds staff
> and AOPA legal to get it corrected.
>
> I will wait until the subsequent automatic deletion of the requirement
> happens; in the meantime I would feel pretty good arguing that the FAA
> letter rendered warbird operating radius limits no longer enforceable.
>
> Just know that a lot of subjectivity apparently still exists in the
> issuance of warbird operating limitations. Be careful......
>
> Jack Coe
> CJ-6A :shock: :shock:
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135589#135589
>
>
>
Message 17
| 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 |
|
Well said. You have to fly to stay alive........
Lynn Allen
"Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
wrote:
I hesitate to add anything to this, but since I enjoy low level
aerobatics quite a bit, I will pass on something that has kept me from
becoming a statistic many times, and will most people if followed
properly.
When you are close to the ground, and you are going to do anything other
than straight and level flight, always direct your energy "up", and
never DOWN.
It's a simple saying really... But it happened to stick in my mind, and
I have always adhered to it except when practicing something new, and
have carefully gained a LOT of altitude before attempting anything
"new".
The infamous movie clip of a YAK-52 performing a Split S to landing is
an example of just the OPPOSITE of what is described above.
So unless you are a world class aerobatic pilot, if you follow the
"directed energy" rule when showing off, you stand a much better chance
to live through it and brag about it later.
This is not a lecture. It's just passing on something that has saved my
life more than once.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Schneider
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:36
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Hurricane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riW0uw__tPc
________________________________
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Sent: Wed 9/19/2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Hurricane
On YouTube, i just saw the video of the Hawker Hurricane accident at
Shoreham.
It looks like he attempted a Slip S. Hit a accelerated stall at about
the 60 degree nose down point. The broke right about 20 degrees and
looked like it went in at that angle. It happened very quickly. Good
guy and airplane gone.
Guys the earth and aerodynamics don't know your name or who you are.
They are unforgiving of violations.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
________________________________
S169" target="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
p://forums.matronics.com/
Message 18
| 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: | Bernoilli, His Equation, Air Moving in Pipes and Flight |
Hi Craig!
Thanks for the link. I read it. Really nice graphics! Let's skip to
the chase.
As far as Bernoulli applying to the problem at hand when viewing it as
an expression of the conservation of energy, I agree completely.
However, the problem being discussed deals with the movement of a piston
that is driven by a compressed gas and therefore I feel is better
described as "System Work". Work equaling Pressure Delta Volume The
definition of work becomes W=Fd for a constant force F along a distance
d. Using the definition of pressure: W= F/A (Ad)= P Delta V The above
assumes a constant pressure source, which obviously we really do not
have, but close enough.
So what I have been trying to say is that while Bernoulli will indeed
completely describe the varying pressure, flow rates and velocities
through pipes of varying sizes, (I.E. from the tank TO the actuator) it
is not really meant to describe the process of using a compressed gas to
accomplish the job of lifting the landing gear on a YAK-50, which was
what I assumed was being discussed in the original article. Possibly I
assumed incorrectly. I also earlier was trying to describe how one
determines how much energy is CONTAINED in a compressed gas and once
again said that Bernoulli's laws do not apply. So before anyone differs
with what I said (as in right, wrong, indifferent :-) make sure we are
all clear on what I was trying to say to begin with. The fault again
possibly being my own for not being clear enough. I make that mistake
ALL the time by the way.
I guess in the end it is a matter of semantics as in order to use the
System Work law you still have to compute end state P and V after all
the line size changes, and what should have been obvious to begin with
is the size of the flow restrictor that is inserted right at the
actuator..... It really being one of the the main determinants anyway
since it is smaller than any line in the system to begin with, probably
including the new line that Tim installed. It also lends a
visualization of how small the constriction would have to be to cause
Tim's problem assuming no leaks.
One thing though... For Bernoulli's Principle to apply, the fluid is
assumed to have the same density everywhere (it is "incompressible" like
water.
Does the compressed air in our systems meet this definition? Yes, no?
Just curious how you would view the answer to that question Craig.
Thanks for pointing out an excellent web site.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Winkelmann
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 20:33
Subject: Yak-List: Bernoilli, His Equation, Air Moving in Pipes and
Flight
This web page gives a nice animated view of Bernoulli's Principle in
action. Also, click on the link at the bottom for a discussion of "How
Do Airplane Wings Really Work."
This should settle the debate on if Bernoulli's Principle applies to air
moving from a supply tank to an actuator on a wing through a pipe with
or without a constriction in the pipe..
I also think a number of folks stated that the pressure rises in the
constriction, it does not....the pressure falls and the velocity of air
increases. From my engineering days, we always said, "big pipe, big
pressure."
As for how a wing works, I never got into all the boundary layer stuff,
but it is a complicated thing that hangs on our planes and gives us the
gift of flight. Bernoulli only plays a small part (if at all).
However, it is the easiest way to explain it with out a bunch of mumbo
jumbo so the FAA and everybody else continues to promote Bernoulli as
the reason our planes fly.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmc1919/venturi.html
ENJOY!!!!!!
Craig Winkelmann, CFI
--
"The fruit of love is service. The fruit of services is peace, and
peace begins with a smile."
- Mother Theresa
Message 19
| 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: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F |
Hi Dennis now that we can go anywhere in the US any time we want, how about that
bladder fuel tank your working on for longer leg's. How close to compleation?
Bill Wade
"A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
But if the FAA would have simply said, "This Memorandum, when carried in the
aircraft, removes the restriction of the 300/600 NM proficiency area." But
no, they want to create paperwork havoc for the local FSDO guys. Wait
until the local FSDO inspectors get inundated with the requests. It will
take MONTHS to get your new OL's and Airworthiness Certificate.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd"
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA Memorandum - 8130.2F
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:12 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>
>> Craig,
>> The reason is because the OL's and it's wording must be in accordance
>> with the current Order, 8130.2F. Many OL's were written when previous
>> versions were in place. Even though they are all fundamentally the
>> same, the FSDO Inspector is required to use the present version of the
>> Order when issuing new OL's. Remember, any change to the OL's requires
>> issuance of a new airworthiness certificate as well because they are
>> married together. That's why one must also submit the 8130-6,
>> Application for Airworthiness Certificate.
>
> And as to whether or not you need to get a new LOL, your point about it
> being married to the AC is significant. Your existing LOL is married to
> your AC. It currently has the 300nm limit on it therefore even tho' the
> 300nm limit has been rescinded, it still appears on your LOL and
> therefore is still a part of your OL. If you want it off you need a new
> LOL issued by the FSDO along with a new AC.
>
> It matters because it is still on the piece of paper. You can't change
> that paper without changing the AC too. Remember, what is written on the
> piece of paper is *always* more important and significant than the rule
> book.
>
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
> brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
> PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
> PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
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! --
|