Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:32 AM - Re: Re: Gear fitting dimension (John Bolding)
2. 08:36 AM - Re: Re: Gear fitting dimension (JohnDRead@aol.com)
3. 10:54 AM - Bernoulli or Newton? (Jeffrey A Beachy)
4. 11:47 AM - Re: Bernoulli or Newton? (Larry McFarland)
5. 12:06 PM - Re: Bernoulli or Newton? (MIKE JEFFERSON)
6. 04:55 PM - Re: How an airplane flies (Keith Ashcraft)
7. 07:46 PM - Re: Bernoulli or Newton? (James Sagerser)
8. 08:49 PM - Re: Bernoulli or Newton? (JohnDRead@aol.com)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gear fitting dimension |
I understand that lateral positioning needs to be addressed, if you make
the gear from alum, composites, marshmallows or unobtanium it's gotta be
held in place, side to side , fore and aft, and restricted against
rotation..
They are NOT consistent, that's why I'm asking, I've had almost a 1/4"
difference so far on factory parts and slightly less on builder
constructed pieces.
You absolutely don't , under any circumstances, want to score the uni
fibers in the gear, Composites 101.
Thanks for your measurements.
John
Hi John;
The notches provide the lateral positioning of the gear so they need
to be there even with a composite part, I think that if they were made
75 mm apart that should be OK. The Gear Mounts are a substantial part
and are probably welded in a fixture so I suspect they are pretty
consistent. Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
In a message dated 5/13/2010 5:01:53 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
jnbolding1@teleshare.net writes:
<jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
In the middle of developing a glass gear for the 701 have hit a
semi-snag.
I've discovered what I believe to be a discrepancy in the plans and
real
life parts. I know that's hard to believe but I think it's true.
--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Gear fitting dimension |
Hi John;
I understand the need to keep from nicking composite
structures. One dimension that may have a big variable is the lateral distance
between the notches. Perhaps a grommet or O ring of hard urethane over the pins
would fix the potential contact problem too. If the distance between the
notches is not to variable perhaps a step with a curve to the in side would
work then the width of the gear outboard of the clamps could be 75 mm or so
and the section under the fuselage remain at 82 mm.
Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home: 303-648-3261
In a message dated 5/14/2010 6:33:09 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
jnbolding1@teleshare.net writes:
I understand that lateral positioning needs to be addressed, if you make
the gear from alum, composites, marshmallows or unobtanium it's gotta be
held in place, side to side , fore and aft, and restricted against rotation..
They are NOT consistent, that's why I'm asking, I've had almost a 1/4"
difference so far on factory parts and slightly less on builder constructed
pieces.
You absolutely don't , under any circumstances, want to score the uni
fibers in the gear, Composites 101.
Thanks for your measurements.
John
Hi John;
The notches provide the lateral positioning of the gear so they need to be
there even with a composite part, I think that if they were made 75 mm
apart that should be OK. The Gear Mounts are a substantial part and are
probably welded in a fixture so I suspect they are pretty consistent. Regards,
John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
In a message dated 5/13/2010 5:01:53 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
jnbolding1@teleshare.net writes:
<jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
In the middle of developing a glass gear for the 701 have hit a semi-snag.
I've discovered what I believe to be a discrepancy in the plans and real
life parts. I know that's hard to believe but I think it's true.
--> _http://www.matronics.com/c_ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: | Bernoulli or Newton? |
I was distressed some years ago when I discovered that airplanes fly
mostly due to Newton's laws with very little lift attributable to
Bernoulli's principle--all those years of grade school wasted!
Bernoulli's principal helps a bit, but by far it is Newton's angle of
attack "push" that keeps our wonderful Zenith's in the sky. One way to
verify this is to look at an aerobatic airplane with symmetrical
wings--if Bernoulli's principal is the reason airplanes fly, a
symmetrical wing would not fly. Below is a report funded by NASA
affirming that Newton's laws are the reason that airplanes fly.
Jeff Beachy
Plain City, OH
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Soaring 3000%
Sign up for Free to find out what the next 3000% Stock Winner Is!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4bed8de330c17d58cdm01vuc
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: Bernoulli or Newton? |
Hi Jeff,
If you've ever seen rime ice formation on a symmetrical wing in flight,
you'd notice the lift is well forward and lacking on the lower side
which says, yes, angle of attack is
part of it, but the principal of airflow distance over a wing is 90%
main reason it flys at all.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Jeffrey A Beachy wrote:
> I was distressed some years ago when I discovered that airplanes fly
> mostly due to Newton's laws with very little lift attributable to
> Bernoulli's principle--all those years of grade school wasted!
> Bernoulli's principal helps a bit, but by far it is Newton's angle of
> attack "push" that keeps our wonderful Zenith's in the sky. One way to
> verify this is to look at an aerobatic airplane with symmetrical
> wings--if Bernoulli's principal is the reason airplanes fly, a
> symmetrical wing would not fly. Below is a report funded by NASA
> affirming that Newton's laws are the reason that airplanes fly.
>
> Jeff Beachy
> Plain City, OH
>
> *http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm*
> **
> **
> *
> *
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: | Bernoulli or Newton? |
THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS ME IN THE AIR I THINK IS FRANKLIN OR AT LEAST A W
HOLE BUNCH OF HIS PIC=2CS
MICHAEL P.
N9805U
> Date: Fri=2C 14 May 2010 13:46:37 -0500
> From: larry@macsmachine.com
> To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Bernoulli or Newton?
>
ne.com>
>
> Hi Jeff=2C
> If you've ever seen rime ice formation on a symmetrical wing in flight=2C
> you'd notice the lift is well forward and lacking on the lower side
> which says=2C yes=2C angle of attack is
> part of it=2C but the principal of airflow distance over a wing is 90%
> main reason it flys at all.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> Jeffrey A Beachy wrote:
> > I was distressed some years ago when I discovered that airplanes fly
> > mostly due to Newton's laws with very little lift attributable to
> > Bernoulli's principle--all those years of grade school wasted!
> > Bernoulli's principal helps a bit=2C but by far it is Newton's angle of
> > attack "push" that keeps our wonderful Zenith's in the sky. One way to
> > verify this is to look at an aerobatic airplane with symmetrical
> > wings--if Bernoulli's principal is the reason airplanes fly=2C a
> > symmetrical wing would not fly. Below is a report funded by NASA
> > affirming that Newton's laws are the reason that airplanes fly.
> >
> > Jeff Beachy
> > Plain City=2C OH
> >
> > *http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm*
> > **
> > **
> > *
> > *
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with H
otmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=
PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
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: | Re: How an airplane flies |
Well... it would be farther along if I wasn't TDY so much. I have been here at
Dugway Proving Grounds, outside of Salt Lake since March 28th, so not a whole
lot is being accomplished.
Keith
******************************************************
________________________________
From: "JohnDRead@aol.com" <JohnDRead@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 9:49:22 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: How an airplane flies
Hi Keith;
How
is your plane coming along? I have the engine on mine - there is still plenty to
do though. do not archive
Regards,
John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home:
303-648-3261
In a message dated 5/13/2010 9:19:24 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
ch701builder@yahoo.com writes:
Hey John,
>Educational... YES.
>
>I always thought that "MONEY" is
> what made airplanes fly. The more you spend the higher and faster it
> flies.
>
>Example:
>$60,000 a fairly nice 12O MPH plane
>$600,000 a
> little bit faster plane
>$6,000,000 a faster plane.
>$60,000,000 .... you
> get the picture ...
>
>... and so forth ....
>
>
>Keith
>CH701 -
> scratch
>(invested around $4,000 so far, so my plane DOESN'T fly...)
>N 38.9940
>W
> 105.1305
>Alt. 9,100'
>Divide,
> CO
>
>********************************************************
>
>
________________________________
From: "JohnDRead@aol.com"
> <JohnDRead@aol.com>
>To: > zenith701801-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 7:44:23
> PM
>Subject: Re:
> Zenith701801-List: How an airplane flies
>
>Well that was educational. Let's switch to which color Scotchbrite, VGs
> and cheap rivets from China. Oh and let's not forget poorly flown aircraft
> that break their wings.
>
>Regards, John
>
>CH701 -
> Colorado - Jabiru 3300
>
>Cell: 719-494-4567
>Home: 303-648-3261
>
>
>
>
>
>
>===================================
>
>List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List===================================
>ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>===================================
>tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution===================================
>
>
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: Bernoulli or Newton? |
Jeff, Thanks so much for sharing the very informative article by the
Allstar network. As a flight instructor for almost 40 years, it time to let
go of the notion the "world is flat" and move on. Thanks again, Jim
Sagerser
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Jeffrey A Beachy <beachyjeff@juno.com>wrote:
> I was distressed some years ago when I discovered that airplanes fly
> mostly due to Newton's laws with very little lift attributable to
> Bernoulli's principle--all those years of grade school wasted! Bernoulli's
> principal helps a bit, but by far it is Newton's angle of attack "push" that
> keeps our wonderful Zenith's in the sky. One way to verify this is to look
> at an aerobatic airplane with symmetrical wings--if Bernoulli's principal is
> the reason airplanes fly, a symmetrical wing would not fly. Below is a
> report funded by NASA affirming that Newton's laws are the reason that
> airplanes fly.
>
> Jeff Beachy
> Plain City, OH
>
> *http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm*
> **
> **
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> *Penny Stock Soaring 3000%*
> Sign up for Free to find out what the next 3000% Stock Winner Is!
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/4bed8de330c17d58cdm01vuc>
> PennyStocksUniverse.com<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/4bed8de330c17d58cdm01vuc>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Bernoulli or Newton? |
Thank you. I am pleased to see that I am not the only person who believes
that Newton is what keeps us in the air.
Larry - you have got to read and understand "Stick and Rudder" Even Sabrina
will understand when she meets Dr. Drela at MIT. Congratulations girl!
Regards, John Read
CH701 Colorado Jabiru 3300
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! --
|