some interesting points came out of one guy's query re servicing some
old brake master cylinders.

gringomasloco commented regarding broken brake lines spraying brake
fluid over hot calipers and setting the wheels on fire. hmmmmm.

I am talking about light private aircraft here...

as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.
now that may sound like semantic nonsense but it is true.

aircraft brakes were designed for use in holding the aircraft still
while the engine was started. after the taxy out and the engine has
warmed you do a run up check to make sure that the magneto circuits
are up to the bit of work that lies ahead for them. the brakes are
applied to hold the aircraft while the revs are bought up and each
maggy checked in turn.

from a design aspect that is the end of the use of a light aircraft's
brakes until after landing and we wish to hold the aircraft still for
shutdown and disembarkation.

of course brakes are brakes and people will use them like they were
driving cars. light aircraft brakes were never designed for slowing an
aircraft when landing.
I know that they get used for that by students of bad piloting
technique but the design intent is a fact borne out by their
diminutive size.

I'll give one concrete example. The Stinson 108 is a huge aircraft, 4
seats in 1940's luxury, yet it only has brake pucks the same size as a
5.00x5 cleveland. in fact on the one Chris M-F ownes the brakes *are*
cleveland 5.00x5 calipers.

it is quite ok to be masters of the world and fly however you like.
you'll just wear out your aeroplanes faster.

just remember though that aircraft brakes are for holding the aircraft
not stopping it.

now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
some people have yet to realise that.

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> just remember though that aircraft brakes are for holding the aircraft
> not stopping it.
>
> now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
> for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
> some people have yet to realise that.

Apparently Cessna has also yet to realize that.

From Cessna 152 POH: (Step 6 of short field landing procedure) "6. Brakes--
APPLY HEAVILY."


Good Morning! ;-)
Vaughn

On Jul 19, 7:27�am, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > just remember though that aircraft brakes are for holding the aircraft
> > not stopping it.
>
> > now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
> > for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
> > some people have yet to realise that.
>
> � �Apparently Cessna has also yet to realize that.
>
> From Cessna 152 POH: (Step 6 of short field landing procedure) "6. Brakes-- �
> APPLY HEAVILY."
>
> Good Morning! �;-)
> Vaughn

Where do light and heavy begin? I have a 2,000 pound gross
weight airplane. We picked the brakes based on a start braking speed
of about 70 knots. I can do multiple stops from slower speeds during
high speed taxi testing. Braking capacity is mostly a funtion of how
much mass the disk has whcih in turn determines how much heat it can
absorb. Keep the brakes small to keep the airplane light and limit
your runway options. Add some mass and stop with brakes on shorter
runways. You're experimental. Take your pick. BTW, I changed my
brake pads after about 1,200 hours because they were getting thin, but
not worn out. For me, it's cheaper and easier to change brake pads
than tires worn out by long rollouts and long taxi distances.

Denny

On Jul 19, 3:54*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

>
> as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
> for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.
> now that may sound like semantic nonsense but it is true.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what I was taught. The distinction was based on breaking
surface area.

Military and commercial aircraft, meaning those having a need to bring
the loaded airplane to a full stop AND TO HOLD IT THERE during run-up
or whatever, were often fitted with brake drums rather than pucks &
rotors, since you could get more breaking surface for less weight when
using a drum & shoe arrangement.

However, modern puck & rotor systems commonly use calipers that
present a puck to each side of the rotor, allowing you to double the
breaking surface for only a modest increase in weight.

The down-side here is the need to get rid of the heat such systems can
produce when going for a full-stop.

Some modern-day systems offer a dual system, with single-pucks
intended to do the slowing/steering and dual pucks coming on-line to
provide the stoping & holding.

-R.S.Hoover

In article >,
Stealth Pilot > wrote:

> some interesting points came out of one guy's query re servicing some
> old brake master cylinders.
>
> gringomasloco commented regarding broken brake lines spraying brake
> fluid over hot calipers and setting the wheels on fire. hmmmmm.
>
> I am talking about light private aircraft here...
>
> as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
> for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.
> now that may sound like semantic nonsense but it is true.
>
> aircraft brakes were designed for use in holding the aircraft still
> while the engine was started. after the taxy out and the engine has
> warmed you do a run up check to make sure that the magneto circuits
> are up to the bit of work that lies ahead for them. the brakes are
> applied to hold the aircraft while the revs are bought up and each
> maggy checked in turn.
>
> from a design aspect that is the end of the use of a light aircraft's
> brakes until after landing and we wish to hold the aircraft still for
> shutdown and disembarkation.
>
> of course brakes are brakes and people will use them like they were
> driving cars. light aircraft brakes were never designed for slowing an
> aircraft when landing.
> I know that they get used for that by students of bad piloting
> technique but the design intent is a fact borne out by their
> diminutive size.
>
> I'll give one concrete example. The Stinson 108 is a huge aircraft, 4
> seats in 1940's luxury, yet it only has brake pucks the same size as a
> 5.00x5 cleveland. in fact on the one Chris M-F ownes the brakes *are*
> cleveland 5.00x5 calipers.
>
> it is quite ok to be masters of the world and fly however you like.
> you'll just wear out your aeroplanes faster.
>
> just remember though that aircraft brakes are for holding the aircraft
> not stopping it.
>
> now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
> for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
> some people have yet to realise that.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Nonsense: complete and utter.

What aircraft brakes aren't designed for is stopping aircraft
*repeatedly*.

The chief advantage of putting larger brakes on any vehicle is that it
providess a greater heat sink to allow for more braking before the
brakes overheat.

Aircraft brakes need to be able to stop an aircraft *once* and then have
an essentially infinite amount of time to cool down again.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
> for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.
> now that may sound like semantic nonsense but it is true.

How does one steer a C152 while taxiing?

I was headed bopping down the downhill section of KTTA's single taxiway, when one of the LSA trainees decided that his
fuel was more important than mine. He pulled out heading straight to me. There was only one turn off, and I had about
20 feet to come to a complete stop or we'd have a mess. The old hacker that I am, I decided that using the brakes were
the best way to accomplish the task. I know that it wasn't the right thing to do. I should have cut the engine, jumped
out, and grabbed the tail to drag it to a halt like everyone is taught in groundschool. But I guess I'm just lazy.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:54:27 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>
>some interesting points came out of one guy's query re servicing some
>old brake master cylinders.
>
>gringomasloco commented regarding broken brake lines spraying brake
>fluid over hot calipers and setting the wheels on fire. hmmmmm.
>
>I am talking about light private aircraft here...
>
>as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
>for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.
>now that may sound like semantic nonsense but it is true.
>
>aircraft brakes were designed for use in holding the aircraft still
>while the engine was started. after the taxy out and the engine has
>warmed you do a run up check to make sure that the magneto circuits
>are up to the bit of work that lies ahead for them. the brakes are
>applied to hold the aircraft while the revs are bought up and each
>maggy checked in turn.

Ahhh...I beg to differ here. First time I got someone qualified to
ride with me so I could get back in the air, they were astounded that
I could lock the brakes and acellerate.

(No, I didn't let it go very far as that's kinda hard on the tires,
but I assure you that with some planes you can take off with the
brakes locked *IF* the tires hold out. OTOH the landing and taxi are
going to be a bit bumpy<:-))

BTW the brakes will hold it to do a runup IF you don't go past the RPM
listed for the runup of 2100 RPM at cycling the prop. Even the taxiway
*must* be clean and dry. It's already moving at 2400 and acellerting
when firewalled.

Those tires have a linear tread for squeezing water out and
maintaining direction. They aren't worth much for traction when it
comes to braking. Actually if you lock them up they start to
hydroplane on their own vaporized rubber.

It ain't the brakes, it's the tires and a lack of traction by those
tires. The brakes on the Deb will lock up the tires and that's as
much as you can get out of any brakes.

>
>now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
>for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
>some people have yet to realise that.
>
>Stealth Pilot
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

> >now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
> >for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
> >some people have yet to realise that.
>
> >Stealth Pilot
>

What an utterly absurd statement! You may not need to use the brakes
to stop but that's what they're there for. On a long enough runway I
may not use the brakes at all but on a short runway, you better
believe the brakes will be needed to stop whether you're flying a 747
or a C-150. Everything is a compromise concerning weight and
capability on an aircraft; aircraft brakes on light aircraft may not
have the stopping power of power disc brakes on a dump truck but both
are designed for "stopping."

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:14:26 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
> wrote:

>> >now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
>> >for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
>> >some people have yet to realise that.
>>
>> >Stealth Pilot
>>
>
>What an utterly absurd statement! You may not need to use the brakes
>to stop but that's what they're there for. On a long enough runway I
>may not use the brakes at all but on a short runway, you better
>believe the brakes will be needed to stop whether you're flying a 747
>or a C-150. Everything is a compromise concerning weight and
>capability on an aircraft; aircraft brakes on light aircraft may not
>have the stopping power of power disc brakes on a dump truck but both
>are designed for "stopping."

one day it is hoped that you will learn something of aircraft design
and good piloting skills.
untill then I suppose you'll just keep plugging away doing the best
you can as a poor pilot.

the brake pads on your aircraft are about 3/4" x 2" in size.
the aircraft weighs 1500lb.

....but why am I surprised. the average american doesnt even know how
to change a tyre.

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> one day it is hoped that you will learn something of aircraft design
> and good piloting skills.

And perhaps one day you will learn to read the responses to your posts,
several of which have proven you to be wrong about the purpose of aircraft
brakes. Did you ever bother to read any Cessna POH? (From Cessna 152 POH: (Step
6 of short field landing procedure) "6. Brakes-- APPLY HEAVILY.")

What are the FAA certification requirements regarding aircraft brakes? Do the
required certification tests involve actually stopping the aircraft?

Further, if light aircraft brakes are only there for holding the aircraft
against the engine (and perhaps for taxiing), why does every glider I have ever
flown have a brake installed on the main wheel?

Vaughn

On Jul 31, 7:00 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:14:26 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >> >now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
> >> >for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
> >> >some people have yet to realise that.
>
> >> >Stealth Pilot
>
> >What an utterly absurd statement! You may not need to use the brakes
> >to stop but that's what they're there for. On a long enough runway I
> >may not use the brakes at all but on a short runway, you better
> >believe the brakes will be needed to stop whether you're flying a 747
> >or a C-150. Everything is a compromise concerning weight and
> >capability on an aircraft; aircraft brakes on light aircraft may not
> >have the stopping power of power disc brakes on a dump truck but both
> >are designed for "stopping."
>
> one day it is hoped that you will learn something of aircraft design
> and good piloting skills.
> untill then I suppose you'll just keep plugging away doing the best
> you can as a poor pilot.
>
> the brake pads on your aircraft are about 3/4" x 2" in size.
> the aircraft weighs 1500lb.

From the Cessna 172M POH, regarding forced landings:
6. Airspeed--65 to 75 MPH (flaps down)
7. Turn off master switch
8. Unlatch cabin doors prior to final approach
9. Land in a slightly tail-low attitude
10. Apply heavy braking while holding full-up elevator.

The Canadian Flight Training Manual, in the Landings section,
mentions braking during rollout several times.

In Canada we have something called the Canadian Runway Friction
Index (formerly the James Brake Index) and it gives approaching pilots
an idea of the runways surface conditions for things like steering and
braking during the landing rollout. I imagine other countries
(including Australia) have a similar scale.

So, it would seem that both the manufacturer and the people
who govern both flight training and international airports expect us
to use the brakes in the landing roll. Strange, huh?

We run six airplanes in flight training service. We find that
the brakes aren't hurt by normal use, even by heavy braking in a short-
field landing. It's the guys who taxi with too much power and hold the
taxi speed down using brake, and do that for 2000' on the taxiway.
That's when they get really hot and the metallic bits in the pads
begin to weld to the discs. Small raised steel burrs on the disc then
chew the pads up.
The pads and discs on a 150, say, are not unusually small for
the weight of the airplane when they're compared to the pads and discs
on the front of my compact car, which grosses three times as much as
the 150 and goes a lot faster on the ground than the 150 does. (The
rear brakes in most cars contribute maybe 20% of total braking and you
might not even miss them if they didn't work.) McCauley, and Cleveland
after them, design light aircraft bakes that are expected to stop
airplanes. If they didn't, someone else would and the manufacturers of
airplanes would buy those better brakes, believe me.

Dan

> one day it is hoped that you will learn something of aircraft design
> and good piloting skills.
> untill then I suppose you'll just keep plugging away doing the best
> you can as a poor pilot.
>
> the brake pads on your aircraft are about 3/4" x 2" in size.
> the aircraft weighs 1500lb.
>
> ...but why am I surprised. the average american doesnt even know how
> to change a tyre.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Gosh darn! I'm hurt that you call me a poor pilot because I
occasionally find it necessary to step on the brakes to stop my
aircraft. The placard against using the brakes for stopping must have
gone missing. The reverse thrust lever on my aircraft must have gone
missing along with that placard. How does a masterful pilot like
yourself decelerate on a short field landing before going off into the
trees? Perhaps you're used to landing on aircraft carriers with
arresting gear? Me thinks "Stealth Pilot" would be more aptly named
"Imaginary Pilot."

On Jul 31, 6:00*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:14:26 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >> >now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
> >> >for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
> >> >some people have yet to realise that.
>
> >> >Stealth Pilot
>
> >What an utterly absurd statement! *You may not need to use the brakes
> >to stop but that's what they're there for. *On a long enough runway I
> >may not use the brakes at all but on a short runway, you better
> >believe the brakes will be needed to stop whether you're flying a 747
> >or a C-150. *Everything is a compromise concerning weight and
> >capability on an aircraft; aircraft brakes on light aircraft may not
> >have the stopping power of power disc brakes on a dump truck but both
> >are designed for "stopping."
>
> one day it is hoped that you will learn something of aircraft design
> and good piloting skills.
> untill then I suppose you'll just keep plugging away doing the best
> you can as a poor pilot.
>
> the brake pads on your aircraft are about 3/4" x 2" in size.
> the aircraft weighs 1500lb.
>
> ...but why am I surprised. the average american doesnt even know how
> to change a tyre.
>
> Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You have recieved sane and reasoned responses to your 'theory'. They
have even provided some cites to back them up. Where is your evidence
that your 'theory' is correct? Untill you provide some respectable
source, I, and I am sure others, can one regard it as a 'cockamamie
theory'.

Harry K

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...

> as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
> for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.

Where is that written?

Well, that "may" be true for certified aircraft. But with a homebuilt,
all bets are off. The builder is free to overpower his brake system
however he sees fit. And put large and powerful enough brakes on it to
provide plenty of energy absorbing power to stop his aircraft. Even
airliners have definite limits on their brakes. You take off heavy and
abort above 100 knots, and you are most certainly going to be in the
"melt zone". wherby the fuse plugs will melt and deflate the tires by
design. So your statement can't be a blanket statement about all
aircrat. Depends on the aircrafts weight at takeoff or landing. the
speed at which the brakes are applied to bring the aircraft to a stop.
It's all about engery, which is variable for each instance. So even
large aircraft have limits to their stopping power. They'll stop the
aircraft at just about any weight, but over a certain amount, and you
better not stand too close to it after landing.
Plus, way back when, old light aircraft had crap for brakes. Back when
Stinsons, Swifts, and other postwar aircraft were built, there were no
Cleveland brakes. With those, and clones of them, you can stop just
fine.




On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:54:27 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>
>some interesting points came out of one guy's query re servicing some
>old brake master cylinders.
>
>gringomasloco commented regarding broken brake lines spraying brake
>fluid over hot calipers and setting the wheels on fire. hmmmmm.
>
>I am talking about light private aircraft here...
>
>as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
>for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.
>now that may sound like semantic nonsense but it is true.
>
>aircraft brakes were designed for use in holding the aircraft still
>while the engine was started. after the taxy out and the engine has
>warmed you do a run up check to make sure that the magneto circuits
>are up to the bit of work that lies ahead for them. the brakes are
>applied to hold the aircraft while the revs are bought up and each
>maggy checked in turn.
>
>from a design aspect that is the end of the use of a light aircraft's
>brakes until after landing and we wish to hold the aircraft still for
>shutdown and disembarkation.
>
>of course brakes are brakes and people will use them like they were
>driving cars. light aircraft brakes were never designed for slowing an
>aircraft when landing.
>I know that they get used for that by students of bad piloting
>technique but the design intent is a fact borne out by their
>diminutive size.
>
>I'll give one concrete example. The Stinson 108 is a huge aircraft, 4
>seats in 1940's luxury, yet it only has brake pucks the same size as a
>5.00x5 cleveland. in fact on the one Chris M-F ownes the brakes *are*
>cleveland 5.00x5 calipers.
>
>it is quite ok to be masters of the world and fly however you like.
>you'll just wear out your aeroplanes faster.
>
>just remember though that aircraft brakes are for holding the aircraft
>not stopping it.
>
>now brakes for commercial aircraft are different and they *are* used
>for stopping, but the brakes on little lighties arent.
>some people have yet to realise that.
>
>Stealth Pilot

"Sliker" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> Plus, way back when, old light aircraft had crap for brakes. Back when
> Stinsons, Swifts, and other postwar aircraft were built, there were no
> Cleveland brakes. With those, and clones of them, you can stop just
> fine.

Does a 1946 Cessna 120 qualify as a "postwar aircraft"? Brakes were good
enough for stopping hard enough to keep the tail in the air until you
stopped.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

If the brakes were that good, that was a nice exception. The postwar
stuff I flew had lousy brakes. Like the Swift with the orginal
Goodyear brakes. The disk pucks were about as big around as a quarter.
I know they must have known those wouldn't stop the plane.
The Champ had weak brakes too. And just about any of the planes with
heel brakes were pretty weak. And the worst were the ones with
mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
those?

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 20:00:57 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:

>"Sliker" > wrote in message
...
><...>
>> Plus, way back when, old light aircraft had crap for brakes. Back when
>> Stinsons, Swifts, and other postwar aircraft were built, there were no
>> Cleveland brakes. With those, and clones of them, you can stop just
>> fine.
>
>Does a 1946 Cessna 120 qualify as a "postwar aircraft"? Brakes were good
>enough for stopping hard enough to keep the tail in the air until you
>stopped.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker >
wrote:


>mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
>Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
>the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
>those?

My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.

Ed Sullivan

On Aug 1, 7:56*pm, Ed Sullivan > wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker >
> wrote:
>
> >mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
> >Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
> >the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
> >those?
>
> My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
> still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.
>
> Ed Sullivan

37 for sure, don't know about later. What got them off the street was
not inspections but market force. I don't think there even _were_
vehicle inspections back in the late 30s.

Harry K

Ed Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker >
> wrote:
>
>
>> mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
>> Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
>> the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
>> those?
>
> My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
> still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.
>
> Ed Sullivan

There are still Model A's on the road today. I have a neighbor and an
uncle with bone stock model A's that are licensed and tagged and still
driven regularily on weekends.

Charles

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:59:50 -0500, Charles Vincent
> wrote:

>Ed Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
>>> Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
>>> the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
>>> those?
>>
>> My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
>> still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.
>>
>> Ed Sullivan
>
>There are still Model A's on the road today. I have a neighbor and an
>uncle with bone stock model A's that are licensed and tagged and still
>driven regularily on weekends.
>
>Charles

Actually the mechanical brakes on the model A worked pretty good since
it was so light. For a real thrill the Model T was something else. The
brake band worked on the transmission, if the brake got weak you used
the reverse band.

On Aug 2, 6:16*pm, Ed Sullivan > wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:59:50 -0500, Charles Vincent
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Ed Sullivan wrote:
> >> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
> >>> Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
> >>> the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
> >>> those?
>
> >> My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
> >> still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.
>
> >> Ed Sullivan
>
> >There are still Model A's on the road today. *I have a neighbor and an
> >uncle with bone stock model A's that are licensed and tagged and still
> >driven regularily on weekends.
>
> >Charles
>
> Actually the mechanical brakes on the model A worked pretty good since
> it was so light. For a real thrill the Model T was something else. The
> brake band worked on the transmission, if the brake got weak you used
> the reverse band.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Right. The model A , and I think B, brakes were just as good as the
comparable hydraulic brakes. The problem with them was the need for
repeated adjustments to keep them operating equally on all wheels.
That adjustment is automatic in hydraulic ones.

Harry K

"Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
<...>>
> Actually the mechanical brakes on the model A worked pretty good since
> it was so light. For a real thrill the Model T was something else. The
> brake band worked on the transmission, if the brake got weak you used
> the reverse band.

Model T brakes were never designed for stopping Model T's. They were
designed for holding the Model T while you cranked it. Just look how
ineffective they are with that skinny band that operated on the rear wheels
only.

;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-)
:-) :-}

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am talking about light private aircraft here...
>
> as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
> for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.

I notice that the OP has been missing from this thread for the last couple of
days. Perhaps he/she finally did some reading in 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735?

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:

> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am talking about light private aircraft here...
>>
>>as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
>>for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.
>
>
> I notice that the OP has been missing from this thread for the last couple of
> days. Perhaps he/she finally did some reading in 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735?
>
> Vaughn
>
>


Not likely.



--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:47:51 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I am talking about light private aircraft here...
>>
>> as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
>> for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.
>
>I notice that the OP has been missing from this thread for the last couple of
>days. Perhaps he/she finally did some reading in 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735?
>
>Vaughn
>

nup. been busy with a life. comments stand.
Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> comments stand.

Even though you have been proven wrong by multiple posters?

I hope I never fly with you, because you have exhibited a distinct propensity
for blundering on even when presented with new information that happens to
conflict with your view of the world. (Sometimes when suddenly encountering
unexpected cumulonimbi, the wise pilot does a 180.)

Vaughn

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Will poofread for food.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker >
wrote:

>If the brakes were that good, that was a nice exception. The postwar
>stuff I flew had lousy brakes. Like the Swift with the orginal
>Goodyear brakes. The disk pucks were about as big around as a quarter.
>I know they must have known those wouldn't stop the plane.
>The Champ had weak brakes too. And just about any of the planes with
>heel brakes were pretty weak. And the worst were the ones with
>mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
>Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
>the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
>those?
"juice brake" conversions were very common on the Model "A". Wasn't
stopping POWER that was critical, it was the BALLANCE. Buggers could
be all over the road before you got all 4 wheels drawing down evenly.
Had a 1928 Chevy National with mechanical brakes - they were pitiful -
outside bands on the rear deums for service brakes, expanding internal
shoes for the parking brake - and standard procedure was to pull the
hand beake and stop on the pedal at the same time if you REALLY needed
to stop.
Had a 1949VW Bug with mechanicals as well. Stopped fine after you
figured out which way it was going to head, and corrected for it
before putting BOTH feet into it.(mind you, it only did about 48MPH
wide open down hill with a tail wind)
>
>On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 20:00:57 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
>Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:
>
>>"Sliker" > wrote in message
...
>><...>
>>> Plus, way back when, old light aircraft had crap for brakes. Back when
>>> Stinsons, Swifts, and other postwar aircraft were built, there were no
>>> Cleveland brakes. With those, and clones of them, you can stop just
>>> fine.
>>
>>Does a 1946 Cessna 120 qualify as a "postwar aircraft"? Brakes were good
>>enough for stopping hard enough to keep the tail in the air until you
>>stopped.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:56:57 -0700, Ed Sullivan
> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker >
>wrote:
>
>
>>mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
>>Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
>>the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
>>those?
>
>My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
>still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.
>
>Ed Sullivan
I believe 1939 was the last year for mechanicals on Ford (the last
holdout in the American market). 1940-1942 "juicers" were commonly
adapted to "A"s and other early Fords.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:32:15 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> comments stand.
>
>Even though you have been proven wrong by multiple posters?
>

I've never even commented on most of the posts. why would I? they are
entitled to their opinions. besides the increased turnover in spare
parts helps to keep the cost down.

I was taught by a number of very high time instructors back in the
70's that <insert subject line here>, exactly as I posted in the
original post.

no poster has proven me wrong.

brakes are brakes and they can be used for many purposes. some cause
little wear while other uses so abuse the systems that they almost
melt. whether you see that as a design intent is no matter to me. I
dont care, but it seemed necessary to point out just what good
airmanship practise was.

when I put new pads on earlier this year I broke one so I actually
have one of the pads sitting 2inches from my space bar as I type.
I calculated that it has a surface area of no more than 1.57 square
inches. when you brake hard in the aircraft they get fitted to you are
using no more than 6 and a quarter square inches of pad to stop a one
thousand five hundred pound weight aircraft.
as for standing on the brakes sure it can be done but at some
considerable abuse to the braking systems.
the concept is one of half m vee squared's worth of energy being
converted to heat by 6 or so square inches of pad.

you're obviously far more conversant with the engineering than I am so
I defer to your superior skills.
Dont mind if I continue to get 5 or 6 years out of a set of pads
though.
Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>Even though you have been proven wrong by multiple posters?
>>
>
> I've never even commented on most of the posts. why would I? they are
> entitled to their opinions.

Because this is a discussion group, not just a place to spout off and then
escape. That is how we learn from each other, by actually reading what the
other person has to say and (perhaps) actually learning something.

> no poster has proven me wrong.

Wrong again.

Vaughn



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Will poofread for food.

On Aug 4, 7:51*pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker >
> wrote:
>
> >If the brakes were that good, that was a nice exception. The postwar
> >stuff I flew had lousy brakes. Like the Swift with the orginal
> >Goodyear brakes. The disk pucks were about as big around as a quarter.
> >I know they must have known those wouldn't stop the plane.
> >The Champ had weak brakes too. And just about any of the planes with
> >heel brakes were pretty weak. And the worst were the ones with
> >mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
> >Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
> >the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
> >those?
>
> "juice brake" conversions were very common on the Model "A". Wasn't
> stopping POWER that was critical, it was the BALLANCE. Buggers could
> be all over the road before you got all 4 wheels drawing down evenly.
> Had a 1928 Chevy National with mechanical brakes - they were pitiful -
> outside bands on the rear deums for service brakes, expanding internal
> shoes for the parking brake - and standard procedure was to pull the
> hand beake and stop on the pedal at the same time if you REALLY needed
> to stop.
> Had a 1949VW Bug with mechanicals as well. Stopped fine after you
> figured out which way it was going to head, and corrected for it
> before putting BOTH feet into it.(mind you, it only did about 48MPH
> wide open down hill with a tail wind)
>
>
>

<snip>

I recall my father constantly being under one adjusting the brakes to
get them to pull even. Then there was the day I helped my buddy
recover a Model B from a fence row. Was on top of a steep, crooked 7
mile down grade. We discovered that it wouldn't run so we towed it to
the top of the grade and coasted down. Also found that we only had
two working brakes. One on one front wheel by the foot pedal and one
on one rear by using the 'emergency brake'. Made it by him driving
and using the foot pedal me the emergency brake.

Harry K

Harry K

On Aug 5, 5:17*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:32:15 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> comments stand.
>
> >Even though you have been proven wrong by multiple posters?
>
> I've never even commented on most of the posts. why would I? they are
> entitled to their opinions. besides the increased turnover in spare
> parts helps to keep the cost down.
>
> I was taught by a number of very high time instructors back in the
> 70's that <insert subject line here>, exactly as I posted in the
> original post.
>
> no poster has proven me wrong.
>
> brakes are brakes and they can be used for many purposes. some cause
> little wear while other uses so abuse the systems that they almost
> melt. whether you see that as a design intent is no matter to me. I
> dont care, but it seemed necessary to point out just what good
> airmanship practise was.
>
> when I put new pads on earlier this year I broke one so I actually
> have one of the pads sitting 2inches from my space bar as I type.
> I calculated that it has a surface area of no more than 1.57 square
> inches. when you brake hard in the aircraft they get fitted to you are
> using no more than 6 and a quarter square inches of pad to stop a one
> thousand five hundred pound weight aircraft.
> as for standing on the brakes sure it can be done but at some
> considerable abuse to the braking systems.
> the concept is one of half m vee squared's worth of energy being
> converted to heat by 6 or so square inches of pad.
>
> you're obviously far more conversant with the engineering than I am so
> I defer to your superior skills.
> Dont mind if I continue to get 5 or 6 years out of a set of pads
> though.
> Stealth Pilot

That brake pads wear out is no surprise. They are designed to do
that. That you can 'baby' a set long past what is considered normal
useage is also true. It doesn't make them 'not designed to do what
they are there for' though. As to be proven wrong: Read back and
follow a coule cites that have been posted.

If you want anyone to lend credance to your 'theory' - post a cite of
your own that says they aren't meant to stop planes. Claiming 'well
Joe Blow and Jjohn Doe told me that' goes exactly nowhere as proof.

Harry K

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> I was taught by a number of very high time instructors back in the
> 70's that <insert subject line here>, exactly as I posted in the
> original post.
>
> no poster has proven me wrong.

Did those high timers bother to tell you HOW you were supposed to stop
that airplane?

I would note, that when designing a system, you do just that. Design a
SYSTEM. You don't design a fast engine or safe brakes. You design a
fast airplane or a safe airplane. Those high-timers could very well be
right...for a tail skid equipped tail dragger on a grass strip. That's
the way that particular model was designed...with a particular set of
assumptions and constraints in mind. To generalize that set of
constraints/requirements to the operational characteristics of a
fast-glass airplane is just ridiculous.

At this point, no poster can prove you wrong. You are not listening to
any sort of reason, logic, or printed statements from recognized
authorities. You have decided that an over-generalization from someone
you trusted back in the 70's takes precedence above everything else.
There is no way to cure rectal asphyxiation.

Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> I was taught by a number of very high time instructors back in the
> 70's that <insert subject line here>, exactly as I posted in the
> original post.

I can't speak to powered aircraft since I only just started training in
gliders a few weeks back. But the SGS 2-33 I'm training in has a wheel
brake on its single wheel that is not used for anything but landings. It
doesn't engage until the airbrakes are fully open/deployed (pulling all the
way back on the airbrake handle engages the wheel brake.) It is not used
during taxi since no one is normally in it when the glider is towed
(airbrakes closed). It isn't used when the glider is tied down since the
airbrakes should be closed at that time also.

It is true that one doesn't always need them, but the only thing they were
designed for was for stopping the glider - not holding it in place.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:15:25 -0400, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> I was taught by a number of very high time instructors back in the
>> 70's that <insert subject line here>, exactly as I posted in the
>> original post.
>>
>> no poster has proven me wrong.
>
>Did those high timers bother to tell you HOW you were supposed to stop
>that airplane?
>

you sound very irish.
"the runways are ever so wide but my gosh they are short..."

have you ever wondered why you have a longer runway than absolutely
needed?

if you want to refute the comment quote design intents not the POH.
the POH has sections on engine fire but you arent expected to have one
every flight. same for short field technique.
I know it is subtle but you shouldnt be wearing out the aeroplane
every flight.

Stealth (thanks for keeping parts cheap) Pilot

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:45:06 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>> I was taught by a number of very high time instructors back in the
>> 70's that <insert subject line here>, exactly as I posted in the
>> original post.
>
>I can't speak to powered aircraft since I only just started training in
>gliders a few weeks back. But the SGS 2-33 I'm training in has a wheel
>brake on its single wheel that is not used for anything but landings. It
>doesn't engage until the airbrakes are fully open/deployed (pulling all the
>way back on the airbrake handle engages the wheel brake.) It is not used
>during taxi since no one is normally in it when the glider is towed
>(airbrakes closed). It isn't used when the glider is tied down since the
>airbrakes should be closed at that time also.
>
>It is true that one doesn't always need them, but the only thing they were
>designed for was for stopping the glider - not holding it in place.

I did comment that different types of aircraft often have different
design intents. I wasnt commenting on gliders.

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> I wasnt commenting on gliders.

So you apparently don't know the difference between an "aircraft" and an
"airplane", yet you wish to lecture us all on airplane design and piloting?

YOUR title: "Aircraft brakes were..."

From Part 1 FARs(General Definitions), "AIRCRAFT means a device that is used
or intended to be used for flight in the air."

So I guess you actually WERE commenting on gliders, unless you wish to
retroactively change the title of this subject thread that you yourself started.
Is there any other part of your theory that you would like to change
retroactively?

Further, have you yet bothered to read 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735? (I am
guessing not) It will give you the design criteria for brakes on certified
light airplanes. Hint: it involves stopping the aircraft.

Vaughn

On Aug 6, 5:27*am, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I wasnt commenting on gliders.
>
> * *So you apparently don't know the difference between an "aircraft" and an
> "airplane", yet you wish to lecture us all on airplane design and piloting?
>
> * *YOUR title: *"Aircraft brakes were..."
>
> * *From Part 1 FARs(General Definitions), "AIRCRAFT means a device that is used
> or intended to be used for flight in the air."
>
> * *So I guess you actually WERE commenting on gliders, unless you wish to
> retroactively change the title of this subject thread that you yourself started.
> Is there any other part of your theory that you would like to change
> retroactively?
>
> * *Further, have you yet bothered to read 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735? *(I am
> guessing not) *It will give you the design criteria for brakes on certified
> light airplanes. *Hint: *it involves stopping the aircraft.
>
> Vaughn

I suspect that he won't. He seems to be a member of the 'I knows what
I knows and don't confurse me with facts' brigade.

Harry K

Gentlemen:
Before you get so carried away with correcting another poster's
terminology, I will take this opportunity to remind you that "American
English" is not the only language used on this forum.
The same arguements you make could be used against you in other parts of
the world where "proper English" is spoken.

Don't be so quick to criticize (one of the "correct" spellings of the
word).

On Aug 5, 5:17 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> when I put new pads on earlier this year I broke one so I actually
> have one of the pads sitting 2inches from my space bar as I type.
> I calculated that it has a surface area of no more than 1.57 square
> inches. when you brake hard in the aircraft they get fitted to you are
> using no more than 6 and a quarter square inches of pad to stop a one
> thousand five hundred pound weight aircraft.
> as for standing on the brakes sure it can be done but at some
> considerable abuse to the braking systems.
> the concept is one of half m vee squared's worth of energy being
> converted to heat by 6 or so square inches of pad.

Plenty of area to stop a 1500 lb airplane. As I said before, my
4500 lb car has brake pads that are no more than three times as large
as the pads you have there, and those car brakes are used to stop the
car from 80 MPH, are used on long downhills, are used hundreds of
times every day in traffic, and so on. They're designed to do that.
The light aircraft brakes are used to hold the airplane during runup
and to stop it at the end of a taxi or landing roll, neither of which
are anywhere near as brutal as the auto's brakes have to deal with.
Many older light aircraft had pads even smaller, yet they worked
just fine. The bigger issue is heat dissipaton from the disc, since
excessive disc temperature will cause brake fade no matter how large
the pads. Kinetic energy is transformed into heat, and when the discs
are hot they can't absorb much more energy and will lose their
effectiveness. Aircraft brakes are out in the breeze and get better
cooling than car brakes.
Occasional hard braking in your airplane won't hurt the brakes
and will maybe keep the airplane out of the rhubarb. Brake pads are
cheaper than airframe damage any day.
Dan

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:14:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>
>
>On Aug 5, 5:17 am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>
>> when I put new pads on earlier this year I broke one so I actually
>> have one of the pads sitting 2inches from my space bar as I type.
>> I calculated that it has a surface area of no more than 1.57 square
>> inches. when you brake hard in the aircraft they get fitted to you are
>> using no more than 6 and a quarter square inches of pad to stop a one
>> thousand five hundred pound weight aircraft.
>> as for standing on the brakes sure it can be done but at some
>> considerable abuse to the braking systems.
>> the concept is one of half m vee squared's worth of energy being
>> converted to heat by 6 or so square inches of pad.
>
> Plenty of area to stop a 1500 lb airplane. As I said before, my
>4500 lb car has brake pads that are no more than three times as large
>as the pads you have there, and those car brakes are used to stop the
>car from 80 MPH, are used on long downhills, are used hundreds of
>times every day in traffic, and so on. They're designed to do that.

>The light aircraft brakes are used to hold the airplane during runup
>and to stop it at the end of a taxi or landing roll, neither of which
>are anywhere near as brutal as the auto's brakes have to deal with.

Dan are we separated by a common language?
the 3 lines above contain exactly the point I was making in my
original post. the brakes in a light aircraft are not intended for
decelerating an aircraft. we have runways and make use of drag for the
slowdown after landing.
I dont know whether these guys approach aviation as some sort of
outlet for egotism or what.
In my country the piloting skills taught to pilots tend to emphasise
gentle but effective control of an aircraft. that has been the case
for all the years since WW2.
slamming the brakes on during a normal landing is as frowned on as
landing on the nose wheel.
short field landings are only an occasional technique not to be used
for every landing.
I guess piloting finesse is a lost concept with the americans.
if you teach pilots to fly and land intelligently, the aircraft they
fly will last a lot longer and in better condition.
if the americans are too stupid to use any finesse in their flying at
least they arent flying in my country (or yours) and I do appreciate
them keeping the parts supply going.

the word in my country is aeroplane!
long may it remain so.
Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> the 3 lines above contain exactly the point I was making in my
> original post. the brakes in a light aircraft are not intended for
> decelerating an aircraft.

Actually you just have to read the title of this thread, because you are the
OP. What you said was light "aircraft brakes were never designed for stopping
an aircraft", and you have been shown to be dead wrong. You can read the design
requirements for USA certified light aircraft at 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735. I
am sure that the European standards are similar.

You have tried to make this thread about piloting style, but your words which
started this thread are quite different. We are discussing aircraft design, not
piloting.


Vaughn

On Aug 7, 4:57 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> slamming the brakes on during a normal landing is as frowned on as
> landing on the nose wheel.
> short field landings are only an occasional technique not to be used
> for every landing.

And that's what Cessna and Transport Canada and a whole lot of
instructors teach. You had insisted that brakes were only for holding
and airplane that's already motionless, and that's not true at all. We
could use simple axle locks for that, similar to the Park lock on an
automatic transmission, not heat-creating friction brakes.

Dan

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:11:20 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> the 3 lines above contain exactly the point I was making in my
>> original post. the brakes in a light aircraft are not intended for
>> decelerating an aircraft.
>
> Actually you just have to read the title of this thread, because you are the
>OP. What you said was light "aircraft brakes were never designed for stopping
>an aircraft", and you have been shown to be dead wrong. You can read the design
>requirements for USA certified light aircraft at 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735. I
>am sure that the European standards are similar.
>
> You have tried to make this thread about piloting style, but your words which
>started this thread are quite different. We are discussing aircraft design, not
>piloting.
>
>
>Vaughn
>

what you discuss is entirely up to you.

my comment is that it is bad piloting technique to stop an aircraft on
landing using the tiny brakes. it is better to use aerodynamic forces
and the runway length to stop the aircraft.

dan was waxing eloquent about stamping on the brakes on landing and I
thought that his comments were a little amiss. poor technique in fact
given the small size of the brakes involved.
read into that whatever you will.

btw wtf is 14 CFR etc etc ??
....never mind we'll have to agree to disagree.
Stealth Pilot

On Aug 10, 5:26*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:11:20 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> the 3 lines above contain exactly the point I was making in my
> >> original post. the brakes in a light aircraft are not intended for
> >> decelerating an aircraft.
>
> > * Actually you just have to read the title of this thread, because you are the
> >OP. *What you said was light "aircraft brakes were never designed for stopping
> >an aircraft", and you have been shown to be dead wrong. *You can read the design
> >requirements for USA certified light aircraft at 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735. *I
> >am sure that the European standards are similar.
>
> > * You have tried to make this thread about piloting style, but your words which
> >started this thread are quite different. *We are discussing aircraft design, not
> >piloting.
>
> >Vaughn
>
> what you discuss is entirely up to you.
>
> my comment is that it is bad piloting technique to stop an aircraft on
> landing using the tiny brakes. it is better to use aerodynamic forces
> and the runway length to stop the aircraft.
>
> dan was waxing eloquent about stamping on the brakes on landing and I
> thought that his comments were a little amiss. poor technique in fact
> given the small size of the brakes involved.
> read into that whatever you will.
>
> btw wtf is 14 CFR etc etc ??
> ...never mind we'll have to agree to disagree.
> Stealth Pilot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You have the option of disagreeing with 99% of the people who know
what brakes are for. Don't hold your breath waiting for someone to
agree with your cockamamie theory.

Harry K

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> btw wtf is 14 CFR etc etc ??

So you haven't bothered to educate yourself? I thought not.

Actually, I have told you what it is. The relevant passage can be on your
screen seconds from now. Google is your friend.

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> btw wtf is 14 CFR etc etc ??
>
> So you haven't bothered to educate yourself? I thought not.
>
> Actually, I have told you what it is. The relevant passage can be on
> your screen seconds from now. Google is your friend.
>

Well, he is from a place where the U.S. C.F.R. doesn't apply. But then, a
significant percentage of the aircraft in the world were designed with
those regulations in mind...

Of course, now he is claiming it isn't a design issue, but a good piloting
style issue - contrary to what was originally written.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:26:19 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>my comment is that it is bad piloting technique to stop an aircraft on
>landing using the tiny brakes. it is better to use aerodynamic forces
>and the runway length to stop the aircraft.

I've seldom had the pleasure to read bull**** of such a magnitude on
the internet yet.

Congratulations! You made my day!


Bye
Andreas

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Stealth Pilot > wrote:

>> aircraft brakes were designed for use in holding the aircraft still
>> while the engine was started. after the taxy out and the engine has
>> warmed you do a run up check to make sure that the magneto circuits
>> are up to the bit of work that lies ahead for them. the brakes are
>> applied to hold the aircraft while the revs are bought up and each
>> maggy checked in turn.
>>
>> from a design aspect that is the end of the use of a light aircraft's
>> brakes until after landing and we wish to hold the aircraft still for
>> shutdown and disembarkation.
>>
>> of course brakes are brakes and people will use them like they were
>> driving cars. light aircraft brakes were never designed for slowing an
>> aircraft when landing.
>> I know that they get used for that by students of bad piloting
>> technique but the design intent is a fact borne out by their
>> diminutive size.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> Nonsense: complete and utter.
>
> What aircraft brakes aren't designed for is stopping aircraft
> *repeatedly*.
>
> The chief advantage of putting larger brakes on any vehicle is that it
> providess a greater heat sink to allow for more braking before the
> brakes overheat.
>
> Aircraft brakes need to be able to stop an aircraft *once* and then have
> an essentially infinite amount of time to cool down again.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>


Right. Almost. Maybe.....

My Stinson has 9 inch diameter drum brakes and has lots of
area on the brakes, but low pressure applied. It uses a largish
master cylinder to pump fluid into an "expander tube" under the
brake shoes inside the drum.

They work great for holding the airplane for runup and are essential
for ground handling and taxiing because the tailwheel is a swivel and in not
connected to anything that could allow it to be used for
steering. As a result, all steering is by differential braking.

You can apply the brakes on the landing roll and it will quickly slow the
airplane. However, if you do so, you may not be able to
leave the runway. Rubbing all that shoe area inside the drum makes
it quite hot inside the drum. My little infrared laser guided remote
reading thermometer gives temperatures in the 400 to 600 degree
range. It takes a while to dissipate that heat from inside the drum
and until it does the brake fluid inside the "expander tube" gets quite
warm. When it does it expands and the brakes tend to remain quite
"ON" until things cool down.

Even a long and complicated taxi, like into a parking spot at Oshkosh, will
generally result in a noticeable loss of "differential"
in the braking activity and a substantial increase in the power
required to taxi. I have found that it is wise to NOT attempt a
takeoff if it requires over 1000 RPM to maintain a reasonable taxi
speed. :-)

Of course, this airplane weighs generally two tons and lands at 70 mph at
touchdown in a three point attitude. :-)

The general limiting factor in ALL aircraft brakes is heat dissipation. The
wheels are relatively small and the brakes are
in a small space. The more effective the brakes are, the more heat
they produce. All that energy they are dissipating when they slow
you down has to go somewhere. Thermodynamics tells us that most
wasted energy appears as heat! Randomized molecular activity. :-)
To stop the airplane you have to waste the energy. 1/2 M V^2.
You can't get around it.

Fortunately, a taildragger with the flaps down and the tail on the
ground takes a LOT of energy to keep moving, so you can waste a
lot of the energy you have to get rid of by stirring up the air. Then
apply the brakes to turn off the runway after you have slowed down
without them.

FWIW Department. You scrape a lot more rubber off you tires by
landing and applying brakes vigorously while little weight is on
the wheels than you would in many many miles of taxiing around or
rolling out with the brakes off! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport (PJY)

In article >, "Highflyer" >
wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
> >> aircraft brakes were designed for use in holding the aircraft still
> >> while the engine was started. after the taxy out and the engine has
> >> warmed you do a run up check to make sure that the magneto circuits
> >> are up to the bit of work that lies ahead for them. the brakes are
> >> applied to hold the aircraft while the revs are bought up and each
> >> maggy checked in turn.
> >>
> >> from a design aspect that is the end of the use of a light aircraft's
> >> brakes until after landing and we wish to hold the aircraft still for
> >> shutdown and disembarkation.
> >>
> >> of course brakes are brakes and people will use them like they were
> >> driving cars. light aircraft brakes were never designed for slowing an
> >> aircraft when landing.
> >> I know that they get used for that by students of bad piloting
> >> technique but the design intent is a fact borne out by their
> >> diminutive size.
> >>
> >> Stealth Pilot
> >
> > Nonsense: complete and utter.
> >
> > What aircraft brakes aren't designed for is stopping aircraft
> > *repeatedly*.
> >
> > The chief advantage of putting larger brakes on any vehicle is that it
> > providess a greater heat sink to allow for more braking before the
> > brakes overheat.
> >
> > Aircraft brakes need to be able to stop an aircraft *once* and then have
> > an essentially infinite amount of time to cool down again.
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
>
>
> Right. Almost. Maybe.....
>
> My Stinson has 9 inch diameter drum brakes and has lots of
> area on the brakes, but low pressure applied. It uses a largish
> master cylinder to pump fluid into an "expander tube" under the
> brake shoes inside the drum.
>
> They work great for holding the airplane for runup and are essential
> for ground handling and taxiing because the tailwheel is a swivel and in not
> connected to anything that could allow it to be used for
> steering. As a result, all steering is by differential braking.
>
> You can apply the brakes on the landing roll and it will quickly slow the
> airplane. However, if you do so, you may not be able to
> leave the runway. Rubbing all that shoe area inside the drum makes
> it quite hot inside the drum. My little infrared laser guided remote
> reading thermometer gives temperatures in the 400 to 600 degree
> range. It takes a while to dissipate that heat from inside the drum
> and until it does the brake fluid inside the "expander tube" gets quite
> warm. When it does it expands and the brakes tend to remain quite
> "ON" until things cool down.

Wow. This is so wrong.

The expander tube expands because when you push on the brake pedals you
force fluid into it. If that fluid is heated, it will try to expand but
since the pressure in the system is determined by your feet on the
pedals, what will happen is that the pedals will push back on your feet.
If you don't push any harder, they will move back until the reduction in
pressure once again balances the system. If that moves the pedals all
the way back to the stops, then the orifice to the reservoir will open
and fluid will get pushed back into it.

>
> Even a long and complicated taxi, like into a parking spot at Oshkosh, will
> generally result in a noticeable loss of "differential"
> in the braking activity and a substantial increase in the power
> required to taxi. I have found that it is wise to NOT attempt a
> takeoff if it requires over 1000 RPM to maintain a reasonable taxi
> speed. :-)

Then I suggest that there is something wrong with your brakes...

>
> Of course, this airplane weighs generally two tons and lands at 70 mph at
> touchdown in a three point attitude. :-)

Ummm... What model Stinson weighs two tons? You're not claiming you fly
a Stinson Reliant, are you?

>
> The general limiting factor in ALL aircraft brakes is heat dissipation. The
> wheels are relatively small and the brakes are
> in a small space. The more effective the brakes are, the more heat
> they produce. All that energy they are dissipating when they slow
> you down has to go somewhere. Thermodynamics tells us that most
> wasted energy appears as heat! Randomized molecular activity. :-)
> To stop the airplane you have to waste the energy. 1/2 M V^2.
> You can't get around it.

And you don't have to. The kinetic energy of a 1,000kg light aircraft at
a landing speed of 27.8 m/s is 1/2 mv^2 = 386420 Joules

The specific heat of steel is 500 Joules per kg*K (degrees Kelvin).

So if you have two brakes weigh -- say -- 10kg each, then the rise in
temperature (dT) is

386420 = 20(dT)(500); dT = 386420/10000 = 38.64 K degrees. Even if the
brakes weigh a half of my estimate, the temperature rise is still only
77 K, or 139 F.

>
> Fortunately, a taildragger with the flaps down and the tail on the
> ground takes a LOT of energy to keep moving, so you can waste a
> lot of the energy you have to get rid of by stirring up the air. Then
> apply the brakes to turn off the runway after you have slowed down
> without them.

Sorry, but you won't stop a Stinson in 290 feet on aerodynamic drag
alone.

>
> FWIW Department. You scrape a lot more rubber off you tires by
> landing and applying brakes vigorously while little weight is on
> the wheels than you would in many many miles of taxiing around or
> rolling out with the brakes off! :-)

You only scrape off much rubber if you brake close to the threshold of
adhesion.

>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport (PJY)

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

On Nov 8, 3:01*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article >, "Highflyer" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > In article >,
> > > Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
> > >> aircraft brakes were designed for use in holding the aircraft still
> > >> while the engine was started. after the taxy out and the engine has
> > >> warmed you do a run up check to make sure that the magneto circuits
> > >> are up to the bit of work that lies ahead for them. the brakes are
> > >> applied to hold the aircraft while the revs are bought up and each
> > >> maggy checked in turn.
>
> > >> from a design aspect that is the end of the use of a light aircraft's
> > >> brakes until after landing and we wish to hold the aircraft still for
> > >> shutdown and disembarkation.
>
> > >> of course brakes are brakes and people will use them like they were
> > >> driving cars. light aircraft brakes were never designed for slowing an
> > >> aircraft when landing.
> > >> I know that they get used for that by students of bad piloting
> > >> technique but the design intent is a fact borne out by their
> > >> diminutive size.
>
> > >> Stealth Pilot
>
> > > Nonsense: complete and utter.
>
> > > What aircraft brakes aren't designed for is stopping aircraft
> > > *repeatedly*.
>
> > > The chief advantage of putting larger brakes on any vehicle is that it
> > > providess a greater heat sink to allow for more braking before the
> > > brakes overheat.
>
> > > Aircraft brakes need to be able to stop an aircraft *once* and then have
> > > an essentially infinite amount of time to cool down again.
>
> > > --
> > > Alan Baker
> > > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
>
> > Right. *Almost. *Maybe.....
>
> > My Stinson has 9 inch diameter drum brakes and has lots of
> > area on the brakes, but low pressure applied. *It uses a largish
> > master cylinder to pump fluid into an "expander tube" under the
> > brake shoes inside the drum.
>
> > They work great for holding the airplane for runup and are essential
> > for ground handling and taxiing because the tailwheel is a swivel and in not
> > connected to anything that could allow it to be used for
> > steering. *As a result, all steering is by differential braking.
>
> > You can apply the brakes on the landing roll and it will quickly slow the
> > airplane. *However, if you do so, you may not be able to
> > leave the runway. *Rubbing all that shoe area inside the drum makes
> > it quite hot inside the drum. * My little infrared laser guided remote
> > reading thermometer gives temperatures in the 400 to 600 degree
> > range. * It takes a while to dissipate that heat from inside the drum
> > and until it does the brake fluid inside the "expander tube" gets quite
> > warm. *When it does it expands and the brakes tend to remain quite
> > "ON" until things cool down.
>
> Wow. This is so wrong.
>
> The expander tube expands because when you push on the brake pedals you
> force fluid into it. If that fluid is heated, it will try to expand but
> since the pressure in the system is determined by your feet on the
> pedals, what will happen is that the pedals will push back on your feet.
> If you don't push any harder, they will move back until the reduction in
> pressure once again balances the system. If that moves the pedals all
> the way back to the stops, then the orifice to the reservoir will open
> and fluid will get pushed back into it.
>
>
>
> > Even a long and complicated taxi, like into a parking spot at Oshkosh, will
> > generally result in a noticeable loss of "differential"
> > in the braking activity and a substantial increase in the power
> > required to taxi. * I have found that it is wise to NOT attempt a
> > takeoff if it requires over 1000 RPM to maintain a reasonable taxi
> > speed. :-)
>
> Then I suggest that there is something wrong with your brakes...
>
>
>
> > Of course, this airplane weighs generally two tons and lands at 70 mph at
> > touchdown in a three point attitude. :-)
>
> Ummm... What model Stinson weighs two tons? You're not claiming you fly
> a Stinson Reliant, are you?
>
>
>
> > The general limiting factor in ALL aircraft brakes is heat dissipation. *The
> > wheels are relatively small and the brakes are
> > in a small space. *The more effective the brakes are, the more heat
> > they produce. * All that energy they are dissipating when they slow
> > you down has to go somewhere. *Thermodynamics tells us that most
> > wasted energy appears as heat! *Randomized molecular activity. :-)
> > To stop the airplane you have to waste the energy. *1/2 M V^2.
> > You can't get around it.
>
> And you don't have to. The kinetic energy of a 1,000kg light aircraft at
> a landing speed of 27.8 m/s is 1/2 mv^2 = 386420 Joules
>
> The specific heat of steel is 500 Joules per kg*K (degrees Kelvin).
>
> So if you have two brakes weigh -- say -- 10kg each, then the rise in
> temperature (dT) is
>
> 386420 = 20(dT)(500); dT = 386420/10000 = 38.64 K degrees. Even if the
> brakes weigh a half of my estimate, the temperature rise is still only
> 77 K, or 139 F.
>
>
>
> > Fortunately, a taildragger with the flaps down and the tail on the
> > ground takes a LOT of energy to keep moving, so you can waste a
> > lot of the energy you have to get rid of by stirring up the air. *Then
> > apply the brakes to turn off the runway after you have slowed down
> > without them.
>
> Sorry, but you won't stop a Stinson in 290 feet on aerodynamic drag
> alone.
>
>
>
> > FWIW Department. *You scrape a lot more rubber off you tires by
> > landing and applying brakes vigorously while little weight is on
> > the wheels than you would in many many miles of taxiing around or
> > rolling out with the brakes off! *:-)
>
> You only scrape off much rubber if you brake close to the threshold of
> adhesion.
>
>
>
> > Highflyer
> > Highflight Aviation Services
> > Pinckneyville Airport (PJY)
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

Seems to me that the old Goodyear bladder brakes had an
expander tube and a diaphragm-type master. There was no reservoir, so
no relief hole. I think the system was filled up completely and
plugged. Any expansion of the fluid due to heat would cause some brake
drag.
As for the physics, you might have those numbers right--I
wouldn't know; I'm no physicist---but those discs are going to be much
too hot to touch. Even just maneuvering on the ramp can heat them
considerably. Shoot, just dragging them a few hundred feet while
taxiing can ruin them. I regularly see discs damaged from welding of
the semi-metallic lining due to excessive heat.

Dan

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:55:23 -0600, "Highflyer" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
>>> aircraft brakes were designed for use in holding the aircraft still
>>> while the engine was started. after the taxy out and the engine has
>>> warmed you do a run up check to make sure that the magneto circuits
>>> are up to the bit of work that lies ahead for them. the brakes are
>>> applied to hold the aircraft while the revs are bought up and each
>>> maggy checked in turn.
>>>
>>> from a design aspect that is the end of the use of a light aircraft's
>>> brakes until after landing and we wish to hold the aircraft still for
>>> shutdown and disembarkation.
>>>
>>> of course brakes are brakes and people will use them like they were
>>> driving cars. light aircraft brakes were never designed for slowing an
>>> aircraft when landing.
>>> I know that they get used for that by students of bad piloting
>>> technique but the design intent is a fact borne out by their
>>> diminutive size.
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>> Nonsense: complete and utter.
>>
>> What aircraft brakes aren't designed for is stopping aircraft
>> *repeatedly*.
>>
>> The chief advantage of putting larger brakes on any vehicle is that it
>> providess a greater heat sink to allow for more braking before the
>> brakes overheat.
>>
>> Aircraft brakes need to be able to stop an aircraft *once* and then have
>> an essentially infinite amount of time to cool down again.
>>
>> --
>> Alan Baker
>> Vancouver, British Columbia
>> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
>
>
>Right. Almost. Maybe.....
>
>My Stinson has 9 inch diameter drum brakes and has lots of
>area on the brakes, but low pressure applied. It uses a largish
>master cylinder to pump fluid into an "expander tube" under the
>brake shoes inside the drum.
>
>They work great for holding the airplane for runup and are essential
>for ground handling and taxiing because the tailwheel is a swivel and in not
>connected to anything that could allow it to be used for
>steering. As a result, all steering is by differential braking.
>
>You can apply the brakes on the landing roll and it will quickly slow the
>airplane. However, if you do so, you may not be able to
>leave the runway. Rubbing all that shoe area inside the drum makes
>it quite hot inside the drum. My little infrared laser guided remote
>reading thermometer gives temperatures in the 400 to 600 degree
>range. It takes a while to dissipate that heat from inside the drum
>and until it does the brake fluid inside the "expander tube" gets quite
>warm. When it does it expands and the brakes tend to remain quite
>"ON" until things cool down.
>
>Even a long and complicated taxi, like into a parking spot at Oshkosh, will
>generally result in a noticeable loss of "differential"
>in the braking activity and a substantial increase in the power
>required to taxi. I have found that it is wise to NOT attempt a
>takeoff if it requires over 1000 RPM to maintain a reasonable taxi
>speed. :-)

At about 2300 or so RPM the Deb will happily accelerate with the
brakes locked and the tires skidding. Once it starts to skid it feels
just like it hit ice as the rubber begins to melt/vaporize.

>
>Of course, this airplane weighs generally two tons and lands at 70 mph at
>touchdown in a three point attitude. :-)
>
Man, but that's fast!. <:-))
The old Deb comes down final at 80 MPH minus 1 MPH for each 100 under
gross. With me and half fuel, final is about 73 MPH. touchdown?
Gotta be in the 40 MPH range. Those big flaps slow it quickly.
Course it only weighs a ton and a half so you're hauling the
equivalent of the entire useful load of the Deb on top of the Deb's
gross.<:-))

>The general limiting factor in ALL aircraft brakes is heat dissipation. The
>wheels are relatively small and the brakes are
>in a small space. The more effective the brakes are, the more heat
>they produce. All that energy they are dissipating when they slow
>you down has to go somewhere. Thermodynamics tells us that most
>wasted energy appears as heat! Randomized molecular activity. :-)
>To stop the airplane you have to waste the energy. 1/2 M V^2.
>You can't get around it.

Those big Cleveland's will fade if they get a lot of use, but it's
rare to ever use them that much. Even after a short field, with
maximum effort they still work. You can lock them up, but after that
the taxi gets kinda bumpy.

Steep final into the round out, firm touch down on the mains,
immediately let the nose down, get on the brakes, and go full up
elevator if the brakes will keep the nose gear down. The aerodynamic
braking with that big wing and tail is very effective giving it the
ability to stop shorter than many 172s (book figures)

I'm certainly not that proficient at present.


>
>Fortunately, a taildragger with the flaps down and the tail on the
>ground takes a LOT of energy to keep moving, so you can waste a
>lot of the energy you have to get rid of by stirring up the air. Then
>apply the brakes to turn off the runway after you have slowed down
>without them.
>
>FWIW Department. You scrape a lot more rubber off you tires by
>landing and applying brakes vigorously while little weight is on
>the wheels than you would in many many miles of taxiing around or
>rolling out with the brakes off! :-)
>
>Highflyer
>Highflight Aviation Services
>Pinckneyville Airport (PJY)
>
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com