Tire inflation pressure

[Paul Lee]

What is the proper pressure to use with 5.00-5 mains and 10x3.50-4 nose
for a 2250 gross canard plane?

Another related question: both mains tend to loose air slowly - would
be flat after about 3 months sitting. Is this typical or should I get
new tubes?

----------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

[Del Rawlins]

On 06 Nov 2003 06:51 PM, Paul Lee posted the following:
> What is the proper pressure to use with 5.00-5 mains and 10x3.50-4
> nose for a 2250 gross canard plane?
>
> Another related question: both mains tend to loose air slowly - would
> be flat after about 3 months sitting. Is this typical or should I get
> new tubes?

Try new valve cores.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[REEI2002]

Try Nitrogen instead of air, aviation type rubber tubes leak molecular air.
Nitrogen molecules are larger.

[Del Rawlins]

On 06 Nov 2003 09:07 PM, REEI2002 posted the following:
> Try Nitrogen instead of air, aviation type rubber tubes leak molecular
> air. Nitrogen molecules are larger.

Atmospheric air is mostly nitrogen.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[John E. Carty]

"REEI2002" > wrote in message
...
> Try Nitrogen instead of air, aviation type rubber tubes leak molecular
air.
> Nitrogen molecules are larger.

Considering air is 77% Nitrogen, how much difference does this really make
when it comes to seepage of this kind? :-)

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:05:24 GMT, "John E. Carty"
> wrote:

:
:"REEI2002" > wrote in message
...
:> Try Nitrogen instead of air, aviation type rubber tubes leak molecular
:air.
:> Nitrogen molecules are larger.
:
:Considering air is 77% Nitrogen, how much difference does this really make
:when it comes to seepage of this kind? :-)

And almost all the rest - Oxygen (21%, atomic weight 32) and Argon
(.94%, atomic weight 40) and Carbon Dioxide (.03%, atomic weight 38)
have larger molecules than Nitrogen (atomic weight, 28)

[B. B.]

>
>> Another related question: both mains tend to loose air slowly - would
>> be flat after about 3 months sitting. Is this typical or should I get
>> new tubes?
>
>Try new valve cores.
>
>Del Rawlins-
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Wish I could go as long as 3 months.

I've been informed that AIRCRAFT tubes
are manufactured from GENUINE RUBBER.....
and are porous by their very nature.

I've also been told Michelin tubes leak the least.
Dunno, but wouldn't bet the farm on this rumor.
They_ARE_ expensive.

Try the valve cores, but chances of BOTH
being the cause of you problem is slim to none.
If it doesn't help, at least it's a cheap education.


Barnyard BOb --
Over 50 years of successful flight...
Eat your heart out, BEN HASS. <---<<<

[Whunicut]

>What is the proper pressure to use with 5.00-5 mains and 10x3.50-4 nose
>for a 2250 gross canard plane?
>
>Another related question: both mains tend to loose air slowly - would
>be flat after about 3 months sitting. Is this typical or should I get
>new tubes?
>
>-------------------------------------------------

1. Blow `em up until the sidewalls come off the ground.
2. Go to Home Depot and get some garden tractor/riding mower tubes. Use the
old tubes for your rubber band gun.

Warren,
59 years of dicking around planes.

[Ron Natalie]

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message ...
>
> "REEI2002" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Try Nitrogen instead of air, aviation type rubber tubes leak molecular
> air.
> > Nitrogen molecules are larger.
>
> Considering air is 77% Nitrogen, how much difference does this really make
> when it comes to seepage of this kind? :-)

And Oxygen, the next largest component (almost 21%) is even larger. Then
you get down to Argon at 1% (which is bigger yet).

Unless you were previously filling your tires with helium, there isn't much to be gained
on diffusion by this change.

[Paul Lee]

Yeah... By now after two years, most oxygen molecules should
have leaked out and should have 99% nitro.

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message >...
> "REEI2002" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Try Nitrogen instead of air, aviation type rubber tubes leak molecular
> air.
> > Nitrogen molecules are larger.
>
> Considering air is 77% Nitrogen, how much difference does this really make
> when it comes to seepage of this kind? :-)

[Paul Lee]

Thanks for the leakage comments... but anybody know about the
proper tire pressure? Or is that a mystery?

(Paul Lee) wrote in message >...
> What is the proper pressure to use with 5.00-5 mains and 10x3.50-4 nose
> for a 2250 gross canard plane?
>
> Another related question: both mains tend to loose air slowly - would
> be flat after about 3 months sitting. Is this typical or should I get
> new tubes?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

[Eric Miller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unless you were previously filling your tires with helium, there isn't
much to be gained
> on diffusion by this change.

But using helium filled tires ensures squeaky landings!
I suppose you can use grease filled tires too, but it's a lot heavier and
not good for the rubber.

=D

Eric

[anon]

(Paul Lee) wrote:

>Thanks for the leakage comments... but anybody know about the
>proper tire pressure? Or is that a mystery?

45 psi for mains and 55 psi for the nose. Use six ply tires for the
mains. Check pressure 12+ hours after initial inflation and add air
if necessary. After that, pressure loss will be due to
leakage/diffusion.

The 70 psi nose tire pressure suggested by another poster is not only
needlessly high but is over the maximum pressure specification for
most 10x3.50-4 tires (1). Another poster's comment to "blow 'em up
until the sidewalls come off the ground" is, of course, idiotic.

Tire And Rim Association tire pressure chart:
http://www.desser.com/pressurechart.html

- anon

1: The ply rating is an indication of tire strength and does not
necessarily specify the actual number of carcass plies within the
tire. The term is used to identify the maximum rated static load
capability and corresponding inflation pressure applicable to specific
operational requirements.

[Jimmy Cash]

Losing pressure in your tires is normal. This occurs because we are stuck
in the 50's and still using natural rubber instead of synthetic rubber. You
will notice that they deflate at the same rate.

Jimmy
"Paul Lee" > wrote in message
om...
> What is the proper pressure to use with 5.00-5 mains and 10x3.50-4 nose
> for a 2250 gross canard plane?
>
> Another related question: both mains tend to loose air slowly - would
> be flat after about 3 months sitting. Is this typical or should I get
> new tubes?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Another poster's comment to "blow 'em up
>until the sidewalls come off the ground" is, of course, idiotic.

>- anon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don't be such a tight ass, anon.
This was an OBVIOUS harmless joke..
except for the part recommending
going to Home Depot for tubes.

That sir, has been the best advice so far for
experimental aircraft. The recommended lawn
and garden tubes, if installed correctly, will NOT leak
and are affordable.

Better and cheaper.
Can't beat that.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[VideoFlyer]

45 lbs??? 55 lbs for the nose gear??? That seems awfully high. Those tires
will be hard as a rock. I guess I'd prefer a little softer tire to land on. I
rarely put in more than about 15 to 20 lbs. 5 lbs will "get the sidewall off
the ground."

[Larry Smith]

"Whunicut" > wrote in message
...
> >What is the proper pressure to use with 5.00-5 mains and 10x3.50-4 nose
> >for a 2250 gross canard plane?
> >
> >Another related question: both mains tend to loose air slowly - would
> >be flat after about 3 months sitting. Is this typical or should I get
> >new tubes?
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Blow `em up until the sidewalls come off the ground.
> 2. Go to Home Depot and get some garden tractor/riding mower tubes. Use
the
> old tubes for your rubber band gun.
>
> Warren,
> 59 years of dicking around planes.

And bless you too. Why, Sir, that makes you the honored alpha male most
beloved curmudgeon here. We got one who's been dickin' around for 50, so
you got him beat. Besides, he don't seem to be building anything much
nowadays like you are, just lobbing laurels on Lycoming and railing at the
autoaero engine guys. Still kinda beloved though. Then we got the alpha
female curmuffie, Syd the Snowbuzzard. She's currently discommoded by radio
noise, but soon the agony will be abated once Weird gets it figgered out.

[[email protected]]

Use 8 ply tires for the mains, they're only a couple of bucks more.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:49:18 -0500, anon > wrote:

(Paul Lee) wrote:
:
:>Thanks for the leakage comments... but anybody know about the
:>proper tire pressure? Or is that a mystery?
:
:45 psi for mains and 55 psi for the nose. Use six ply tires for the
:mains. Check pressure 12+ hours after initial inflation and add air
:if necessary. After that, pressure loss will be due to
:leakage/diffusion.
:
:The 70 psi nose tire pressure suggested by another poster is not only
:needlessly high but is over the maximum pressure specification for
:most 10x3.50-4 tires (1). Another poster's comment to "blow 'em up
:until the sidewalls come off the ground" is, of course, idiotic.
:
:Tire And Rim Association tire pressure chart:
:http://www.desser.com/pressurechart.html
:
:- anon
:
:1: The ply rating is an indication of tire strength and does not
:necessarily specify the actual number of carcass plies within the
:tire. The term is used to identify the maximum rated static load
:capability and corresponding inflation pressure applicable to specific
:operational requirements.

[James Lloyd]

I put 8 ply recaps on my Ercoupe once and it raised the plane about an
in. off the ground and even with no air in the tire,it would not go
flat.It did give me more prop clearance but a rough ride.I just did it
because my buddy told me that I would not have to worry about flats any
more and I have been alone on some strips with no help and had to put a
bunch of rags in the tire to get home.Not legal but it worked and I will
deny it later(smile)

[anon]

(VideoFlyer) wrote:

>45 lbs??? 55 lbs for the nose gear??? That seems awfully high. Those tires
>will be hard as a rock. I guess I'd prefer a little softer tire to land on. I
>rarely put in more than about 15 to 20 lbs. 5 lbs will "get the sidewall off
>the ground."

You obviously don't have experience with 5.00-5 tires on a 2,250 lb
gross weight canard aircraft or you wouldn't be spewing such
ignorance. The pressures I gave are correct for the tires, weight,
and configuration. 15 to 20 psi 5.00-5 tires would be grossly under
inflated on that airplane. The nose tire inflation of 55 psi is also
correct. Think before you post, people.

- anon

[anon]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:

>Don't be such a tight ass, anon.

Pot...kettle...black.

- anon

[*Barnyard BOb*]

>Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:
>
>>Don't be such a tight ass, anon.
>
>Pot...kettle...black.
>
>- anon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My ass isn't so tight that I must remain anonymous.

I can't imagine anyone having to resort to your
cowardice or fear ****ing down their own pant leg
over anything so inconsequential.

Pitiful.
Pitiful.
Pitiful.
What a spineless pussy you be.


Barnyard BOb --
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog...
and George Carlin humor.

[Whunicut]

> Another poster's comment to "blow 'em up
>until the sidewalls come off the ground" is, of course, idiotic.

Hmmm, frivolous and a bad joke maybe but idiotic??
You remind me of the guy that came over to the hangar looking for an air
bottle. When I handed him a bicycle pump, he wanted to know how it clamped onto
the valve stem. Then proceeded to tell me what pressures to use on the
oxy-acytelene tanks.
You cant find your ass with both hands but you are first in line to tell
everybody else how to do it.
Soooo, screw you, you pompous, arrogant, anonymous coward, net-nazi.

Warren,
WWII, Korea and
The Battle of Norfolk

[Whunicut]

> Why, Sir, that makes you the honored alpha male most
>beloved curmudgeon here. We got one who's been dickin' around for 50, so
>you got him beat.

Donno if thats something to be proud of or not.
Time seems to speed up as you get older and birthdays come as an unwelcome
surprise.
If Ol Doc Plemmons passes my physical in a couple years, I`ll be close to
Joining Gene W as an Octogenarian pilot.
Scary.

Warren,
Look out below!

[anon]

*Barnyard BOb* > wrote:

>My ass isn't so tight that I must remain anonymous.

If you want to publicly recommend specific tire pressures for a
specific experimental airplane type and expose your assets to possible
litigation for as long as Google archives the message then have at it.
For me, a nom de plume was the only way it was going to happen. This
limits my exposure to about 1/2 year.

- anon

[anon]

(Whunicut) wrote:

>> Another poster's comment to "blow 'em up
>>until the sidewalls come off the ground" is, of course, idiotic.

>Hmmm, frivolous and a bad joke maybe but idiotic??

Yes, idiotic.

- anon

[Ben Haas]

Hey, that BOb is sooooo happy he is using my name ....I will post the
thread where BOb got honest with us about 50 years of accident free
flight.It is titled HI VIS Paint, For your reading pleasure and a good
laugh read the whole thread to see BOb unravel and back peddle. I
cannot wait to see what new heading he will use with my name in it.
<G>.....
B. B. > wrote in message >...
> >
> >> Another related question: both mains tend to loose air slowly - would
> >> be flat after about 3 months sitting. Is this typical or should I get
> >> new tubes?
> >
> >Try new valve cores.
> >
> >Del Rawlins-
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Wish I could go as long as 3 months.
>
> I've been informed that AIRCRAFT tubes
> are manufactured from GENUINE RUBBER.....
> and are porous by their very nature.
>
> I've also been told Michelin tubes leak the least.
> Dunno, but wouldn't bet the farm on this rumor.
> They_ARE_ expensive.
>
> Try the valve cores, but chances of BOTH
> being the cause of you problem is slim to none.
> If it doesn't help, at least it's a cheap education.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
> Over 50 years of successful flight...
> Eat your heart out, BEN HASS. <---<<<

[Peter Dohm]

anon wrote:
>
> (Whunicut) wrote:
>
> >> Another poster's comment to "blow 'em up
> >>until the sidewalls come off the ground" is, of course, idiotic.
>
> >Hmmm, frivolous and a bad joke maybe but idiotic??
>
> Yes, idiotic.
>
> - anon

n o t n e c e s s a r i l y

Trivial in this case, as the tires were not alleged to have gone flat.
However, it is a frequently employed method to protect the wheels, and
sometimes the tires, while the parts (tubes in this case) are obtained.

IIRC, no assertion was made that this was an adiquate temporary service
for flight, or even ground operation.

Peter

[Mark Hickey]

anon > wrote:

(VideoFlyer) wrote:
>
>>45 lbs??? 55 lbs for the nose gear??? That seems awfully high. Those tires
>>will be hard as a rock. I guess I'd prefer a little softer tire to land on. I
>>rarely put in more than about 15 to 20 lbs. 5 lbs will "get the sidewall off
>>the ground."
>
>You obviously don't have experience with 5.00-5 tires on a 2,250 lb
>gross weight canard aircraft or you wouldn't be spewing such
>ignorance. The pressures I gave are correct for the tires, weight,
>and configuration. 15 to 20 psi 5.00-5 tires would be grossly under
>inflated on that airplane. The nose tire inflation of 55 psi is also
>correct. Think before you post, people.

Consider that a pneumatic tire supports the weight by the air pressure
that's in it - and that the contact patch of the tire is approximately
the weight on the tire in pounds divided by the pressure in psi. That
means on the hypothetical plane above (2,250 pounds, 15psi), the
contact patch (total) for the three tires would be around 150 square
inches. That's 50 square inches per tire, which on a 5.00 tire is
otherwise known as "a flat".

Mark Hickey

[anon]

Peter Dohm > wrote:

>n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
>
>Trivial in this case, as the tires were not alleged to have gone flat.
>However, it is a frequently employed method to protect the wheels, and
>sometimes the tires, while the parts (tubes in this case) are obtained.
>
>IIRC, no assertion was made that this was an adiquate temporary service
>for flight, or even ground operation.
>
>Peter

My bad. I incorrectly assumed that his #1 response was his reply to
the first question about correct tire pressures and his #2 response
was his reply to the second question about flat tires. His reply
makes perfect sense now that I realize, thanks to you, that both
answers were in response to the flat tire question. Apologies to all
concerned. My pressure recommendations stand. I will now slither
back under my rock.

- anon

[anon]

Mark Hickey > wrote:


>Consider that a pneumatic tire supports the weight by the air pressure
>that's in it - and that the contact patch of the tire is approximately
>the weight on the tire in pounds divided by the pressure in psi. That
>means on the hypothetical plane above (2,250 pounds, 15psi), the
>contact patch (total) for the three tires would be around 150 square
>inches. That's 50 square inches per tire, which on a 5.00 tire is
>otherwise known as "a flat".
>
>Mark Hickey

Agreed. More accurately, however, for this airplane there would be
about 1000 lb on each main at gross weight which, as you note, would
result in very flat 5.00-5 tires at 15 psi. The 45 psi recommendation
is correct.

- anon

[Model Flyer]

"VideoFlyer" > wrote in message
...
> 45 lbs??? 55 lbs for the nose gear??? That seems awfully high.
Those tires
> will be hard as a rock. I guess I'd prefer a little softer tire to
land on. I
> rarely put in more than about 15 to 20 lbs. 5 lbs will "get the
sidewall off
> the ground."


It would depend on the all up weight of the aircraft, our Rallye 100
weighs in at a gross weight of 1700 lbs and the tire pressures are 21
in the nose wheel and 25 in the mains.
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place

[Jerry Springer]

Ben Haas wrote:

> Hey, that BOb is sooooo happy he is using my name ....I will post the
> thread where BOb got honest with us about 50 years of accident free
> flight.It is titled HI VIS Paint, For your reading pleasure and a good
> laugh read the whole thread to see BOb unravel and back peddle. I
> cannot wait to see what new heading he will use with my name in it.
> <G>.....
> B. B. > wrote in message >...

Lets see what airplanes have you have built and fly? Would love to see a picture
of them. A single engine Private Pilot. How much IFR do you fly Ben? Lets hear
some of your riveting stories...ok? You seem overly obsessed with Bob. Maybe a
little jealous or are you just infatuated with him and afraid to show how you
really feel? Maybe you have a really strong crush on him.

Jerry

[VideoFlyer]

Well....you're right, -anon. I obviously have no experience with 5:00-5 tires
on a 2250 lb gross weight canard aircraft or I wouldn't be "spewing" such
ignorance. But you might notice that I didn't say in my post that 15-20 lbs was
the correct, or even recommended, pressure. I am sorry to have contaminated
this group with an opinion, an observation and personal experience. Mea culpa,
mea culpa.

My experience with 5:00-5 tires is on much lighter aircraft. And while I
didn't mean to be "spewing ignorance" my experience nonetheless is that
pressures of 45-55 lbs makes the tires on my Rans pretty hard. If you would
like to tell me that my experience is not valid somehow, feel free.

To the original poster...if you want truly accurate information on this
newsgroup, "anon" is the person you want to consult. If you're looking for
feedback from other people interested in this hobby, better check with "-anon"
as well...just so you don't get splattered with more "spewed ignorance."

Flyer (foot firmly implanted in mouth)

[Peter Dohm]

anon wrote:
>
> Peter Dohm > wrote:
>
> >n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
> >
> >Trivial in this case, as the tires were not alleged to have gone flat.
> >However, it is a frequently employed method to protect the wheels, and
> >sometimes the tires, while the parts (tubes in this case) are obtained.
> >
> >IIRC, no assertion was made that this was an adiquate temporary service
> >for flight, or even ground operation.
> >
> >Peter
>
> My bad. I incorrectly assumed that his #1 response was his reply to
> the first question about correct tire pressures and his #2 response
> was his reply to the second question about flat tires. His reply
> makes perfect sense now that I realize, thanks to you, that both
> answers were in response to the flat tire question. Apologies to all
> concerned. My pressure recommendations stand. I will now slither
> back under my rock.
>
> - anon

I really was not trying to be that much of a prick.

Especially for a canard aircraft, for which there is probably not a formal
POH, the tire manufacturer may be of some help.

My recollection, admittedly as a student-pilot twenty years ago, is that a
Cessna 150/152 with the optional 6.00x6 main tires (5.00x? was standard IIRC)
had generally better balanced handling with around 25 psi in the main tires
than with 30 psi; which I believe was recommended for the standard tires.

The problem that it corrected was not so much that the mains were "bouncy",
at the higher pressure, although they were and the lower pressure corrected
it nicely; but that the plane did not gain excessive speed on the taxiways
at just above idle. Therefore, you could reasonably warm up the engine and
taxi out at the same time without additional wear on the brakes. In other
words; it was practical to be kind to the FBO, even when renting by hobbs
time.

There was a very small increment in the take-off roll on smooth concrete,
which probably would have been an equally slight decrement on turf or very
well maintained grass, when compared to the higher pressure. And, of course
much less braking was required after landing...

Peter

[anon]

(VideoFlyer) wrote:

>Well....you're right, -anon. I obviously have no experience with 5:00-5 tires
>on a 2250 lb gross weight canard aircraft or I wouldn't be "spewing" such
>ignorance. But you might notice that I didn't say in my post that 15-20 lbs was
>the correct, or even recommended, pressure. I am sorry to have contaminated
>this group with an opinion, an observation and personal experience. Mea culpa,
>mea culpa.
>
>My experience with 5:00-5 tires is on much lighter aircraft. And while I
>didn't mean to be "spewing ignorance" my experience nonetheless is that
>pressures of 45-55 lbs makes the tires on my Rans pretty hard. If you would
>like to tell me that my experience is not valid somehow, feel free.

While your experience is of course valid, in this case it wasn't
relevant to the poster's question. The poster's 5.00-5 tires must
support about 1000 # each at gross weight. That fact dictates the
minimum tire pressures. And let's not pretend to be the wounded
innocent. Your post was written in direct rebuttal to my post and
called my pressure recommendations into question. Yours wasn't the
innocent ancillary informational post that you now pretend. In
retrospect, however, I should have used more tact. For the record,
here is your post:

>45 lbs??? 55 lbs for the nose gear??? That seems awfully high. Those tires
>will be hard as a rock. I guess I'd prefer a little softer tire to land on. I
>rarely put in more than about 15 to 20 lbs. 5 lbs will "get the sidewall off
>the ground."

- anon

[Ernest Christley]

anon wrote:
> (VideoFlyer) wrote:
>
>
>>Well....you're right, -anon. I obviously have no experience with 5:00-5 tires
>>on a 2250 lb gross weight canard aircraft or I wouldn't be "spewing" such
>>ignorance. But you might notice that I didn't say in my post that 15-20 lbs was
>>the correct, or even recommended, pressure. I am sorry to have contaminated
>>this group with an opinion, an observation and personal experience. Mea culpa,
>>mea culpa.
>>
>>My experience with 5:00-5 tires is on much lighter aircraft. And while I
>>didn't mean to be "spewing ignorance" my experience nonetheless is that
>>pressures of 45-55 lbs makes the tires on my Rans pretty hard. If you would
>>like to tell me that my experience is not valid somehow, feel free.
>
>
> While your experience is of course valid, in this case it wasn't
> relevant to the poster's question. The poster's 5.00-5 tires must
> support about 1000 # each at gross weight. That fact dictates the
> minimum tire pressures. And let's not pretend to be the wounded
> innocent. Your post was written in direct rebuttal to my post and
> called my pressure recommendations into question. Yours wasn't the
> innocent ancillary informational post that you now pretend. In
> retrospect, however, I should have used more tact. For the record,
> here is your post:
>
>
>>45 lbs??? 55 lbs for the nose gear??? That seems awfully high. Those tires
>>will be hard as a rock. I guess I'd prefer a little softer tire to land on. I
>>rarely put in more than about 15 to 20 lbs. 5 lbs will "get the sidewall off
>>the ground."
>
>
> - anon
>

How about this that I learned from the Dodge Dakota newsgroup a while
back? Forget about tire pressure for now. Load up the plane to what
you expect to be the normal operating weight. Pump up the tire untill
you get full tread and no sidewall contact. Take the tire pressure and
use that from then on.

How do you know when you've got full tread contact? Pour some water
just in front of the tire and pull the plane through it, letting the
wheel turn completely over a couple of times. It'll leave an 'imprint'
on the second time around that will be a mirror image of the tread
pattern. If you can read sidewall numbers, you need more air. If it is
just a thin strip, you need to remove some.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[*Barnyard BOb*]

>My pressure recommendations stand. I will now slither
>back under my rock.
>
>- anon
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You anonymous recommendations stand?
Whoopee for you and your rock, brave heart.


Barnyard BOb --

[anon]

*Barnyard BOb* > wrote:

>You anonymous recommendations stand?
>Whoopee for you and your rock, brave heart.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

You are a foolish foolish man.

- anon

[*Barnyard BOb*]

>My pressure recommendations stand. I will now slither
>back under my rock.
>
>- anon

>>You anonymous recommendations stand?
>>Whoopee for you and your rock, brave heart.
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb --
>
>You are a foolish foolish man.
>
>- anon
++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry, pathetic one.
As an anal tight-ass coward...
your words have no weight.

Your rock awaits.
Go for it.


Barnyard BOb --

[JH]

Paul, I went to the address and looked at the chart. Unlike most in the
newsgroup, I am not an expert on anything. Anyway, the chart mentions
pressures "Unloaded". Is the same pressure used if re-inflating the tire
while on the plane?

I have an RV-4. The gross would be about 2000 max. There are two tires plush
tailwheel. The tires are 5.00x5 4 ply. Does that mean I should carry about
31 to 35lbs?

Thanks,
Joe



"anon" > wrote in message
...
> (Paul Lee) wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the leakage comments... but anybody know about the
> >proper tire pressure? Or is that a mystery?
>
> 45 psi for mains and 55 psi for the nose. Use six ply tires for the
> mains. Check pressure 12+ hours after initial inflation and add air
> if necessary. After that, pressure loss will be due to
> leakage/diffusion.
>
> The 70 psi nose tire pressure suggested by another poster is not only
> needlessly high but is over the maximum pressure specification for
> most 10x3.50-4 tires (1). Another poster's comment to "blow 'em up
> until the sidewalls come off the ground" is, of course, idiotic.
>
> Tire And Rim Association tire pressure chart:
> http://www.desser.com/pressurechart.html
>
> - anon
>
> 1: The ply rating is an indication of tire strength and does not
> necessarily specify the actual number of carcass plies within the
> tire. The term is used to identify the maximum rated static load
> capability and corresponding inflation pressure applicable to specific
> operational requirements.
>

[Peter Dohm]

I'm no expert either. Logically, the pressure would be slightly higher when
inflating on the ground and supporting the weight of the aircraft; but should
be the same as the chart is the plane is jacked up. Thus, hypothetically,
you could again check the pressure after lowering the plane onto the tire and
determine the reinflation pressure.

I am really not trying to be a jack-ass.

I really doubt that it is critical or a C150, C152, or Piper Tomahawk; except
that I would be sure to heed any caution in the POH regarding hyper-sensitive
steering with an overinflated nose wheel tire. I don't know whether the tire
chart pressures are correct for low performance aircraft. However, the time
that I pumped up the tires of a C150M to the "recommended" pressure in the
POH, the resulting handling was inferior to that at the lower pressure where
I had found them. The plane gained speed on the taxiway with the engine
idling, rolled "forever" on landing, and was "bouncy" even when "greased on".

On the other hand, mechanics who work on high performance aircraft (especially
jets) treat the matter as one of great importance; and are probably right.

Peter


JH wrote:
>
> Paul, I went to the address and looked at the chart. Unlike most in the
> newsgroup, I am not an expert on anything. Anyway, the chart mentions
> pressures "Unloaded". Is the same pressure used if re-inflating the tire
> while on the plane?
>
> I have an RV-4. The gross would be about 2000 max. There are two tires plush
> tailwheel. The tires are 5.00x5 4 ply. Does that mean I should carry about
> 31 to 35lbs?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> "anon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Paul Lee) wrote:
> >
> > >Thanks for the leakage comments... but anybody know about the
> > >proper tire pressure? Or is that a mystery?
> >
> > 45 psi for mains and 55 psi for the nose. Use six ply tires for the
> > mains. Check pressure 12+ hours after initial inflation and add air
> > if necessary. After that, pressure loss will be due to
> > leakage/diffusion.
> >
> > The 70 psi nose tire pressure suggested by another poster is not only
> > needlessly high but is over the maximum pressure specification for
> > most 10x3.50-4 tires (1). Another poster's comment to "blow 'em up
> > until the sidewalls come off the ground" is, of course, idiotic.
> >
> > Tire And Rim Association tire pressure chart:
> > http://www.desser.com/pressurechart.html
> >
> > - anon
> >
> > 1: The ply rating is an indication of tire strength and does not
> > necessarily specify the actual number of carcass plies within the
> > tire. The term is used to identify the maximum rated static load
> > capability and corresponding inflation pressure applicable to specific
> > operational requirements.
> >

[Jerry Springer]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> The plane gained speed on the taxiway with the engine
> idling, rolled "forever" on landing,

This is a REALLY good thing. Less drag on the ground the better.

[Whunicut]

>How about this that I learned from the Dodge Dakota newsgroup a while
>back? Forget about tire pressure for now. Load up the plane to what
>you expect to be the normal operating weight. Pump up the tire untill
>you get full tread and no sidewall contact. Take the tire pressure and
>use that from then on.
>
>How do you know when you've got full tread contact? Pour some water
>just in front of the tire and pull the plane through it, letting the
>wheel turn completely over a couple of times. It'll leave an 'imprint'
>on the second time around that will be a mirror image of the tread
>pattern. If you can read sidewall numbers, you need more air. If it is
>just a thin strip, you need to remove some.
>
>--
>http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
>"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
> alleviated by information and experience."
> Veeduber
>


Excellent!!
Been doing it for years. Dont even need the water now.

Warren

[Whunicut]

>n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
>
>Trivial in this case, as the tires were not alleged to have gone flat.
>However, it is a frequently employed method to protect the wheels, and
>sometimes the tires, while the parts (tubes in this case) are obtained.
>
>IIRC, no assertion was made that this was an adiquate temporary service
>for flight, or even ground operation.
>
>Peter
>

It doesn`t matter. There seems to always be some "know it all" prick waiting to
one-up everybody to show how smart he is.
The news groups seem to attract them for some reason. Nothing better to do I
suppose. Poor *******s.

Warren,
Too soon, old.
Too late, smart.

[Bushy]

While it won't answer for your model aircraft,
http://www.desser.com/tech/tirecare.html gives a good range of articles
about aircraft tyres. They may have further info if you email them.

There is a table of suggested pressures for different size tyres and give
several different pressures depending on the ply rating for similar sized
tyres.

Hope this helps,
Peter

[Jerry Wass]

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
After readin' all this sage advice, tell ya whut I'm a gonna do--I'm a
gonna git me some 6X6 tubes from the nearby farm store&nbsp; &amp; fill
em up with freon 22 ( that's a mighty big mollycule ) an see how they stand
up.Course it's just a fuselage on gear
<br>rite now, so I'm not risking my glutes, but should make for an interesting
experiment on the diffusion of large molecules thru not so porus membranes..&nbsp;
check back in a year or so &amp; I'll let you know.
<p>Bushy wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>While it won't answer for your model aircraft,
<br><a href="http://www.desser.com/tech/tirecare.html">http://www.desser.com/tech/tirecare.html</a>
gives a good range of articles
<br>about aircraft tyres. They may have further info if you email them.
<p>There is a table of suggested pressures for different size tyres and
give
<br>several different pressures depending on the ply rating for similar
sized
<br>tyres.
<p>Hope this helps,
<br>Peter</blockquote>
</html>

[anon]

Peter Dohm > wrote:

>I really was not trying to be that much of a prick.

You weren't a prick at all. Pricks are people like Barnyard BOb and
Warran Whunicut who launch into vindictive personal attacks. It's one
thing to call someone's statement or idea "idiotic", as I did, but
it's another thing entirely to viciously and vindictively attack a
person himself as both Barnyard BOb and Warran Whunicut did.
Absolutely no class. This is borne out even more by both of their
responses to my apology, just more personal attacks. Barnyard BOb
demonstrates his lack of class on a daily basis here. No surprise
there. Like most people, I couldn't care less what Barnyard BOb
thinks. Now I have an equally low opinion of Warran Whunicut.

- anon

[*Barnyard BOb*]

>Like most people, I couldn't care less what Barnyard BOb
>thinks. Now I have an equally low opinion of Warran Whunicut.
>
>- anon
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When it comes to low opinions...
who cares what a weasel like you thinks?
You obviously don't know **** from Shinola.

If you truly didn't care...
you would shut the **** up about me, as proof.
Ain't gonna' happen is it........?
Mealy mouth cowardly creep.

If you really understood "most people",
you would not be cringing in fear and
hiding behind an anonymous label...
or catching a **** load of flack now.

Barnyard BOb --
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog
and George Carlin humor.

[*Barnyard BOb*]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:04:44 -0600, "JH" <u> wrote:

>
>Paul, I went to the address and looked at the chart. Unlike most in the
>newsgroup, I am not an expert on anything. Anyway, the chart mentions
>pressures "Unloaded". Is the same pressure used if re-inflating the tire
>while on the plane?
>
>I have an RV-4. The gross would be about 2000 max. There are two tires plush
>tailwheel. The tires are 5.00x5 4 ply. Does that mean I should carry about
>31 to 35lbs?
>
>Thanks,
>Joe
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I fly with 25 lbs as suggested by the airframe authority
for my RV-3. Check with Vans, the Matronics RV list
or owners of RV-4's. You will get a lot of confusing and
misleading info that is not specific to your aircraft here.

Barnyard BOb -- RV-3 owner/driver

[*Barnyard BOb*]

> Pricks are people like Barnyard BOb and
>Warran Whunicut who launch into vindictive personal attacks.
>
>- anon
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Vindictive personal attacks?
IMO, you have some very serious mental issues
to resolve before you take me on., anon. This all began
with your PSYCHOTIC fear of being sued for stating
anything publicly here in RAH under your real name.
For me to pass up an opportunity to tickle your underbelly
was and continues to be... too much to resist.

My initial remark to you was....

Don't be such a tight ass, anon.

For that you rewarded me with....

Pot...kettle...black.

If this is your notion of a vindictive personal attack,
You ainl't seen nothin' yet, wounded cowardly one.

Get lost or get help.


Barnyard BOb --

[Paul Lee]

Shucks... All this because I asked how much air to put in tires!

*Barnyard BOb* > wrote in message >...
> > Pricks are people like Barnyard BOb and
> >Warran Whunicut who launch into vindictive personal attacks.
> >
> >- anon
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Vindictive personal attacks?
> IMO, you have some very serious mental issues
> to resolve before you take me on., anon. This all began
> with your PSYCHOTIC fear of being sued for stating
> anything publicly here in RAH under your real name.
> For me to pass up an opportunity to tickle your underbelly
> was and continues to be... too much to resist.
>
> My initial remark to you was....
>
> Don't be such a tight ass, anon.
>
> For that you rewarded me with....
>
> Pot...kettle...black.
>
> If this is your notion of a vindictive personal attack,
> You ainl't seen nothin' yet, wounded cowardly one.
>
> Get lost or get help.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

[Whunicut]

> Now I have an equally low opinion of Warran Whunicut.
>
>- anon

Your opinions have no validity, you vain, pompous prick.

Warren
You have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a **** for what you think.

[anon]

*Barnyard BOb* > wrote:

>My initial remark to you was....
>
>Don't be such a tight ass, anon.
>
>For that you rewarded me with....
>
>Pot...kettle...black.

Yes, pot...kettle...black. An accurate assessment if ever there was
one. Obviously, my remarks are weighing quite heavily upon you. So
much so, in fact, that you post an initial knee-jerk reaction and
then, after hours of more thought, you send another love note. How
amusing, how telling. Don't try to justify your mean-spirited antics
further, they are beyond justification.

- Anon

[*Barnyard BOb*]

> Don't try to justify your mean-spirited antics
>further, they are beyond justification.
>
>- Anon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I repeat...

IMO, you have some very serious mental issues
to resolve before you take me on., anon. This all began
with your PSYCHOTIC fear of being sued for stating
anything publicly here in RAH under your real name.
For me to pass up an opportunity to tickle your underbelly
was and continues to be... too much to resist.

And I repeat and agree with what Warren stated...

"Your opinions have no validity, you vain, pompous prick.
You have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a **** for what
you think.." - Warren


Barnyard BOb --

[Larry Smith]

> wrote in message ...
> In article >, *Barnyard BOb*
says...
> >
> >
> >> Don't try to justify your mean-spirited antics
> >>further, they are beyond justification.
> >>
> >>- Anon
> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >I repeat...
> >
> >IMO, you have some very serious mental issues
> >to resolve before you take me on., anon. This all began
> >with your PSYCHOTIC fear of being sued for stating
> >anything publicly here in RAH under your real name.
> >For me to pass up an opportunity to tickle your underbelly
> >was and continues to be... too much to resist.
>
> Since a number of people (15, IIRC) have been sued for publicly posting
things
> on RAH under their own name, I think that anon's fear is anything but
psychotic.
> In fact, it's pretty reasonable.

Anonymity will insulate a poster from tort liability? Tell that to the
anonymous posters who libeled a Seattle businessman and his business.
Their ISP's gave them up in a heartbeat, especially after a judge ordered
them to.

Fact is the ISP becomes liable too, and there is authority to back it up,
when the ISP, after having been given notice, continues to serve as a
channel for the libel. But in the case of the Seattle businessman, the
ISP's were more than happy to turn over the identities of the culprits,
after terminating their accounts. Besides, the law provides in all cases
that the court can order a reluctant ISP to give up the name, address, and
other pertinent data of the offender so the sheriff knows where to go to
serve the summons and complaint and other legal process.

So much for your armchair barristering, triple-arse. As they say here in
NC, "Liyah, liyah, pants on fiyah."

And YOU like to PLAY with fiyah, don't you, boy?

>
> I'd just prefer that people who want to post anonymously get a psudonym
[sic], or
> "handle" - so you can tell them apart when they start talking to one
another.
> If there's only one "anon" it's no problem, but what if there were 12?
>

[.Barnyard BOb.]

On 10 Nov 2003 14:12:25 -0800, wrote:


>>> Don't try to justify your mean-spirited antics
>>>further, they are beyond justification.
>>>
>>>- Anon
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>I repeat...
>>
>>IMO, you have some very serious mental issues
>>to resolve before you take me on., anon. This all began
>>with your PSYCHOTIC fear of being sued for stating
>>anything publicly here in RAH under your real name.
>>For me to pass up an opportunity to tickle your underbelly
>>was and continues to be... too much to resist.
>
>Since a number of people (15, IIRC) have been sued for publicly posting things
>on RAH under their own name, I think that anon's fear is anything but psychotic.
>In fact, it's pretty reasonable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NO.....
You then have an UNREASONABLE fear, too.

I personally know a goodly number of the 15...
and they are still using their names on the net.
Last I knew, neither Chuck nor Ron are hiding
under their RAH beds. Quite the opposite.

What happened to them is an aberration -
anything but the norm for the net, IMO.

AFAIK...
Anybody can be sued for anything here.
Matters not what name you use....
or what tires specifications you dare post.
The RISK is the SAME The fact that you
post anything, puts you at risk.

Now that the cat is out of the bag...
are you about to leave?

You do realize your chances of having an auto
accident are far greater than being involved in
a usenet suit. Are you about to quit driving under
your real name? Rather silly when put in proper
perspective, isn't it?


Barnyard BOb --

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:00:06 -0600, .Barnyard BOb. > wrote:

>I personally know a goodly number of the 15...
>and they are still using their names on the net.
>Last I knew, neither Chuck nor Ron are hiding
>under their RAH beds.

I'm too large to fit under most beds. :-)

Ron "And the closet is too obvious a place to look" Wanttaja

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, .Barnyard BOb. says...
>You then have an UNREASONABLE fear, too.
>
>I personally know a goodly number of the 15...
>and they are still using their names on the net.
>Last I knew, neither Chuck nor Ron are hiding
>under their RAH beds. Quite the opposite.
>
>What happened to them is an aberration -
>anything but the norm for the net, IMO.

That's right Unka Bob I ain't scared a no lawsuit!!! Especially since the suer
was zoom and us suie's are for the most part still here. I'm not hiding since I
probably can't get under a bed to hide anymore.(those days are long gone).Did I
ever tell ya about the time this gals husband......

The Journeyman sueer or suer (one e or 2) zoom is still ranting about his
lawsuit with SnF. Believe it or not he says they are lying about attendance
figures.This is coming from a guy who "never" told the truth about "his"
circulation figures.

By the way I run 8-10 psi on Hawk nosewheels and 6-8 psi on the mains. I don't
know what it's worth except for our planes ...so sue me :-)

See ya

Nefoo Chuck RAH-15/1 ret ...and proud of it

[.Barnyard BOb.]

>>You then have an UNREASONABLE fear, too.
>>
>>I personally know a goodly number of the 15...
>>and they are still using their names on the net.
>>Last I knew, neither Chuck nor Ron are hiding
>>under their RAH beds. Quite the opposite.
>>
>>What happened to them is an aberration -
>>anything but the norm for the net, IMO.
>
>That's right Unka Bob I ain't scared a no lawsuit!!! Especially since the suer
>was zoom and us suie's are for the most part still here. I'm not hiding since I
>probably can't get under a bed to hide anymore.(those days are long gone).Did I
>ever tell ya about the time this gals husband......
>
>The Journeyman sueer or suer (one e or 2) zoom is still ranting about his
>lawsuit with SnF. Believe it or not he says they are lying about attendance
>figures.This is coming from a guy who "never" told the truth about "his"
>circulation figures.
>
>By the way I run 8-10 psi on Hawk nosewheels and 6-8 psi on the mains. I don't
>know what it's worth except for our planes ...so sue me :-)
>
>See ya
>
>Nefoo Chuck RAH-15/1 ret ...and proud of it
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks, Nefoo Chuck.

As usual, you and Ron respond with light hearted
mirth and merriment. Seems neither of you are losing
sleep over being sued using you real names any more
than I am. Some days ya just gotta get out of bed
and take a chance on 'intercoursing' via usenet.

It's strange that some here think absolutely nothing of
risking there arses in some pretty weird flying contraptions,
while others are totally petrified for anyone to know who
they are on the Net. Talk about screwed up priorities.

Go figure.

Cheerio,
Unka BOb -
1. 25 psi per RV3 tyre
2. 150 horsepower under the bonnet

[Del Rawlins]

On 11 Nov 2003 11:13 AM, .Barnyard BOb. posted the following:

> As usual, you and Ron respond with light hearted
> mirth and merriment. Seems neither of you are losing
> sleep over being sued using you real names any more
> than I am. Some days ya just gotta get out of bed
> and take a chance on 'intercoursing' via usenet.

It is significant to note, that Ron, Chuck, and the others were sued by
a crackpot who didn't have the financial ability to pursue the action.
In addition, they got free legal representation from a skilled lawyer
who lived in the plaintiff's state of residence. If Campbell had the
wherewithal to have seen it through properly, and if Tony P. had not
been available to defend against it, it could have gotten real ugly for
those involved. As you well know, BWB has pointed out in the past that
something like that could get really expensive with travel and lawyers
and all, just to keep somebody from getting a default judgement which
could haunt you.

> It's strange that some here think absolutely nothing of
> risking there arses in some pretty weird flying contraptions,
> while others are totally petrified for anyone to know who
> they are on the Net. Talk about screwed up priorities.

My response, is if you do not have enough faith in the information you
are posting to be willing to use your own name and expose yourself to
potential litigation (however unlikely), why should I bet my life on
that information by incorporating it into my homebuilt project? In
other words, don't bother posting it if you yourself do not have the
confidence in it to sign your real name.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, .Barnyard BOb. says...


>As usual, you and Ron respond with light hearted
>mirth and merriment. Seems neither of you are losing
>sleep over being sued using you real names any more
>than I am. Some days ya just gotta get out of bed
>and take a chance on 'intercoursing' via usenet.

I always figured if ya don't lie and ya got nothing to hide why not use your own
name. I don't lose sleep over zoom or his toady jaun .

>
>It's strange that some here think absolutely nothing of
>risking there arses in some pretty weird flying contraptions,


I guess I'm kinda guilty of that one ,ya should have seen some of my early hang
gliders . But unlike jaun I had the testicular fortitude to fly them first and
test them. After a broken arm,broken hand,fractured ankle,compressed vertebra
and numerous sprains ,bumps and bangs some of them actually flew pretty good :-)
But I always used my own name and took credit/responsibly for how they
performed.


m>while others are totally petrified for anyone to know who
>they are on the Net. Talk about screwed up priorities.
>
>Go figure.

Since I'm basically a quiet, soft spoken, shy kinda guy it took a while for me
to get used to the fact that people on the net knew who I was. LOL!! But one
thing I'll say is that I don't have one personality on the net and another in
real life .As Tony used to say "one personality is enough" and I would get
confused if I had to be Chuck the good at Air Shows and Chuck the bad on the
net. Some people are so paranoid about their private names I bet they don't even
look in the mirror so as not to give themselves away.

I'm afraid I have no respect for anyone who signs themselves anon or uses a
phony name. What they have to say doesn'y carry any weight with me. If a person
doesn't have the courage of their convections to use their name they're either
ashamed of what they have to say or lying.
Just my humble opinion but I'll sign my name to it...

See ya Unk

Nefoo Chuck








>
>Cheerio,
>Unka BOb -
>1. 25 psi per RV3 tyre
>2. 150 horsepower under the bonnet
>

[Ben Sego]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:00:06 -0600, .Barnyard BOb. > wrote:
>
>
>>I personally know a goodly number of the 15...
>>and they are still using their names on the net.
>>Last I knew, neither Chuck nor Ron are hiding
>>under their RAH beds.
>
>
> I'm too large to fit under most beds. :-)
>
> Ron "And the closet is too obvious a place to look" Wanttaja
>

You still fit in a Flybaby, don't you? This is important, I'm thinking
of getting a set of plans.

B.S.

[Ben Sego]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> As Tony used to say "one personality is enough" and I would get
> confused if I had to be Chuck the good at Air Shows and Chuck the bad on the
> net.

But "Chuck the Bad" does have a nice cadence, doesn't it?

B.S.

[.Barnyard BOb.]

>> It's strange that some here think absolutely nothing of
>> risking there arses in some pretty weird flying contraptions,
>> while others are totally petrified for anyone to know who
>> they are on the Net. Talk about screwed up priorities.
>
>My response, is if you do not have enough faith in the information you
>are posting to be willing to use your own name and expose yourself to
>potential litigation (however unlikely), why should I bet my life on
>that information by incorporating it into my homebuilt project? In
>other words, don't bother posting it if you yourself do not have the
>confidence in it to sign your real name.
>
>Del Rawlins-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gimmee a break.
Even knowing my name...
would you bet your life on anything anybody sez here?

You got the rag on, DEL?
My confidence, name and life have never been a secret here,
but...you TECHNICALLY have a point, albeit a very small one.

I was going to say you are the only one who doesn't
know who I am, but there probably are a few others that
don't know who I am.... mostly WANNBEES or folks
that plain don't care. Like you until now?

I use to use my real name here all the time. Can't you
recall? Seems that the "Barnyard" thing has crept in
over time from the original Bob Urban, then Bob U,
the Unka Bob, etcetera. Don't you recall any of this
over the years or do you have selective memory?

FWIW....
Chuck knows me as well as Ron and Bad Water Bill.
Do you take issue with the BWB moniker since he
doesn't post his name with every post? You could
ask any of these three any time you gave a ****.
Then there is Jerry Springer, Rich S and on and on.
How about John Ousterhout and my mug plastered
on his web site or my Fly Baby posted on Ron
Wanttaja's web site? How about John Johnson,
Snowbird or Tommy Cooper or Dave Hyde? The
list is long since I've been here a goodly number
of years. I've been eyeball to eyeball with most
all the RAH regulars at any number of fly-ins...
especially the annual Pinckneyville fly-in.

Outside of these everyday sources, how hard is
it to find a 65 year old RV-3 certified commercial
pilot/owner living in the vicinity of Kansas City
and on the Dennis Fetter's Mini-500 **** list?

If worse comes to worse and you want to know
of me, you could ask Jaun or even Zoom...
or heavens to mergatroid.... ASK ME !!!!!!!

NOBODY is more accessible than I am
and that includes my credentials available
on the FAA data base. I never opted out
and have been criticized here in RAH for
not doing so.

I'm beginning to wonder if you can find your
own ass with your hand in your back pocket
or just have an ax to grind.

Sheesh.


Barnyard BOb -

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, .Barnyard BOb. says...

>I use to use my real name here all the time. Can't you
>recall? Seems that the "Barnyard" thing has crept in
>over time from the original Bob Urban, then Bob U,
>the Unka Bob, etcetera. Don't you recall any of this
>over the years or do you have selective memory?

I'll vouch for ya Unka Bob since I'm partially guilty for the steady creep from
Bob Urban to all of the above "stage" names. Although I've "never" done it
myself I don't see a problem with someone using a "stage" nameon the net
especially when their real name is on the header or their info is available on
line.

See ya
el Pollo Loco

[- Barnyard BOb -]

On 12 Nov 2003 03:12:01 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>In article >, .Barnyard BOb. says...
>
>>I use to use my real name here all the time. Can't you
>>recall? Seems that the "Barnyard" thing has crept in
>>over time from the original Bob Urban, then Bob U,
>>the Unka Bob, etcetera. Don't you recall any of this
>>over the years or do you have selective memory?
>
>I'll vouch for ya Unka Bob since I'm partially guilty for the steady creep from
>Bob Urban to all of the above "stage" names. Although I've "never" done it
>myself I don't see a problem with someone using a "stage" nameon the net
>especially when their real name is on the header or their info is available on
>line.
>
>See ya
>el Pollo Loco
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks, Chuck.

Before I catch flack about my munged email address...
You can thank the endless stream of spammers.

If anyone has need of my throw away hotmail.com
address that is seldom checked, I'd be happy to post
it on an as needed basis.


Bob Urban aka Barnyard BOb aka Unka BOb aka BOb U

[Del Rawlins]

Bob, take the chip off your shoulder and re-read my post. I know
exactly who you are and have probably been here as long as you have. I
was attempting to agree with you and expand a little further on the view
that somebody who won't post with their real name has "screwed up
priorities." I was not including you with that group since your
identity is known by everybody here who matters. If you have to
criticise me for something, let it be poor wording.

I think the years of endless flaming around here are starting to get to
you.

As far as betting one's life, if Bruce tells me how to set up my auto
conversion (for example, I'm not building one), I'd probably do less
checking up of that info than if it were posted by some anonymous Joe
Blow. The same goes for a handful of other people here, like John
Stricker, Jim Weir on avionics, or you for that matter on flying in bad
weather. If I were building an ultralight I'd take Chuck's word as
gospel. The point being that all of these people and others who I have
not mentioned specifically post using their real names, and have been
posting here long enough to convince me that they know a lot more than I
do about certain subjects. An anonymous poster is highly unlikely to
accomplish that.

On 11 Nov 2003 11:53 PM, .Barnyard BOb. posted the following:
>
>>> It's strange that some here think absolutely nothing of
>>> risking there arses in some pretty weird flying contraptions,
>>> while others are totally petrified for anyone to know who
>>> they are on the Net. Talk about screwed up priorities.
>>
>>My response, is if you do not have enough faith in the information you
>>are posting to be willing to use your own name and expose yourself to
>>potential litigation (however unlikely), why should I bet my life on
>>that information by incorporating it into my homebuilt project? In
>>other words, don't bother posting it if you yourself do not have the
>>confidence in it to sign your real name.
>>
>>Del Rawlins-
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Gimmee a break.
> Even knowing my name...
> would you bet your life on anything anybody sez here?
>
> You got the rag on, DEL?
> My confidence, name and life have never been a secret here,
> but...you TECHNICALLY have a point, albeit a very small one.
>
> I was going to say you are the only one who doesn't
> know who I am, but there probably are a few others that
> don't know who I am.... mostly WANNBEES or folks
> that plain don't care. Like you until now?
>
> I use to use my real name here all the time. Can't you
> recall? Seems that the "Barnyard" thing has crept in
> over time from the original Bob Urban, then Bob U,
> the Unka Bob, etcetera. Don't you recall any of this
> over the years or do you have selective memory?
>
> FWIW....
> Chuck knows me as well as Ron and Bad Water Bill.
> Do you take issue with the BWB moniker since he
> doesn't post his name with every post? You could
> ask any of these three any time you gave a ****.
> Then there is Jerry Springer, Rich S and on and on.
> How about John Ousterhout and my mug plastered
> on his web site or my Fly Baby posted on Ron
> Wanttaja's web site? How about John Johnson,
> Snowbird or Tommy Cooper or Dave Hyde? The
> list is long since I've been here a goodly number
> of years. I've been eyeball to eyeball with most
> all the RAH regulars at any number of fly-ins...
> especially the annual Pinckneyville fly-in.
>
> Outside of these everyday sources, how hard is
> it to find a 65 year old RV-3 certified commercial
> pilot/owner living in the vicinity of Kansas City
> and on the Dennis Fetter's Mini-500 **** list?
>
> If worse comes to worse and you want to know
> of me, you could ask Jaun or even Zoom...
> or heavens to mergatroid.... ASK ME !!!!!!!
>
> NOBODY is more accessible than I am
> and that includes my credentials available
> on the FAA data base. I never opted out
> and have been criticized here in RAH for
> not doing so.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if you can find your
> own ass with your hand in your back pocket
> or just have an ax to grind.
>
> Sheesh.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[- Barnyard BOb -]

On 12 Nov 2003 16:29:31 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>Bob, take the chip off your shoulder and re-read my post. I know
>exactly who you are and have probably been here as long as you have. I
>was attempting to agree with you and expand a little further on the view
>that somebody who won't post with their real name has "screwed up
>priorities." I was not including you with that group since your
>identity is known by everybody here who matters. If you have to
>criticise me for something, let it be poor wording.
>
>I think the years of endless flaming around here are starting to get to
>you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmmm.

!#$%^&*(
Expletives deleted.

You are super correct.
I'm taking things too literally at times.

When I deal myself out of the equation....
I really like what you said. <g>

My apologies.


Barnyard BOb -- If I'm wrong, never mind. {8+D

[Del Rawlins]

On 12 Nov 2003 08:37 AM, - Barnyard BOb - posted the following:

> When I deal myself out of the equation....
> I really like what you said. <g>
>
> My apologies.

Accepted. 8^)

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Whunicut]

<snipped>
>My response, is if you do not have enough faith in the information you
>are posting to be willing to use your own name and expose yourself to
>potential litigation (however unlikely), why should I bet my life on
>that information by incorporating it into my homebuilt project? In
>other words, don't bother posting it if you yourself do not have the
>confidence in it to sign your real name.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Del Rawlins-


Good point.
I think someone, feeling he is insulated by anonymity, is more apt to guess at
solutions and post half-baked ideas than try to be as accurate as possible in
his posts.
Some people coming into this NG cold could get in deep dodo following some
anonymous kooks advice.
Most of us, tho, have enough common sense to weigh all options before making a
decision that might kill us.
Anon, on the other hand, with his confounded attitude of "Holier than thou/my
**** dont stink", set my teeth on edge.
My apologies to anyone offended by my vitriol.

Warren

[John Stricker]

Not to mention stayed at my house, ate my food, fell asleep on my couch
while watching my TV and losing his cell phone ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!
That's right, he can multi-task.

But I won't vouch for him. I don't need to, he's perfectly capable of
taking up his own torch.

John "not anonymous" Stricker

PS:The list of RAHers past and present that have stayed here is long, but
not as long as those I've met face to face. It's just too bad there are so
few of those names popping up in RAH anymore.

PPS: You're still my dearly departed Unka Bob. The barnyard thing just
doesn't fit you. I've seen you on a farm and the term "fish out of water"
comes to mind. 8-) You're still welcome to come back anytime.

".Barnyard BOb." > wrote in message
...

> FWIW....
> Chuck knows me as well as Ron and Bad Water Bill.
> Do you take issue with the BWB moniker since he
> doesn't post his name with every post? You could
> ask any of these three any time you gave a ****.
> Then there is Jerry Springer, Rich S and on and on.
> How about John Ousterhout and my mug plastered
> on his web site or my Fly Baby posted on Ron
> Wanttaja's web site? How about John Johnson,
> Snowbird or Tommy Cooper or Dave Hyde? The
> list is long since I've been here a goodly number
> of years. I've been eyeball to eyeball with most
> all the RAH regulars at any number of fly-ins...
> especially the annual Pinckneyville fly-in.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -

[John Ammeter]

Hell, he passed out on my couch, too....

John Ammeter


On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:45:19 -0600, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>Not to mention stayed at my house, ate my food, fell asleep on my couch
>while watching my TV and losing his cell phone ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!
>That's right, he can multi-task.
>
>But I won't vouch for him. I don't need to, he's perfectly capable of
>taking up his own torch.
>
>John "not anonymous" Stricker
>
>PS:The list of RAHers past and present that have stayed here is long, but
>not as long as those I've met face to face. It's just too bad there are so
>few of those names popping up in RAH anymore.
>
>PPS: You're still my dearly departed Unka Bob. The barnyard thing just
>doesn't fit you. I've seen you on a farm and the term "fish out of water"
>comes to mind. 8-) You're still welcome to come back anytime.
>
>".Barnyard BOb." > wrote in message
...
>
>> FWIW....
>> Chuck knows me as well as Ron and Bad Water Bill.
>> Do you take issue with the BWB moniker since he
>> doesn't post his name with every post? You could
>> ask any of these three any time you gave a ****.
>> Then there is Jerry Springer, Rich S and on and on.
>> How about John Ousterhout and my mug plastered
>> on his web site or my Fly Baby posted on Ron
>> Wanttaja's web site? How about John Johnson,
>> Snowbird or Tommy Cooper or Dave Hyde? The
>> list is long since I've been here a goodly number
>> of years. I've been eyeball to eyeball with most
>> all the RAH regulars at any number of fly-ins...
>> especially the annual Pinckneyville fly-in.
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -
>

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>Hell, he passed out on my couch, too....
>
>John Ammeter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah....
And you have the picture to prove it, RIGHT?

What can I say?


Barnyard BOb -- Pass the scotch. <g>

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, - Barnyard BOb -
says...
>
>
>>Hell, he passed out on my couch, too....
>>
>>John Ammeter
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Yeah....
>And you have the picture to prove it, RIGHT?
>
>What can I say?
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- Pass the scotch. <g>

The couch was just a warm up for what Unka Bob did at P'ville .After he rose
from the dead ,an event I witnessed with my own eyes,he went on like nothing
ever happened. I was at the funeral and was a pall bearer as were many of the
RAH gang. It was a miracle .

Chuck (an apostle) S

[Building The Perfect Beast]

>FWIW....
>Chuck knows me as well as Ron and Bad Water Bill.
>Do you take issue with the BWB moniker since he
>doesn't post his name with every post? You could
>ask any of these three any time you gave a ****.
>Then there is Jerry Springer, Rich S and on and on.
>How about John Ousterhout and my mug plastered
>on his web site or my Fly Baby posted on Ron
>Wanttaja's web site? How about John Johnson,
>Snowbird or Tommy Cooper or Dave Hyde? The
>list is long since I've been here a goodly number
>of years. I've been eyeball to eyeball with most
>all the RAH regulars at any number of fly-ins...
>especially the annual Pinckneyville fly-in.



Hey, what about me? I be knowin' you too.

Ooops, but I'm anonymous.

Never mind. :^)

[- Barnyard BOb -]

(Building The Perfect Beast) wrote:

>>FWIW....
>>Chuck knows me as well as Ron and Bad Water Bill.
>>Do you take issue with the BWB moniker since he
>>doesn't post his name with every post? You could
>>ask any of these three any time you gave a ****.
>>Then there is Jerry Springer, Rich S and on and on.
>>How about John Ousterhout and my mug plastered
>>on his web site or my Fly Baby posted on Ron
>>Wanttaja's web site? How about John Johnson,
>>Snowbird or Tommy Cooper or Dave Hyde? The
>>list is long since I've been here a goodly number
>>of years. I've been eyeball to eyeball with most
>>all the RAH regulars at any number of fly-ins...
>>especially the annual Pinckneyville fly-in.
>
>
>
>Hey, what about me? I be knowin' you too.
>
>Ooops, but I'm anonymous.
>
>Never mind. :^)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shhhhh....
Not if you continue to fly that monster turbine
across SE Missouri to Pinckneyville, IL.

How goes the "Perfect Beast"?
Been welding any 4130 or 'loomnum?


Barnyard BOb -- didn't mean to snub anyone

[Whunicut]

>.After he rose
>from the dead ,an event I witnessed with my own eyes,he went on like nothing
>ever happened. I was at the funeral and was a pall bearer as were many of the
>RAH gang. It was a miracle .
>
>Chuck (an apostle) S
>

Coupla years ago I started for the annual "thing" at P`ville, hoping to see
Urban. Cause I had never seen a living breathing miracle before. Got as far as
Nashville where I landed for some r&r.
Standing there, eating a Nabs and drinking a warm coke, In taxies a beautiful
red Beechcraft Stag. And out of this wonder steps a gorgeous blonde. Older gal,
who I later learned was a famous retired NY model and still retained what had
made her famous
Well, one thing lead to another and we ended up dancing the night away at the
country club and spending the next two days in the penthouse suite of the
Hilton doing what comes natcherly.
She picked up the tab for the whole thing, of course, and after giving me a
ride and letting me make a coupla landings in the Stag, she was off to Lubbock
Tx to care for her ailing Mother.
I was so drained and tired, I slept the rest of the day on the couch at the FBO
and then came home.
I am so ashamed that I let my human weakness prevent me from continuing a Holy
Trek to actually see and maybe shake hands with a living miracle that I have
never before told anyone about this awful sin of mine.
But the terrible, awful truth is, in my deep inner self, I know I would do it
all over again!!
Ohhh, the shame....

Warren,
Repent...Repent

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>Coupla years ago I started for the annual "thing" at P`ville, hoping to see
>Urban. Cause I had never seen a living breathing miracle before. Got as far as
>Nashville where I landed for some r&r.
>Standing there, eating a Nabs and drinking a warm coke, In taxies a beautiful
>red Beechcraft Stag. And out of this wonder steps a gorgeous blonde. Older gal,
>who I later learned was a famous retired NY model and still retained what had
>made her famous
>Well, one thing lead to another and we ended up dancing the night away at the
>country club and spending the next two days in the penthouse suite of the
>Hilton doing what comes natcherly.
>She picked up the tab for the whole thing, of course, and after giving me a
>ride and letting me make a coupla landings in the Stag, she was off to Lubbock
>Tx to care for her ailing Mother.
>I was so drained and tired, I slept the rest of the day on the couch at the FBO
>and then came home.
>I am so ashamed that I let my human weakness prevent me from continuing a Holy
>Trek to actually see and maybe shake hands with a living miracle that I have
>never before told anyone about this awful sin of mine.
>But the terrible, awful truth is, in my deep inner self, I know I would do it
>all over again!!



>Ohhh, the shame....
>
>Warren,
>Repent...Repent
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I feel your pain, Warren.


Barnyard BOb - the resurrected one

[O-ring Seals]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:13:43 -0600, .Barnyard BOb. >
wrote:


>
>Cheerio,
>Unka BOb -
>1. 25 psi per RV3 tyre
>2. 150 horsepower under the bonnet
>


C310G: 28 psig nose; 65 psig mains.

O-ring

[Building The Perfect Beast]

>How goes the "Perfect Beast"?
>Been welding any 4130 or 'loomnum?
>

Hmm, no, not yet. Got too many irons in the fire right now. I've started a
computer business sideline and I've kinda got my hands full. But it won't be
long.