Re: A question only a newbie would ask

[Peter Duniho]

"H.P." > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm taking lessons at KHPN. We've been warned about voluntary noise
> abatement procedures. Has any manufacturer contemplated or actually
> installed mufflers on piston planes?

Muffler-equipped airplanes are not uncommon in Europe. They don't even look
all that aerodynamic...just a big extension to the exhaust, sticking out and
along the side of the cowl.

Pete

[David Megginson]

H.P. wrote:

> Well, I wasn't aware - (the Cessna/King course doesn't cover it) - but they
> don't muffle much.

As with anything, you learn about them when you have to replace them at the
annual. Canada has a blanket AD for annual muffler inspections to reduce
the risk of CO poisoning, so our AMEs (=A&Ps) tend to find muffler problems
early and often.


All the best,


David

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It is not laughable at all. If somebody wants me to buy something, they
> > better first convince me that it has some benefit.
>
> We're not talking about getting you to buy something. We're talking about
> YOUR claim that mufflers don't work.
>
> It's one thing for you to have your reservation, or otherwise remain
> unconvinced. It's entirely another for you to make a flat out claim for
> which you have no basis to make. You've done the latter, and no amount of
> wishful thinking will turn it into the former.

Your fantasizing and splitting hairs are getting tiresome. Show me a muffler
that works, and I will retract my statement. Until then, I have not seen a
muffler that significantly reduces aircraft noise.

[Judah]

I wonder how many airport neighbors hear trucks on the highway gearing down
and think it's a noisy airplane disturbing their peace!

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>> I do think that the demands of airport neighbors that airplanes
>> make no noise whatsoever are unreasonable. I personally think that
>> most complaints about noise are really just an excuse to make
>> airplanes go away. Most people are basically superstitious morons
>> who have irrational fears of anything that is even a little bit
>> outside their experience.
>>
>
> Making no noise is probably unreasonable. I suppose even a hot-air
> ballon makes some noise ascending. The airport/neighbor noise issue is
> difficult to resolve because "resonable/unreasonable" are to subective
> a term. Would a requirement that an aircraft on departure sound no
> louder at 500 feet than a 2005 factory Accord sound at full power
> accelerating from stop onto a freeway with 70 MPH traffic? Not for a
> new aircraft designed to that specification, but unreasonable for
> existing aircraft. But since it will take decades before existing
> aircraft disappear noise will be an issue over and over.
>
> I doubt if "most complaints about noise" are about making aircraft go
> away. They probably are about making the noise go away.
>
> Earl G
>
>
>
>

[Stefan]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Seriously, if you want to claim that mufflers reduce noise, the onus is on
> you to prove that it does.

Easy. Go to your next airfield ald listen to an aircraft with and one
without a muffler. Ok, not so easy if you've never seen an aircraft with
one. Best would be if you came to Europe and would listen to one of the
new designs. You'd be very surprized.

Stefan

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> I do think that the demands of airport neighbors that airplanes make no
> noise whatsoever are unreasonable. I personally think that most
> complaints
> about noise are really just an excuse to make airplanes go away.

The NIMBY crowd around KBED complained about the noise of the
Shuttle America flights at first. Apparently someone noticed that
the aircraft used by Shuttle America flights are quieter than
the corporate jets and even some of the piston aircraft. But that
didn't stop the NIMBY crowd from opposing the commuter flights.
They merely "found" other reasons to oppose the use of KBED for
scheduled flights.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Paul Sengupta]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 08:01:51 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> Units such as you describe are required in Europe. They reduce power
a
> bit
> > >and add
> > >> weight. Most people also think they're ugly.
> > >
> > >They also don't work.
> >
> > I think you may be mistaken CJ. The mufflers do work or they would
> > not be used.
>
> Seriously, if you want to claim that mufflers reduce noise, the onus is on
> you to prove that it does. It is not my burden to prove that it does not,
> any more than it is my burden to prove to those that believe in space
aliens
> that flying saucers do not exist.

http://www.hliese.de/International/international.html

They quote 1) No loss in performance, 2) Weight < 2lbs while
making planes comply with strict German noise regulations.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Y'all,
> Several years ago I had a student buy a 700 hour C-182 that had been a
> Cessna Demonstrator in Europe. Before the aircraft could be registered in
> the U.S. the entire exhaust/muffler system had to be replaced to meet FAA
> noisier standards. Your tax dollars at work.

It's the same here in the UK. If a plane is imported from Germany and
the silencer isn't certified here, then off it comes. Stupid, but hopefully
with JAR/EASA it'll mean something certified in one country will be
acceptable to all.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rick Durden" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > As our population pressure increases and more and more airports are
> > under pressure, we'll probably be faced with tougher noise
> > requirements such as slower turning, shorter props and more effective
> > mufflers. It won't be fun.
>
> Oh, I don't know. As someone who pretty much lives in small planes, I
> personally find the constant noise to be tiring. I would prefer a quieter
> airplane. All I ask of whatever we do to make the airplanes quieter is
that
> it actually be effective.

http://www.fly-flightstar.com/

I watched on Saturday as one of these took off from Sandown
airfield on the Isle of Wight. It was unbelievable how quiet it was.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.fly-flightstar.com/
>
> I watched on Saturday as one of these took off from Sandown
> airfield on the Isle of Wight. It was unbelievable how quiet it was.

Sorry, too general, they do two...

http://www.flyflightstar.com/pages/ctphoto.htm

This was the one I meant.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Stefan wrote:
> >
> > Effective mufflers already exist, three or
> > four blade props already exist, and it make a huge difference without
> > any negative side effect.
>
> They reduce power, add drag, weigh more, and are very expensive. I call
those *big*
> negative side effects.

http://www.newpiper.com/FlyerArticleMarch04.pdf

Have a read of the section "Quieter Warrior".

The "expensive" bit is right though!

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> Muffler-equipped airplanes are not uncommon in Europe. They don't even
look
> all that aerodynamic...just a big extension to the exhaust, sticking out
and
> along the side of the cowl.

http://www.jodel.com/exhaust.htm

Paul

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:38:31 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Rick Durden wrote:
>
>> requirements such as slower turning, shorter props and more effective
>> mufflers. It won't be fun.
>
>Why won't it be fun? What's the fun of making a lot of noise and
>embarrassing the neighbours? Effective mufflers already exist, three or
>four blade props already exist, and it make a huge difference without
>any negative side effect.

Where have you been? There are several negatives. Speed and fuel
consumption for a trip. Lower RPM means less HP.

The idea is not to make noise, but to gain efficiency.

The more blades you add to a prop the less efficient. You do gain
climb, but you lose cruise and take more fuel.

Going from a 2 to a three blade prop greatly quieted the Deb, but it
lost about 4 knots top end. Normally you are talking more HP to swing
more blades. Now, if you go to a monster airfoil like the 3-blade
used on Rare Bear, it turns slower and makes less noise than the high
RPM props at the races, but it is *huge*.

BTW, the 3-blade prop on mine weighs 83#. It replaced a 57# 2-blade.
It also cost $8800 exchange and that was nearly 10 years ago.

The most efficient exhaust system is a tuned exhaust and they are not
quite.
>
>One example is http://www.airliners.net/open.file/231156/M/

No, this is an example of a muffler on a light, slow, airplane, not
something with speed. I travel 500 to 1200 miles. I don't want to do
it at 120 MPH. OTOH I normally do it at 5,000 to 8000 feet although
my last trip was over a month ago and most of it was at 2800 due to
the ceilings and airspace.

Just opening the cowl flaps costs me 20 to 30 knots. Imagine what
something like that hanging out would do. Putting the gear down feels
like some one put on the brakes and turned it into a very expensive
Cherokee that burns a lot of gas. With the gear down top speed is
less than the 140 MPH gear down speed. With the gear up and cowl
flaps closed, cruise is a160 knots true at ~6,000 feet.

Currently from Central Michigan I can normally beat the airlines to
Denver or Central Florida as there are no direct flights from here. I
may be slower than they are and I may have to stop once for a potty
break and to top off the tanks, but I'm still usually an hour faster.
That was before 9/11. Now I'm probably 2 hours faster but I've not
had the chance to get to Denver in a couple of years..


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



>
>Stefan

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:30:54 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
>> They reduce power, add drag, weigh more
>
>Not really.

Oh yes. As I mentioned in a previous post. I replaced a 2 blade
hartzel on my Deb with a 3-blade hartzel. The 3-blade weighs 83# and
the 2-blade was 57. Stuck that far out in front they certainly make a
difference. It also cost me about 4 knots in cruise.

>
>> and are very expensive.
>
>Replacing a perfectly good two blade prop is expensive, yes. But when
>the prop must be replaced anyway, or factory installing a four blade
>prop instead of a two blader doesn't cost that much more, if you relate

If you don't call $8800 exchange expensive.
Actually you can overhaul a 2 blade for about $5,000 so the 3-blade is
about $3,000 more. Over the life of the prop at 4 knots, the
difference is many thousands of miles.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>it to the total cost of an airplane.
>
>Stefan

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:29:52 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Stefan wrote:
>>
>> But when
>> the prop must be replaced anyway, or factory installing a four blade
>> prop instead of a two blader doesn't cost that much more, if you relate
>> it to the total cost of an airplane.
>
>That's true in many cases. At the rate things are going, I expect to need a new prop
>in about 30 years (if I don't get a prop strike before then).
>
>Then we also have to deal with certification issues. The manufacturer has only
>certified my aircraft for one prop. I suppose that STCs would be developed pretty
>rapidly if 3-blade props were mandated, of course.

And if they were mandated they'd probably run between $1,000 and
$2,000 each plus the cost of the prop and labor.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
> In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:19:25 GMT, "Earl Grieda"
> wrote:

>
>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
>> I do think that the demands of airport neighbors that airplanes
>> make no noise whatsoever are unreasonable. I personally think that
>> most complaints about noise are really just an excuse to make
>> airplanes go away. Most people are basically superstitious morons
>> who have irrational fears of anything that is even a little bit
>> outside their experience.
>>
>
>Making no noise is probably unreasonable. I suppose even a hot-air ballon
>makes some noise ascending. The airport/neighbor noise issue is difficult
>to resolve because "resonable/unreasonable" are to subective a term. Would
>a requirement that an aircraft on departure sound no louder at 500 feet than

Here reasonable might take on a different meaning. We are located on
the north side of the fair grounds where they hold motorcycle races,
demolition derbies, and rock concerts.

We had a Falcon 900 three engine jet do a max effort take off the
other day. Even scorched all the grass between the end of 06 and the
road. He wasn't nearly as loud as the rock concerts and he was gone
in 30 seconds. There is also a 4 lane express way between the airport
and expensive neighborhood to the south. They often complain about
noise that turns out to be trucks on the express way.

Some day some one isn't going to make it into the short runways and
take out a couple rows of houses all because they wouldn't let the
runways be lengthened. Yet we have 30 to 40,000# jet landing with
just barely legal distance. We have 5 to 7 jets a week, but none
nearly as large as the Falcon 900. Still, if one of those has a
problem on a short runway?

>a 2005 factory Accord sound at full power accelerating from stop onto a
>freeway with 70 MPH traffic? Not for a new aircraft designed to that
>specification, but unreasonable for existing aircraft. But since it will
>take decades before existing aircraft disappear noise will be an issue over
>and over.

Besides on the highway you have all that heavy traffic with big rigs
and we can not locally regulate the traffic on the interstate.

>
>I doubt if "most complaints about noise" are about making aircraft go away.
>They probably are about making the noise go away.

Wait awhile and I think you will see many just want GA to go away.
They don't even want to hear one going over 5,000 feet up.
With our short runway (18/36) lining up with a subdivision off each
end I only use it when I have to, but when I have to I end up only a
few hundred feet high when I go out over the subdivision. I can count
the boards in the picnic tables. Had they not fought the runway
extension I'd be at pattern altitude. Tremendous difference in noise.
They should be happy I spent the $8800 for the 3-blade prop. With the
2-blade the tips were still supersonic when I went out through there.
They tell me the dishes would dance in the cupboards. We still get a
lot of transient aircraft in with big 2-blade props.

The only sympathy I have for the complainers is altruistic. I care
not for them, but I do care how the noise bothering them will affect
my ability to safely fly.

Although I'd not care for the noise myself, were it not for the
negative impact on the airport I'd like to see about 20 AT-6s flying 8
hours a day out of there on the short runway. Not that I'm
vindictive. I try to be a good neighbor, but I still like the thought
of the 20 AT-6s.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Earl G
>
>

[Stefan]

Roger Halstead wrote:


>>Then we also have to deal with certification issues. The manufacturer has only
>>certified my aircraft for one prop. I suppose that STCs would be developed pretty
>>rapidly if 3-blade props were mandated, of course.

> And if they were mandated they'd probably run between $1,000 and
> $2,000 each plus the cost of the prop and labor.

Usually it's the prop manufactoter who lets his props be certified for a
type of plane, because it's him who wants to sell the prop. So you can
buy a fully certified prop. That's how it works in Europe, and how it
would in the US, too, I suppose.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Roger Halstead wrote:

> Where have you been? There are several negatives. Speed and fuel
> consumption for a trip. Lower RPM means less HP.

Why less RPM? Speed maybe, but why more fuel consumtion?

> The idea is not to make noise, but to gain efficiency.

Noise is wasted energy. So theoretically, a system with less noise is
more efficient. Practically, there's nothing less efficient than
supersonic props. Mufflers, if well engineered, don't put back pressure
to the engine. The exhaust system is a comlex dynamic oscillation
system, and well tuned mufflers can even enhance the power of an engine.
Rip off the exhaust system from a modern car. You'll be surprised how
much power you loose! (Don't ask me why I know.)

> Going from a 2 to a three blade prop greatly quieted the Deb, but it
> lost about 4 knots top end.

Agreed, this is a trade off. But, frankly, I think a quiet airplane is
worth 4 knots.

> I travel 500 to 1200 miles ... cruise is a160 knots true

Let's see.
1000 nm @ 160 kn gives 6 h 15 min
1000 nm @ 156 kn gives 6 h 24 min

So with the quiet prop, you loose 9 minutes on that 6 hrs trip.

> The most efficient exhaust system is a tuned exhaust and they are not
> quite.

They can be quite quiet.

> No, this is an example of a muffler on a light, slow, airplane, not
> something with speed.
>
> Just opening the cowl flaps costs me 20 to 30 knots. Imagine what
> something like that hanging out would do.

Agreed. But there are also exhaust systems that fit into a cowling. I
don't have a picture, though.

Stefan

[Paul Sengupta]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:35:03 +0100, "Paul Sengupta"
> >http://www.flyflightstar.com/pages/ctphoto.htm
>
> Why the javascript? My firewall takes one look and won't let me go
> there.

Um, I don't know. Was just trying to find a photograph.
Takes ages to load on my dial-up connection too...

Do a search for Flight Designs CT and see what you can
find. It's not really a substitute plane for a Deb or Bo though...

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> Mufflers can not be very effective on big engines without causing back
> pressure and a reduction in power.
>
> What you see in Europe is gained more by the reduction in RPM than the
> muffler. Lower RPM, less output gasses means the engine is quieter
> and it is easier to muffle. It is also developing less HP and in my
> opinion creates a safety concern.

Not necessarily. The mufflers/silencers don't. Or don't have to. And
the quietest engines are the Rotax 912s which run at over 5000 rpm.
Of course they don't produce 260hp!

http://www.hliese.de/International/international.html

They do one for the Bo. They claim no performance degredation
and a weight of <2lbs.

"Beech-33, -35 und -36 ( all Versions with Conti. IO-520 )"

Paul

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:31:22 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

>Now that number concerns me. A piece of steel tube the length of a
>normal muffler weighs almost that much. IF they claim no performance
>degradation the muffler must be straight through and would hardly be
>very effective, or at least hardly more effective than the stock units
>which weight a *lot* more than 2#. Are you sure that wasn't Kg?

Straight through mufflers can be deceptively effective. They aren't
literally just a straight through pipe, the pipe is actually drilled
with many holes which allows the exhaust pulse to bleed off into an
outer chamber. On street cars, this outer chamber is often packed
with fiberglass, producing "Glass Packs", famed for their suppressed
rumble.

The "Swiss Muffler" is a variation on that theme. It's a long drilled
tube, or a tube rolled from stainless steel mesh, surrounded by a
solid outer tube. The space between the two is packed with stainless
steel wool. So the exhaust pulse can go straight through, but it's
energy is bled off through the holes in the inner tube.

This is very effective, but the ones I've seen are routed outside the
body. Since they parallel the wind stream, they don't greatly effect
overall drag, but they definately are there to see.

http://www.piteraq.dk/flight/muffler.html

My opinion is that anti noise regulations for GA aircraft are likely
in the future here in the USA. We know it isn't impossible to do
because the entire European continent flies with such laws.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:15:37 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>It's going to depend entirely on whether or not the aircraft in question is
>"overpowered". If the engine and prop combination is such that there's power to
>spare, adding a blade can effectively use that power. You'd actually do better with a
>larger 2-blade prop, but there will be excellent reasons why this can't be done with
>that aircraft (if it could, the manufacturer would have installed one).
>
>If the aircraft *doesn't* have any power to spare (mine doesn't, for example), adding
>another blade (or a larger prop, for that matter) will only decrease performance.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm no prop design expert but I was intrigued by a
prop planform design written up in the latest Contact! magazine. It's
for experimental airplanes only, but it offered very good performance
and low noise at maximum rpm.

It had a sort of triangular planform, with the outer portion of the
blade narrowing way down outside the cowl. This seemed counter
intuitive to me because I'd always heard that the fuselage cross
section basically blanked out much of the thrust produced by the prop
close to the hub, and because the prop didn't turn very fast at that
point anyway, there just wasn't much thrust to be had.

But this designer found that wasn't true.

He narrowed the tips and cut them off abruptly because they operate at
Mach .85 or so and wide tips at those speeds create lots of drag and
noise.

So the prop looks really berzerk. It has an extreme pitch angle at
the hub, then the planform widens dramatically to the outer edge of
the cowling where it abruptly and also dramatically begins narrowing
down. It sweeps inward then begins straightening out to the point
where by the time the tip is reached, the planform is essentially
straight. The pitch angle flattens out as it gets further away from
the hub.

The airfoil is does not have a flat back either, it's airfoil shaped
on both sides, and I gather the airfoil is different at different
locations from the hub.

This is a relatively high speed prop for a high speed airplane, a
Lancair 360.

The designer was listening to a prop "expert" lecture (I think this
was at Oshkosh but don't recall when). The guy repeated the old wives
tale about multi bladed props being less efficient than two bladed
props, and that a single bladed prop was the most efficient propeller
of all.

The designer pointed out that at cruise, the rate of advance for a
standard rpm prop was in the neighborhood of nearly 15 inches PER
BLADE, on a three bladed prop. That meant that each blade bit into
air unsullied by the previous blade. So when exactly did a three
bladed prop become inefficient?

The expert paused for a moment, then said that the point of greatest
inefficiency occured while the airplane was completely stopped.

That's a "so what". Know one cares how efficient a prop is while
standing still, we only care how efficient it is while pulling the
airplane through the air. And while at cruise, the rate of advance
guarranteed that the prop blades, even three or four bladed props,
always saw clean, undisturbed air.

Corky Scott

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 11:26:14 in message
>, Todd Pattist
> wrote:
>So we have a blade hitting air that is 15" away from air
>that was hit by another blade. The pressure disturbance
>from the first blade propagated at the speed of sound over
>that 15" and has arrived at the "new air" 15" ahead long
>before the airplane and the second blade arrive , so there's
>some effect there. I'm also not a prop designer, but you
>need more to convince me than just saying they are 15"
>apart.

Let us assume a cruise rpm of 120knots == 202 ft sec

Then assume cruise rpm is 2000rpm

@ 2000 rpm is 33 revs per second

advance per revolution = 202/33 or 6 feet.

So three blades would arrive at the same spot every 2 feet. I am not
sure that means much because we know the flow is rotated by the prop as
well.
--
David CL Francis

[Stefan]

Roger Halstead wrote:

> Ideally a muffler could combine pulses into a steady string and
> average them out. The higher the RPM and the more cylinders the
> higher the frequency. The larger the pulse volume the more difficult
> to smooth, The higher the frequency the easier to smooth.

Agreed.

> Playing with a bit of math and an over simplification where I always
> make at least one mistake:

I'm not particularly "challenged" in any way, but frankly, I don't
understand the point of your calculations. But the principle is simple
and I agree: The bigger the volume of one (!) pulse, the bigger the
volume of the muffler. Everything beyond this pronciple is beyond me,
too, and left to the specialized engineers. All I know is that I can
hear the difference between a good and a bad muffler.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Newps wrote:

> Any muffler, no matter how well engineered, puts back pressure on the
> system.

No. As the exhaust system is an oscillating system, a well tuned one
even *reduces* back pressure to the engine!

> If it didn't it wouldn't muffle anything.

Back pressure to the engine relates to one side of the system, noise is
created on the other side.


>>> Rip off the exhaust system from a modern car. You'll be surprised how
>>> much power you loose! (Don't ask me why I know.)

> That's because the computer is now befuddled

In my particular case there wasn't any computer in the car. Ok, I should
have avoided the "modern" part.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Roger Halstead wrote:

>> Why less RPM? Speed maybe, but why more fuel consumtion?

> To get less noise with a particular prop you have to reduce the RPM.

Yes, but we talked about changing the prop.

> To go with more blades to reduce the noise is reduced efficiency,

This needn't to be so.

> The noise from the 2 blade prop is on take off.

The noise which causes most problems is the take off noise. En route
noise can be reduced by flying high and avoiding populated areas. Of
course a quiet plane is a nice thing en route, too.


> To me, working on the muffler(s) is like trying to keep
> the mouse from squeaking while the lion is roaring.

Nobody prevents one to work on both.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Roger Halstead wrote:

> One thing between Europe and the US, in general they are not flying
> the same kind of planes, or the ones they do are in the lower
> performance area with only a couple exceptions. Flying over there is
> unbelievably expensive compared to the US.

That's certainly so. There are several reasons for this: Generally more
dense population (I'm not talking Manhattan, of course), hence more
real noise problems. Smaller distances, hence private planes are
considered luxury. And generally more environmentally minded, hence the
high taxes on fuel and more strict noise regulations. Oh, and no
colonies for an ensured oil supply! (duck and run)

Stefan

[Corky Scott]

On 11 Aug 2004 11:26:14 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>So we have a blade hitting air that is 15" away from air
>that was hit by another blade. The pressure disturbance
>from the first blade propagated at the speed of sound over
>that 15" and has arrived at the "new air" 15" ahead long
>before the airplane and the second blade arrive , so there's
>some effect there. I'm also not a prop designer, but you
>need more to convince me than just saying they are 15"
>apart.

Not sure I need to convince you Todd. I'm just stating what the guy
who IS a prop designer is saying. If you want to debate, I'll look
the guy's name up and you can contact him.

But from what I can discern, the rate of advance is such that each
prop blade is biting into clean, undisturbed air. You should see this
prop, it's really unusual looking.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On 12 Aug 2004 09:21:10 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>>Not sure I need to convince you Todd. I'm just stating what the guy
>>who IS a prop designer is saying. If you want to debate, I'll look
>>the guy's name up and you can contact him.
>
>You don't have to convince me, I'd just like to know the
>answer. Monoplanes are more efficient than biplanes, so it
>makes sense to me that single blades are better than
>multiblades. How much "better" is the question. I would
>expect anything within about a prop "span" to have some
>effect.

The designer of the prop I mentioned wrote in the article about the
fallacy of single bladed prop. Regardless the dubius advantage of
biting into clean air, the problems associated with the unbalanced
thrust produced by the single blade spinning around, despite it being
counter balanced weightwise, are for all practical purposes
insurmountable.

The prop tries to rip the engine out of it's mounts all the way
around. The imbalance is pretty much impossible to dampen out and
results in monumental vibration.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On 13 Aug 2004 08:20:13 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>I was looking at the issue from the theoreticalaerodynamic
>sense and whether 15" of separation is enough. I agree
>there are lots of practical difficulties with single blade
>thrust, but that does not mean they are insurmountable in
>all cases. It's not unusual to see them on indoor model
>aircraft where efficiency is particularly critical and the
>"unbalanced thrust" is low and less of a problem.

Not absolutely positive, but I think that the difference in Reynolds
numbers between one of those 2 oz indoor mylar covered rubber band
powered airplanes and a Lancair 360 would skew the information so much
as to be non comparible.

Practically speaking, there appears to be a point where a two bladed
propeller simply cannot deal with the available horsepower and another
blade is necessary. That is why during WWII you can see the
progression from two bladed props, to three bladed, four bladed and
eventually, five blades.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On 13 Aug 2004 14:10:13 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>It's that and the fact that you can't keep on increasing the
>prop diameter - you run out of ground clearance, exceed
>material limits or hit the inefficiencies of supersonic
>tips.

As I mentioned, that's why the prop designer came up with such a
strange looking planform. The prop is wide where it's most efficient
(aproximately halfway out from the hub where the prop speed is way
below sonic speed) and can produce the greatest thrust, then narrows
down rapidly from that point from both leading and trailing edges,
then the leading and trailing edges get to running roughly parallel
before they stop abruptly at the tip which is squared off.

As I mentioned, since the tip is moving the fastest, it's smart to
present very little for the air to get draggy about at that point.

Some props have rather wide tips, which get hugely draggy at high
rpms, and also produce a lot of noise.

This things is very odd looking but produces good thrust while being
quieter than most props.

Corky Scott

[David CL Francis]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 at 11:01:06 in message
>, Corky Scott
> wrote:
>The designer of the prop I mentioned wrote in the article about the
>fallacy of single bladed prop. Regardless the dubius advantage of
>biting into clean air, the problems associated with the unbalanced
>thrust produced by the single blade spinning around, despite it being
>counter balanced weightwise, are for all practical purposes
>insurmountable.

This is successfully been done at model scale, where the effective
diameter is more important and High Mach numbers are not used. This is
especially true of rubber powered models where the high torque needs a
large diameter slow turning airscrew. The mass balance is angled
backwards so the offset thrust can be, to some extent, be balanced.
--
David CL Francis

[David Johnson]

David CL Francis > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 at 11:01:06 in message
> >, Corky Scott
> > wrote:
> >The designer of the prop I mentioned wrote in the article about the
> >fallacy of single bladed prop. Regardless the dubius advantage of
> >biting into clean air, the problems associated with the unbalanced
> >thrust produced by the single blade spinning around, despite it being
> >counter balanced weightwise, are for all practical purposes
> >insurmountable.
>
> This is successfully been done at model scale, where the effective
> diameter is more important and High Mach numbers are not used. This is
> especially true of rubber powered models where the high torque needs a
> large diameter slow turning airscrew. The mass balance is angled
> backwards so the offset thrust can be, to some extent, be balanced.

I have seen a motorglider at a couple of airshows that has a single-
blade counterweighted propeller. In this case the purpose is to make
the engine and prop stowable in the gliding mode. The propulsion as-
sembly is mounted on a mast above and behind the pilot, and pivots
backwards into a well in the fuselage. The drill is to rotate the
prop till the blade is pointing straight down, then lower the mast
assembly into the well and close the bay doors. It obviously works -
I watched the owner take off and fly away. Whether or not it is
satisfactory would be for those who fly it to decide. I haven't
heard any comments either way

David Johnson

[Jay Honeck]

> In my own experience with American Greens, they oppose anything that
> THEY don't do, while demanding outrageous privileges from government.
> Example: $4 million to have a bicycle lane across the Dumbarton Bridge
> in San Francisco Bay. Maybe three people a week use it.

Iowa City spent a hundred thousand dollars (or more) installing "bicycle
lifts" on the front of all city buses. These contraptions allow the bus
driver to stop, get out, and "easily" load a bicycle onto a rack mounted on
the front of the bus.

The Greens insisted that this would encourage the use of public
transportation (which has been a financial catastrophe here -- we could
literally buy each rider a car for less tax money), and rammed the issue
through our sheepish city council.

As most of us knew all along, they (like the buses) are rarely used --
thankfully. Each time they ARE used, the bus -- which, of course, must stop
at curbside, blocking the traffic lane -- sits for up to 5 minutes while the
poor driver wrestles the bike onto the rack.

I often wonder how much gas those 25 cars idling behind the bus are "saving"
thanks to the Greens.

But, of course, we're the idiots for letting them control the agenda...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[AJW]

>
>> In my own experience with American Greens, they oppose anything that
>> THEY don't do, while demanding outrageous privileges from government.
>> Example: $4 million to have a bicycle lane across the Dumbarton Bridge
>> in San Francisco Bay. Maybe three people a week use it.
>
>Iowa City spent a hundred thousand dollars (or more) installing "bicycle
>lifts" on the front of all city buses. These contraptions allow the bus
>driver to stop, get out, and "easily" load a bicycle onto a rack mounted on
>the front of the bus.
>
>The Greens insisted that this would encourage the use of public
>transportation (which has been a financial catastrophe here -- we could
>literally buy each rider a car for less tax money), and rammed the issue
>through our sheepish city council.
>
>As most of us knew all along, they (like the buses) are rarely used --
>thankfully. Each time they ARE used, the bus -- which, of course, must stop
>at curbside, blocking the traffic lane -- sits for up to 5 minutes while the
>poor driver wrestles the bike onto the rack.
>
>I often wonder how much gas those 25 cars idling behind the bus are "saving"
>thanks to the Greens.
>
>But, of course, we're the idiots for letting them control the agenda...
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
Jay, you'd enjoy the HOV lanes on the Long Island Expressway (LIE), Long Island
NY.

Tthe LIE, like many other urban roads, is called by locals the world's longest
parking lot. Here's the fun thing. It's 4 lanes plus an HOV lane along much of
its length. The HOV lane, however, takes two lanes of width, the lane itself,
then transition and buffer areas. HOV traffic is MUCH less than 1/5 of the
traffic, I'd guess 1/20th is a better guess, but it owns 1/3 of the real
estate. It gets even better. The HOV lanes are only enforced during times of
high traffic flow! The times when the extra pavement could really be used by
the people going and coming from work, it's denied them. Of course, at times
when traffic is sparce, anyone may use the HOV lanes.

Now don't get me started on those damned walls along radways to control noise!

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Honeck" wrote

> Iowa City spent a hundred thousand dollars (or more) installing
> "bicycle lifts" on the front of all city buses. These contraptions
> allow the bus driver to stop, get out, and "easily" load a bicycle
> onto a rack mounted on the front of the bus.

We have bike racks on all of our buses here in the Tampa Bay Area.
I use them frequently, and despite the Mercedes Diesel parked in my
carport, I consider my bicycle my main means of transportation
within Tarpon Springs and Pinellas County. We also pulled-up the
old railroad tracks and paved a bike-jog path for the entire 34 mile
length of the county. On my 68th birthday, I biked both directions
(68 miles)in 6 hours. Our bus drivers never touch the bikes, one
must view a 10-15 minute training video, pay for a photo ID card, and
display it to the bus driver each time that the bike rack is used.

> As most of us knew all along, they (like the buses) are rarely used --
> thankfully. Each time they ARE used, the bus -- which, of course,
> must stop at curbside, blocking the traffic lane -- sits for up to 5
> minutes while the poor driver wrestles the bike onto the rack.

Our bikes racks are so heavily used that the county is in the process
of upgrading the 2-bike racks to 3-bike racks. It takes this old man
only about 15 seconds to load and unload my bike from the rack while
the other passengers are boarding.

What comments do you have about the mandatory wheelchair lifts that we
also have on all of our busses? Using them does require driver
assistance and probably about 5 minutes per use. I don't think that
any one of those wheelchair users ever thought that one day they would
be in that position. I think that it is admiralable that the citizens
of Pinellas County have chosen to help these citizens remain independant
in their transportation needs.

> But, of course, we're the idiots for letting them control the
> agenda...

And I thank you very much! :-) I have found that as I age, I become
much more considerate and understanding of the needs of others.

Bob Moore

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
>
> I think that it is admiralable that the citizens of Pinellas County have
> chosen to help these citizens remain independant in their
> transportation needs.
>

If I needed help to remain independent I wouldn't consider myself
independent.

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message . 8...
> "Jay Honeck" wrote
>
> > Iowa City spent a hundred thousand dollars (or more) installing
> > "bicycle lifts" on the front of all city buses. These contraptions
> > allow the bus driver to stop, get out, and "easily" load a bicycle
> > onto a rack mounted on the front of the bus.
>
> We have bike racks on all of our buses here in the Tampa Bay Area.

I've never seen a hydraulic one however. I've never seen a driver put
a bike in one either. If you're the type to be able to ride a bike, you're
usually able to lift it up into the rack yourself.

[lowflyer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message .net>...
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message

>
> If I needed help to remain independent I wouldn't consider myself
> independent.

Unless you are living hundreds of miles from other people and
surviving by using tools that you made with your own bare hands, you
are not independent. Everyone depends on other people to one degree or
another. At some point in your life, unless you enjoy sudden death,
you will be depending on other people more and more as your body and
mind decline. Then maybe you will appreciate the point that Bob Moore
made.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Unless you are living hundreds of miles from other people and
> surviving by using tools that you made with your own bare hands, you
> are not independent. Everyone depends on other people to one degree or
> another. At some point in your life, unless you enjoy sudden death,
> you will be depending on other people more and more as your body and
> mind decline. Then maybe you will appreciate the point that Bob Moore
> made.
>

Do you think you'll ever appreciate the point I made?

[Jay Honeck]

> We have bike racks on all of our buses here in the Tampa Bay Area.
> I use them frequently, and despite the Mercedes Diesel parked in my
> carport, I consider my bicycle my main means of transportation
> within Tarpon Springs and Pinellas County.

That's wonderful, Bob. I'm glad they're being used *somewhere*...

Hell, I hope that when I'm 68 I can still walk upstairs, let alone ride a
bike 68 miles!

> Our bus drivers never touch the bikes, one
> must view a 10-15 minute training video, pay for a photo ID card, and
> display it to the bus driver each time that the bike rack is used.

Wow. I can just imagine the bureaucracy that's been set up to administer
THAT little program. Who's paying those folks' salaries?

I doubt it's the bicyclists. (Or do you pay an extra fare for your bike?)

> What comments do you have about the mandatory wheelchair lifts that we
> also have on all of our busses?

We have them, too, and I find them to be completely absurd. They cost
taxpayers enough so that we quite literally could have purchased a special
handicapped-accessible van, and staffed it with a full-time driver -- and
STILL been money ahead.

Best of all, were a special van purchased we wouldn't be inconveniencing and
delaying those few who DO use mass-transit. How many quit riding the bus
because of these kinds of delays? More than will admit it, I suspect.

> I have found that as I age, I become
> much more considerate and understanding of the needs of others.

I have found that as I age I become less and less tolerant of people
demanding "rights" that simply don't exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[lowflyer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message .net>...
> "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> om...

>
> Do you think you'll ever appreciate the point I made?

Seemed pretty clear, but you seem to think I missed something. What was it?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JtVTc.161536$eM2.64302@attbi_s51...
>
> I have found that as I age I become less and less tolerant of people
> demanding "rights" that simply don't exist.

Oh, I'm sure if you really thought about it you could list a whole bunch of
"rights" that you have, and take advantage of, that others might well
consider as nonexistant.

Let's start with aviation and everything that goes with it (e.g. weather
briefings).

Absolutes are difficult and the rest is just a matter of degree.

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:j4JTc.314255$XM6.88329@attbi_s53...
> Iowa City spent a hundred thousand dollars (or more) installing "bicycle
> lifts" on the front of all city buses. These contraptions allow the bus
> driver to stop, get out, and "easily" load a bicycle onto a rack mounted
on
> the front of the bus.
>
Those racks, along with bicycle lanes on bridges and bike trails and the
like, are heavily used in this area. I think it depends a lot on population
density, though I would have expected bicycling to be more popular than it
is in your area -- after all, you don't have the hills we do. It has been
kind of miserable riding across the Hood Canal Bridge lately since the bike
lane has been all but closed for bridge maintenance, but I expect once that
is completed that people will be riding across the bridge again.

Of course, I am one of those infernal bike nuts, which I suppose would make
me a Green when I am not a rabid right-wing conservative. :-)

It is funny how some pilots who are sensitive to airlines complaining that
we don't pay our fair share of taxes will turn around and level the same
charge at bicyclists, yet the situations are very similar. Sure, bicyclists
don't pay gas taxes when they are not driving cars, but then in most places
gas taxes aren't being used to pay for roads anyway. There is very little
difference between bicyclists and motorists on the total amount of taxes
paid.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:56:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> In my own experience with American Greens, they oppose anything that
>> THEY don't do, while demanding outrageous privileges from government.
>> Example: $4 million to have a bicycle lane across the Dumbarton Bridge
>> in San Francisco Bay. Maybe three people a week use it.
>
>Iowa City spent a hundred thousand dollars (or more) installing "bicycle
>lifts" on the front of all city buses. These contraptions allow the bus
>driver to stop, get out, and "easily" load a bicycle onto a rack mounted on
>the front of the bus.

Mistake number one. Almost any serious bicyclist is not going to let
some buss driver with or without training load their bicycle. You
don't play around with bikes of this class just like you don't walk up
and pick up some musicians axe. (Guitar)

Today's bicyclists do not ride the old bikes we were so fond of while
growing up. Today's bicyclist rides a bike that cost as much as a
nice, but small used car.

Joyce and I are both over 60, yet at least once a week she rides 20
miles one way to another town for lunch with friends. She just
returned from a trip that went from South of Muskegon MI to Mackinaw
City. In past years she'd ride from the "Straights" across the upper
peninsula all the way past Green Bay to Manitowoc (sp?) WI in the same
week I was at Oshkosh.

It sounds as if the system you are talking about was designed by non
bicyclists, or at least people who know little of alternate
transportation.. IOW they had the wrong people doing the work. As
was mentioned in another answer the bicyclist is the one who loads the
bike. You don't let some one else play with your toys when they cost
that much.

Moving to alternate forms of transportation is a complex issue.

First, we don't have the alternate forms because we don't have
provisions for them such as racks on the buss, bike lanes, rail
trails...etc... but when you put in provisions for those alternate
forms of transportation they are not used because the alternate forms
have not developed due to the lack of provisions to support them.
(bike lanes, rail trails, traffic education among others)

>
>The Greens insisted that this would encourage the use of public
>transportation (which has been a financial catastrophe here -- we could
>literally buy each rider a car for less tax money), and rammed the issue
>through our sheepish city council.

Think positive. These are the attitudes that have prevented the
alternate forms in the first place and continue to discourage them It
all takes time. If you develop a rail trail (replace abandoned rail
roads with bike, or non motorized trails) and they may not see much
use at first, but once available the use will develop.

We built a paved rail trail from Midland to Clare Michigan. It's a
bit over 30 miles long. http://www.lmb.org/pmrt/ (go to the map)
Photos along the trail are also on the site.

At first people fought the tail and the "bikers". They feared it would
raise crime in the areas where it was going to go through. Now that
the tail is in, there are restaurants along the trail that cater to
the riders as well as the general public. Several bike shops have been
built. Instead of trouble it is building business. We have people
riding 15 to 30 miles for Saturday or Sunday lunch and then back. In
town (Midland) hundreds use the trail every day for hiking, biking,
and roller blading. The first 4 or 5 miles are one busy stretch. I
believe that part is 12 feet wide. We are getting ready to add
another 7 miles of trail out to the Chippewa Nature Center.

>
>As most of us knew all along, they (like the buses) are rarely used --
>thankfully. Each time they ARE used, the bus -- which, of course, must stop
>at curbside, blocking the traffic lane -- sits for up to 5 minutes while the
>poor driver wrestles the bike onto the rack.

Again, poor design. It should only take seconds to load the bike. We
can load both our bikes onto the car carrier in less than a minute and
they weren't designed for speed loading.

First you have to build the infrastructure as the bicyclists aren't
going to be there until it is in place. You'd be surprised just how
fast a properly designed system will develop use.

If the rest of the alternative system is designed as the buss system,
it will not develop.

Ten years ago Joyce and I flew to Florida. We took our road bikes. One
look at the roads and we decided we were not going to ride in that
state. There were no shoulders and no provisions for riding bikes and
with the elderly drivers and narrow roads you needed a death wish to
take a short ride.
..
They tell me Texas was even worse. Today both Texas and Florida are
rated among the top states for alternative transportation.

If you really want to see a city designed to handle cars, pedestrians,
and bicycles, go to Boulder Colorado. Every major street has wide
bike lanes and they are well used. They have a tremendous system.
I've heard there are now cities that are much better.

>
>I often wonder how much gas those 25 cars idling behind the bus are "saving"
>thanks to the Greens.

Again as in Florida the faulty design of the system is causing the
delay.

>
>But, of course, we're the idiots for letting them control the agenda...

The problem is the idiots controlling the agenda didn't understand
what was needed and built an expensive answer that wasn't an answer,
but rather more of another problem.

It's not the Greens, but those who seek alternate forms of
transportation. Getting the extremists in the planning is as bad or
worse than getting those who know noting about alternate forms of
transportation.

Any city, or county that decides to go ahead with alternate forms of
transportation will gain in the long run if the program is properly
implemented. They will just create a lot of animosity if the system
is not properly designed and run. Even the implementation of a
properly designed system will be a painful growing experience.
It takes time to design, it takes time to implement, and it takes time
for the user base to develop.

If we had the bridge across the river, just down the road, I'd be
riding my bike to the airport. It'd be just over 5 miles. As it is
now, it's nearly 11 miles and 5 of those are on a very bad stretch of
highway. So to get around that you have to ride another 5 miles making
the trip 15 instead of the possible 5.

Hell, for a slightly exorbitant price I know of a couple people who
might be willing to serve as consultants. For that matter I could
probably find a lot more who have substantial experience in the field.

Just go to the site listed above and follow the links. Another good
one is the Michigan State university site
http://www.prr.msu.edu/trails/

Another is a pdf put out by the state of Michigan for land use
development http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Strader2_85237_7.pdf
You might find others by going to www.mi.gov

This is a complicated issue due to the need to interface different
forms of transportation with different needs, drastically differing
speeds, and differing mind sets that are some times a bit on the
incompatible side.

Good luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Honeck" wrote

>> "Bob Moore" wrote
>> Our bus drivers never touch the bikes, one
>> must view a 10-15 minute training video,
>> pay for a photo ID card, and display it to
>> the bus driver each time that the bike rack
>> is used.
>
> Wow. I can just imagine the bureaucracy that's been set up to
> administer THAT little program. Who's paying those folks' salaries?
> I doubt it's the bicyclists. (Or do you pay an extra fare for your
> bike?)

No extra fare...bicycles are a popular means of transportation
and exercise here in the Tampa Bay area....no snow. :-)
The number of bike shops here in Pinellas County alone must number
close to one hundred. They administer the bike rack program as a
part of their business....attracts new customers.
The citizens of Pinellas County voted an extra penny sales tax to
fund the public parks system which includes the 34 mile bike-jog
path. A lifestyle without snow can be GREAT!

>> What comments do you have about the mandatory wheelchair lifts that
>> we also have on all of our busses?
>
> We have them, too, and I find them to be completely absurd. They
> cost taxpayers enough so that we quite literally could have purchased
> a special handicapped-accessible van, and staffed it with a full-time
> driver -- and STILL been money ahead.

Not here in Pinellas County where we have a larger percentage of senior
citizens with health related issues than most anywhere else in the
country.

> I have found that as I age I become less and less tolerant of people
> demanding "rights" that simply don't exist.

I think that the Disabled American Veterans using their wheelchairs on
our public transportation systems to get to the VA hospital have earned
that "right".

Bob Moore

[Bob Moore]

Roger Halstead wrote
> Ten years ago Joyce and I flew to Florida. We took our road bikes. One
> look at the roads and we decided we were not going to ride in that
> state. There were no shoulders and no provisions for riding bikes and
> with the elderly drivers and narrow roads you needed a death wish to
> take a short ride.

No longer true, state law now requires bike shoulders on all new
road construction and sidewalks anywhere near populated areas.

Bob Moore

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Seemed pretty clear, but you seem to think I missed something.
>

I'll take that as a "No."

[Jay Honeck]

> Not here in Pinellas County where we have a larger percentage of senior
> citizens with health related issues than most anywhere else in the
> country.

Ah, good point. Here in Iowa City the average age is something crazy, like
27, thanks to the University.

> I think that the Disabled American Veterans using their wheelchairs on
> our public transportation systems to get to the VA hospital have earned
> that "right".

Agreed. We have a huge VA hospital here in Iowa City (one of THREE medical
centers, believe it or not) -- and they have their own transportation for
vets.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Mistake number one. Almost any serious bicyclist is not going to let
> some buss driver with or without training load their bicycle. You
> don't play around with bikes of this class just like you don't walk up
> and pick up some musicians axe. (Guitar)

I don't think they want individual riders standing in the street, in front
of an idling bus, fiddling with a bike rack that may already contain one (or
more) other bikes.

In this regard, I agree with them. The liability insurance issue here
would be even worse than it already is.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Richard Russell]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:03:05 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> We have bike racks on all of our buses here in the Tampa Bay Area.
>> I use them frequently, and despite the Mercedes Diesel parked in my
>> carport, I consider my bicycle my main means of transportation
>> within Tarpon Springs and Pinellas County.
>
>That's wonderful, Bob. I'm glad they're being used *somewhere*...
>
>Hell, I hope that when I'm 68 I can still walk upstairs, let alone ride a
>bike 68 miles!
>
>> Our bus drivers never touch the bikes, one
>> must view a 10-15 minute training video, pay for a photo ID card, and
>> display it to the bus driver each time that the bike rack is used.
>
>Wow. I can just imagine the bureaucracy that's been set up to administer
>THAT little program. Who's paying those folks' salaries?
>
>I doubt it's the bicyclists. (Or do you pay an extra fare for your bike?)
>
>> What comments do you have about the mandatory wheelchair lifts that we
>> also have on all of our busses?
>
>We have them, too, and I find them to be completely absurd. They cost
>taxpayers enough so that we quite literally could have purchased a special
>handicapped-accessible van, and staffed it with a full-time driver -- and
>STILL been money ahead.
>
>Best of all, were a special van purchased we wouldn't be inconveniencing and
>delaying those few who DO use mass-transit. How many quit riding the bus
>because of these kinds of delays? More than will admit it, I suspect.
>
>> I have found that as I age, I become
>> much more considerate and understanding of the needs of others.
>
>I have found that as I age I become less and less tolerant of people
>demanding "rights" that simply don't exist.

I have taken bikes on buses and I fly. I would venture a guess that
most of the general population would consider my "rights" as a pilot
and the associated tax burden to be significantly more of an issue
than taking bikes on public transportation. As pilots, I think it may
be wise to avoid making this a major issue:)
Rich Russell

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message

>
> I think that the Disabled American Veterans using their wheelchairs on
> our public transportation systems to get to the VA hospital have earned
> that "right".

And the extra cost is primarily that they didn't originally use a universal design
to begin with. When you plan these things properly to begin with, not only
is the cost difference in the noise, but you also find that all sorts of people who
aren't so visibly impaired benefit.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Seemed pretty clear, but you seem to think I missed something.
> >
>
> I'll take that as a "No."

Then by your definition no one is "independent."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > Seemed pretty clear, but you seem to think I missed something.
> > >
> >
> > I'll take that as a "No."
>
> Then by your definition no one is "independent."
>

Odd, I don't recall providing a definition.

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:33:22 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>Roger Halstead wrote
>> Ten years ago Joyce and I flew to Florida. We took our road bikes. One
>> look at the roads and we decided we were not going to ride in that
>> state. There were no shoulders and no provisions for riding bikes and
>> with the elderly drivers and narrow roads you needed a death wish to
>> take a short ride.
>
>No longer true, state law now requires bike shoulders on all new
>road construction and sidewalks anywhere near populated areas.

I believe I said in the next sentence that both Texas and Florida are
now prime examples of what can be done, or something to that effect,
or at least that was my intent. It's possible I didn't say what I
thought although Joyce tells me that happens more and more. Course
the posting time might have something to do with that. <:-))

That post has not shown up on my server yet although several answers
have.

At any rate the two states have gone from bad examples to a couple of
the best examples.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Bob Moore

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:04:35 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Mistake number one. Almost any serious bicyclist is not going to let
>> some buss driver with or without training load their bicycle. You
>> don't play around with bikes of this class just like you don't walk up
>> and pick up some musicians axe. (Guitar)
>
>I don't think they want individual riders standing in the street, in front
>of an idling bus, fiddling with a bike rack that may already contain one (or
>more) other bikes.
>
>In this regard, I agree with them. The liability insurance issue here
>would be even worse than it already is.

That's why as in Florida the racks are simple and the rider puts their
bike on it, not the driver. It sounds like they are a bit too
complicated.

Joyce is an avid bicyclist. I just ride a lot, but I don't think we'd
fit the description of greens although all my monitors are listed as
"green"(enviro friendly). <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:17:46 -0400, Richard Russell
> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:03:05 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>I have taken bikes on buses and I fly. I would venture a guess that

Joyce has taken her bike to New Zealand twice. She has a "bike
suitcase". It has gone there and back twice now with no extra charge.

>most of the general population would consider my "rights" as a pilot
>and the associated tax burden to be significantly more of an issue
>than taking bikes on public transportation. As pilots, I think it may
>be wise to avoid making this a major issue:)

Amen!

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Rich Russell

[Adam K.]

> I have found that as I age I become less and less tolerant of people
> demanding "rights" that simply don't exist.

This sounds to me like it could lead to an asocial bitter and unhappy
adulthood. Try this, the next time you see someone exhibiting this
behavior you speak of, go right up to them and give them a BIG hug!
Let me know how it works out. I care.

AK

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<JtVTc.161536$eM2.64302@attbi_s51>...
> > We have bike racks on all of our buses here in the Tampa Bay Area.
> > I use them frequently, and despite the Mercedes Diesel parked in my
> > carport, I consider my bicycle my main means of transportation
> > within Tarpon Springs and Pinellas County.
>
> That's wonderful, Bob. I'm glad they're being used *somewhere*...
>
> Hell, I hope that when I'm 68 I can still walk upstairs, let alone ride a
> bike 68 miles!
>
> > Our bus drivers never touch the bikes, one
> > must view a 10-15 minute training video, pay for a photo ID card, and
> > display it to the bus driver each time that the bike rack is used.
>
> Wow. I can just imagine the bureaucracy that's been set up to administer
> THAT little program. Who's paying those folks' salaries?
>
> I doubt it's the bicyclists. (Or do you pay an extra fare for your bike?)
>
> > What comments do you have about the mandatory wheelchair lifts that we
> > also have on all of our busses?
>
> We have them, too, and I find them to be completely absurd. They cost
> taxpayers enough so that we quite literally could have purchased a special
> handicapped-accessible van, and staffed it with a full-time driver -- and
> STILL been money ahead.
>
> Best of all, were a special van purchased we wouldn't be inconveniencing and
> delaying those few who DO use mass-transit. How many quit riding the bus
> because of these kinds of delays? More than will admit it, I suspect.
>
> > I have found that as I age, I become
> > much more considerate and understanding of the needs of others.
>
> I have found that as I age I become less and less tolerant of people
> demanding "rights" that simply don't exist.

[Cub Driver]

On 16 Aug 2004 09:27:28 -0700, (Adam K.)
wrote:

>This sounds to me like it could lead to an asocial bitter and unhappy
>adulthood. Try this, the next time you see someone exhibiting this
>behavior you speak of, go right up to them and give them a BIG hug!
>Let me know how it works out. I care.

Yech.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Paul Sengupta]

"Adam K." > wrote in message
m...
> > I have found that as I age I become less and less tolerant of people
> > demanding "rights" that simply don't exist.
>
> This sounds to me like it could lead to an asocial bitter and unhappy
> adulthood. Try this, the next time you see someone exhibiting this
> behavior you speak of, go right up to them and give them a BIG hug!
> Let me know how it works out. I care.

Do they allow internet access in asylums?

Paul

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Adam K." wrote:
>
> Try this, the next time you see someone exhibiting this
> behavior you speak of, go right up to them and give them a BIG hug!
> Let me know how it works out. I care.

Hey, Jay, if it's all the same to you, just skip the hug when we meet, ok? I'll
settle for a handshake (especially if it's got some cold glass in it).

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> Do they allow internet access in asylums?

The evidence indicates that there's a good possibility. Maybe Adam's doctors think
it's beneficial treatment?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:22:36 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Adam K." wrote:
>>
>> Try this, the next time you see someone exhibiting this
>> behavior you speak of, go right up to them and give them a BIG hug!
>> Let me know how it works out. I care.
>
>Hey, Jay, if it's all the same to you, just skip the hug when we meet, ok? I'll
>settle for a handshake (especially if it's got some cold glass in it).

Ahhhh... You shake the hand without the cold one. Not good to spill
good bee... er ... beverages.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.

[Jay Honeck]

> This sounds to me like it could lead to an asocial bitter and unhappy
> adulthood. Try this, the next time you see someone exhibiting this
> behavior you speak of, go right up to them and give them a BIG hug!
> Let me know how it works out. I care.

Only if they happen to be members of the Swedish Bikini Team...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Big John]

Todd

In the later 30's was in control line racing (60 size, class D). I
built several one bladed props used to win some contests.

I turned the McCoy 60 over 20K with these props.

They could probably make a satisfactory one bladed prop today but it
would have to be longer and/or wider than a two blade and then
probably best on a racing bird not run of mill GA.

Big John



On 13 Aug 2004 08:20:13 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>>The designer of the prop I mentioned wrote in the article about the
>>fallacy of single bladed prop. Regardless the dubius advantage of
>>biting into clean air, the problems associated with the unbalanced
>>thrust produced by the single blade spinning around, despite it being
>>counter balanced weightwise, are for all practical purposes
>>insurmountable.
>>The prop tries to rip the engine out of it's mounts all the way
>>around. The imbalance is pretty much impossible to dampen out and
>>results in monumental vibration.
>
>I was looking at the issue from the theoreticalaerodynamic
>sense and whether 15" of separation is enough. I agree
>there are lots of practical difficulties with single blade
>thrust, but that does not mean they are insurmountable in
>all cases. It's not unusual to see them on indoor model
>aircraft where efficiency is particularly critical and the
>"unbalanced thrust" is low and less of a problem.
>
>I wasn't trying to say that one bladed props are practical
>or more desirable, but it seems likely to me that the
>aerodynamics of a single blademake it more efficient.
>Design is always a trade-off and I have serious doubts that
>the extra efficiency is worthwhile in any normal
>application.
>
>Todd Pattist
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>___
>Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
>Share what you learn.

[Morgans]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote

Not good to spill good bee... er ... beverages.

Bee Juice? You drink cold honey? Yuck! <g>
--
Jim in NC





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004

[Brian Burger]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Jay Honeck wrote:

> > Mistake number one. Almost any serious bicyclist is not going to let
> > some buss driver with or without training load their bicycle. You
> > don't play around with bikes of this class just like you don't walk up
> > and pick up some musicians axe. (Guitar)
>
> I don't think they want individual riders standing in the street, in front
> of an idling bus, fiddling with a bike rack that may already contain one (or
> more) other bikes.

<shrug> That's how it works here - you're expected to load/unload your own
bike; the drivers will help if you ask, though.

And yes, the racks get used, 365 days of the year.

> In this regard, I agree with them. The liability insurance issue here
> would be even worse than it already is.

I'm in Canada; we have (marginally) saner lawyers, I guess. In any case,
nobody's died or sued yet, that I know of.

Brian.

[ET]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:10i5fe9b3ei8kb9
@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "Roger Halstead" > wrote
>
> Not good to spill good bee... er ... beverages.
>
> Bee Juice? You drink cold honey? Yuck! <g>

Mmmmmmm Mead... -- Cold honey in a glass. (well femented just a little)

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:32:11 GMT, ET > wrote:

>"Morgans" > wrote in news:10i5fe9b3ei8kb9
:
>
>>
>> "Roger Halstead" > wrote
>>
>> Not good to spill good bee... er ... beverages.
>>
>> Bee Juice? You drink cold honey? Yuck! <g>
>
>Mmmmmmm Mead... -- Cold honey in a glass. (well femented just a little)

Hmmm... Must be from the UK<:-))
NO.... They drink "Stout" which is distilled cough syrup with more
than a dash of bitters.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(Went partying with a Brit, Welchman (sp?), Scott, and an Irishman)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com