Running dry?

[Thomas Borchert]

Icebound,

> Once having embarked upon it, however, we would like to get through it as
> safely as possible. :-)
>

Frankly, that's most definitely not my primary goal in life. And it would
make for an extremely boring life if it was.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> With NO changes in engine horsepower, NO changes in wing design, NO
> changes in nothing else except a net NEGATIVE CHANGE in rudder area ...
>
> How (in an engineering sense) did they do that?

Jim, it's an FAA thing.

'Nuff said.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-25, RST Engineering > wrote:
> With NO changes in engine horsepower, NO changes in wing design, NO changes
> in nothing else except a net NEGATIVE CHANGE in rudder area ...
>
> How (in an engineering sense) did they do that?

There was another change - limiting the flap extension (IIRC) from 40
degrees to 30 degrees. Part of what decides gross weight is go around
performance with full flaps. You can get a 100lb gross weight increase
in some models of C172 just by limiting the flap extension to 30 degrees
with a plate that prevents you moving the flap switch past the 30
degrees setting.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dale]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:


>
> How (in an engineering sense) did they do that?
>
> Jim

They got out their little engineers eraser and engineers pencil and
changed the numbers.

The 30 degree flaps didn't come along until way late in the 182's
life...gross was up over 3000 pounds, IIRC, before the flaps were
limited.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2005-08-25, RST Engineering > wrote:
>
>>With NO changes in engine horsepower, NO changes in wing design, NO changes
>>in nothing else except a net NEGATIVE CHANGE in rudder area ...
>>
>>How (in an engineering sense) did they do that?
>
>
> There was another change - limiting the flap extension (IIRC) from 40
> degrees to 30 degrees.

No 182 is limited to 30 degrees.

[Roger]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:17:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
<snip>

>> > It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more
>>
>> The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
>> farther aft too because the tail weighs more.
>>
>Gotcha...I was thinking of something else and did a reference fart.
>
There are 33s and then there are 33s and there is a big difference
between useful load and CG. Early 33s (prior to 74) had roughly a
100# useful load while those after had a 1400# useful load. I don't
know about the ones near the end of the production run.

With the early ones you didn't have much worry about CG change with
fuel burn either.

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

[Roger]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:18:25 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:17:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:
>
>>
><snip>
>
>>> > It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more
>>>
>>> The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
>>> farther aft too because the tail weighs more.
>>>
>>Gotcha...I was thinking of something else and did a reference fart.
>>
>There are 33s and then there are 33s and there is a big difference
>between useful load and CG. Early 33s (prior to 74) had roughly a
>100# useful load while those after had a 1400# useful load. I don't

Oops... That 1000# versus 1400#, but I'd guess every one figured that
out any way<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>know about the ones near the end of the production run.
>
>With the early ones you didn't have much worry about CG change with
>fuel burn either.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:18:25 -0400, Roger
> > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:17:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> ><snip>
> >
> >>> > It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more
> >>>
> >>> The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
> >>> farther aft too because the tail weighs more.
> >>>
> >>Gotcha...I was thinking of something else and did a reference fart.
> >>
> >There are 33s and then there are 33s and there is a big difference
> >between useful load and CG. Early 33s (prior to 74) had roughly a
> >100# useful load while those after had a 1400# useful load. I don't
>
> Oops... That 1000# versus 1400#, but I'd guess every one figured that
> out any way<:-))
>

I understand the 33's with a IO-550 and Turbonormalizer max out at something
like 3750 MTOW and have about 1350 useful load. The heavier weight from the
engine & turbo do nice things for the CG, too. Add an oxygen system
(installed under the co-pilots) seat and it's even better.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO