Wanted: 2-33 left wing

[[email protected]]

I'm helping a friend locate a replacement wing for a Schweizer 2-33.
Left with mild hail damage would be perfect but will consider left,
right, varous conditions. Reply to me: wby0nder'at'aol.com

Matt Michael

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> wrote:
>> I'm helping a friend locate a replacement wing for a Schweizer 2-33.
>> Left with mild hail damage would be perfect but will consider left,
>> right, varous conditions. Reply to me: wby0nder'at'aol.com
>
> "I busted the left wing and I need to replace it. I'd prefer to replace
> it with another left wing, but in a pinch, I'll try to make do with two
> right wings."
>
> Let's hope this is just an unfortunate miscommunication rather than a
> serious plan. :-)

Perhaps he needs parts that are on either wing?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[[email protected]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> I'm helping a friend locate a replacement wing for a Schweizer 2-33.
> >> Left with mild hail damage would be perfect but will consider left,
> >> right, varous conditions. Reply to me: wby0nder'at'aol.com
> >
> > "I busted the left wing and I need to replace it. I'd prefer to replace
> > it with another left wing, but in a pinch, I'll try to make do with two
> > right wings."
> >
> > Let's hope this is just an unfortunate miscommunication rather than a
> > serious plan. :-)
>
> Perhaps he needs parts that are on either wing?

There you go again, Mr. Greenwell, with your "facts" and your "logic"
and your "reason", perversions I refuse to submit to since to do so
would be to turn this wondrous and magical universe into a drab and
desert realm. Good day to you.

Johan Larson

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> I'm helping a friend locate a replacement wing for a Schweizer 2-33.
>>>> Left with mild hail damage would be perfect but will consider left,
>>>> right, varous conditions. Reply to me: wby0nder'at'aol.com
>>> "I busted the left wing and I need to replace it. I'd prefer to replace
>>> it with another left wing, but in a pinch, I'll try to make do with two
>>> right wings."
>>>
>>> Let's hope this is just an unfortunate miscommunication rather than a
>>> serious plan. :-)
>> Perhaps he needs parts that are on either wing?
>
> There you go again, Mr. Greenwell, with your "facts" and your "logic"
> and your "reason", perversions I refuse to submit to since to do so
> would be to turn this wondrous and magical universe into a drab and
> desert realm. Good day to you.

Can I redeem my drab desert by wondering why "mild hail damage" was the
perfect condition? Do you suppose the right wing already has "mild hail
damage", and so a left wing with matching damage is required?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[PB]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

>
> Can I redeem my drab desert by wondering why "mild hail damage" was the
> perfect condition? Do you suppose the right wing already has "mild hail
> damage", and so a left wing with matching damage is required?
>
Hmmm golf balls fly futher with dimples, is 2-33 with 50:1 possible?

paul

[[email protected]]

Shhhhhhhh. Super secret Super-Schweizer project.

MM

[[email protected]]

PB wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >
> > Can I redeem my drab desert by wondering why "mild hail damage" was the
> > perfect condition? Do you suppose the right wing already has "mild hail
> > damage", and so a left wing with matching damage is required?
> >
> Hmmm golf balls fly futher with dimples, is 2-33 with 50:1 possible?

With that riveted wing, I suspect you'd have to bolt on a JATO unit to
give a 2-33 50:1 performance.

Johan Larson

[COLIN LAMB]

If you installed two left wings, or two right wings, but installed the
"wrong one" facing backwards, it might be perfect for thermaling in a tight
column of air - as long as you made sure you always went in the correct
direction.

It could also be good for flat spin recovery - if you made sure you spun it
in the correct direction.

Tow rope attachment might be somewhere on the rear facing wing, to help it
launch straight, althugh it might require some experimentation.

Colin

[[email protected]]

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> If you installed two left wings, or two right wings, but installed the
> "wrong one" facing backwards, it might be perfect for thermaling in a tight
> column of air - as long as you made sure you always went in the correct
> direction.

That sounds like a long-discarded prototype for the helicopter, before
they discovered you don't want the crew pod to spin with the blades.
:-)

>
> It could also be good for flat spin recovery - if you made sure you spun it
> in the correct direction.
>
> Tow rope attachment might be somewhere on the rear facing wing, to help it
> launch straight, althugh it might require some experimentation.

Just wind the tow rope around a vertical axis, like winding the string
around a top. Then pull hard, and the device will take off on its own.

Good idea, Colin.

Johan Larson

[COLIN LAMB]

>That sounds like a long-discarded prototype for the helicopter, before
>they discovered you don't want the crew pod to spin with the blades.
:-)

Boy, that is a great idea. Just hang the cockpit below the fuselage, on a
swivel, and the pilot can keep facing one direction during a tight thermal.
My wife will finally get relief from those tight turns she does not like.

And pilots will no longer be uncomfortable in flat spins or graveyard
spirals.

Colin

[COLIN LAMB]

"One immediate problem I see is that friction in the rotor axis would
tend to make the fuselage counter-rotate, and that would have to be
countered somehow. A secondary rotor out on the boom is what real
helicopters use, but that would be cheating in a glider model.

Johan Larson, mad-scientist wannabe"

Wait. You need to study helicopters. The tail rotor is called an
anti-torque device and is there to counteract the torque of the main rotor.
If someone shoots the tail rotor off, or the mechanism fails, you simply
reduce the throttle to zero (and drop the collective). It is called
autorotation. Once you go into autorotation, the main rotor continues to
turn, you are a heli-glider - and there is no torque developed by the engine
so the tail rotor is not necessary for anti-rotation. Of course there is a
minor problem in that the change in pitch of the tail rotor determines which
direction the helicopter is facing, but that is a minor detail.

If you are not careful hovering during certain wind conditions, you may end
up in an uncontrolled spin. At that point, you simply throttle the engine
down, try to put it down level, shut the fuel supply off and then try to
explain to the insurance company that it was not your fault. As soon as the
throttle is shut down, you stop spinning - or so the book says. I have not
tried it yet.

Colin

[Jono Richards]

At 16:42 22 March 2006, wrote:

With that in mind, it should be possible to
>design a helicopter that has no engine at all, but
>is designed to come
>down as slowly as possible.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, (and I havent read the
previous listings either) but is that not what a Gyrocopter
basically is? I know it has a pusher engine, but there
is no engine driving the main rotor (apart from take
off I believe, to get the rotor moving)

So, presumably, once in the air, the blades turn as
a helicopter that is autorotating does. Just need to
have some high efficiency small Nimbus 4 'rotors' and
there you go...hover in the core of the thermal and
go up like a rocket!

Regards,

Someone who doesnt know what hes talking about (so
please enlighten me!)

[phil collin]

Jono Richards wrote:
> At 16:42 22 March 2006, wrote:
>
> With that in mind, it should be possible to
>> design a helicopter that has no engine at all, but
>> is designed to come
>> down as slowly as possible.
>
> Now, correct me if I'm wrong, (and I havent read the
> previous listings either) but is that not what a Gyrocopter
> basically is? I know it has a pusher engine, but there
> is no engine driving the main rotor (apart from take
> off I believe, to get the rotor moving)
>
> So, presumably, once in the air, the blades turn as
> a helicopter that is autorotating does. Just need to
> have some high efficiency small Nimbus 4 'rotors' and
> there you go...hover in the core of the thermal and
> go up like a rocket!
>
> Regards,
>
> Someone who doesnt know what hes talking about (so
> please enlighten me!)
>
>
>
>
I think your right and you beat me to it in replying. Tell you what,
I'll ask Ken Wallace at the weekend as he's a member of my aero club
[Shipdham in Norfolk] [Ken Wallace, auto gyro guru ala little nelly from
the James Bond film, grandson of Barnes Wallace etc ]and see if he
thinks its a winner.

[Ian Cant]

The Bensen Gyroglider ? Any left flying ? Any one
flown one off-tow ?

Ian

[[email protected]]

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> "One immediate problem I see is that friction in the rotor axis would
> tend to make the fuselage counter-rotate, and that would have to be
> countered somehow. A secondary rotor out on the boom is what real
> helicopters use, but that would be cheating in a glider model.
>
> Johan Larson, mad-scientist wannabe"
>
> Wait. You need to study helicopters. The tail rotor is called an
> anti-torque device and is there to counteract the torque of the main rotor.
> If someone shoots the tail rotor off, or the mechanism fails, you simply
> reduce the throttle to zero (and drop the collective). It is called
> autorotation. Once you go into autorotation, the main rotor continues to
> turn, you are a heli-glider - and there is no torque developed by the engine
> so the tail rotor is not necessary for anti-rotation. Of course there is a
> minor problem in that the change in pitch of the tail rotor determines which
> direction the helicopter is facing, but that is a minor detail.
>
> If you are not careful hovering during certain wind conditions, you may end
> up in an uncontrolled spin. At that point, you simply throttle the engine
> down, try to put it down level, shut the fuel supply off and then try to
> explain to the insurance company that it was not your fault. As soon as the
> throttle is shut down, you stop spinning - or so the book says. I have not
> tried it yet.

That doesn't sound quite right. With the engine shut down, and the main
rotor spinning freely, there should still be some friction between the
rotor shaft and whatever mechanism attaches it to the fuselage. This
friction would be slowing down the rotor, and by action-reaction
causing the fuselage to rotate in the direction of the rotor. And if
there's no tail rotor, there isn't really anything to stop this
rotation of the fuselage.

I'm a bit surprised this isn't mentioned in the book, but at a guess,
the force is low enough compared to engine-torque to be dismissed in a
powered aircraft, since it is only relevant in a rarely-encountered
emergency situation. But in a glider-variant, it could well be
significant.

[Marc Ramsey]

wrote:
> That doesn't sound quite right. With the engine shut down, and the main
> rotor spinning freely, there should still be some friction between the
> rotor shaft and whatever mechanism attaches it to the fuselage. This
> friction would be slowing down the rotor, and by action-reaction
> causing the fuselage to rotate in the direction of the rotor. And if
> there's no tail rotor, there isn't really anything to stop this
> rotation of the fuselage.

Autogyros always have relatively large vertical stabilizers, I assume
this provides enough directional stability at normal airspeeds to
overcome the friction of the rotor bearings. The vertical stab(s) may
provide enough drag to prevent spinning at zero horizontal airspeed, but
I doubt real autogyros can be trimmed to fly that way for more than a
moment or two, even with the engine off.

Marc

[COLIN LAMB]

>That doesn't sound quite right. With the engine shut down, and the main
>rotor spinning freely, there should still be some friction between the
>rotor shaft and whatever mechanism attaches it to the fuselage. This
>friction would be slowing down the rotor, and by action-reaction
>causing the fuselage to rotate in the direction of the rotor. And if
>there's no tail rotor, there isn't really anything to stop this
>rotation of the fuselage.

>I'm a bit surprised this isn't mentioned in the book, but at a guess,
>the force is low enough compared to engine-torque to be dismissed in a
>powered aircraft, since it is only relevant in a rarely-encountered
>emergency situation. But in a glider-variant, it could well be
>significant.

Well, the main rotor bearing in a small helicopter costs over $30,000 and
has a limited lifespan. They are good, low friction berings and need to be
so to avoid heat buildup.

I understand physics, but your basic premise is based upon friction. If
there is slight friction, then the mass itself of the fuselage would tend to
keep it in place - plus the small angled vertical fin. That provides all of
the stability necessary until you start powering the main rotor.

In any event, there are helicopter pilots who have had their tail rotor jam
or be completely shot off and they are still alive to tell you about it.
Maybe you should tell them why they should have spun to their death. And
neither the pilot operator's handbook nor the FAA helicopter mentions that
the helicopter will go into a death spin if the tail rotor fails.

By the way, I calculated that the Schweizer 300C has about a 2.5 to 1 glide
ratio according to the factory specifications, but could never reach that.
I was always under 2 to , but it may simply be poor gliding technique.

Colin

[Albert Gold]

Ian Cant wrote:
> The Bensen Gyroglider ? Any left flying ? Any one
> flown one off-tow ?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
When I visited the Udvar-Hazy division of the National Air and Space
Museum a couple of months ago I saw a W.W.II vintage, unpowered, folding
gyroplane designed to be carried aboard a U-boat and launched tethered
to the ship as an reconnaissance vehicle. I have a snap shot, but,
alas, it can't be posted here. If interested send me an e-mail and I'll
send you a copy.

Al

[COLIN LAMB]

"When I visited the Udvar-Hazy division of the National Air and Space
Museum a couple of months ago I saw a W.W.II vintage, unpowered, folding
gyroplane designed to be carried aboard a U-boat and launched tethered
to the ship as an reconnaissance vehicle. I have a snap shot, but,
alas, it can't be posted here. If interested send me an e-mail and I'll
send you a copy."

These gyroplanes were not used very long as there was a flaw. If the pilot
saw and reported an enemy nearby, the submarine would release the gyroplane
and submerge. If they got in a hurry, they would submerge without
releasing. The entire project lasted only a few months if I recall.

I wonder if an allied pilot got credit for shooting down a tethered
gyroplane. The secret was probably to buzz the submarine and cause it to
release the gyroplane, then shoot down the gliding gyroplane - after all it
is an aircraft.

Colin

[cfinn]

Actually, Bensen developed several Gryogliders. The first was the B6 in
1953. They were designed to be towed by a car to 150 feet or so, and
then released. He also developed a version on floats that was towed by
a boat.

[cfinn]

Actually, Bensen developed several Gryogliders. The first was the B6 in
1953. They were designed to be towed by a car to 150 feet or so, and
then released. He also developed a version on floats that was towed by
a boat.

[Rory O'Conor]

I think that there is a WWII autogyro at the Cosford
Air Museum in Wales/Salop.

Maybe with the new materials now available, someone
could design a winch launched auto-gyro with an LD
better than 1:30?

I expect it would still need a forward speed, even
in a thermal.

Rory