Confessions of a Dumb Guy

[Veeduber]

Most of you have never heard of Vernon Payne. He's best known as the designer
of a spiffy little biplane called the Knight Twister. Rag & tube fuselage,
solid spruce spars, plywood skins on cantilevered wings. Slicker than snot on
a door knob. First flew about 1929 and continues doing so today and very well,
too. Ask him nice, Vern would build you a set of wings. Fuselage, too.

For a short while when he was moving out of his place north of Escondido I
worked for Vernon. Not what you'd call a real job even though the sweat was
real enough. Mostly helping him prepare for the move, which involved finishing
a set a wings he was working on, prepping a fuselage and other minor chores.

Skinning a wing, Vern soaked each piece of plywood, fitted it to the wing and
let it dry in place. The old barn we worked in was good for that sort of
thing, hot and dry and no distractions other than Taddy, the shop cat who like
to watch.

After the ply had dried to the required shape Vern would check the fit with a
bit of chalk, make any adjustments. The fitted panels of the beautiful
double-tapered wings were glued all at once using Weldwood ‘Plastic Resin'
and nailing strips. Lots of nailing strips, most of which were also pre-molded
to match their particular rib, both of us working away with our tiny tack
hammers, taking our time but not wasting any, doing it right so we wouldn't
have to do it over.

And we'd talk. Vern had boots that was older than me but I wasn't no kid; I
knew who Gilmore was and the joke about aviation-grade horsemeat, which meant
Vern could talk without having to explain every other word. I suspect he
needed the companionship as much as the help, working all alone out there in
that old barn north of Escondido, having to finish those wings and move a
life-time of stuff because the Yuppies were kicking him out.

I usually had a sketch book with me, a life-long habit. Vern didn't like it
when he saw me sketching the engine arrangement of his latest project, a
two-place VW powered thing he called the Dolphin. I gave him the book, told
him to tear out anything he didn't want me to have. He flipped through it and
saw Taddy curled up atop the blueprint cabinet and a chiaroscuro study created
by a slice of sunlight falling across a steel tube fuselage. And of Vern too,
bent over the wing, pensive look on his face as he examines a tip rib smaller
than a pocket ruler. He gave me back the sketch book, didn't tear anything
out.

We got to talking about landing gear, which kind was best; that sort of thing.
It was an interesting subject to me because I'd just made a composite gear leg
out of wood, fiberglas and good intentions that busted all to hell when I did a
drop-test. Vernon told me how the CAA used to have a standard formula for
acceptable landing gear strength and a drop-test calculation based on the gross
weight, a Jesus factor and the stalling speed of that particular aircraft.
Then he said, ‘I just used the worse-case, which was fifty inches.' Later, I
made a note of that on the corner of a sketch of a landing gear. - - Worse
case = 50" - - I don't know exactly when that was. Back in the eighties.

About three years ago I wanted to compare the performance of different types of
landing gear for a particular design and made up a drop-tester that allowed
precise control of the height and the angle at which the wheel contacted the
ground. The gear leg bolted to a plate on the end of a long arm that was
raised by a little derrick using a screw-thread winch off a boat trailer. I
used a glider hook as the release mechanism and welded a tray to the top of the
arm so I could stack on plates of lead and scrap iron for the weight. It's
quite an affair. Really shook the ground when it hit. And busted everything I
tried. (Some of you may have seen pictures of the knee-action gear leg I
posted over on the Fly5k mailing list. There were a number of others. All
initially failed the drop-test.)

I soon became quite the expert at drop-testing. As I gained experience I began
to understand how the load enters into the structure and saw ways to make the
gear legs stronger without adding too much weight. But always some. It was
pretty obvious that most landing gear used on modern airplanes couldn't even
come close to that ancient CAA requirement. By the time I got something that
was strong enough to withstand the worse-case fifty-inch drop, it was huge.
And heavy. More suitable for the NYP with a full load of fuel than a
single-place do-it-yourself puddle jumper with a converted VW on the nose.
Fiberglas offered some advantages, as did oleo-pneumatic systems but their cost
and complexity put them far beyond the means of a first-time builder on a tight
budget. It was all rather discouraging.

A couple of days ago I was digging through a file looking for... I can't
remember what... when I came across a blurry copy of a 1930's article by Raoul
J. Hoffmann, the aeronautical engineer who crunched the numbers for Matty
Laird. Hoffman was one of my dad's heros and it was a good choice. The
article was titled ‘Landing Gear Shock Stresses' and included the usual
boilerplate formulae, a couple of graphs and a few column-inches of text. I'd
seen it before, hadn't looked at it too closely since I'd already decided to
emulate Vernon Payne's method of using the worse-case drop height. But as I
scanned the article something jumped out at me.

"...drop from a height in inches equal to .38 times the calculated stalling
speed in miles per hour... (but) ...not over 15 INCHES for conventional
airplanes."

FIFTEEN inches. Not fifty.

I sat down and ran the numbers. Maximum applied load not to exceed 5.5 times
the gross weight (I've been using 6.0). But the drop test need not exceed
FIFTEEN inches. I've been using fifty. No wonder my gear legs came out like
something off the Dreadnaught.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Taddy came to live with us after Vern and his wife moved into a place that
didn't allow pets. They would drop by now and then to say hello, more to Taddy
than us but they were nice visits. Vern passed away a few years ago but will
never be forgotten. His little bipe is a rare combination of art and science,
as was Vernon Payne himself.

Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
propellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.

-R.S.Hoover

[Blueskies]

Great tribute to the man.

There is a Twister (Nagle Twister, look in Reno race results) at 4n0 (Newman's Field) here in Kalamazoo, flown by Bill.
It is indeed a scooter.

--
Dan D.



..
"Veeduber" > wrote in message ...
> Most of you have never heard of Vernon Payne. He's best known as the designer
> of a spiffy little biplane called the Knight Twister. Rag & tube fuselage,
> solid spruce spars, plywood skins on cantilevered wings. Slicker than snot on
> a door knob. First flew about 1929 and continues doing so today and very well,
> too. Ask him nice, Vern would build you a set of wings. Fuselage, too.
>
> For a short while when he was moving out of his place north of Escondido I
> worked for Vernon. Not what you'd call a real job even though the sweat was
> real enough. Mostly helping him prepare for the move, which involved finishing
> a set a wings he was working on, prepping a fuselage and other minor chores.
>
> Skinning a wing, Vern soaked each piece of plywood, fitted it to the wing and
> let it dry in place. The old barn we worked in was good for that sort of
> thing, hot and dry and no distractions other than Taddy, the shop cat who like
> to watch.
>
> After the ply had dried to the required shape Vern would check the fit with a
> bit of chalk, make any adjustments. The fitted panels of the beautiful
> double-tapered wings were glued all at once using Weldwood 'Plastic Resin'
> and nailing strips. Lots of nailing strips, most of which were also pre-molded
> to match their particular rib, both of us working away with our tiny tack
> hammers, taking our time but not wasting any, doing it right so we wouldn't
> have to do it over.
>
> And we'd talk. Vern had boots that was older than me but I wasn't no kid; I
> knew who Gilmore was and the joke about aviation-grade horsemeat, which meant
> Vern could talk without having to explain every other word. I suspect he
> needed the companionship as much as the help, working all alone out there in
> that old barn north of Escondido, having to finish those wings and move a
> life-time of stuff because the Yuppies were kicking him out.
>
> I usually had a sketch book with me, a life-long habit. Vern didn't like it
> when he saw me sketching the engine arrangement of his latest project, a
> two-place VW powered thing he called the Dolphin. I gave him the book, told
> him to tear out anything he didn't want me to have. He flipped through it and
> saw Taddy curled up atop the blueprint cabinet and a chiaroscuro study created
> by a slice of sunlight falling across a steel tube fuselage. And of Vern too,
> bent over the wing, pensive look on his face as he examines a tip rib smaller
> than a pocket ruler. He gave me back the sketch book, didn't tear anything
> out.
>
> We got to talking about landing gear, which kind was best; that sort of thing.
> It was an interesting subject to me because I'd just made a composite gear leg
> out of wood, fiberglas and good intentions that busted all to hell when I did a
> drop-test. Vernon told me how the CAA used to have a standard formula for
> acceptable landing gear strength and a drop-test calculation based on the gross
> weight, a Jesus factor and the stalling speed of that particular aircraft.
> Then he said, 'I just used the worse-case, which was fifty inches.' Later, I
> made a note of that on the corner of a sketch of a landing gear. - - Worse
> case = 50" - - I don't know exactly when that was. Back in the eighties.
>
> About three years ago I wanted to compare the performance of different types of
> landing gear for a particular design and made up a drop-tester that allowed
> precise control of the height and the angle at which the wheel contacted the
> ground. The gear leg bolted to a plate on the end of a long arm that was
> raised by a little derrick using a screw-thread winch off a boat trailer. I
> used a glider hook as the release mechanism and welded a tray to the top of the
> arm so I could stack on plates of lead and scrap iron for the weight. It's
> quite an affair. Really shook the ground when it hit. And busted everything I
> tried. (Some of you may have seen pictures of the knee-action gear leg I
> posted over on the Fly5k mailing list. There were a number of others. All
> initially failed the drop-test.)
>
> I soon became quite the expert at drop-testing. As I gained experience I began
> to understand how the load enters into the structure and saw ways to make the
> gear legs stronger without adding too much weight. But always some. It was
> pretty obvious that most landing gear used on modern airplanes couldn't even
> come close to that ancient CAA requirement. By the time I got something that
> was strong enough to withstand the worse-case fifty-inch drop, it was huge.
> And heavy. More suitable for the NYP with a full load of fuel than a
> single-place do-it-yourself puddle jumper with a converted VW on the nose.
> Fiberglas offered some advantages, as did oleo-pneumatic systems but their cost
> and complexity put them far beyond the means of a first-time builder on a tight
> budget. It was all rather discouraging.
>
> A couple of days ago I was digging through a file looking for... I can't
> remember what... when I came across a blurry copy of a 1930's article by Raoul
> J. Hoffmann, the aeronautical engineer who crunched the numbers for Matty
> Laird. Hoffman was one of my dad's heros and it was a good choice. The
> article was titled 'Landing Gear Shock Stresses' and included the usual
> boilerplate formulae, a couple of graphs and a few column-inches of text. I'd
> seen it before, hadn't looked at it too closely since I'd already decided to
> emulate Vernon Payne's method of using the worse-case drop height. But as I
> scanned the article something jumped out at me.
>
> "...drop from a height in inches equal to .38 times the calculated stalling
> speed in miles per hour... (but) ...not over 15 INCHES for conventional
> airplanes."
>
> FIFTEEN inches. Not fifty.
>
> I sat down and ran the numbers. Maximum applied load not to exceed 5.5 times
> the gross weight (I've been using 6.0). But the drop test need not exceed
> FIFTEEN inches. I've been using fifty. No wonder my gear legs came out like
> something off the Dreadnaught.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Taddy came to live with us after Vern and his wife moved into a place that
> didn't allow pets. They would drop by now and then to say hello, more to Taddy
> than us but they were nice visits. Vern passed away a few years ago but will
> never be forgotten. His little bipe is a rare combination of art and science,
> as was Vernon Payne himself.
>
> Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
> Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
> wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
> around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
> fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
> propellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
> aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
> than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
> 'fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
>

[Corrie]

(Veeduber) wrote in message >...

> Vern was a pro; he obviously said
> ‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.

And you were in such awe of the man (and that alone is a statement in
itself!) that you never considered whether it was even reasonable to
expect non-carrier-qualified landing gear to survive a four-foot drop.
He said fifty, it must be fifty.

A great lesson in epistimology - what we know, what we think we know,
and how we know it. Questioning - and not questioning - assumptions.
Great story - thanks!

Corrie

[[email protected]]

I know it's going to vary with the flexibility of the gear, but in the
references is there any spec for max G's a gear should handle?


On 10 Sep 2003 21:32:44 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

:
:Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
:Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
:wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
:around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
:fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
:propellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
:aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
:than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
:‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.
--
My name is Nobody

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
> wrote:
>I know it's going to vary with the flexibility of the gear, but in the
>references is there any spec for max G's a gear should handle?


precisely 1.2370814 more than it will *ever* be subjected to. <grin>


>
>
>On 10 Sep 2003 21:32:44 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:
>
>:
>:Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
>:Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
>:wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
>:around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
>:fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
>:propellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
>:aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
>:than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
>:‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.
>--
>My name is Nobody

[Richard Isakson]

"Veeduber" wrote ...
> A couple of days ago I was digging through a file looking for... I can't
> remember what... when I came across a blurry copy of a 1930's article by
Raoul
> J. Hoffmann, the aeronautical engineer who crunched the numbers for Matty
> Laird. Hoffman was one of my dad's heros and it was a good choice. The
> article was titled 'Landing Gear Shock Stresses' and included the usual
> boilerplate formulae, a couple of graphs and a few column-inches of text.
I'd
> seen it before, hadn't looked at it too closely since I'd already decided
to
> emulate Vernon Payne's method of using the worse-case drop height. But as
I
> scanned the article something jumped out at me.
>
> "...drop from a height in inches equal to .38 times the calculated
stalling
> speed in miles per hour... (but) ...not over 15 INCHES for conventional
> airplanes."
>
> FIFTEEN inches. Not fifty.

You could have backed out the number from FAR23.473(d) but who reads the
regs.

(d) The selected limit vertical inertia load factor at the center of
gravity of the airplane for the ground load conditions prescribed in
this subpart may not be less than that which would be obtained when
landing with a descent velocity (V), in feet per second, equal to 4.4
(W/S)\1/4\, except that this velocity need not be more than 10 feet per
second and may not be less than seven feet per second.

Rich

[Warren & Nancy]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> In article >, Veeduber says...
> MAJOR SNIP of a good story:
>
> >Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
> >Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
> >wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
> >around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
> >fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
> >propellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
> >aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
> >than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
> >‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.
>
> Great story!!Just goes to show how sometimes we just don't hear right :-)
> Thanks
>
> Chuck S

Maybe that is Juan and zoomer's problem, huh?

[Veeduber]

Richard Isakson cited the present-day FAR's as saying:

>load conditions prescribed in
>this subpart may not be less than that which would be obtained when
>landing with a descent velocity (V), in feet per second, equal to 4.4
>(W/S)\1/4\, except that this velocity need not be more than 10 feet per
>second and may not be less than seven feet per second.
>

----------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, that cleared things up :-)

For everyone else who didn't get it, the object of the message was to
illustrate that I DIDN'T check the numbers because I THOUGHT I already knew
them. (And being ex-Navy a four-foot drop-test sounded good to me :-)

----------------------------------------------

To put the matter into a more understandable perspective, my drop-tests were
generating loads on the order of 100,000 lb-ft of energy. Had I been using the
figures Rich cites (ie, 7fps) the loads would have been about 18,000 lb-ft.

Drop something a distance of 15" and it will be traveling about nine feet per
second when it hits the ground. With a drop-weight of 750 pounds that will
result in a load of about thirty thousand pounds, an amount that should have
been easily handled by the 5/8" axles, thin-walled tubing and quarter-inch
bolts used in my original landing gear.

-----------------------------------------

As a further point of interest the 15" height cited by Vernon Payne as the
worse-case according to 1930's CAA acceptance standards is well within the
envelop allowed for light aircraft under the modern-day standard cited by Rich.
(The modern-day worse case works out to about 19")

------------------------------------------

But that WASN'T THE POINT. Being aviation types I assumed everyone already
knew that stuff, that you'd start to smile when you saw the first mention of
FIFTY INCHES for a drop test and would be laughing along with me by the time I
got to the punch line.

However, if ANY of this is new to you, I suggest you hit the books. There's
only a couple of equations invovled here, one for the gravitational constant of
acceleration, the other for energy in motion. And if you think I'm a whiz kid,
the joke's on you :-) I managed to escape the rigors of a formal education by
going to sea at a young age.

-R.S.Hoover

- PS -- Reading over that, maybe the joke IS on you. Or on America. A lot of
the stuff I was taught in gammar school more than fifty years ago is now
considered College Level material. I was about eleven years old when they hit
us with 'Mechanics of Motion,' a chapter we were expected (and required) to
master before the Christmas break. Today, 'education' appears to have become a
largely SOCIAL activity of which the acquisition of knowledge is a mere
by-product, given little emphasis.

Nowadays they need a seventy dollar text book the size of a coffee table to
teach that one chapter. 'Newton's Laws' or some damn thing. Mostly white
space except for all the pretty pictures. Then they spend a full year
spoon-feeding that pap to youngsters already old enough to vote.

Americans may not be any less intelligent now as then but devoting a full year
to what every schoolboy picked up in a couple of weeks isn't what I'd call
smart. -- rsh

[Dave Hyde]

Veeduber wrote:

> But that WASN'T THE POINT. Being aviation types I assumed everyone already
> knew that stuff, that you'd start to smile when you saw the first mention of
> FIFTY INCHES for a drop test and would be laughing along with me by the time I
> got to the punch line.

No argument with what you posted, just an anecdote. I witnessed
some of the drop tests of the T-45 (they Navy's newest jet trainer).
The spec called for a 24 ft/sec sink rate endpoint. That's a drop
from about 9 ft. The drop fixture was surrounded by chain link mesh,
presumably to keep airplane bits from flying across the shop floor.
The mesh served its purpose on at least one test I saw. So did the
drip pans set to catch leaking hydraulic fluid <g>

Dave 'did you hear a thump?' Hyde

[BD5ER]

Sadly it's not much of a joke. At the rate things are degrading the next Dark
Ages aren't that inconceivable or that far off. There may be a lot more
collective knowledge today than there was 50 years ago (and I'm not too sure
about that) but the level of general knowledge among the population here in the
US - HAS - declined and is pathetic. (why else would the have to skew the SAT
scores 200 points to get the same numbers they did 20 years ago?)

One should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the way things that
directly effect his/her life work. Relying on the advice and productivity of
"professionals trained to do that" without even the most basic understanding
leaves one very vulnerable to both the laws of nature and your unscrupulous
fellow man.

For what it's worth I got the point of the original post, found it amusing and
entertaining. I almost went down the exact same path before I read the specs
in part 23, but my worst case was a "student's stall landing from 6 feet.
Thats how they got the number"
=================
>- PS -- Reading over that, maybe the joke IS on you. Or on America. A lot
>of
>the stuff I was taught in gammar school more than fifty years ago is now
>considered College Level material. I was about eleven years old when they
>hit
>us with 'Mechanics of Motion,' a chapter we were expected (and required) to
>master before the Christmas break. Today, 'education' appears to have become
>a
>largely SOCIAL activity of which the acquisition of knowledge is a mere
>by-product, given little emphasis.

[Dptate]

>One should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the way things that
>directly effect his/her life work. Relying on the advice and productivity of
>"professionals trained to do that" without even the most basic understanding
>leaves one very vulnerable to both the laws of nature and your unscrupulous
>fellow man.
>

I heard that, during the second world war, that the US Army had a big advantage
over the German army in that practically every American GI, whether farm boy or
city kid knew how to make simple repairs on their jeeps, tanks etc. in the
field.

The practice in German schools at that time however, was to cull out the kids
not bound for college and send them to vocational schools where each kid was
intensively trained in a single specialty. As a result they had a cadre of
superbly trained mechanics and were about the only ones allowed to work on
cars. Therefore, the rest of the kids trained such as waiters, bakers and
carpenters didn't get the opportunity to work on cars and had no clue how to
trouble shoot and make even simple repairs to their vehicles in the field.

Dave Tate

[Roger Halstead]

On 11 Sep 2003 21:28:09 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

>Richard Isakson cited the present-day FAR's as saying:
>
>>load conditions prescribed in
>>this subpart may not be less than that which would be obtained when
>>landing with a descent velocity (V), in feet per second, equal to 4.4
>>(W/S)\1/4\, except that this velocity need not be more than 10 feet per
>>second and may not be less than seven feet per second.
>>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------

I'm probably quite a bit older than the vast majority on here, but
there are a couple of you "old guys" I'm still willing to call "Sir".
<:-))

>
>Yeah, that cleared things up :-)
>
>For everyone else who didn't get it, the object of the message was to
>illustrate that I DIDN'T check the numbers because I THOUGHT I already knew
>them. (And being ex-Navy a four-foot drop-test sounded good to me :-)

Being a civilian I've still been so close to the edge of the runway
when an F-14 "landed/impacted" and blew the dirt out sideways I think
I can identify at least as to why you might think that. Tis no wonder
those things leak oil all over the place.
>
The F-14 made the first taxiway, while the F15s and F16s were using
most of the runway.

Many, many years ago, but not quite as many as some on here, I took my
first flying lesson. To "politely paraphrase" the instructor, he
wondered if I'd ever thought about the flying in the Navy. I didn't
know what he meant at the time.

<snip>
>
>But that WASN'T THE POINT. Being aviation types I assumed everyone already
>knew that stuff, that you'd start to smile when you saw the first mention of
>FIFTY INCHES for a drop test and would be laughing along with me by the time I
>got to the punch line.
>


>However, if ANY of this is new to you, I suggest you hit the books. There's
>only a couple of equations invovled here, one for the gravitational constant of
>acceleration, the other for energy in motion. And if you think I'm a whiz kid,
>the joke's on you :-) I managed to escape the rigors of a formal education by
>going to sea at a young age.

Not all that long ago, I quit work and went back to college. We not
only had to use those equations we had to derive them from
measurements.<:-)) That is until the janitors got tired of trying to
clean out the dents the ball bearings were causing in the ground floor
tile. (we were dropping them from two stories up.)
So, my education was delayed a bit. I was darn near ready to retire
by the time I graduated. I graduated, worked just under 7 years and
retired.

>
>-R.S.Hoover
>
>- PS -- Reading over that, maybe the joke IS on you. Or on America. A lot of
>the stuff I was taught in gammar school more than fifty years ago is now

"I think" education was certainly different, but back then things were
approached from a practical level. We learned a lot of practical
information and even basic formulas, but not to the depth, or detail
it's taught now.

Many of us did learn how to use the formulas for distance, speed,
time, and acceleration from a practical approach.

My first 8 grades were in a one room school. I liked it as when I
finished my work I could listen to the other classes and by the time I
was in those classes I already knew the material.


>considered College Level material. I was about eleven years old when they hit

"I'd guess" it was probably about the same...One of us remembers and
the other has to guess<:-))

>us with 'Mechanics of Motion,' a chapter we were expected (and required) to
>master before the Christmas break. Today, 'education' appears to have become a
>largely SOCIAL activity of which the acquisition of knowledge is a mere
>by-product, given little emphasis.


Unfortunately I'm now probably going to end up in "rambling mode",
but... "I think" education now approaches things with too much detail
when starting. They no longer start with the practical aspects, but
delve into the theory to the point of making some subjects far more
difficult than necessary and they don't seem to want to do things the
easy way.

Of course this is where they separate the science from the liberal
arts tract preparation.

In some subjects you have to derive everything before you can get
where you are going. So some of the practical aspects don't even
surface until much later. OTOH, they have separated the Practical
aspects into "technical" classes, and the theoretical into the
"college" stuff.

To me it makes a lot more sense to know where you are going before
starting the journey.

I was a project manager for a few years and one of the problems was
getting many people to see beyond the details. Some disciplines teach
to start with the details and build from there, but without knowing
where you are going that is not exactly efficient.

I had to look at the whole project from a practical standpoint just as
we did in the early grades. Then break the project down into smaller
sections where the details could be looked at and built upon.

I was not required to know the details, nor could any manager of a
wide range project expect to know how each engineer did what they did.
I only needed the practical knowledge of what I needed each to produce
and when. They provided the details, with a set of checks and
balances. That was to keep the "baffle them with bull****" factor as
low as possible..
>
>Nowadays they need a seventy dollar text book the size of a coffee table to
>teach that one chapter. 'Newton's Laws' or some damn thing. Mostly white

"Newton's Laws" as we learned them are simple until you have to
derive them. I've never seen much use for having the "regular "
student having to spend so much time deriving some of these things
when they "might" only need to use them.

>space except for all the pretty pictures. Then they spend a full year
>spoon-feeding that pap to youngsters already old enough to vote.
>
A couple of examples:

Rather than using the practical aspects of acceleration, we had to
derive all the formulas and prove them before we could move on. A
practical text devotes one chapter to the subject.

In Calculus, we spent the first term on a number of items including
"limits". After several months of working in the dark the instructor
demonstrated how all we had been doing was the foundation for "The
fundamental rule of Calculus", or at least that's what I think it was
called. <:-)) How much easier it would have been to say, "This is
where we are going and this is how we get there", instead of making
the trek difficult on purpose.

To me the problem is the practical application is for the student who
does not plan on graduating from a 4 year degree program, but rather a
two year associates program with little likely hood of progressing
beyond a set of artificially imposed limits tied to required degrees.

With some exceptions, prior to going back to college full time I am
self taught. I taught every thing in the skilled trades program from
introductory electricity to "Logic circuit design" which included
Boolean Algebra.

The best college professors I had were adjunct faculty. One had never
been to college and taught electronics and computer circuit design.
Then one day the college decided he needed a teaching degree. Sooo,
he went into a teaching program where after 20 years of teaching he
was expected to take part in the program where he had to teach
(without pay) for a couple of terms. He couldn't afford it. I'm not
sure what they call that part of the teachers education, but I'm sure
either Ron or Margy know. At any rate, a teaching certificate is not
required at the college level, but they wanted him to have a degree as
it didn't look good for a high school graduate to be teaching college
classes. He was after all, originally hired due to his ability.
..
>Americans may not be any less intelligent now as then but devoting a full year
>to what every schoolboy picked up in a couple of weeks isn't what I'd call
>smart. -- rsh

The way they have gone about it has made it much more difficult for
high schools as well. Now they have to choose college prep,or a
technical career path. Education "to me" is becoming much more
specialized every day. At least most have gotten rid of the "outcome
based" education.

What we picked up in a couple of weeks was practical. We could put it
to use. What you see now it the delving into the theory to the point
where it takes that huge and expensive book to get through a term.
OTOH, my son was taking Calculus in the 8th grade. I was an advanced
student and the highest math class available in high school was
college level Advanced Algebra. (I shouldda took Trig)

"I think" it's done with the expectations that the student going to
college will go one into research, but engineers still need that
practical aspect. Actually, all that theory with out the practical
application only means the graduate is ready to go out and learn how
to do a job. I'm not sure if all the extra theory helps much, if any
for those of us who never go beyond the Bachelors degree.

Yet as an off set, I was working out some calculations when one of the
"old time" engineers happened into my office. He wanted to know what
I was working on. He took one look and remarked that as an engineer
he had never had to get into math that deep, yet in today's world I
don't have enough math to become an engineer although I do have a
minor in it...and Art. I'm a whale of a lot better at art than math.
<:-))

I'm almost embarrassed to say the degree opened a lot of doors that
had been closed to me before. yet other than the programming classes
I was still the same person and did not feel all the other classes
helped me in the real world. Yet...I did find those classes
interesting.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Roger Halstead]

On 10 Sep 2003 21:32:44 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

>Most of you have never heard of Vernon Payne. He's best known as the designer
>of a spiffy little biplane called the Knight Twister. Rag & tube fuselage,
>solid spruce spars, plywood skins on cantilevered wings. Slicker than snot on
>a door knob. First flew about 1929 and continues doing so today and very well,
>too. Ask him nice, Vern would build you a set of wings. Fuselage, too.
<snip>

That story/Tribute should be published. It put a lump in my throat
thinking of people and things past.

Roger
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Eric Miller]

> You could have backed out the number from FAR23.473(d) but who reads the
> regs.
>
> (d) The selected limit vertical inertia load factor at the center of
> gravity of the airplane for the ground load conditions prescribed in
> this subpart may not be less than that which would be obtained when
> landing with a descent velocity (V), in feet per second, equal to 4.4
> (W/S)\1/4\, except that this velocity need not be more than 10 feet per
> second and may not be less than seven feet per second.
>
> Rich

V = A T, solving for T with A = 32 feet per second per second (gravity) we
get a min of 7/32 and max of 10/32 seconds.
S = 1/2 A T^2, solving for S with A and T from above gives us min of 9 3/16"
and max of 18.3/4".

Eric

[Eric Miller]

"Veeduber" > wrote
> - PS -- Reading over that, maybe the joke IS on you. Or on America. A
lot of
> the stuff I was taught in gammar school more than fifty years ago is now
> considered College Level material. I was about eleven years old when they
hit
> us with 'Mechanics of Motion,' a chapter we were expected (and required)
to
> master before the Christmas break. Today, 'education' appears to have
become a
> largely SOCIAL activity of which the acquisition of knowledge is a mere
> by-product, given little emphasis.
>
> Nowadays they need a seventy dollar text book the size of a coffee table
to
> teach that one chapter. 'Newton's Laws' or some damn thing. Mostly white
> space except for all the pretty pictures. Then they spend a full year
> spoon-feeding that pap to youngsters already old enough to vote.
>
> Americans may not be any less intelligent now as then but devoting a full
year
> to what every schoolboy picked up in a couple of weeks isn't what I'd call
> smart. -- rsh

Yup, this is the difference between rote learning, which is just
memorization, and actually learning, which is knowing the reason behind
things and and how to calculate things yourself.

Eric

[Corrie]

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message >...
> "Veeduber" > wrote
> > - PS -- Reading over that, maybe the joke IS on you. Or on America.
> > Americans may not be any less intelligent now as then but devoting a full
> year
> > to what every schoolboy picked up in a couple of weeks isn't what I'd call
> > smart. -- rsh
>
> Yup, this is the difference between rote learning, which is just
> memorization, and actually learning, which is knowing the reason behind
> things and and how to calculate things yourself.

Couple of possibly-relevant anecdotes.

My dad was a Navy radar tech in WWII. He was teaching a group of
fighter pilots how to use the new low-altitude radar altimiter in
their F6F Hellcats. He explained how the radio signal is beamed down
to the surface, bounces back, and is picked up by the reciever. The
unit then calculates altitude from the time lag. One of the fighter
pilots scoffs, "Man, that's BS. I'm traveling at 400 knots. By the
time that radio wave gets back, I'm long gone!" He may have been good
with farm machinery, but the difference between hundreds of miles per
hour and thousands of miles per second escaped him.

Different times require different skillsets. <irony>I'm confident
that today's students, trained in diversity appreciation and skilled
at handling condoms, will be able to function well in a world where
all their clothing, household appliances, and electronic devices are
designed and manufactured overseas.</irony>

Second ancedote:

It's said that the great educational reformer Thomas Dewey visited the
classroom of a renowned geography teacher. Dewey asked the great
teacher if he could ask the students a few questions. "Of course!" he
replied.

"So, boys and girls," Dewey asked, "who can tell me what it's like at
the center of the earth?"

Silence and blank looks.

"Mr. Dewey," the classroom teacher chided, "you are not posing the
question properly. Class," he intoned, "WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE
EARTH'S CORE?"

In unison the students chanted, "IGNEOUS FUSION."

I use that example with my classes to explain the difference between
memorizing facts and understanding concepts and principles. There's a
place for rote performance - the engine-fire checklist is a good
example - and all high-level understanding must be based on a
foundation of "declarative and procedural knowledge." My fear is that
the "back to basics" backlash against postmodern touchy-feely
"education" will swing too far. I could go on and on - education is
what I do for a living - but I'll spare you the lecture. I am,
however, available for consultation at reasonable rates. ;-)


Re math - I did an prospective-freshman interview at a college of
aerospace engineering many years ago. The dean asked me what math I'd
had in high school. "Two years of Algebra, plus Trig, Geometry,
Pre-Calc, and a year of physics," I said. "Good!" he replied.
"You're ready to learn some math."

Dang, but he was right!


Corrie