Ram air

[Tina]

The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the airplane's
motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?

What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
so the energy must be there.

[terry]

On Jun 1, 8:35*pm, Tina > wrote:
> The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
> spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
> modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
> pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
> the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
> inches or so behind it) *as well as the air impact from the airplane's
> motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
> altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
> 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
> would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
> really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
> square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>
> What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> so the energy must be there.

An interesting question. I will have a stab at it but its just an
intuitive guess. Thrust is created by the prop pushing the air
backwards. If you are trying to capture that air into the engine,
there must be some resistance and therefore if you restrict the
ability of the air to be pushed away the thrust would be reduced. So
it must be a balance between not reducing the thrust and getting more
air into the engine to generate more power. I am also guessing that
for the ram air to be of much use it would probably be bypassing the
airfilter, which is potentially not good for the engine. although at
high altitude it is probably Ok, except perhaps for ice formation if
there was a lot of moisture in the air?

Isnt a Mooney fast enough for you Tina?
Terry

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in news:f9933f5e-0c1d-464b-a1d8-
:

> The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
> spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
> modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
> pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
> the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
> inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the airplane's
> motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
> altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
> 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
> would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
> really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
> square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>
> What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> so the energy must be there.



Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an airplane.
More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of woks with tubes
out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to pay for it. !Moooney
must have spotted an area of the cowl that would not penalise you in
this way and decided to utilise it. Really clever homebuilders do a lot
of this kind of stuff as well as, and probably more more importantly,
dealing with cooling drag.
Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
fairings.

Bertie

[Tina]

The m20J is pretty slippery already and when it was introduced in the
70s was a big step up in efficiency in a production airplane.
Homebuilts do do an even better job of cleaning up aerodynamically.

The little seals on the flaps and so on were lipstick, the real gain
over the Mooney Executive had to do with the 201 getting a more
aerodynamic windscreen and engine cowling.

We have no serious complaints at all about the airplane (well, in a
rainstorm getting in without getting the seat wet is difficult,
checking the fuel is hard on pantyhose sometimes) but finding a couple
more inches of manifold pressure would be very handy when trying to
get to 12000 feet quickly. Once there, we can sip 8 gallons an hour
and move along pretty well.

I think using ram air would not increase aerodynamic drag, B. Instead
of having the air moving at the airplane's airspeed plus prop induced
speed impacting the cowling, it could in fact be going into a hole.
It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute?

I better leave that to the engineers.




On Jun 1, 7:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote in news:f9933f5e-0c1d-464b-a1d8-
> :
>
>
>
> > The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
> > spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
> > modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
> > pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
> > the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
> > inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the airplane's
> > motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
> > altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
> > 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
> > would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
> > really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
> > square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>
> > What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> > of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> > so the energy must be there.
>
> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an airplane.
> More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of woks with tubes
> out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to pay for it. !Moooney
> must have spotted an area of the cowl that would not penalise you in
> this way and decided to utilise it. Really clever homebuilders do a lot
> of this kind of stuff as well as, and probably more more importantly,
> dealing with cooling drag.
> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
> fairings.
>
> Bertie

[Blueskies]

"Tina" > wrote in message ...
> The m20J is pretty slippery already and when it was introduced in the
> 70s was a big step up in efficiency in a production airplane.
> Homebuilts do do an even better job of cleaning up aerodynamically.
>
> The little seals on the flaps and so on were lipstick, the real gain
> over the Mooney Executive had to do with the 201 getting a more
> aerodynamic windscreen and engine cowling.
>
> We have no serious complaints at all about the airplane (well, in a
> rainstorm getting in without getting the seat wet is difficult,
> checking the fuel is hard on pantyhose sometimes) but finding a couple
> more inches of manifold pressure would be very handy when trying to
> get to 12000 feet quickly. Once there, we can sip 8 gallons an hour
> and move along pretty well.
>
> I think using ram air would not increase aerodynamic drag, B. Instead
> of having the air moving at the airplane's airspeed plus prop induced
> speed impacting the cowling, it could in fact be going into a hole.
> It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute?
>
> I better leave that to the engineers.
>
>
>

Yes, you are sucking it up as you are trying to push it in, the air that is, and the free airstream is not a very good
'pump'. A turbo with its sealed compressor is much better because once the air is captured it really has a hard time
flowing out backwards.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 1, 3:35 am, Tina > wrote:
> The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
> spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
> modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
> pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
> the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
> inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the airplane's
> motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
> altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
> 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
> would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
> really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
> square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>
> What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> so the energy must be there.

Good thinking, but physics prevails.
For example we just built a building with sides 10'x20',
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dynamics/
and the load computation of a wind at 60 mph is 1 ton
on a 200 sq ft surface, being a shear force on the
foundation, which is 10#/sq ft. That might sound like
alot but in terms of pressure per sq. inch it's,
Per sq. inch, divide 10# by 144 = lbs/ sq. inch,
~ .07# / sq. inch.
By comparision, sea level pressure is 15#/sq.inch,
which is convertible to Hg units.

Ramming air increases pressure with speed squared
so at 120 mph, pressure is 40#/sq. ft etc.
So at 420 mph, ram pressure is up to 3.5 #/sq in.
which is about a low as is practical, as in a V-1
buzz bomb.
Cheers
Ken

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 1, 3:35*am, Tina > wrote:
> The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
> spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
> modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
> pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
> the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
> inches or so behind it) *as well as the air impact from the airplane's
> motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
> altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
> 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
> would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
> really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
> square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?

Its really to make up for a design flaw in the induction system. Most
induction systems don't have the resistance of a Mooney. By the 201
Mooney had mostly fixed this so the ram air makes no noticable
difference in the MP. On the pre-201's it adds 3/4 of a inch.

-Robert, Mooney CFII

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 4:35 am, Tina > wrote:
> The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
> spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
> modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
> pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
> the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
> inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the airplane's
> motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
> altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
> 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
> would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
> really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
> square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>
> What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> so the energy must be there.

The energy is there but it's no bigger than what Mooney claims.
Flat-plate drag at 100 knots is 29 pounds; dicide that by 144 square
inches and get around 0.2 psi, or about 0.4" Hg. Not much. AT 200
knots it will be four times that, which still isn't a lot.
In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the hood, to
ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more horsepower.
That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the pressure
recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's profits were
impressive.
On airplanes like the Cessna singles, the air intake faces
forward but it doesn't get much ram advantage. The airflow striking
the cowling is deflected around it, which means that the airflow in
the vicinity of the intake is across that intake, not ramming directly
against it. Since Mr. Bernoulli told us that pressure drops with
velocity, the pressure at the face of the air filter is likely lower
than ambient. Homebuilders can tackle that to some degree and get some
improvements in manifold pressure, but those improvements will come
mostly as a result of airflow control, not ram recovery.
And a funnel, contrary to popular belief, does not increase
the pressure within it when facing the airflow. It increases velocity,
which must decrease pressure. It's a convergent duct. A divergent
duct, on the other hand, slows the airflow and increases pressure, and
we find such shapes on jet engine intake ducts, where the cross-
section increases just ahead of the fan or first compressor stage.
See http://www.aoxj32.dsl.pipex.com/NewFiles/HTWPhysics.html
and http://www.thaitechnics.com/engine/engine_construction.html


Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 1, 11:48 am, wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:35 am, Tina > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
> > spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
> > modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
> > pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
> > the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
> > inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the airplane's
> > motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
> > altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
> > 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
> > would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
> > really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
> > square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>
> > What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> > of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> > so the energy must be there.
>
> The energy is there but it's no bigger than what Mooney claims.
> Flat-plate drag at 100 knots is 29 pounds; dicide that by 144 square
> inches and get around 0.2 psi, or about 0.4" Hg. Not much. AT 200
> knots it will be four times that, which still isn't a lot.
> In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
> systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the hood, to
> ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more horsepower.
> That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the pressure
> recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's profits were
> impressive.

That was the good old days!
A jig saw and some sheet metal BLASTED your 427 cube
inch engine to over 600 hp!!!, and at 400-500 mph, you'd be
economizing on fuel to boot!.
Ken

[Tina]

The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air filter
as well, so we typically observe about a half inch improvement in MP.
That's in line with some of the other numbers offered here.

I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is just
not there. My thought was and is that if it was something pretty
obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt. Actually, knowing
some of those guys, it does not have to be obvious at all, they are
really creative designers.

I had better stick with my day job.








with some On Jun 1, 12:28 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" >
wrote:
> On Jun 1, 3:35 am, Tina > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
> > spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
> > modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
> > pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
> > the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
> > inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the airplane's
> > motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
> > altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is about
> > 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
> > would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect and
> > really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
> > square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>
> > What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> > of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> > so the energy must be there.
>
> Good thinking, but physics prevails.
> For example we just built a building with sides 10'x20',http://www.flickr.com/photos/dynamics/
> and the load computation of a wind at 60 mph is 1 ton
> on a 200 sq ft surface, being a shear force on the
> foundation, which is 10#/sq ft. That might sound like
> alot but in terms of pressure per sq. inch it's,
> Per sq. inch, divide 10# by 144 = lbs/ sq. inch,
> ~ .07# / sq. inch.
> By comparision, sea level pressure is 15#/sq.inch,
> which is convertible to Hg units.
>
> Ramming air increases pressure with speed squared
> so at 120 mph, pressure is 40#/sq. ft etc.
> So at 420 mph, ram pressure is up to 3.5 #/sq in.
> which is about a low as is practical, as in a V-1
> buzz bomb.
> Cheers
> Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in news:7b4d9502-9229-4724-9b25-
:

> The m20J is pretty slippery already and when it was introduced in the
> 70s was a big step up in efficiency in a production airplane.
> Homebuilts do do an even better job of cleaning up aerodynamically.

Yeah, I've flown a good few 201s and 231s. Mostly the latter. They do
exactly as advertised!
>
> The little seals on the flaps and so on were lipstick, the real gain
> over the Mooney Executive had to do with the 201 getting a more
> aerodynamic windscreen and engine cowling.

Well, I was talking about aftermarket stuff. There's lots for Mooneys,
but maybe they're all for the early airplanes. Havign said that, on a
relatively small engined but clean airplane, a small improvement in drag
reduction pays large dividends in efficiency. Not only that, they;re
cumulative, so if you make an improvement in one area, it's benefits are
compounded by one in another.


> I think using ram air would not increase aerodynamic drag, B. Instead
> of having the air moving at the airplane's airspeed plus prop induced
> speed impacting the cowling, it could in fact be going into a hole.
> It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute?

Well, it's more than likely that Mooney saw a little opportunity to add
that feature when they were analising the flow around the inlet area and
saw a bit of wasted air they could put to good use. they don't like
waste, those guys.
Al's designs were almost all masterpieces. My own favorite is the
Alexander Eaglerock which was his first. A startlingly efficient design
for it's day and my favorite machine of the period. The Bullet was just
unreal, though. Someone's got one flying now. What i wouldn't give to
fly it! Of course, the final design was far removed from Al's original
anyway, so I guess it can't really join the long list of his beauties...

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:94016f66-e3ab-
:

> On Jun 1, 11:48 am, wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 4:35 am, Tina > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
>> > spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
>> > modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
>> > pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
>> > the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
>> > inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the
airplane's
>> > motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
>> > altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is
about
>> > 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
>> > would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect
and
>> > really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
>> > square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>>
>> > What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand
out
>> > of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward
pressure,
>> > so the energy must be there.
>>
>> The energy is there but it's no bigger than what Mooney claims.
>> Flat-plate drag at 100 knots is 29 pounds; dicide that by 144 square
>> inches and get around 0.2 psi, or about 0.4" Hg. Not much. AT 200
>> knots it will be four times that, which still isn't a lot.
>> In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
>> systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the hood,
to
>> ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more horsepower.
>> That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the pressure
>> recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's profits were
>> impressive.
>
> That was the good old days!
> A jig saw and some sheet metal BLASTED your 427 cube
> inch engine to over 600 hp!!!, and at 400-500 mph, you'd be
> economizing on fuel to boot!.
> Ken
>

And another happy ford customer.




Bertie

[Gezellig[_2_]]

It happens that formulated :
> In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
> systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the hood, to
> ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more horsepower.
> That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the pressure
> recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's profits were
> impressive.

Had a Trans Am, scoop was reversed, facing the windshield, had a flap
that opened when MP increased. They claimd that the reversed position
was at the low pressure point at the base of the windshield hence
enhancing the rammed air effect. I don't know, it was cool, the scoop
assembly was attached to the engine so that on acceleration you could
see the engine sitting down on its mounts as the scopp popped open and
lowere ever so slightly.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 8:06 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
> It happens that formulated :
>
> > In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
> > systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the hood, to
> > ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more horsepower.
> > That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the pressure
> > recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's profits were
> > impressive.
>
> Had a Trans Am, scoop was reversed, facing the windshield, had a flap
> that opened when MP increased. They claimd that the reversed position
> was at the low pressure point at the base of the windshield hence
> enhancing the rammed air effect. I don't know, it was cool, the scoop
> assembly was attached to the engine so that on acceleration you could
> see the engine sitting down on its mounts as the scopp popped open and
> lowere ever so slightly.

Locating the scoop at the low-pressure point wouldn't do much
for ram-air effect, would it? I think the real idea would have been to
make sure the driver heard that thing sucking loudly so it sounded
like a real powerhouse
I once converted a 14 foot outboard runabout to a 13 foot
inboard Cracker Box with a Chev 283 straight-shaft setup. The exhausts
were water-cooled and exited through the transom. Made so much noise
that I made two mufflers and quieted it right down. The carb's flame
arrestor stuck up far enough that I had a scoop on the deck, facing
away from the cockpit (which was at the back). Everything else was
covered. I dropped my Dad off on a gravel bar on a lake once, so he
could fish off it while I ran to the far end of the lake to try the
fishing there, three or four miles away. He told me he knew when I was
coming back; he could hear that Rochester Quadrajet four-barrel open
up and suck vast quantities of air; the boat got one mile per gallon
at full throttle with that huge carb. But went real fast. I sold it
years ago and I bet it don't go real fast no more, with fuel prices
the way they are now.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 1, 7:59 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 1, 8:06 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>
>
>
> > It happens that formulated :
>
> > > In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
> > > systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the hood, to
> > > ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more horsepower.
> > > That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the pressure
> > > recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's profits were
> > > impressive.
>
> > Had a Trans Am, scoop was reversed, facing the windshield, had a flap
> > that opened when MP increased. They claimd that the reversed position
> > was at the low pressure point at the base of the windshield hence
> > enhancing the rammed air effect. I don't know, it was cool, the scoop
> > assembly was attached to the engine so that on acceleration you could
> > see the engine sitting down on its mounts as the scopp popped open and
> > lowere ever so slightly.
>
> Locating the scoop at the low-pressure point wouldn't do much
> for ram-air effect, would it? I think the real idea would have been to
> make sure the driver heard that thing sucking loudly so it sounded
> like a real powerhouse
> I once converted a 14 foot outboard runabout to a 13 foot
> inboard Cracker Box with a Chev 283 straight-shaft setup. The exhausts
> were water-cooled and exited through the transom. Made so much noise
> that I made two mufflers and quieted it right down. The carb's flame
> arrestor stuck up far enough that I had a scoop on the deck, facing
> away from the cockpit (which was at the back). Everything else was
> covered. I dropped my Dad off on a gravel bar on a lake once, so he
> could fish off it while I ran to the far end of the lake to try the
> fishing there, three or four miles away. He told me he knew when I was
> coming back; he could hear that Rochester Quadrajet four-barrel open
> up and suck vast quantities of air; the boat got one mile per gallon
> at full throttle with that huge carb. But went real fast. I sold it
> years ago and I bet it don't go real fast no more, with fuel prices
> the way they are now.
> Dan

I confess to enjoying ancedotal stories.
As a monster nut brat I got some tin cans together
and built a pulse jet, complete with a flapping duct
input, and used a hair dryer for my air input source,
in my parents downstairs fireplace.
So I pour in some gas into the thing, lite it up,
turn on the hair dryer and holy poop, the duct starts
fluttering and flames are fluttering out the ass end!
It worked! It buzzed!

I probably used a pint of gasoline per minute of
operation, but that wasn't the point, it was actually
seeing the damn thing in operation.
Hands on is good stuff.
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 6:35�am, Tina > wrote:
> >
> What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> so the energy must be there.
The energy is there and in a simplified discussion it is called
stagnation pressure, the sum of static pressure and ram air
pressure. As you go faster, static stays the same, ram goes up with
the square of velocity, as discussed already. Your airspeed
indicator uses the two pressures and does the math for you. On the
Tango 2, a homebuilt, we have a ram air scoop below the spinner and a
Y-valve and door for filtered or ram air. When I go to ram air at
150 kias, my manifold pressure goes up about .6 inch. Theoretically I
should recover 1.08 inches. I only have a single buttlerfly Y-valve;
we think some of the air is following the path of least resistance and
going back up the filtered tube. Another Tango 2 has a double
butterfly Y-valve that close off the escape route back through the
filter. His ram rise is about 1.1 or 1.2 inches, which is more than
stagnation. We put his ram air tube a little lower and closer to the
prop as discussed in SPEED WITH ECONOMY by Ken Paser. This seems to
capture the increased pressure behind the blade as it passes the
inlet, timed with the intake valve opening. When we are side by side,
flat out, when he goes ram air he pulls away from me.
I normally don't go ram until I climb above the haze layer and my
power drops below %75. At that point the power goes up about 4-5% and
I can feel the acceleration.
As someone else mentioned, you can't put a funnel out there and
get even more boost. Any excess will just flow around the inlet and
possibly increase drag. We don't know if our setup is optimum, but it
helps. Other homebuilters I've talked to report similar results. Oh,
for a wind tunnel and a lot of money.

Denny
Team Tango

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Jun 1, 8:06 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>> It happens that formulated :

The biggest performance advantage to ram air was always recognized as COLD
air, not increased pressure. That's why racers began using the base of the
windshield for an intake, instead of forward a scoop. They could get plenty
of cold air without increasing the frontal area of the vehicle. It's
actually a HIGH pressure area, hence the reason so many vehicles have there
fresh air intakes located there.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:94016f66-e3ab-
> :
>
>> On Jun 1, 11:48 am, wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 4:35 am, Tina > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > The Mooney 201 has a ram air port, a half a foot under the prop
>>> > spinner. The POH tells us it can be opened at altitude for a very
>>> > modest increase in MP and we find maybe a half inch increase in
>>> > pressure. The idea of the thing is, if the port is looking right at
>>> > the air being thrust toward it by the prop (it can't be more than 6
>>> > inches or so behind it) as well as the air impact from the
> airplane's
>>> > motion the air being 'rammed' into it should effectively lower the
>>> > altitude the engine thinks it's at. Well, a half inch of Hg is
> about
>>> > 500 feet or so. The question is, though, wouldn't you think there
>>> > would be a way to capture a great deal more of the ram air effect
> and
>>> > really boost the engine performance? Who wouldn't like to fly at 24
>>> > square at 12000 feet without a turbo charger?
>>>
>>> > What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand
> out
>>> > of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward
> pressure,
>>> > so the energy must be there.
>>>
>>> The energy is there but it's no bigger than what Mooney claims.
>>> Flat-plate drag at 100 knots is 29 pounds; dicide that by 144 square
>>> inches and get around 0.2 psi, or about 0.4" Hg. Not much. AT 200
>>> knots it will be four times that, which still isn't a lot.
>>> In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
>>> systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the hood,
> to
>>> ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more horsepower.
>>> That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the pressure
>>> recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's profits were
>>> impressive.
>>
>> That was the good old days!
>> A jig saw and some sheet metal BLASTED your 427 cube
>> inch engine to over 600 hp!!!, and at 400-500 mph, you'd be
>> economizing on fuel to boot!.
>> Ken
>>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>You're clueless.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an airplane.
> More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of woks with tubes
> out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to pay for it. !Moooney
> must have spotted an area of the cowl that would not penalise you in
> this way and decided to utilise it. Really clever homebuilders do a lot
> of this kind of stuff as well as, and probably more more importantly,
> dealing with cooling drag.
> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
> fairings.
>
> Bertie

Dumb ass.

Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure), and you
already have too much.

[Gezellig[_2_]]

brought next idea :
>> Had a Trans Am, scoop was reversed, facing the windshield, had a flap
>> that opened when MP increased. They claimd that the reversed position
>> was at the low pressure point at the base of the windshield hence
>> enhancing the rammed air effect. I don't know, it was cool, the scoop
>> assembly was attached to the engine so that on acceleration you could
>> see the engine sitting down on its mounts as the scopp popped open and
>> lowere ever so slightly.

> Locating the scoop at the low-pressure point wouldn't do much
> for ram-air effect, would it? I think the real idea would have been to
> make sure the driver heard that thing sucking loudly so it sounded
> like a real powerhouse

Got that right. lol

[Gezellig[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker explained on 6/2/2008 :
> I confess to enjoying ancedotal stories.
> As a monster nut brat I got some tin cans together
> and built a pulse jet, complete with a flapping duct
> input, and used a hair dryer for my air input source,
> in my parents downstairs fireplace.
> So I pour in some gas into the thing, lite it up,
> turn on the hair dryer and holy poop, the duct starts
> fluttering and flames are fluttering out the ass end!
> It worked! It buzzed!

> I probably used a pint of gasoline per minute of
> operation, but that wasn't the point, it was actually
> seeing the damn thing in operation.
> Hands on is good stuff.
> Ken

Proof there is a God, you survived yourself.

[Gezellig[_2_]]

laid this down on his screen :
> I normally don't go ram until I climb above the haze layer and my
> power drops below %75. At that point the power goes up about 4-5% and
> I can feel the acceleration.

What effect does air temps have on rammed air? Tina's Mooney in climb,
in a hot air environ, does she get anything of value? Above haze
(cooler air?), different story.

[Tina]

On Jun 2, 12:46 am, wrote:
> On Jun 1, 6:35�am, Tina > wrote:
>
> > What makes me wonder about it is, even at 60 mph holding your hand out
> > of the window of a car subjects it to a significant backward pressure,
> > so the energy must be there.
>
> The energy is there and in a simplified discussion it is called
> stagnation pressure, the sum of static pressure and ram air
> pressure. As you go faster, static stays the same, ram goes up with
> the square of velocity, as discussed already. Your airspeed
> indicator uses the two pressures and does the math for you. On the
> Tango 2, a homebuilt, we have a ram air scoop below the spinner and a
> Y-valve and door for filtered or ram air. When I go to ram air at
> 150 kias, my manifold pressure goes up about .6 inch. Theoretically I
> should recover 1.08 inches. I only have a single buttlerfly Y-valve;
> we think some of the air is following the path of least resistance and
> going back up the filtered tube. Another Tango 2 has a double
> butterfly Y-valve that close off the escape route back through the
> filter. His ram rise is about 1.1 or 1.2 inches, which is more than
> stagnation. We put his ram air tube a little lower and closer to the
> prop as discussed in SPEED WITH ECONOMY by Ken Paser. This seems to
> capture the increased pressure behind the blade as it passes the
> inlet, timed with the intake valve opening. When we are side by side,
> flat out, when he goes ram air he pulls away from me.
> I normally don't go ram until I climb above the haze layer and my
> power drops below %75. At that point the power goes up about 4-5% and
> I can feel the acceleration.
> As someone else mentioned, you can't put a funnel out there and
> get even more boost. Any excess will just flow around the inlet and
> possibly increase drag. We don't know if our setup is optimum, but it
> helps. Other homebuilters I've talked to report similar results. Oh,
> for a wind tunnel and a lot of money.
>
> Denny
> Team Tango

Thanks, Denny. I thought if anyone would extract the last bit gain it
would be someone with a home built.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of
>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to
>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that would
>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really clever
>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and probably
>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
>> fairings.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Dumb ass.
>
> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure), and
> you already have too much.
>
>
>

Nope.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 1, 7:59 pm, wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 8:06 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > It happens that formulated :
>>
>> > > In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
>> > > systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the
>> > > hood, to ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more
>> > > horsepower. That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the
>> > > pressure recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's
>> > > profits were impressive.
>>
>> > Had a Trans Am, scoop was reversed, facing the windshield, had a
>> > flap that opened when MP increased. They claimd that the reversed
>> > position was at the low pressure point at the base of the
>> > windshield hence enhancing the rammed air effect. I don't know, it
>> > was cool, the scoop assembly was attached to the engine so that on
>> > acceleration you could see the engine sitting down on its mounts as
>> > the scopp popped open and lowere ever so slightly.
>>
>> Locating the scoop at the low-pressure point wouldn't do much
>> for ram-air effect, would it? I think the real idea would have been
>> to make sure the driver heard that thing sucking loudly so it sounded
>> like a real powerhouse
>> I once converted a 14 foot outboard runabout to a 13 foot
>> inboard Cracker Box with a Chev 283 straight-shaft setup. The
>> exhausts were water-cooled and exited through the transom. Made so
>> much noise that I made two mufflers and quieted it right down. The
>> carb's flame arrestor stuck up far enough that I had a scoop on the
>> deck, facing away from the cockpit (which was at the back).
>> Everything else was covered. I dropped my Dad off on a gravel bar on
>> a lake once, so he could fish off it while I ran to the far end of
>> the lake to try the fishing there, three or four miles away. He told
>> me he knew when I was coming back; he could hear that Rochester
>> Quadrajet four-barrel open up and suck vast quantities of air; the
>> boat got one mile per gallon at full throttle with that huge carb.
>> But went real fast. I sold it years ago and I bet it don't go real
>> fast no more, with fuel prices the way they are now.
>> Dan
>
> I confess to enjoying ancedotal stories.
> As a monster nut brat I got some tin cans together
> and built a pulse jet, complete with a flapping duct
> input, and used a hair dryer for my air input source,
> in my parents downstairs fireplace.
> So I pour in some gas into the thing, lite it up,
> turn on the hair dryer and holy poop, the duct starts
> fluttering and flames are fluttering out the ass end!
> It worked! It buzzed!
>
> I probably used a pint of gasoline per minute of
> operation, but that wasn't the point, it was actually
> seeing the damn thing in operation.
> Hands on is good stuff.


Please do build another one just like that and put it on youtube, then..


I've only ever seen one person die right in front of my eyes before.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
>>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
>>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
>>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of
>>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to
>>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that would
>>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really clever
>>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and probably
>>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
>>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
>>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
>>> fairings.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Dumb ass.
>>
>> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure), and
>> you already have too much.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Nope.
>
>
> Bertie

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>

How would you know, dumb ass?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jTR0k.192$js1.25
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
>>>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
>>>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
>>>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of
>>>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to
>>>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that
would
>>>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really
clever
>>>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and
probably
>>>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
>>>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
>>>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
>>>> fairings.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Dumb ass.
>>>
>>> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure),
and
>>> you already have too much.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>
> How would you know, dumb ass?
>
>
>
>
>

I know everything, obviously.



Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
> The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air filter
> as well, so we typically observe about a half inch improvement in MP.
> That's in line with some of the other numbers offered here.
>
> I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
> IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
> charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is just
> not there. My thought was and is that if it was something pretty
> obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt. Actually, knowing
> some of those guys, it does not have to be obvious at all, they are
> really creative designers.

Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
" It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "

I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
Ken

[Tina]

On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air filter
> > as well, so we typically observe about a half inch improvement in MP.
> > That's in line with some of the other numbers offered here.
>
> > I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
> > IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
> > charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is just
> > not there. My thought was and is that if it was something pretty
> > obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt. Actually, knowing
> > some of those guys, it does not have to be obvious at all, they are
> > really creative designers.
>
> Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
> " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>
> I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
> Ken
Well, I think it's a dead issue for us. What is fun to think about is,
let's see, about 200 cubic feet a minute, that's 40 cubic feet of
oxygen a minute, or about 3 pounds. For 50% more O2, 1.5 pounds a
minute, or say 20 pounds to get to a pleasantly high altitude. Maybe
that translates in to dewer weighing a total of 50 pounds with liquid
O2? But it would make 15 inches of MP look like 22 or so as far as the
engine is concerned. I better get back to my day job.

Resolved: psychologists should not be permitted to minor in the
physical sciences. All in favor?

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 1, 11:26 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker explained on 6/2/2008 :
>
> > I confess to enjoying ancedotal stories.
> > As a monster nut brat I got some tin cans together
> > and built a pulse jet, complete with a flapping duct
> > input, and used a hair dryer for my air input source,
> > in my parents downstairs fireplace.
> > So I pour in some gas into the thing, lite it up,
> > turn on the hair dryer and holy poop, the duct starts
> > fluttering and flames are fluttering out the ass end!
> > It worked! It buzzed!
> > I probably used a pint of gasoline per minute of
> > operation, but that wasn't the point, it was actually
> > seeing the damn thing in operation.
> > Hands on is good stuff.
> > Ken
>
> Proof there is a God, you survived yourself.

I'm very safety conscious, I have 3 fingers and 1 eye
left over that I haven't used up yet. No point in taking
all that stuff to the grave where they will just rot.

My flame holder was steel wool (aka Brillo soap pad),
and my throttle was a rubber squigy loaded with gasoline
....actually that was one of my safer experiments.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tina > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > > The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air filter
> > > as well, so we typically observe about a half inch improvement in MP.
> > > That's in line with some of the other numbers offered here.
>
> > > I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
> > > IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
> > > charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is just
> > > not there. My thought was and is that if it was something pretty
> > > obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt. Actually, knowing
> > > some of those guys, it does not have to be obvious at all, they are
> > > really creative designers.
>
> > Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
> > " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> > that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> > 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>
> > I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
> > Ken
>
> Well, I think it's a dead issue for us. What is fun to think about is,
> let's see, about 200 cubic feet a minute, that's 40 cubic feet of
> oxygen a minute, or about 3 pounds. For 50% more O2, 1.5 pounds a
> minute, or say 20 pounds to get to a pleasantly high altitude. Maybe
> that translates in to dewer weighing a total of 50 pounds with liquid
> O2? But it would make 15 inches of MP look like 22 or so as far as the
> engine is concerned. I better get back to my day job.

Without crackin' the books and pounding the abacus,
you look like +/- 20% using BoE (Back of Envelope)
calculation, which means you get either 80% or 120%
on your physics exam, you choose.

> Resolved: psychologists should not be permitted to minor in the
> physical sciences. All in favor?

OR pilots should not be permitted to engage in
psychology in this group, now what's the chances
of that happening...is "nil" close :-).
Ken
PS: What's the rationale of the 12,000' cruise?
You know about the "bends" don't you, if not
just read Berties post!

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 10:01 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
> " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "

Can't do it that way. You're assuming a volumetric efficiency
of 100% which we never attain without considerable boosting. The
volumetric efficiency at full throttle and redline RPM at sea level
isn't likely to be much more than 50 or 60%.
Got to do it using fuel flow. Best power mixture comes at
around 12:1 (pounds of air to pounds of fuel) and stoichiometric
mixture (no wasted air or fuel) is 15:1. Weight of air at sea level is
about .078 pounds per cubic foot, and weight of gasoline is 6 lb per
US gallon.
An O-320 @ 2700 RPM @ S.L. = Displacement of 15,000 cubic feet
per hour.
Full throttle fuel flow of 10.3 GPH @ 12:1 best power = 9434
cu. ft./hr (with fixed-pitch prop).
9434 ÷ 15,000 = .629 (62.9%) volumetric efficiency @ sea
level.

Not very good, is it? Air has viscosity and the drag of the
entire induction system, even with the throttle wide open, is
significant. Add to that the inertia of the air, and the intake
valve's opening and closing causing the stop-go action of the air in
the system, and things get slowed down considerably.
It's worse in auto engines that turn at high RPM. That's why
many have four valves per cylinder, or turbos, or both.

Dan

[Tina]

On Jun 2, 2:19 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tina > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > > > The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air filter
> > > > as well, so we typically observe about a half inch improvement in MP.
> > > > That's in line with some of the other numbers offered here.
>
> > > > I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
> > > > IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
> > > > charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is just
> > > > not there. My thought was and is that if it was something pretty
> > > > obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt. Actually, knowing
> > > > some of those guys, it does not have to be obvious at all, they are
> > > > really creative designers.
>
> > > Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
> > > " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> > > that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> > > 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>
> > > I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
> > > Ken
>
> > Well, I think it's a dead issue for us. What is fun to think about is,
> > let's see, about 200 cubic feet a minute, that's 40 cubic feet of
> > oxygen a minute, or about 3 pounds. For 50% more O2, 1.5 pounds a
> > minute, or say 20 pounds to get to a pleasantly high altitude. Maybe
> > that translates in to dewer weighing a total of 50 pounds with liquid
> > O2? But it would make 15 inches of MP look like 22 or so as far as the
> > engine is concerned. I better get back to my day job.
>
> Without crackin' the books and pounding the abacus,
> you look like +/- 20% using BoE (Back of Envelope)
> calculation, which means you get either 80% or 120%
> on your physics exam, you choose.
>
> > Resolved: psychologists should not be permitted to minor in the
> > physical sciences. All in favor?
>
> OR pilots should not be permitted to engage in
> psychology in this group, now what's the chances
> of that happening...is "nil" close :-).
> Ken
> PS: What's the rationale of the 12,000' cruise?
> You know about the "bends" don't you, if not
> just read Berties post
Depending on trip length and winds aloft, we choose as high an
altitude as is reasonable without oxygen. Many of our trips are the
order of 500 nm. At the moment that's often 11000 feet east bound.
When we can no longer run 5k or 10ks, or find ourselves winded when
walking high in the mountains or have other evidence of physical
limitations (we do have access to high altitude chambers here) we'll
reduce that altitude.

From 12000 feet we are usually requesting lower when we're 45 minutes
from the airport. When traffic permits we like coming down at 300 feet
a minute!

Bertie's welcome to his bends: bends would be a problem if we were
going up really fast, but at 18000 feet atmospheric pressure is
reduced only by 50%. 12000 feet is probably a 10 psia atmosphere, and
I don't think there will be much outgassing with a difference of 5
psi, even if we went up fast (Mooneys are nice, but their climb time
to altitude is not remarkable!) I think for divers that would be like
coming up suddenly from maybe 10 feet down.

As is clear in this group, different people flight plan differently.
We choose high. There are less likely to be undisciplined pilots, or
those flying under VFR, at 10,000 or 12,000 than at 3000.

[Tina]

I think we're close to a stoichiometric mixture at peak egt for a
given rpm, but finding a way of stuffing more O2 into the cylinders
would be nice during a climb to altitude. Never the less the back of
the envelope number crunching I did and others have commented on
pretty much convinced me to let engine optimization to those who know
what they are doing. I will not be connecting the exhaust of a shop
vac to the intake manifold any time soon!

And to be honest I did not use the back of an envelope, but a cell in
an Excel spreadsheet being used for a different kind of data
analysis. Which reminds me, I had better delete it before I pass that
analysis around.

me Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
> > " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> > that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> > 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>
> Can't do it that way. You're assuming a volumetric efficiency
> of 100% which we never attain without considerable boosting. The
> volumetric efficiency at full throttle and redline RPM at sea level
> isn't likely to be much more than 50 or 60%.
> Got to do it using fuel flow. Best power mixture comes at
> around 12:1 (pounds of air to pounds of fuel) and stoichiometric
> mixture (no wasted air or fuel) is 15:1. Weight of air at sea level is
> about .078 pounds per cubic foot, and weight of gasoline is 6 lb per
> US gallon.
> An O-320 @ 2700 RPM @ S.L. = Displacement of 15,000 cubic feet
> per hour.
> Full throttle fuel flow of 10.3 GPH @ 12:1 best power = 9434
> cu. ft./hr (with fixed-pitch prop).
> 9434 ÷ 15,000 = .629 (62.9%) volumetric efficiency @ sea
> level.
>
> Not very good, is it? Air has viscosity and the drag of the
> entire induction system, even with the throttle wide open, is
> significant. Add to that the inertia of the air, and the intake
> valve's opening and closing causing the stop-go action of the air in
> the system, and things get slowed down considerably.
> It's worse in auto engines that turn at high RPM. That's why
> many have four valves per cylinder, or turbos, or both.
>
> Dan

[Billy Crabs]

On Jun 2, 9:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jTR0k.192$js1.25
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
> >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
> >>>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
> >>>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
> >>>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of
> >>>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to
> >>>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that
> would
> >>>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really
> clever
> >>>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and
> probably
> >>>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
> >>>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
> >>>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
> >>>> fairings.
>
> >>>> Bertie
>
> >>> Dumb ass.
>
> >>> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure),
> and
> >>> you already have too much.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > How would you know, dumb ass?
>
> I know everything, obviously.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
unburnt fuel in the fumes.

[Tony]

> Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
> come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> unburnt fuel in the fumes.

I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
argument to an extreme to see how it fails.

As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.

[terry]

On Jun 3, 6:38*am, Billy Crabs > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 9:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jTR0k.192$js1.25
> > @newsfe24.lga:
>
> > > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> > :
>
> > >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
> > >>>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
> > >>>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
> > >>>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of
> > >>>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to
> > >>>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that
> > would
> > >>>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really
> > clever
> > >>>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and
> > probably
> > >>>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
> > >>>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
> > >>>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
> > >>>> fairings.
>
> > >>>> Bertie
>
> > >>> Dumb ass.
>
> > >>> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure),
> > and
> > >>> you already have too much.
>
> > >> Nope.
>
> > >> Bertie
>
> > > How would you know, dumb ass?
>
> > I know everything, obviously.
>
> > Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. *All engines
> come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> performance. *Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> unburnt fuel in the fumes.- Hide quoted text -
>
I would think the air getting to the cyclinder faster is important,
given the little time available for the intake to occur. If you
analyse the take off performance data of C172 ( which I have) you can
see quite clearly that for the same air density, better performance
( ie shorter take off distance) is obtained at higher temperatures
( which of course means higher pressure). I , and others, interpret
this as the higher pressure providing a stronger driving force to fill
the cylinder quicker.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 3:30 pm, terry > wrote:
> On Jun 3, 6:38 am, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 9:28 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jTR0k.192$js1.25
> > > @newsfe24.lga:
>
> > > > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> > > :
>
> > > >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
> > > >>>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
> > > >>>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
> > > >>>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of
> > > >>>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to
> > > >>>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that
> > > would
> > > >>>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really
> > > clever
> > > >>>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and
> > > probably
> > > >>>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
> > > >>>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
> > > >>>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
> > > >>>> fairings.
>
> > > >>>> Bertie
>
> > > >>> Dumb ass.
>
> > > >>> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure),
> > > and
> > > >>> you already have too much.
>
> > > >> Nope.
>
> > > >> Bertie
>
> > > > How would you know, dumb ass?
>
> > > I know everything, obviously.
>
> > > Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
> > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > unburnt fuel in the fumes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I would think the air getting to the cyclinder faster is important,
> given the little time available for the intake to occur. If you
> analyse the take off performance data of C172 ( which I have) you can
> see quite clearly that for the same air density, better performance
> ( ie shorter take off distance) is obtained at higher temperatures
> ( which of course means higher pressure). I , and others, interpret
> this as the higher pressure providing a stronger driving force to fill
> the cylinder quicker.
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

Higher air temps mean a lower air viscosity, reducing
induction drag, and faster and more complete vaporization of the fuel.

Dan

[dave hillstrom]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
wrote:

>
>> Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
>> faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
>> stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
>> that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
>> present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
>> devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
>> come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
>> motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
>> performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
>> the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
>> unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>
>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
>so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
>air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
>argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>
>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
>for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
>about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.

will you marry me?

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom

[terry]

On Jun 3, 9:11*am, wrote:
> On Jun 2, 3:30 pm, terry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 6:38 am, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 9:28 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > > "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jTR0k.192$js1.25
> > > > @newsfe24.lga:
>
> > > > > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> > > > :
>
> > > > >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >>>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
> > > > >>>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
> > > > >>>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
> > > > >>>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of
> > > > >>>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to
> > > > >>>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that
> > > > would
> > > > >>>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really
> > > > clever
> > > > >>>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and
> > > > probably
> > > > >>>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
> > > > >>>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
> > > > >>>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
> > > > >>>> fairings.
>
> > > > >>>> Bertie
>
> > > > >>> Dumb ass.
>
> > > > >>> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure),
> > > > and
> > > > >>> you already have too much.
>
> > > > >> Nope.
>
> > > > >> Bertie
>
> > > > > How would you know, dumb ass?
>
> > > > I know everything, obviously.
>
> > > > Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. *All engines
> > > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > > performance. *Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > > unburnt fuel in the fumes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I would think the air getting to the cyclinder faster is important,
> > given the little time available for the intake to occur. * If you
> > analyse the take off performance data of C172 ( which I have) *you can
> > see quite clearly that for the same air density, better performance
> > ( ie shorter take off distance) is obtained at higher temperatures
> > ( which of course means higher pressure). I , and others, interpret
> > this as the higher pressure providing a stronger driving force to fill
> > the cylinder quicker.
> > Terry
> > PPL Downunder
>
> * * * * * *Higher air temps mean a lower air viscosity, reducing
> induction drag, and faster and more complete vaporization of the fuel.
>
I thought that also ( the viscosity bit) , but viscosity of air
actually increases with increasing temperature
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-absolute-kinematic-viscosity-d_601.html

the vaporization theory might hold though. I will look into that one.

Terry
PPL Downunder

[Billy Crabs]

On Jun 2, 5:12*pm, Tony > wrote:
> > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. *All engines
> > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > performance. *Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>
> I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
> so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
> air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
> argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>
> As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
> from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
> cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
> for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
> about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.

The air going into the manifold has the same atmospheric weight as if
it was outside the manifold, what makes it denser is the addition of
fuel into the air/fuel mixture, unless the air is in a perfect vaccum
it will not increase in pressure and most certainly not density and
the turbos do reintroduce fuel back into the combustion mixture, If
you've ever seen a read out of carbon emissions for a non turbo
vehicle it still has enough unburnt fuel to power your vehicle for
another 5% of your fuel consumption and turbos IF powered by a
motorized turbine are as useless as ram air because of the statement I
made in my previous post. your intake is only as much as the volume of
your cylinders

[Billy Crabs]

On Jun 2, 10:00*pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:12*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. *All engines
> > > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > > performance. *Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > > unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>
> > I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
> > so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
> > air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
> > argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>
> > As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
> > from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
> > cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
> > for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
> > about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>
> The air going into the manifold has the same atmospheric weight as if
> it was outside the manifold, what makes it denser is the addition of
> fuel into the air/fuel mixture, unless the air is in a perfect vaccum
> it will not increase in pressure and most certainly not density and
> the turbos do reintroduce fuel back into the combustion mixture, If
> you've ever seen a read out of carbon emissions for a non turbo
> vehicle it still has enough unburnt fuel to power your vehicle for
> another 5% of your fuel consumption *and turbos IF powered by a
> motorized turbine are as useless as ram air because of the statement I
> made in my previous post. your intake is only as much as the volume of
> your cylinders- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I retract that last statement, turbos are not useless, I would be
contradicting myself if I said they were.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 8:00 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:12 pm, Tony > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
> > > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > > performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > > unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>
> > I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
> > so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
> > air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
> > argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>
> > As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
> > from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
> > cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
> > for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
> > about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>
> The air going into the manifold has the same atmospheric weight as if
> it was outside the manifold, what makes it denser is the addition of
> fuel into the air/fuel mixture, unless the air is in a perfect vaccum
> it will not increase in pressure and most certainly not density and
> the turbos do reintroduce fuel back into the combustion mixture, If
> you've ever seen a read out of carbon emissions for a non turbo
> vehicle it still has enough unburnt fuel to power your vehicle for
> another 5% of your fuel consumption and turbos IF powered by a
> motorized turbine are as useless as ram air because of the statement I
> made in my previous post. your intake is only as much as the volume of
> your cylinders

Turbocharging can be set to two different levels:
Turbonormalizing, which brings manifold pressure to sea level
pressure; and boosting, which raises manifold pressures to more than
30" Hg. If an engine is boosted, the air density in the cylinder at
the bottom of the intake stroke could be well above atmospheric.

Dan

[Maxwell[_2_]]

>
> Turbocharging can be set to two different levels:
> Turbonormalizing, which brings manifold pressure to sea level
> pressure; and boosting, which raises manifold pressures to more than
> 30" Hg. If an engine is boosted, the air density in the cylinder at
> the bottom of the intake stroke could be well above atmospheric.
>
> Dan

Careful, Bertie the ButtlippS cross-posted this a few messages back. You're
trying to explain something to someone on a kook group.

[Billy Crabs]

On Jun 2, 11:08*pm, wrote:
> On Jun 2, 8:00 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 5:12 pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > > > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > > > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > > > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > > > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > > > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. *All engines
> > > > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > > > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > > > performance. *Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > > > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > > > unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>
> > > I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
> > > so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
> > > air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
> > > argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>
> > > As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
> > > from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
> > > cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
> > > for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
> > > about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>
> > The air going into the manifold has the same atmospheric weight as if
> > it was outside the manifold, what makes it denser is the addition of
> > fuel into the air/fuel mixture, unless the air is in a perfect vaccum
> > it will not increase in pressure and most certainly not density and
> > the turbos do reintroduce fuel back into the combustion mixture, If
> > you've ever seen a read out of carbon emissions for a non turbo
> > vehicle it still has enough unburnt fuel to power your vehicle for
> > another 5% of your fuel consumption *and turbos IF powered by a
> > motorized turbine are as useless as ram air because of the statement I
> > made in my previous post. your intake is only as much as the volume of
> > your cylinders
>
> * * * * * * Turbocharging can be set to two different levels:
> Turbonormalizing, which brings manifold pressure to sea level
> pressure; and boosting, which raises manifold pressures to more than
> 30" Hg. If an engine is boosted, the air density in the cylinder at
> the bottom of the intake stroke could be well above atmospheric.

I'm sorry to keep disagreeing but, but the pressure in which(if you
can call it pressure) goes through a manifold is increased by MAP
sensors which measure atmospheric pressure and regulates air fuel
mixture, it has nothing to do with "ram air" and I do agree that that
the density of the air/mixture is increased by the vaccum caused by a
piston at bottom dead center but we were talking about air before it
reaches the cylinder and the speed of which it arrives to carburation.
>
> * * * * *Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Billy Crabs]

On Jun 2, 11:33*pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:08*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 8:00 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 5:12 pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > > > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > > > > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > > > > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > > > > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > > > > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > > > > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. *All engines
> > > > > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > > > > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > > > > performance. *Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > > > > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > > > > unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>
> > > > I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
> > > > so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
> > > > air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
> > > > argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>
> > > > As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
> > > > from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
> > > > cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
> > > > for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
> > > > about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>
> > > The air going into the manifold has the same atmospheric weight as if
> > > it was outside the manifold, what makes it denser is the addition of
> > > fuel into the air/fuel mixture, unless the air is in a perfect vaccum
> > > it will not increase in pressure and most certainly not density and
> > > the turbos do reintroduce fuel back into the combustion mixture, If
> > > you've ever seen a read out of carbon emissions for a non turbo
> > > vehicle it still has enough unburnt fuel to power your vehicle for
> > > another 5% of your fuel consumption *and turbos IF powered by a
> > > motorized turbine are as useless as ram air because of the statement I
> > > made in my previous post. your intake is only as much as the volume of
> > > your cylinders
>
> > * * * * * * Turbocharging can be set to two different levels:
> > Turbonormalizing, which brings manifold pressure to sea level
> > pressure; and boosting, which raises manifold pressures to more than
> > 30" Hg. If an engine is boosted, the air density in the cylinder at
> > the bottom of the intake stroke could be well above atmospheric.
>
> I'm sorry to keep disagreeing but, but the pressure in which(if you
> can call it pressure) goes through a manifold is increased by MAP
> sensors which measure atmospheric pressure and regulates air fuel
> mixture, it has nothing to do with "ram air" and I do agree that that
> the density of the air/mixture is increased by the vaccum caused by a
> piston at bottom dead center but we were talking about air before it
> reaches the cylinder and the speed of which it arrives to carburation.
>
>
>
>
>
> > * * * * *Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. Now
lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
"turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
lungs(cylinder volume)

[Buster Hymen]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Billy Crabs >
>
>>let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
>>into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
>>shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
>>cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
>>as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
>>for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
>>deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
>>only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. Now
>>lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
>>"turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
>>lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
>>lungs(cylinder volume)
>
> Never been to the "Top Fuel" drags, have you?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSEUDF5MoscYxZNI5AQEDcgP/WxU5b53z9gx9OUXZwfOgyS9fy7aNC887
> 3sjBnHYfEHL9gwfMzae/+ZQmMck7gRlYFFrXebWPVj16E4Am2WM+wBV1iljDfNMH
> ZnvjOpUv/iVf3ViMHYQf9VFreZ/4ZBblkNp5UnDfTBZu8IDsWNAxm5OEGOV6yHTi
> nl0UhGT6Y2g=
> =dD7/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

It would be fun to hear his description of how supercharging as opposed to
turbocharging works.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 9:45 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:

> let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
> into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
> shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
> cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
> as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
> for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
> deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
> only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. Now
> lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
> "turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
> lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
> lungs(cylinder volume)

Air density in the cylinder is governed by its pressure and
temperature. MUCH more air can be forced into the cylinder if the
manifold pressure is boosted; this is the principle behind getting
more power out of a given number of cubic inches. You need to do some
studying on the matter. I have, and I teach this stuff in college.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 9:45 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:33 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 11:08 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 8:00 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 2, 5:12 pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > > > > > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > > > > > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > > > > > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > > > > > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > > > > > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
> > > > > > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > > > > > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > > > > > performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > > > > > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > > > > > unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>
> > > > > I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
> > > > > so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
> > > > > air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
> > > > > argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>
> > > > > As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
> > > > > from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
> > > > > cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
> > > > > for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
> > > > > about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>
> > > > The air going into the manifold has the same atmospheric weight as if
> > > > it was outside the manifold, what makes it denser is the addition of
> > > > fuel into the air/fuel mixture, unless the air is in a perfect vaccum
> > > > it will not increase in pressure and most certainly not density and
> > > > the turbos do reintroduce fuel back into the combustion mixture, If
> > > > you've ever seen a read out of carbon emissions for a non turbo
> > > > vehicle it still has enough unburnt fuel to power your vehicle for
> > > > another 5% of your fuel consumption and turbos IF powered by a
> > > > motorized turbine are as useless as ram air because of the statement I
> > > > made in my previous post. your intake is only as much as the volume of
> > > > your cylinders
>
> > > Turbocharging can be set to two different levels:
> > > Turbonormalizing, which brings manifold pressure to sea level
> > > pressure; and boosting, which raises manifold pressures to more than
> > > 30" Hg. If an engine is boosted, the air density in the cylinder at
> > > the bottom of the intake stroke could be well above atmospheric.
>
> > I'm sorry to keep disagreeing but, but the pressure in which(if you
> > can call it pressure) goes through a manifold is increased by MAP
> > sensors which measure atmospheric pressure and regulates air fuel
> > mixture, it has nothing to do with "ram air" and I do agree that that
> > the density of the air/mixture is increased by the vaccum caused by a
> > piston at bottom dead center but we were talking about air before it
> > reaches the cylinder and the speed of which it arrives to carburation.
>
> > > Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
> into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
> shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
> cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
> as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
> for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
> deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
> only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. Now
> lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
> "turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
> lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
> lungs(cylinder volume)

See this, Billy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

Dan

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:47 -0400, dave hillstrom >
wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
>>> faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
>>> stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
>>> that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
>>> present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
>>> devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
>>> come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
>>> motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
>>> performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
>>> the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
>>> unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>>
>>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
>>so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
>>air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
>>argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>>
>>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
>>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
>>for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
>>about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>
>will you marry me?

dave the term is not foo and bar.
foo *is* a term from another war and another airforce
but the term you've so successfully stuffed up is fubar
fubar is a vietnam era acronym of F***ed up beyond all recognition.

your sig line is a snafu
(situation normal all F***ed up)

Stealth Pilot

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 3, 7:54 am, wrote:
> On Jun 2, 9:45 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
> > let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
> > into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
> > shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
> > cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
> > as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
> > for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
> > deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
> > only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. Now
> > lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
> > "turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
> > lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
> > lungs(cylinder volume)
>
> Air density in the cylinder is governed by its pressure and
> temperature. MUCH more air can be forced into the cylinder if the
> manifold pressure is boosted; this is the principle behind getting
> more power out of a given number of cubic inches. You need to do some
> studying on the matter. I have, and I teach this stuff in college.
> Dan

I wonder if ram scoops were ever installed near the
prop tips. Probably too expensive for GA, but a WW2
A/C with tips spinning at what(?) 500-600 mph would
give a nice pressure boost.
I've read dual phase superchargers were used in recon
A/C to get the speed and altitude.
Ken

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> I wonder if ram scoops were ever installed near the
> prop tips. Probably too expensive for GA, but a WW2
> A/C with tips spinning at what(?) 500-600 mph would
> give a nice pressure boost.
> I've read dual phase superchargers were used in recon
> A/C to get the speed and altitude.
> Ken


First off I doubt it overcome the drag it would create. Second, what do
you think the tip speed is on an average GA plane is?

Follow this link and learn a thing or two.

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html

[mixed nuts]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:47 -0400, dave hillstrom >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
>>>>faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
>>>>stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
>>>>that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
>>>>present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
>>>>devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
>>>>come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
>>>>motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
>>>>performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
>>>>the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
>>>>unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>>>
>>>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
>>>so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
>>>air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
>>>argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>>>
>>>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>>
>>>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
>>
>>>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
>>>for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
>>>about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>>
>>will you marry me?
>
> dave the term is not foo and bar.
> foo *is* a term from another war and another airforce
> but the term you've so successfully stuffed up is fubar
> fubar is a vietnam era acronym of F***ed up beyond all recognition.
>
> your sig line is a snafu
> (situation normal all F***ed up)
>
Yore 'rong. foo and bar are metasyntactic variables. They aren't
acronyms (they're metasyntactic variables).

Like being the John and Jane Doe of computer engineering - placeholders.

Fubar predates WWII.

--
nuts

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 10:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> I wonder if ram scoops were ever installed near the
> prop tips. Probably too expensive for GA, but a WW2
> A/C with tips spinning at what(?) 500-600 mph would
> give a nice pressure boost.
> I've read dual phase superchargers were used in recon
> A/C to get the speed and altitude.

Airspeed off the tips is the same as the speed off the inner
blade areas, due to the pitch washout across the blade span, so
there'd be no advantage to having scoops behind the tips. The
propeller's blades are flying at an AOA of between 2 and 4 degrees in
cruise flight, anywhere between the tips and hub, because of that
pitch variation.
See Figure 6-4 of this page:
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/flight63.htm

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 3, 11:18 am, wrote:
> On Jun 3, 10:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > I wonder if ram scoops were ever installed near the
> > prop tips. Probably too expensive for GA, but a WW2
> > A/C with tips spinning at what(?) 500-600 mph would
> > give a nice pressure boost.
> > I've read dual phase superchargers were used in recon
> > A/C to get the speed and altitude.
>
> Airspeed off the tips is the same as the speed off the inner
> blade areas, due to the pitch washout across the blade span, so
> there'd be no advantage to having scoops behind the tips. The
> propeller's blades are flying at an AOA of between 2 and 4 degrees in
> cruise flight, anywhere between the tips and hub, because of that
> pitch variation.
> See Figure 6-4 of this page:http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/flight63.htm
> Dan

Dan it was a trick question I asked you.
It's the basic aerodynamic physics of the
standard centifugal supercharger compressor
operating principle.
I tossed you a zinger, cuz you claimed to be a
teacher in a college and I couldn't resist :-),
don't worry about it, hardly anyone get's that one
correct, and I hope you get a ha-ha-ah from it.

I mentioned, "dual phase superchargers" as a
hint. Here's the answer: the ram-air pressure
acquired at the prop tips is equal to the loss
of pressure against the centrifugal force pushing
air - via ducting - into the prop center that one
obtains at the prop tips.

Now you know the rest of the story.
Regards
Ken

[terry]

On Jun 3, 1:45*pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:33*pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 11:08*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 8:00 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 2, 5:12 pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> > > > > > faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> > > > > > stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> > > > > > that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> > > > > > present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> > > > > > devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. *All engines
> > > > > > come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> > > > > > motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> > > > > > performance. *Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> > > > > > the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> > > > > > unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>
> > > > > I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
> > > > > so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
> > > > > air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
> > > > > argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>
> > > > > As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
> > > > > from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
> > > > > cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
> > > > > for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
> > > > > about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>
> > > > The air going into the manifold has the same atmospheric weight as if
> > > > it was outside the manifold, what makes it denser is the addition of
> > > > fuel into the air/fuel mixture, unless the air is in a perfect vaccum
> > > > it will not increase in pressure and most certainly not density and
> > > > the turbos do reintroduce fuel back into the combustion mixture, If
> > > > you've ever seen a read out of carbon emissions for a non turbo
> > > > vehicle it still has enough unburnt fuel to power your vehicle for
> > > > another 5% of your fuel consumption *and turbos IF powered by a
> > > > motorized turbine are as useless as ram air because of the statement I
> > > > made in my previous post. your intake is only as much as the volume of
> > > > your cylinders
>
> > > * * * * * * Turbocharging can be set to two different levels:
> > > Turbonormalizing, which brings manifold pressure to sea level
> > > pressure; and boosting, which raises manifold pressures to more than
> > > 30" Hg. If an engine is boosted, the air density in the cylinder at
> > > the bottom of the intake stroke could be well above atmospheric.
>
> > I'm sorry to keep disagreeing but, but the pressure in which(if you
> > can call it pressure) goes through a manifold is increased by MAP
> > sensors which measure atmospheric pressure and regulates air fuel
> > mixture, it has nothing to do with "ram air" and I do agree that that
> > the density of the air/mixture is increased by the vaccum caused by a
> > piston at bottom dead center but we were talking about air before it
> > reaches the cylinder and the speed of which it arrives to carburation.
>
> > > * * * * *Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
> into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
> shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
> cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
> as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
> for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
> deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
> only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. *Now
> lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
> "turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
> lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
> lungs(cylinder volume)- Hide quoted text -

Billy , I think you are confusing volume ( which is certainly fixed)
with mass of air. by increasing the pressure you increase the density
and therefore have a higher mass of air for the same volume. higher
mass of course means more energy for the same volume charge.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[terry]

On Jun 4, 12:54*am, wrote:
> On Jun 2, 9:45 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>
> > let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
> > into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
> > shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
> > cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
> > as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
> > for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
> > deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
> > only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. *Now
> > lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
> > "turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
> > lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
> > lungs(cylinder volume)
>
> * * * * * Air density in the cylinder is governed by its pressure and
> temperature. MUCH more air can be forced into the cylinder if the
> manifold pressure is boosted; this is the principle behind getting
> more power out of a given number of cubic inches. You need to do some
> studying on the matter. I have, and I teach this stuff in college.
>
If you are teaching this stuff you might like to make use of the data
I put together on the C172 takeoff and landing performance. it is in
the form of an excel spreadsheet which shows the takeoff and landing
distance as a function of density altitude at different temperatures.
( derived from the Cessna tables of distance vs pressure altitude and
temperature. It clearly shows that the takeoff performance is not
simply a function of density altitude which all of the flight training
literature i have read and all my own training drummed in to me. And
perhaps you could come up with a better explanation than decreasing
air viscosity :<) It is clearly engine related because the landing
distance data do fall on the same curve of distance vs density
altitude irrespective of temperature. The best explanation I have
heard is that higher for a given density will get the air into the
cyclinder faster ( ie you will just get closer to the equilibrating
the pressure between the outside and the cylinder.
Anyway the analysis can be downloaded from the following site ( this
is an australian pilots forum called straight and level downunder).
this link will take you direct to the download page. You are
welcome to join the forum too but you have to register for that ( to
keep the kooks out - or in depending on your perspective). but you
dont have to register to access the download section.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/downloads.html

Terry
PPL Downunder

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Billy Crabs" > wrote

let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. Now
lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
"turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
lungs(cylinder volume)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, but no (<)'s for your above post.

Wow, what you don't understand about supercharging/turbocharging is "a
bunch."

In your above example, if one guy (instead of having an air hose blowing in
his face) had a guy with twice the lung capacity giving him mouth to mouth
recesitation as he was breathing in, and the guy blowing emptied his lungs
completely into the "breathing-in" guy, that would be a better analogy to
what a supercharger/turbocharger does.

He is physically forcing more air into the guy than he could normally breath
in, by forcing more air in throughout the intake stroke. Let's hope he has
strong lungs, so they don't explode.

That is what happens to engines that have extremely high boost running at
high output, sometimes. They can't stand the extra kick provided by all of
the extra air, gas, and resulting combustion. If the engine has a mass
airflow sensor, that is how it knows how much extra gas to feed into the
intake air. It can tell there is extra pressure, which gives the volume of
air being passed though it (the sensor) extra mass.

At _no time_ does a normal turbocharged/supercharged engine have already
used combustion gas put back into the next (or any other) intake cycle. The
only reason some engines have a feature like that would be for pollution
control.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 12:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Dan it was a trick question I asked you.
> It's the basic aerodynamic physics of the
> standard centifugal supercharger compressor
> operating principle.
> I tossed you a zinger, cuz you claimed to be a
> teacher in a college and I couldn't resist :-),
> don't worry about it, hardly anyone get's that one
> correct, and I hope you get a ha-ha-ah from it.
>
The prop does not throw air outward. We've been over that
one before. The air column actually narrows behind the prop, due to
the lowered pressure caused by the air's acceleration. We can see it
on cool mornings when the dew point is just below ambient temperature,
and the vapor trails off the prop tips outline the periphery of the
air column, showing it to be squeezing inward.
A centrifugal super/turbocharger does it differently. The air
is accelerated outward in the first place, not in an axial manner, and
is directed into a divergent duct known as a diffuser, where it is
slowed and its pressure raised. A different animal altogther, compared
to a propeller.


> I mentioned, "dual phase superchargers" as a
> hint. Here's the answer: the ram-air pressure
> acquired at the prop tips is equal to the loss
> of pressure against the centrifugal force pushing
> air - via ducting - into the prop center that one
> obtains at the prop tips.

"Dual-phase supercharger" is a misnomer. They were two-speed
affairs, going to a higher gear ratio for higher altitudes.

Dan

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 4, 11:41*am, wrote:
> On Jun 3, 12:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Dan it was a trick question I asked you.
> > It's the basic aerodynamic physics of the
> > standard centifugal supercharger compressor
> > operating principle.
> > I tossed you a zinger, cuz you claimed to be a
> > teacher in a college and I couldn't resist :-),
> > don't worry about it, hardly anyone get's that one
> > correct, and I hope you get a ha-ha-ah from it.
>
> * * * * * * The prop does not throw air outward. We've been over that
> one before. The air column actually narrows behind the prop, due to
> the lowered pressure caused by the air's acceleration. We can see it
> on cool mornings when the dew point is just below ambient temperature,
> and the vapor trails off the prop tips outline the periphery of the
> air column, showing it to be squeezing inward.
> * * * * A centrifugal super/turbocharger does it differently. The air
> is accelerated outward in the first place, not in an axial manner, and
> is directed into a divergent duct known as a diffuser, where it is
> slowed and its pressure raised. A different animal altogther, compared
> to a propeller.
>
> > I mentioned, "dual phase superchargers" as a
> > hint. Here's the answer: the ram-air pressure
> > acquired at the prop tips is equal to the loss
> > of pressure against the centrifugal force pushing
> > air - via ducting - into the prop center that one
> > obtains at the prop tips.
>
> * * * * *"Dual-phase supercharger" is a misnomer. They were two-speed
> affairs, going to a higher gear ratio for higher altitudes.
>

There are also two stage systems

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 5:41 pm, wrote:

> The prop does not throw air outward. We've been over that
> one before. The air column actually narrows behind the prop, due to
> the lowered pressure caused by the air's acceleration. We can see it
> on cool mornings when the dew point is just below ambient temperature,
> and the vapor trails off the prop tips outline the periphery of the
> air column, showing it to be squeezing inward.


More on the narrowing of fluid flows behind propellers:

Marine propeller: http://www.aip.org/pt/feb00/maris.htm

Helicopter rotor: http://www.camrad.com/CAMRADIIresults.html

Behind transport props: http://home.att.net/~polar/130contrail.jpg

Behind an F4U's prop: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/Research/corsair.gif

In no case do we see air (or any other fluid) being thrown out
centrifugally.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:7bcb3e2e-b411-
:

> On Jun 1, 11:26 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker explained on 6/2/2008 :
>>
>> > I confess to enjoying ancedotal stories.
>> > As a monster nut brat I got some tin cans together
>> > and built a pulse jet, complete with a flapping duct
>> > input, and used a hair dryer for my air input source,
>> > in my parents downstairs fireplace.
>> > So I pour in some gas into the thing, lite it up,
>> > turn on the hair dryer and holy poop, the duct starts
>> > fluttering and flames are fluttering out the ass end!
>> > It worked! It buzzed!
>> > I probably used a pint of gasoline per minute of
>> > operation, but that wasn't the point, it was actually
>> > seeing the damn thing in operation.
>> > Hands on is good stuff.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Proof there is a God, you survived yourself.
>
> I'm very safety conscious, I have 3 fingers and 1 eye
> left over that I haven't used up yet. No point in taking
> all that stuff to the grave where they will just rot.
>
> My flame holder was steel wool (aka Brillo soap pad),
> and my throttle was a rubber squigy loaded with gasoline
> ...actually that was one of my safer experiments.


If there's a God, that's not what he's saying about you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
>>
>> Turbocharging can be set to two different levels:
>> Turbonormalizing, which brings manifold pressure to sea level
>> pressure; and boosting, which raises manifold pressures to more than
>> 30" Hg. If an engine is boosted, the air density in the cylinder at
>> the bottom of the intake stroke could be well above atmospheric.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Careful, Bertie the ButtlippS cross-posted this a few messages back.
> You're trying to explain something to someone on a kook group.
>

Or someone here who is just a k00k.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Billy Crabs > wrote in news:30acf9c1-0253-49b5-
:

> On Jun 2, 9:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jTR0k.192$js1.25
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some
extent
>> >>>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake
faces
>> >>>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
>> >>>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple
of
>> >>>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going
to
>> >>>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that
>> would
>> >>>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really
>> clever
>> >>>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and
>> probably
>> >>>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
>> >>>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think
there's
>> >>>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
>> >>>> fairings.
>>
>> >>>> Bertie
>>
>> >>> Dumb ass.
>>
>> >>> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not
pressure),
>> and
>> >>> you already have too much.
>>
>> >> Nope.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > How would you know, dumb ass?
>>
>> I know everything, obviously.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
> faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
> stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
> that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
> present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
> devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
> come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
> motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
> performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
> the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
> unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>

Yeah, of course, As i think someone else pointed out elsewhere in this
thread, there were some installations where the prop was positioned to
provide a pulse at the time the intake valves opened. Easy on a four
cylinder. There were props made for these that had a slightly larger
chord at the point on the prop span where the intake was. Didn't seem to
become popular for whatever reason..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:5b076ae7-9924-
:

> On Jun 3, 7:54 am, wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 9:45 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>>
>> > let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is
drawn
>> > into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the
cam
>> > shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as
the
>> > cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much
air/fuel
>> > as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
>> > for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
>> > deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they
are
>> > only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold.
Now
>> > lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into
a
>> > "turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
>> > lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
>> > lungs(cylinder volume)
>>
>> Air density in the cylinder is governed by its pressure and
>> temperature. MUCH more air can be forced into the cylinder if the
>> manifold pressure is boosted; this is the principle behind getting
>> more power out of a given number of cubic inches. You need to do some
>> studying on the matter. I have, and I teach this stuff in college.
>> Dan
>
> I wonder if ram scoops were ever installed near the
> prop tips. Probably too expensive for GA, but a WW2
> A/C with tips spinning at what(?) 500-600 mph would
> give a nice pressure boost.
> I've read dual phase superchargers were used in recon
> A/C to get the speed and altitude.


Why don't you make one and try it? You could use the engine out of the
Camaro on cinder blocks in front of your trailer.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 3, 11:18 am, wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 10:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder if ram scoops were ever installed near the
>> > prop tips. Probably too expensive for GA, but a WW2
>> > A/C with tips spinning at what(?) 500-600 mph would
>> > give a nice pressure boost.
>> > I've read dual phase superchargers were used in recon
>> > A/C to get the speed and altitude.
>>
>> Airspeed off the tips is the same as the speed off the inner
>> blade areas, due to the pitch washout across the blade span, so
>> there'd be no advantage to having scoops behind the tips. The
>> propeller's blades are flying at an AOA of between 2 and 4 degrees in
>> cruise flight, anywhere between the tips and hub, because of that
>> pitch variation.
>> See Figure 6-4 of this
>> page:http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/flight63.htm
>> Dan
>
> Dan it was a trick question I asked you.




Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhw haw!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:31:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 7:59 pm, wrote:
>>>> On Jun 1, 8:06 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > It happens that formulated :
>>>>
>>>> > > In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
>>>> > > systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the
>>>> > > hood, to ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more
>>>> > > horsepower. That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph
the
>>>> > > pressure recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's
>>>> > > profits were impressive.
>>>>
>>>> > Had a Trans Am, scoop was reversed, facing the windshield, had a
>>>> > flap that opened when MP increased. They claimd that the reversed
>>>> > position was at the low pressure point at the base of the
>>>> > windshield hence enhancing the rammed air effect. I don't know,
it
>>>> > was cool, the scoop assembly was attached to the engine so that
on
>>>> > acceleration you could see the engine sitting down on its mounts
as
>>>> > the scopp popped open and lowere ever so slightly.
>>>>
>>>> Locating the scoop at the low-pressure point wouldn't do
much
>>>> for ram-air effect, would it? I think the real idea would have been
>>>> to make sure the driver heard that thing sucking loudly so it
sounded
>>>> like a real powerhouse
>>>> I once converted a 14 foot outboard runabout to a 13 foot
>>>> inboard Cracker Box with a Chev 283 straight-shaft setup. The
>>>> exhausts were water-cooled and exited through the transom. Made so
>>>> much noise that I made two mufflers and quieted it right down. The
>>>> carb's flame arrestor stuck up far enough that I had a scoop on the
>>>> deck, facing away from the cockpit (which was at the back).
>>>> Everything else was covered. I dropped my Dad off on a gravel bar
on
>>>> a lake once, so he could fish off it while I ran to the far end of
>>>> the lake to try the fishing there, three or four miles away. He
told
>>>> me he knew when I was coming back; he could hear that Rochester
>>>> Quadrajet four-barrel open up and suck vast quantities of air; the
>>>> boat got one mile per gallon at full throttle with that huge carb.
>>>> But went real fast. I sold it years ago and I bet it don't go real
>>>> fast no more, with fuel prices the way they are now.
>>>> Dan
>>>
>>> I confess to enjoying ancedotal stories.
>>> As a monster nut brat I got some tin cans together
>>> and built a pulse jet, complete with a flapping duct
>>> input, and used a hair dryer for my air input source,
>>> in my parents downstairs fireplace.
>>> So I pour in some gas into the thing, lite it up,
>>> turn on the hair dryer and holy poop, the duct starts
>>> fluttering and flames are fluttering out the ass end!
>>> It worked! It buzzed!
>>>
>>> I probably used a pint of gasoline per minute of
>>> operation, but that wasn't the point, it was actually
>>> seeing the damn thing in operation.
>>> Hands on is good stuff.
>>
>>
>>Please do build another one just like that and put it on youtube,
then..
>>
>>
>>I've only ever seen one person die right in front of my eyes before.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
> ************************************************** *******
>
> Bertie
>
> I've seen two. Both stalled and spun in :o(
>
> Big John
>

Neer seen one die in an airplane accident in front of my eyes, but seen
the aftermath, unfortunatley. Seen a girl crushed in a crowd right in
front of me. Yipes. Saw a few die in an ICU a few years ago. That wasnt
so bad, somehow.


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 4, 7:56 am, Big John > wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:19:41 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tina > wrote:
> >> On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> >> > > The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air filter
> >> > > as well, so we typically observe about a half inch improvement in MP.
> >> > > That's in line with some of the other numbers offered here.
>
> >> > > I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
> >> > > IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
> >> > > charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is just
> >> > > not there. My thought was and is that if it was something pretty
> >> > > obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt. Actually, knowing
> >> > > some of those guys, it does not have to be obvious at all, they are
> >> > > really creative designers.
>
> >> > Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
> >> > " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> >> > that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> >> > 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>
> >> > I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
> >> > Ken
>
> >> Well, I think it's a dead issue for us. What is fun to think about is,
> >> let's see, about 200 cubic feet a minute, that's 40 cubic feet of
> >> oxygen a minute, or about 3 pounds. For 50% more O2, 1.5 pounds a
> >> minute, or say 20 pounds to get to a pleasantly high altitude. Maybe
> >> that translates in to dewer weighing a total of 50 pounds with liquid
> >> O2? But it would make 15 inches of MP look like 22 or so as far as the
> >> engine is concerned. I better get back to my day job.
>
> >Without crackin' the books and pounding the abacus,
> >you look like +/- 20% using BoE (Back of Envelope)
> >calculation, which means you get either 80% or 120%
> >on your physics exam, you choose.
>
> >> Resolved: psychologists should not be permitted to minor in the
> >> physical sciences. All in favor?
>
> >OR pilots should not be permitted to engage in
> >psychology in this group, now what's the chances
> >of that happening...is "nil" close :-).
> >Ken
> >PS: What's the rationale of the 12,000' cruise?
> >You know about the "bends" don't you, if not
> >just read Berties post!
>
> ************************************************** *
>
> Ken
>
> Have you ever talked to anyone who got the bends flying? I have
> thousands of hours and never have.
>
> I have gone to 43K+ and made supersonic dives to 10K +/- with no
> problems.
>
> I have cruised for hours at 30K cockpit pressure and no problems
> during let down and landing.

Is Mt. Everest summit at ~29K?
You can get a quick overview here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness
Ken






> Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tina > wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
>>
>> > > The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air
>> > > filter as well, so we typically observe about a half inch
>> > > improvement in MP. That's in line with some of the other numbers
>> > > offered here.
>>
>> > > I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
>> > > IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
>> > > charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is
>> > > just not there. My thought was and is that if it was something
>> > > pretty obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt.
>> > > Actually, knowing some of those guys, it does not have to be
>> > > obvious at all, they are really creative designers.
>>
>> > Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
>> > " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so.
>> > Isn't that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level
>> > that's 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>>
>> > I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Well, I think it's a dead issue for us. What is fun to think about
>> is, let's see, about 200 cubic feet a minute, that's 40 cubic feet of
>> oxygen a minute, or about 3 pounds. For 50% more O2, 1.5 pounds a
>> minute, or say 20 pounds to get to a pleasantly high altitude. Maybe
>> that translates in to dewer weighing a total of 50 pounds with liquid
>> O2? But it would make 15 inches of MP look like 22 or so as far as
>> the engine is concerned. I better get back to my day job.
>
> Without crackin' the books and pounding the abacus,
> you look like +/- 20% using BoE (Back of Envelope)
> calculation, which means you get either 80% or 120%
> on your physics exam, you choose.
>
>> Resolved: psychologists should not be permitted to minor in the
>> physical sciences. All in favor?
>
> OR pilots should not be permitted to engage in
> psychology in this group, now what's the chances
> of that happening...is "nil" close :-).
> Ken
> PS: What's the rationale of the 12,000' cruise?
> You know about the "bends" don't you, if not
> just read Berties post!
>

I double everyone up.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 4, 7:56 am, Big John > wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:19:41 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tina > wrote:
>> >> On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the
>> >> > > air filter as well, so we typically observe about a half inch
>> >> > > improvement in MP. That's in line with some of the other
>> >> > > numbers offered here.
>>
>> >> > > I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have
>> >> > > an IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with
>> >> > > turbo charging. The payback for our typical for real flight
>> >> > > mission is just not there. My thought was and is that if it
>> >> > > was something pretty obvious someone would have done it on a
>> >> > > homebuilt. Actually, knowing some of those guys, it does not
>> >> > > have to be obvious at all, they are really creative designers.
>>
>> >> > Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
>> >> > " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so.
>> >> > Isn't that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level
>> >> > that's 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>>
>> >> > I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
>> >> > Ken
>>
>> >> Well, I think it's a dead issue for us. What is fun to think about
>> >> is, let's see, about 200 cubic feet a minute, that's 40 cubic feet
>> >> of oxygen a minute, or about 3 pounds. For 50% more O2, 1.5 pounds
>> >> a minute, or say 20 pounds to get to a pleasantly high altitude.
>> >> Maybe that translates in to dewer weighing a total of 50 pounds
>> >> with liquid O2? But it would make 15 inches of MP look like 22 or
>> >> so as far as the engine is concerned. I better get back to my day
>> >> job.
>>
>> >Without crackin' the books and pounding the abacus,
>> >you look like +/- 20% using BoE (Back of Envelope)
>> >calculation, which means you get either 80% or 120%
>> >on your physics exam, you choose.
>>
>> >> Resolved: psychologists should not be permitted to minor in the
>> >> physical sciences. All in favor?
>>
>> >OR pilots should not be permitted to engage in
>> >psychology in this group, now what's the chances
>> >of that happening...is "nil" close :-).
>> >Ken
>> >PS: What's the rationale of the 12,000' cruise?
>> >You know about the "bends" don't you, if not
>> >just read Berties post!
>>
>> ************************************************** *
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Have you ever talked to anyone who got the bends flying? I have
>> thousands of hours and never have.
>>
>> I have gone to 43K+ and made supersonic dives to 10K +/- with no
>> problems.
>>
>> I have cruised for hours at 30K cockpit pressure and no problems
>> during let down and landing.
>
> Is Mt. Everest summit at ~29K?
> You can get a quick overview here,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness
> Ken
>

You're an idiot.


How's that kill file working out, BTW?

Bwsawahwhahwhahwhahwhahhw!



Bertie

[Big John]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Billy Crabs
> wrote:

>On Jun 2, 9:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jTR0k.192$js1.25
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>> Didn't know any production aircraft had that. Well, to some extent
>> >>>> almost every lightplane does . that's why the carb air intake faces
>> >>>> forwards in most of them.Everything is a balancing act with an
>> >>>> airplane. More air = more drag. You could try putting a couple of
>> >>>> woks with tubes out the back to boost your MP, but you're going to
>> >>>> pay for it. !Moooney must have spotted an area of the cowl that
>> would
>> >>>> not penalise you in this way and decided to utilise it. Really
>> clever
>> >>>> homebuilders do a lot of this kind of stuff as well as, and
>> probably
>> >>>> more more importantly, dealing with cooling drag.
>> >>>> Have you put the other speed mods on your airplane? I think there's
>> >>>> nearly ten knots available in seals and various other tidy it up
>> >>>> fairings.
>>
>> >>>> Bertie
>>
>> >>> Dumb ass.
>>
>> >>> Its because the size of the scoop increases volume (not pressure),
>> and
>> >>> you already have too much.
>>
>> >> Nope.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > How would you know, dumb ass?
>>
>> I know everything, obviously.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
>faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
>stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
>that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
>present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
>devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
>come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
>motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
>performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
>the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
>unburnt fuel in the fumes.

**************************************
Billy

Don't know where you got ur data. My turbo had the turbine wheel
turned by the exhaust. The turbine wheel was connected to the
compressor wheel which took ambient air and compressed it and ran it
thru the carb and into the engine. Always has and always will.

You may be talking about an auto engine and the exhaust gas
recirculation system to help meet EPA standards.?

Big John

[Big John]

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:17:17 -0400, mixed nuts
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:47 -0400, dave hillstrom >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
>>>>>faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
>>>>>stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
>>>>>that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
>>>>>present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
>>>>>devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
>>>>>come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
>>>>>motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
>>>>>performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
>>>>>the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
>>>>>unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>>>>
>>>>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
>>>>so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
>>>>air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
>>>>argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>>>>
>>>>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>>>
>>>>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
>>>
>>>>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
>>>>for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
>>>>about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>>>
>>>will you marry me?
>>
>> dave the term is not foo and bar.
>> foo *is* a term from another war and another airforce
>> but the term you've so successfully stuffed up is fubar
>> fubar is a vietnam era acronym of F***ed up beyond all recognition.
>>
>> your sig line is a snafu
>> (situation normal all F***ed up)
>>
>Yore 'rong. foo and bar are metasyntactic variables. They aren't
>acronyms (they're metasyntactic variables).
>
>Like being the John and Jane Doe of computer engineering - placeholders.
>
>Fubar predates WWII.
************************************************

Can you quote?

WWII Vet

Big John

[Big John]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:18:10 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 7:54 am, wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 9:45 pm, Billy Crabs > wrote:
>>
>> > let me try to explain myself better, the amount of air that is drawn
>> > into an engine is in direct coralation to cylinder volume and the cam
>> > shafts "lift and duration" A valve can only stay open as long as the
>> > cam lobe holds the lifter up, therefore only allowing as much air/fuel
>> > as was scientificly formulated for the cylinder.
>> > for instance, lets say you have two guys who are going to breath in
>> > deep, now even if you are blowing an air hose in their faces, they are
>> > only going to be able to inhale as much as there lungs will hold. Now
>> > lets say they are inhaling pot and when they blow out its put into a
>> > "turbo", the turbine spins and sends the unused pot back to their
>> > lungs, but it's still only as much as they hold in their
>> > lungs(cylinder volume)
>>
>> Air density in the cylinder is governed by its pressure and
>> temperature. MUCH more air can be forced into the cylinder if the
>> manifold pressure is boosted; this is the principle behind getting
>> more power out of a given number of cubic inches. You need to do some
>> studying on the matter. I have, and I teach this stuff in college.
>> Dan
>
>I wonder if ram scoops were ever installed near the
>prop tips. Probably too expensive for GA, but a WW2
>A/C with tips spinning at what(?) 500-600 mph would
>give a nice pressure boost.
>I've read dual phase superchargers were used in recon
>A/C to get the speed and altitude.
>Ken


**************************************************
Ken

The P-51 had a two speed supercharger. It shifted auto from low blower
to high blower between 12K and 14K depending on the sensor.

In high blower you could get sea level manifold pressure to almost
25K.

Big John

[Big John]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:19:41 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tina > wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
>>
>> > > The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air filter
>> > > as well, so we typically observe about a half inch improvement in MP.
>> > > That's in line with some of the other numbers offered here.
>>
>> > > I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
>> > > IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
>> > > charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is just
>> > > not there. My thought was and is that if it was something pretty
>> > > obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt. Actually, knowing
>> > > some of those guys, it does not have to be obvious at all, they are
>> > > really creative designers.
>>
>> > Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
>> > " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
>> > that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
>> > 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>>
>> > I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Well, I think it's a dead issue for us. What is fun to think about is,
>> let's see, about 200 cubic feet a minute, that's 40 cubic feet of
>> oxygen a minute, or about 3 pounds. For 50% more O2, 1.5 pounds a
>> minute, or say 20 pounds to get to a pleasantly high altitude. Maybe
>> that translates in to dewer weighing a total of 50 pounds with liquid
>> O2? But it would make 15 inches of MP look like 22 or so as far as the
>> engine is concerned. I better get back to my day job.
>
>Without crackin' the books and pounding the abacus,
>you look like +/- 20% using BoE (Back of Envelope)
>calculation, which means you get either 80% or 120%
>on your physics exam, you choose.
>
>> Resolved: psychologists should not be permitted to minor in the
>> physical sciences. All in favor?
>
>OR pilots should not be permitted to engage in
>psychology in this group, now what's the chances
>of that happening...is "nil" close :-).
>Ken
>PS: What's the rationale of the 12,000' cruise?
>You know about the "bends" don't you, if not
>just read Berties post!

************************************************** *

Ken

Have you ever talked to anyone who got the bends flying? I have
thousands of hours and never have.

I have gone to 43K+ and made supersonic dives to 10K +/- with no
problems.

I have cruised for hours at 30K cockpit pressure and no problems
during let down and landing.

Big John

[Big John]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:31:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:
>
>> On Jun 1, 7:59 pm, wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 8:06 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > It happens that formulated :
>>>
>>> > > In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
>>> > > systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the
>>> > > hood, to ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more
>>> > > horsepower. That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph the
>>> > > pressure recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's
>>> > > profits were impressive.
>>>
>>> > Had a Trans Am, scoop was reversed, facing the windshield, had a
>>> > flap that opened when MP increased. They claimd that the reversed
>>> > position was at the low pressure point at the base of the
>>> > windshield hence enhancing the rammed air effect. I don't know, it
>>> > was cool, the scoop assembly was attached to the engine so that on
>>> > acceleration you could see the engine sitting down on its mounts as
>>> > the scopp popped open and lowere ever so slightly.
>>>
>>> Locating the scoop at the low-pressure point wouldn't do much
>>> for ram-air effect, would it? I think the real idea would have been
>>> to make sure the driver heard that thing sucking loudly so it sounded
>>> like a real powerhouse
>>> I once converted a 14 foot outboard runabout to a 13 foot
>>> inboard Cracker Box with a Chev 283 straight-shaft setup. The
>>> exhausts were water-cooled and exited through the transom. Made so
>>> much noise that I made two mufflers and quieted it right down. The
>>> carb's flame arrestor stuck up far enough that I had a scoop on the
>>> deck, facing away from the cockpit (which was at the back).
>>> Everything else was covered. I dropped my Dad off on a gravel bar on
>>> a lake once, so he could fish off it while I ran to the far end of
>>> the lake to try the fishing there, three or four miles away. He told
>>> me he knew when I was coming back; he could hear that Rochester
>>> Quadrajet four-barrel open up and suck vast quantities of air; the
>>> boat got one mile per gallon at full throttle with that huge carb.
>>> But went real fast. I sold it years ago and I bet it don't go real
>>> fast no more, with fuel prices the way they are now.
>>> Dan
>>
>> I confess to enjoying ancedotal stories.
>> As a monster nut brat I got some tin cans together
>> and built a pulse jet, complete with a flapping duct
>> input, and used a hair dryer for my air input source,
>> in my parents downstairs fireplace.
>> So I pour in some gas into the thing, lite it up,
>> turn on the hair dryer and holy poop, the duct starts
>> fluttering and flames are fluttering out the ass end!
>> It worked! It buzzed!
>>
>> I probably used a pint of gasoline per minute of
>> operation, but that wasn't the point, it was actually
>> seeing the damn thing in operation.
>> Hands on is good stuff.
>
>
>Please do build another one just like that and put it on youtube, then..
>
>
>I've only ever seen one person die right in front of my eyes before.
>
>
>Bertie
************************************************** *******

Bertie

I've seen two. Both stalled and spun in :o(

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Big John > wrote in
:
>
> **************************************
> Bertie
>
> Death is not a pleasant occurrence or subject.


Well, at 95, in your own bed, not so bad.
>
> First was a 51 that stalled in pattern and made about one full turn
> before hitting water off end of R/W in Japan. Never saw the remains. I
> was about 100 yards from impact.
>
> Second was a P-80. Took of on a test flight at Willie Air Patch (First
> Jet School) and stalled about 1000 feet (for some reason) and made
> several turns before impact. Burned. I was one of the first on scene
> and covered the torso . Arms and legs had burned off in fire :o(
>
> This is not a good subject for RAP.

Yeh,
>
> Fly safe and live long.
>

Do my best!


Bertie
>

[Tina]

> I always wondered if they cut his microphone off so they couldn't hear him
> freaking out as the ground loomed nearer and nearer and nearer and then
> screaming in terror/pain as he started to skim the ground. Can you imagine
> having to listen to that? It would be like, "Oh man... Oh MAN. HOLY
> ****!! GET ME THE **** OUT OF HERE GODDAMMIT!!!!! OH MY GOD
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" and then there would be utter silence and a long reddish
> brown trail of goo down the runway.

We've all heard those stories, and there are many more equally
horrible. I think what the people who were on the Indy when it was
torpedoed toward the end of WW2 went through is at least as horrible,
and we know that happened, the shark feeding frenzy is well
documented.

Do we know for sure if that belly gunner -- gear up landing scene
really happened?

This is not an attempt to belittle any who have put themselves at risk
for the rest of us: the question I have is do we know with certainty
the gear up landing with a trapped belly gunner is reality based or is
it from a film?

[[email protected]]

On Jun 4, 5:03 pm, Tina > wrote:

> Do we know for sure if that belly gunner -- gear up landing scene
> really happened?
>
> This is not an attempt to belittle any who have put themselves at risk
> for the rest of us: the question I have is do we know with certainty
> the gear up landing with a trapped belly gunner is reality based or is
> it from a film?

It happened more than once. The ball turret was operated by a
mechanism that would get shot out and so the gunner couldn't get the
ball back up into the fuselage to get out of it.

Dan

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"gregvk" > wrote in message
...
>
> I didn't hear it from a film. I heard about it from some old guy who saw
> one land that way. The craft's hydraulics got damaged and stopped
> working,
> which made it impossible to drop the landing gear or to rotate the ball
> turret (it had to be properly positioned in order for the gunner to open
> the little door and climb into the craft) so the gunner was stuck in there
> and they had to belly land. I always thought the B-17 had a manual
> override crank or something to rotate the ball turret by hand... But
> maybe
> they didn't all have those, or it was also damaged (or maybe I'm mistaken
> about the existence of a manual override).


Hey Bertie, your forgot to change your name back!!!

:0)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "gregvk" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I didn't hear it from a film. I heard about it from some old guy who
>> saw one land that way. The craft's hydraulics got damaged and
>> stopped working,
>> which made it impossible to drop the landing gear or to rotate the
>> ball turret (it had to be properly positioned in order for the gunner
>> to open the little door and climb into the craft) so the gunner was
>> stuck in there and they had to belly land. I always thought the B-17
>> had a manual override crank or something to rotate the ball turret by
>> hand... But maybe
>> they didn't all have those, or it was also damaged (or maybe I'm
>> mistaken about the existence of a manual override).
>
>
> Hey Bertie, your forgot to change your name back!!!
>
>:0)
>
>
>



Did I? Do tell.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> I didn't hear it from a film. I heard about it from some old guy
who
>>> saw one land that way. The craft's hydraulics got damaged and
>>> stopped working,
>>> which made it impossible to drop the landing gear or to rotate the
>>> ball turret (it had to be properly positioned in order for the
gunner
>>> to open the little door and climb into the craft) so the gunner was
>>> stuck in there and they had to belly land. I always thought the B-
17
>>> had a manual override crank or something to rotate the ball turret
by
>>> hand... But maybe
>>> they didn't all have those, or it was also damaged (or maybe I'm
>>> mistaken about the existence of a manual override).
>>
>>
>> Hey Bertie, your forgot to change your name back!!!
>>
>>:0)
>>
>>
>>
>
> From my headers:
>
> Path: auth.newsreader.octanews.com!newsreader.visi.com!n ews-
> out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!auth.brown.oc tanews.com.POSTED!
not-
> for-mail
> Date: 05 Jun 2008 00:00:10 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Jun 2008 19:00:10 CDT
> X-Complaints-To:
>
>
> From BtB's headers:
>
> Path: auth.newsreader.octanews.com!newsreader.visi.com!
> indigo.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!mauve.octanews.net!
> blackhelicopter.databasix.com!not-for-mail
> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:56:08 +0000 (UTC)
> X-Complaints-To:
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:56:08 +0000 (UTC)
>
>
> ...So not only did he change his name, he also paid for a second
service
> provider, teleported himself across several timezones to use it, then
> teleported back to use his first provider and post as himself again
from
> his original location.
> LOL
>


Well, I'm ****ed now, he and his buds have tracked me down...




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g27fsf$6ea$4
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> gregvk > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't hear it from a film. I heard about it from some old guy
>> who
>>>>> saw one land that way. The craft's hydraulics got damaged and
>>>>> stopped working,
>>>>> which made it impossible to drop the landing gear or to rotate the
>>>>> ball turret (it had to be properly positioned in order for the
>> gunner
>>>>> to open the little door and climb into the craft) so the gunner
was
>>>>> stuck in there and they had to belly land. I always thought the
B-
>> 17
>>>>> had a manual override crank or something to rotate the ball turret
>> by
>>>>> hand... But maybe
>>>>> they didn't all have those, or it was also damaged (or maybe I'm
>>>>> mistaken about the existence of a manual override).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Bertie, your forgot to change your name back!!!
>>>>
>>>>:0)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> From my headers:
>>>
>>> Path: auth.newsreader.octanews.com!newsreader.visi.com!n ews-
>>> out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!auth.brown.oc tanews.com.POSTED!
>> not-
>>> for-mail
>>> Date: 05 Jun 2008 00:00:10 GMT
>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Jun 2008 19:00:10 CDT
>>> X-Complaints-To:
>>>
>>>
>>> From BtB's headers:
>>>
>>> Path: auth.newsreader.octanews.com!newsreader.visi.com!
>>> indigo.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!mauve.octanews.net!
>>> blackhelicopter.databasix.com!not-for-mail
>>> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:56:08 +0000 (UTC)
>>> X-Complaints-To:
>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:56:08 +0000 (UTC)
>>>
>>>
>>> ...So not only did he change his name, he also paid for a second
>> service
>>> provider, teleported himself across several timezones to use it,
then
>>> teleported back to use his first provider and post as himself again
>> from
>>> his original location.
>>> LOL
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I'm ****ed now, he and his buds have tracked me down...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Wow, it only took you a minute that time. That's one hell of a
> transporter you've got there.

I know. But its easy when you're almost everyone.
>
> ...Wait a ****in second. Why am I talking to myself?
>

Beats me, jeffrey.


Bertie

[Tina]

On Jun 4, 10:56 am, Big John > wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:19:41 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tina > wrote:
> >> On Jun 2, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 1, 4:39 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> >> > > The induction port for the ram air on the m20J bypasses the air filter
> >> > > as well, so we typically observe about a half inch improvement in MP.
> >> > > That's in line with some of the other numbers offered here.
>
> >> > > I guess there's no free lunch. There is no way we want to have an
> >> > > IO540 pull the airplane along, nor do we want the fuss with turbo
> >> > > charging. The payback for our typical for real flight mission is just
> >> > > not there. My thought was and is that if it was something pretty
> >> > > obvious someone would have done it on a homebuilt. Actually, knowing
> >> > > some of those guys, it does not have to be obvious at all, they are
> >> > > really creative designers.
>
> >> > Tina, I think this analysis you posted is good,
> >> > " It's only a 360 cubic inch engine turning at 2300 RPM or so. Isn't
> >> > that a demand of, let's see, at 23 inches mp at sea level that's
> >> > 23/30 * 2300/2 * 360 / 12^3 or 180 cubic feet a minute? "
>
> >> > I see Tango 2 Denny has some interesting ideas.
> >> > Ken
>
> >> Well, I think it's a dead issue for us. What is fun to think about is,
> >> let's see, about 200 cubic feet a minute, that's 40 cubic feet of
> >> oxygen a minute, or about 3 pounds. For 50% more O2, 1.5 pounds a
> >> minute, or say 20 pounds to get to a pleasantly high altitude. Maybe
> >> that translates in to dewer weighing a total of 50 pounds with liquid
> >> O2? But it would make 15 inches of MP look like 22 or so as far as the
> >> engine is concerned. I better get back to my day job.
>
> >Without crackin' the books and pounding the abacus,
> >you look like +/- 20% using BoE (Back of Envelope)
> >calculation, which means you get either 80% or 120%
> >on your physics exam, you choose.
>
> >> Resolved: psychologists should not be permitted to minor in the
> >> physical sciences. All in favor?
>
> >OR pilots should not be permitted to engage in
> >psychology in this group, now what's the chances
> >of that happening...is "nil" close :-).
> >Ken
> >PS: What's the rationale of the 12,000' cruise?
> >You know about the "bends" don't you, if not
> >just read Berties post!
>
> ************************************************** *
>
> Ken
>
> Have you ever talked to anyone who got the bends flying? I have
> thousands of hours and never have.
>
> I have gone to 43K+ and made supersonic dives to 10K +/- with no
> problems.
>
> I have cruised for hours at 30K cockpit pressure and no problems
> during let down and landing.
>
> Big John
John, for what it's worth, bends have to do with gas coming out of
solution in the blood, and would happen if pressure was reduced too
fast. Rapid descent in an airplane would increase pressure, explosive
decompression would decrease it. I don't dive so don't have
decompression tables at hand, but remember coming up from 34 feet in
water means going to two atmospheres pressure to one. Sudden
decompression from a 7000 foot cabin to a 30,000 foot actual attitude
is not as great a change in pressure. It's not comparing apples with
apples exactly, but changes in altitude are a lot less challenging in
terms of getting bends than diving. Divers are cautioned about flying
immediately after diving, it takes time for the dissolved gases to
come out of the blood -- too fast makes bubbles, and bubbles in joints
makes bends.

[Big John]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 03:28:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:31:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 1, 7:59 pm, wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 8:06 pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > It happens that formulated :
>>>>>
>>>>> > > In the 1970's Ford sold some cars with "Ram-Air Induction"
>>>>> > > systems. A scoop mounted on the carb that stuck out above the
>>>>> > > hood, to ram vast volumes of air into the carb and get way more
>>>>> > > horsepower. That's what they wanted you to believe. At 60 mph
>the
>>>>> > > pressure recovery would have been laughably tiny, but Ford's
>>>>> > > profits were impressive.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Had a Trans Am, scoop was reversed, facing the windshield, had a
>>>>> > flap that opened when MP increased. They claimd that the reversed
>>>>> > position was at the low pressure point at the base of the
>>>>> > windshield hence enhancing the rammed air effect. I don't know,
>it
>>>>> > was cool, the scoop assembly was attached to the engine so that
>on
>>>>> > acceleration you could see the engine sitting down on its mounts
>as
>>>>> > the scopp popped open and lowere ever so slightly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Locating the scoop at the low-pressure point wouldn't do
>much
>>>>> for ram-air effect, would it? I think the real idea would have been
>>>>> to make sure the driver heard that thing sucking loudly so it
>sounded
>>>>> like a real powerhouse
>>>>> I once converted a 14 foot outboard runabout to a 13 foot
>>>>> inboard Cracker Box with a Chev 283 straight-shaft setup. The
>>>>> exhausts were water-cooled and exited through the transom. Made so
>>>>> much noise that I made two mufflers and quieted it right down. The
>>>>> carb's flame arrestor stuck up far enough that I had a scoop on the
>>>>> deck, facing away from the cockpit (which was at the back).
>>>>> Everything else was covered. I dropped my Dad off on a gravel bar
>on
>>>>> a lake once, so he could fish off it while I ran to the far end of
>>>>> the lake to try the fishing there, three or four miles away. He
>told
>>>>> me he knew when I was coming back; he could hear that Rochester
>>>>> Quadrajet four-barrel open up and suck vast quantities of air; the
>>>>> boat got one mile per gallon at full throttle with that huge carb.
>>>>> But went real fast. I sold it years ago and I bet it don't go real
>>>>> fast no more, with fuel prices the way they are now.
>>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> I confess to enjoying ancedotal stories.
>>>> As a monster nut brat I got some tin cans together
>>>> and built a pulse jet, complete with a flapping duct
>>>> input, and used a hair dryer for my air input source,
>>>> in my parents downstairs fireplace.
>>>> So I pour in some gas into the thing, lite it up,
>>>> turn on the hair dryer and holy poop, the duct starts
>>>> fluttering and flames are fluttering out the ass end!
>>>> It worked! It buzzed!
>>>>
>>>> I probably used a pint of gasoline per minute of
>>>> operation, but that wasn't the point, it was actually
>>>> seeing the damn thing in operation.
>>>> Hands on is good stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please do build another one just like that and put it on youtube,
>then..
>>>
>>>
>>>I've only ever seen one person die right in front of my eyes before.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bertie
>> ************************************************** *******
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> I've seen two. Both stalled and spun in :o(
>>
>> Big John
>>
>
>Neer seen one die in an airplane accident in front of my eyes, but seen
>the aftermath, unfortunatley. Seen a girl crushed in a crowd right in
>front of me. Yipes. Saw a few die in an ICU a few years ago. That wasnt
>so bad, somehow.
>
>
>Bertie

**************************************
Bertie

Death is not a pleasant occurrence or subject.

First was a 51 that stalled in pattern and made about one full turn
before hitting water off end of R/W in Japan. Never saw the remains. I
was about 100 yards from impact.

Second was a P-80. Took of on a test flight at Willie Air Patch (First
Jet School) and stalled about 1000 feet (for some reason) and made
several turns before impact. Burned. I was one of the first on scene
and covered the torso . Arms and legs had burned off in fire :o(

This is not a good subject for RAP.

Fly safe and live long.

Big John

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:17:17 -0400, mixed nuts
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:47 -0400, dave hillstrom >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
>>>>>faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
>>>>>stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
>>>>>that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
>>>>>present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
>>>>>devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
>>>>>come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
>>>>>motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
>>>>>performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
>>>>>the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
>>>>>unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>>>>
>>>>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
>>>>so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
>>>>air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
>>>>argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>>>>
>>>>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>>>
>>>>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
>>>
>>>>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
>>>>for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
>>>>about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>>>
>>>will you marry me?
>>
>> dave the term is not foo and bar.
>> foo *is* a term from another war and another airforce
>> but the term you've so successfully stuffed up is fubar
>> fubar is a vietnam era acronym of F***ed up beyond all recognition.
>>
>> your sig line is a snafu
>> (situation normal all F***ed up)
>>
>Yore 'rong. foo and bar are metasyntactic variables. They aren't
>acronyms (they're metasyntactic variables).
>
>Like being the John and Jane Doe of computer engineering - placeholders.
>
>Fubar predates WWII.

dont agree.
foo for instance is a quite infamous cartoon of a guy peeping over a
fence with the line 'foo was here'

foo is the 'forward observation officer' the guy who used to tootle
over the lines in an auster or a cub spotting for artillery and
fighters. verrah verrah british ol' chap. verrah verrah courageous
flying too boot.

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:17:17 -0400, mixed nuts
> > wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:47 -0400, dave hillstrom >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your
>>>>>>carburater faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is
>>>>>>on its intake stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw
>>>>>>in enough air that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all
>>>>>>other air that is present after the compression stroke is exported
>>>>>>to engines smog devices and is recirculated only AFTER being
>>>>>>filtered. All engines come off the assembly lines, be it an
>>>>>>airplane motor or a vehicle motor, to draw the amount of air that
>>>>>>it needs to run at opptimum performance. Ram Air is a myth and
>>>>>>don't try to throw "turbo" into the conversation because turbo is
>>>>>>recircualted exhaust and still has unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch
>>>>>or so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight
>>>>>of the air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't
>>>>>matter argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>>>>
>>>>>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into
>>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric
>>>>>motor, for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek
>>>>>comment about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>>>>
>>>>will you marry me?
>>>
>>> dave the term is not foo and bar.
>>> foo *is* a term from another war and another airforce
>>> but the term you've so successfully stuffed up is fubar
>>> fubar is a vietnam era acronym of F***ed up beyond all recognition.
>>>
>>> your sig line is a snafu
>>> (situation normal all F***ed up)
>>>
>>Yore 'rong. foo and bar are metasyntactic variables. They aren't
>>acronyms (they're metasyntactic variables).
>>
>>Like being the John and Jane Doe of computer engineering -
>>placeholders.
>>
>>Fubar predates WWII.
>
> dont agree.
> foo for instance is a quite infamous cartoon of a guy peeping over a
> fence with the line 'foo was here'
>
> foo is the 'forward observation officer' the guy who used to tootle
> over the lines in an auster or a cub spotting for artillery and
> fighters. verrah verrah british ol' chap. verrah verrah courageous
> flying too boot.
>

Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of the
french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo fighter"
and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning of it's life
just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and had nothing to do
with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter to USAAC pilots in WW2.
While I'm sure the Forward Observation Officer thing is also true,
Smokey Stover was really popular at the time and was the source of a
large number of slang words used during the war.
I always loved his car!

Bertie

[mixed nuts]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:17:17 -0400, mixed nuts
> > wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:47 -0400, dave hillstrom >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your carburater
>>>>>>faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is on its intake
>>>>>>stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw in enough air
>>>>>>that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all other air that is
>>>>>>present after the compression stroke is exported to engines smog
>>>>>>devices and is recirculated only AFTER being filtered. All engines
>>>>>>come off the assembly lines, be it an airplane motor or a vehicle
>>>>>>motor, to draw the amount of air that it needs to run at opptimum
>>>>>>performance. Ram Air is a myth and don't try to throw "turbo" into
>>>>>>the conversation because turbo is recircualted exhaust and still has
>>>>>>unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch or
>>>>>so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight of the
>>>>>air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't matter
>>>>>argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>>>>
>>>>>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into the
>>>>>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric motor,
>>>>>for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek comment
>>>>>about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>>>>
>>>>will you marry me?
>>>
>>>dave the term is not foo and bar.
>>>foo *is* a term from another war and another airforce
>>>but the term you've so successfully stuffed up is fubar
>>>fubar is a vietnam era acronym of F***ed up beyond all recognition.
>>>
>>>your sig line is a snafu
>>>(situation normal all F***ed up)
>>>
>>Yore 'rong. foo and bar are metasyntactic variables. They aren't
>>acronyms (they're metasyntactic variables).
>>
>>Like being the John and Jane Doe of computer engineering - placeholders.
>>
>>Fubar predates WWII.
>
> dont agree.
> foo for instance is a quite infamous cartoon of a guy peeping over a
> fence with the line 'foo was here'
>
> foo is the 'forward observation officer' the guy who used to tootle
> over the lines in an auster or a cub spotting for artillery and
> fighters. verrah verrah british ol' chap. verrah verrah courageous
> flying too boot.
>
You really have no choice in this matter. foo and bar have a formal
place in computer science and appear regularly in a large number of
RFCs as well as in the scientific literature. If you, or anywon else
choose to us these terms in any other context, feel free to do so but,
unless yore a computer geek describing algorithms in pseudo-code and
contributing new and more wonderful metasyntactic variables to the
pool (see reesent psot sigs by won Daev Hillstorm) don't go peeing on
our carpet.

--
nuts

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:17:17 -0400, mixed nuts
> > wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:47 -0400, dave hillstrom >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your
>>>>>>carburater faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is
>>>>>>on its intake stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw
>>>>>>in enough air that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all
>>>>>>other air that is present after the compression stroke is exported
>>>>>>to engines smog devices and is recirculated only AFTER being
>>>>>>filtered. All engines come off the assembly lines, be it an
>>>>>>airplane motor or a vehicle motor, to draw the amount of air that
>>>>>>it needs to run at opptimum performance. Ram Air is a myth and
>>>>>>don't try to throw "turbo" into the conversation because turbo is
>>>>>>recircualted exhaust and still has unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch
>>>>>or so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight
>>>>>of the air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't
>>>>>matter argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>>>>
>>>>>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into
>>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric
>>>>>motor, for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek
>>>>>comment about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>>>>
>>>>will you marry me?
>>>
>>> dave the term is not foo and bar.
>>> foo *is* a term from another war and another airforce
>>> but the term you've so successfully stuffed up is fubar
>>> fubar is a vietnam era acronym of F***ed up beyond all recognition.
>>>
>>> your sig line is a snafu
>>> (situation normal all F***ed up)
>>>
>>Yore 'rong. foo and bar are metasyntactic variables. They aren't
>>acronyms (they're metasyntactic variables).
>>
>>Like being the John and Jane Doe of computer engineering -
>>placeholders.
>>
>>Fubar predates WWII.
>
> dont agree.
> foo for instance is a quite infamous cartoon of a guy peeping over a
> fence with the line 'foo was here'

BY the way, the Foo was here thing was a corruption of th eorignal
Kilroy was here. no idea where that started, but it was everywhere for
years. Foo was here was a minor variation.


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:38:44 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:17:17 -0400, mixed nuts
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:47 -0400, dave hillstrom >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tony >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ram air is only as useful the allowing air to get to your
>>>>>>>carburater faster but is not necessarily used. When your piston is
>>>>>>>on its intake stroke(vaccum) your combustion chamber can only draw
>>>>>>>in enough air that is in conjuction to the chambers volume and all
>>>>>>>other air that is present after the compression stroke is exported
>>>>>>>to engines smog devices and is recirculated only AFTER being
>>>>>>>filtered. All engines come off the assembly lines, be it an
>>>>>>>airplane motor or a vehicle motor, to draw the amount of air that
>>>>>>>it needs to run at opptimum performance. Ram Air is a myth and
>>>>>>>don't try to throw "turbo" into the conversation because turbo is
>>>>>>>recircualted exhaust and still has unburnt fuel in the fumes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you are quite wrong. Ram air in fact gives us a half inch
>>>>>>or so more manifold pressure, and that increases the total weight
>>>>>>of the air-fuel mixture in the cylinder. Reduce your 'it doesn't
>>>>>>matter argument to an extreme to see how it fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As for turbos, the turbine is powered by the exhaust gasses coming
>>>>>
>>>>>>from the engine, the exhaust gas itself is not reintroduced into
>>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>cylinders. The turbine itself could be powered by an electric
>>>>>>motor, for that matter. That was the model for my tongue in cheek
>>>>>>comment about using a shop vac to increase manifold pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>>will you marry me?
>>>>
>>>> dave the term is not foo and bar.
>>>> foo *is* a term from another war and another airforce
>>>> but the term you've so successfully stuffed up is fubar
>>>> fubar is a vietnam era acronym of F***ed up beyond all recognition.
>>>>
>>>> your sig line is a snafu
>>>> (situation normal all F***ed up)
>>>>
>>>Yore 'rong. foo and bar are metasyntactic variables. They aren't
>>>acronyms (they're metasyntactic variables).
>>>
>>>Like being the John and Jane Doe of computer engineering -
>>>placeholders.
>>>
>>>Fubar predates WWII.
>>
>> dont agree.
>> foo for instance is a quite infamous cartoon of a guy peeping over a
>> fence with the line 'foo was here'
>
>BY the way, the Foo was here thing was a corruption of th eorignal
>Kilroy was here. no idea where that started, but it was everywhere for
>years. Foo was here was a minor variation.
>
>
>Bertie

they are fascinating pieces of folk history so when I find one out it
sticks in the memory.

Kilroy was a government guy pressed into the task of inspecting the
quality of the hastily built cargo ships the americans turned out for
the shipping task to england. he had no way of remembering where he
had previously inspected so he developed the habit of chalking 'Kilroy
was here" to remind himself of sections he had already inspected. the
internal sections were eventually welded into the structure.

weeks later when torpedo damage was being repaired the workers would
cut away sealed parts and find the mysterious chalk marks "Kilroy was
here". the endearing puzzle being how did they get there in sealed
sections?

the mystery was explained a few years ago in a news radio segment
where someone actually tracked down the guy and got him to explain the
riddle.

Stealth ( liberty ships?) Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:21:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>> fence with the line 'foo was here'
>>
>> foo is the 'forward observation officer' the guy who used to tootle
>> over the lines in an auster or a cub spotting for artillery and
>> fighters. verrah verrah british ol' chap. verrah verrah courageous
>> flying too boot.
>>
>
>Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of the
>french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo fighter"
>and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning of it's life
>just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and had nothing to do
>with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter to USAAC pilots in WW2.
>While I'm sure the Forward Observation Officer thing is also true,
>Smokey Stover was really popular at the time and was the source of a
>large number of slang words used during the war.
>I always loved his car!
>
>Bertie

interesting. smokey never seemed to make it into our war history.
dont doubt you though.

Stealth Pilot

[cavedweller]

On Jun 5, 11:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of the
> french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo fighter"
> and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning of it's life
> just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and had nothing to do
> with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter to USAAC pilots in WW2.
> While I'm sure the Forward Observation Officer thing is also true,
> Smokey Stover was really popular at the time and was the source of a
> large number of slang words used during the war.
> I always loved his car!
>
> Bertie

Notary Sojac (from memory...not Googled)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:


> they are fascinating pieces of folk history so when I find one out it
> sticks in the memory.
>
> Kilroy was a government guy pressed into the task of inspecting the
> quality of the hastily built cargo ships the americans turned out for
> the shipping task to england. he had no way of remembering where he
> had previously inspected so he developed the habit of chalking 'Kilroy
> was here" to remind himself of sections he had already inspected. the
> internal sections were eventually welded into the structure.
>
> weeks later when torpedo damage was being repaired the workers would
> cut away sealed parts and find the mysterious chalk marks "Kilroy was
> here". the endearing puzzle being how did they get there in sealed
> sections?
>
> the mystery was explained a few years ago in a news radio segment
> where someone actually tracked down the guy and got him to explain the
> riddle.

I always wondered where that came from. You'd still see it as graffiti as
late as the 70s. i suppose years form now people will be explaining the
origins of "where's the beef" to the bewilderment of the youngsters who
won't be able to understand why anyone would eat something infected with e-
coli and BSE..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:21:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> fence with the line 'foo was here'
>>>
>>> foo is the 'forward observation officer' the guy who used to tootle
>>> over the lines in an auster or a cub spotting for artillery and
>>> fighters. verrah verrah british ol' chap. verrah verrah courageous
>>> flying too boot.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of the
>>french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo fighter"
>>and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning of it's life
>>just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and had nothing to do
>>with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter to USAAC pilots in WW2.
>>While I'm sure the Forward Observation Officer thing is also true,
>>Smokey Stover was really popular at the time and was the source of a
>>large number of slang words used during the war.
>>I always loved his car!
>>
>>Bertie
>
> interesting. smokey never seemed to make it into our war history.
> dont doubt you though.


Oh it's true. In much the same way as modern cartoon culture makes it into
every day life. How many guys do you know who say "Doh"?
Smokey was cool if a bit dated by the time it bit the dust, which must have
been in the 60s. Corny, but simultaneously quite surreal.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

cavedweller > wrote in news:ecad1ae9-5348-4dfc-b881-
:

> On Jun 5, 11:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of the
>> french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo fighter"
>> and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning of it's life
>> just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and had nothing to do
>> with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter to USAAC pilots in WW2.
>> While I'm sure the Forward Observation Officer thing is also true,
>> Smokey Stover was really popular at the time and was the source of a
>> large number of slang words used during the war.
>> I always loved his car!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Notary Sojac (from memory...not Googled)
>
>

Oh yeah! Have no idea what that meant! I looked up his website a few years
back for some reason. He had loads of weird sayings that probably meant
something or another to older guys of the WW2 generation. He almost
certainly decorated a few airplanes in WW2 as well..



Bertie

[mixed nuts]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> cavedweller > wrote in news:ecad1ae9-5348-4dfc-b881-
> :
>
>>On Jun 5, 11:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of the
>>>french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo fighter"
>>>and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning of it's life
>>>just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and had nothing to do
>>>with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter to USAAC pilots in WW2.
>>>While I'm sure the Forward Observation Officer thing is also true,
>>>Smokey Stover was really popular at the time and was the source of a
>>>large number of slang words used during the war.
>>>I always loved his car!
>>>
The car(s) had two wheels - predating the Segway.

--
nuts

[cavedweller]

On Jun 6, 10:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> cavedweller > wrote in news:ecad1ae9-5348-4dfc-b881-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 11:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of the
> >> french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo fighter"
> >> and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning of it's life
> >> just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and had nothing to do
> >> with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter to USAAC pilots in WW2.
> >> While I'm sure the Forward Observation Officer thing is also true,
> >> Smokey Stover was really popular at the time and was the source of a
> >> large number of slang words used during the war.
> >> I always loved his car!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Notary Sojac (from memory...not Googled)
>
> Oh yeah! Have no idea what that meant! I looked up his website a few years
> back for some reason. He had loads of weird sayings that probably meant
> something or another to older guys of the WW2 generation. He almost
> certainly decorated a few airplanes in WW2 as well..
>
> Bertie

There IS a Wiki article. Bring back Pogo, too.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mixed nuts > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> cavedweller > wrote in
>> news:ecad1ae9-5348-4dfc-b881-
>> :
>>
>>>On Jun 5, 11:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of the
>>>>french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo
>>>>fighter" and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning of
>>>>it's life just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and had
>>>>nothing to do with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter to
>>>>USAAC pilots in WW2. While I'm sure the Forward Observation Officer
>>>>thing is also true, Smokey Stover was really popular at the time and
>>>>was the source of a large number of slang words used during the war.
>>>>I always loved his car!
>>>>
> The car(s) had two wheels - predating the Segway.
>

Yeah, that's right. I have a vague memory of an article in Popular
Mechanics about someone building one. I think they might have published
plans for it, even, as they did back then. Quite a challenge to make
something like that! I suspect it must have had a single castering wheel
hidden underneath fore or aft.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

cavedweller > wrote in
:

> On Jun 6, 10:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> cavedweller > wrote in
>> news:ecad1ae9-5348-4dfc-b881-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 5, 11:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually, "Foo" came from Smokey Stover, and was a corruption of
>> >> the french "feux" ( Smokey was a fireman) He called himself a "Foo
>> >> fighter" and juxtaposed with the term UFO (which at the beginning
>> >> of it's life just meant anything that pilots couldn't identify and
>> >> had nothing to do with little gray men) a UFO became a foo fighter
>> >> to USAAC pilots in WW2. While I'm sure the Forward Observation
>> >> Officer thing is also true, Smokey Stover was really popular at
>> >> the time and was the source of a large number of slang words used
>> >> during the war. I always loved his car!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Notary Sojac (from memory...not Googled)
>>
>> Oh yeah! Have no idea what that meant! I looked up his website a few
>> years back for some reason. He had loads of weird sayings that
>> probably meant something or another to older guys of the WW2
>> generation. He almost certainly decorated a few airplanes in WW2 as
>> well..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> There IS a Wiki article. Bring back Pogo, too.

Pogo, I never got into. It was one of the few, along with Mary Worth and
Mandrake, I skipped. B.C, the Wizard of Id, Moon Mullins, Dick Tracy. It
was, by far, always the most intelligent part of any newspaper..

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 9:04 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Yeah, that's right. I have a vague memory of an article in Popular
> Mechanics about someone building one. I think they might have published
> plans for it, even, as they did back then. Quite a challenge to make
> something like that! I suspect it must have had a single castering wheel
> hidden underneath fore or aft.

Nope. Those things had two smaller wheels that ride inside
each tire. The main tires have no inner sidewalls, and the actual
suspension is a bar that reaches into the inside of the main and has
two small wheels on each end of it that ride on the inside of the
mains' treads. They have a wheelbase of 10" or so, enough to keep the
machine upright. Fools lots of people. The flattish-looking main tires
give the game away to anyone with any mechanical knowhow.
A guy here in our area built one and drives it in the local
parades. Has hydrostatic drive, too. Runs the smaller wheels.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:2789e107-b5ff-401c-b261-
:

> On Jun 6, 9:04 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Yeah, that's right. I have a vague memory of an article in Popular
>> Mechanics about someone building one. I think they might have published
>> plans for it, even, as they did back then. Quite a challenge to make
>> something like that! I suspect it must have had a single castering wheel
>> hidden underneath fore or aft.
>
> Nope. Those things had two smaller wheels that ride inside
> each tire. The main tires have no inner sidewalls, and the actual
> suspension is a bar that reaches into the inside of the main and has
> two small wheels on each end of it that ride on the inside of the
> mains' treads. They have a wheelbase of 10" or so, enough to keep the
> machine upright. Fools lots of people. The flattish-looking main tires
> give the game away to anyone with any mechanical knowhow.
> A guy here in our area built one and drives it in the local
> parades. Has hydrostatic drive, too. Runs the smaller wheels.

Wow! never expected to hear from anone who knew of one! That sounds pretty
complicated. There can't have been many guys who built those. So the outer
tire just flexes and acts as a sort of track for the inners and, i suppose,
they just use differential power and/or braking to steer.
Cool!
I must have a look for the old plans..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:2789e107-b5ff-401c-b261-
:

> On Jun 6, 9:04 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Yeah, that's right. I have a vague memory of an article in Popular
>> Mechanics about someone building one. I think they might have published
>> plans for it, even, as they did back then. Quite a challenge to make
>> something like that! I suspect it must have had a single castering wheel
>> hidden underneath fore or aft.
>
> Nope. Those things had two smaller wheels that ride inside
> each tire. The main tires have no inner sidewalls, and the actual
> suspension is a bar that reaches into the inside of the main and has
> two small wheels on each end of it that ride on the inside of the
> mains' treads. They have a wheelbase of 10" or so, enough to keep the
> machine upright. Fools lots of people. The flattish-looking main tires
> give the game away to anyone with any mechanical knowhow.
> A guy here in our area built one and drives it in the local
> parades. Has hydrostatic drive, too. Runs the smaller wheels.
>
> Dan
>

Found it. This your guy?

Looks like probably only one was made.


http://www.schlattersinc.com/Foo_Mobile_PM.htm

Bertie

[cavedweller]

On Jun 6, 11:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Pogo, I never got into. It was one of the few, along with Mary Worth and
> Mandrake, I skipped. B.C, the Wizard of Id, Moon Mullins, Dick Tracy. It
> was, by far, always the most intelligent part of any newspaper..


In B.C., my fave was "Curls".

I have one of Pogo's later strips framed. In it he muses on the
prospect that the world won't end "...with a bang, but a wither"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

cavedweller > wrote in news:cbe80051-3e1b-4107-ad61-
:

> On Jun 6, 11:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Pogo, I never got into. It was one of the few, along with Mary Worth and
>> Mandrake, I skipped. B.C, the Wizard of Id, Moon Mullins, Dick Tracy. It
>> was, by far, always the most intelligent part of any newspaper..
>
>
> In B.C., my fave was "Curls".


That was the cute girl, was it?

>
> I have one of Pogo's later strips framed. In it he muses on the
> prospect that the world won't end "...with a bang, but a wither"
>
>

Guess I was too young for it and never got the pogo habit. It was
serialised, wasnt it?



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

If you guys just want to set around and kill time talking about any topic
that come into your head, maybe you all need CB radios.

This is an aviaition group for pilots.

[cavedweller]

On Jun 6, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > In B.C., my fave was "Curls".

> That was the cute girl, was it?

Naw...he was the "hunk". Had a wavy pompadour hairdo.

>
> Guess I was too young for it and never got the pogo habit. It was
> serialised, wasnt it?
>
More or less. Walt Kelly would get on a theme and carry it on for a
few days or weeks.

[cavedweller]

On Jun 6, 12:24 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> If you guys just want to set around and kill time talking about any topic
> that come into your head, maybe you all need CB radios.
>
> This is an aviaition group for pilots.

Roger that. It's also for "aviation" guys too, innit?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

> If you guys just want to set around and kill time talking about any
> topic that come into your head, maybe you all need CB radios.
>
> This is an aviaition group for pilots.
>
>
>
>

Oh, I thought it was for whiney little turds like you to make assholes out
of themselves.
Maybe that's what wider usenet in general is for.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

cavedweller > wrote in news:0abea02b-3d1c-4777-820c-
:

> On Jun 6, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> > In B.C., my fave was "Curls".
>
>> That was the cute girl, was it?
>
> Naw...he was the "hunk". Had a wavy pompadour hairdo.

OK. She was just cute girl ( as opposed to the fat one?)
>
>>
>> Guess I was too young for it and never got the pogo habit. It was
>> serialised, wasnt it?
>>
> More or less. Walt Kelly would get on a theme and carry it on for a
> few days or weeks.
>

Yeah, vaguely rememember. There's probably a site with some old stories on
it somewhere. I might have a look.


Bertie

[Onideus Mad Hatter]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:02:12 -0500, "dracosilv" >
wrote:

>gregvk wrote:
>
>You're a sick **** you know that?

He was abused as a child.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Don't ever **** with someone who has more creativity than you do."

"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the **** up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty ****ing high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> cavedweller > wrote in
>> news:0abea02b-3d1c-4777-820c-
>> :
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > In B.C., my fave was "Curls".
>> >
>> >> That was the cute girl, was it?
>> >
>> > Naw...he was the "hunk". Had a wavy pompadour hairdo.
>>
>> OK. She was just cute girl ( as opposed to the fat one?)
>
> i think one of the most expressive puppets on tv is molly
> on the big comfy couch


Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?



Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> cavedweller > wrote in news:0abea02b-3d1c-4777-820c-
> :
>
> > On Jun 6, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > In B.C., my fave was "Curls".
> >
> >> That was the cute girl, was it?
> >
> > Naw...he was the "hunk". Had a wavy pompadour hairdo.
>
> OK. She was just cute girl ( as opposed to the fat one?)

i think one of the most expressive puppets on tv is molly
on the big comfy couch

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >> cavedweller > wrote in
> >> news:0abea02b-3d1c-4777-820c-
> >> :
> >>
> >> > On Jun 6, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > In B.C., my fave was "Curls".
> >> >
> >> >> That was the cute girl, was it?
> >> >
> >> > Naw...he was the "hunk". Had a wavy pompadour hairdo.
> >>
> >> OK. She was just cute girl ( as opposed to the fat one?)
> >
> > i think one of the most expressive puppets on tv is molly
> > on the big comfy couch
>
>
> Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?

http://www.bigcomfycouch.us/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Comfy_Couch

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 9:20 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:2789e107-b5ff-401c-b261-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 9:04 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Yeah, that's right. I have a vague memory of an article in Popular
> >> Mechanics about someone building one. I think they might have published
> >> plans for it, even, as they did back then. Quite a challenge to make
> >> something like that! I suspect it must have had a single castering wheel
> >> hidden underneath fore or aft.
>
> > Nope. Those things had two smaller wheels that ride inside
> > each tire. The main tires have no inner sidewalls, and the actual
> > suspension is a bar that reaches into the inside of the main and has
> > two small wheels on each end of it that ride on the inside of the
> > mains' treads. They have a wheelbase of 10" or so, enough to keep the
> > machine upright. Fools lots of people. The flattish-looking main tires
> > give the game away to anyone with any mechanical knowhow.
> > A guy here in our area built one and drives it in the local
> > parades. Has hydrostatic drive, too. Runs the smaller wheels.
>
> Wow! never expected to hear from anone who knew of one! That sounds pretty
> complicated. There can't have been many guys who built those. So the outer
> tire just flexes and acts as a sort of track for the inners and, i suppose,
> they just use differential power and/or braking to steer.
> Cool!
> I must have a look for the old plans..
>
> Bertie

http://www.schlattersinc.com/foo_mobile.shtml
http://www.pbase.com/lassaline/image/45060622

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jun 6, 9:20 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:2789e107-b5ff-401c-b261-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 9:04 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Yeah, that's right. I have a vague memory of an article in Popular
>> >> Mechanics about someone building one. I think they might have
>> >> published plans for it, even, as they did back then. Quite a
>> >> challenge to make something like that! I suspect it must have had
>> >> a single castering wheel hidden underneath fore or aft.
>>
>> > Nope. Those things had two smaller wheels that ride inside
>> > each tire. The main tires have no inner sidewalls, and the actual
>> > suspension is a bar that reaches into the inside of the main and
>> > has two small wheels on each end of it that ride on the inside of
>> > the mains' treads. They have a wheelbase of 10" or so, enough to
>> > keep the machine upright. Fools lots of people. The
>> > flattish-looking main tires give the game away to anyone with any
>> > mechanical knowhow.
>> > A guy here in our area built one and drives it in the
>> > local
>> > parades. Has hydrostatic drive, too. Runs the smaller wheels.
>>
>> Wow! never expected to hear from anone who knew of one! That sounds
>> pretty complicated. There can't have been many guys who built those.
>> So the outer tire just flexes and acts as a sort of track for the
>> inners and, i suppose, they just use differential power and/or
>> braking to steer. Cool!
>> I must have a look for the old plans..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> http://www.schlattersinc.com/foo_mobile.shtml
> http://www.pbase.com/lassaline/image/45060622

So, someone did do at least one copy of it. Might write to Mr Schlatter
and see if he has any plans copies.. Not that I need another project!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >> cavedweller > wrote in
>> >> news:0abea02b-3d1c-4777-820c-
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > On Jun 6, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In B.C., my fave was "Curls".
>> >> >
>> >> >> That was the cute girl, was it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Naw...he was the "hunk". Had a wavy pompadour hairdo.
>> >>
>> >> OK. She was just cute girl ( as opposed to the fat one?)
>> >
>> > i think one of the most expressive puppets on tv is molly
>> > on the big comfy couch
>>
>>
>> Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
>
> http://www.bigcomfycouch.us/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Comfy_Couch
>

OK,. Then what's the name of the neocon puppet on Fox and Friends?



Bertie

[cavedweller]

On Jun 6, 2:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
>
> Bertie

They MUST move the coffee table..........

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

cavedweller > wrote in news:f3158953-7b36-40a7-8ca0-
:

> On Jun 6, 2:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> They MUST move the coffee table..........
>
>

Wince!


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 1, 6:21*am, Tina > wrote:
> The m20J is pretty slippery already and when it was introduced in the
> 70s was a big step up in efficiency in a production airplane.
> Homebuilts do do an even better job of cleaning up aerodynamically.
>
> The little seals on the flaps and so on were lipstick, the real gain
> over the Mooney Executive had to do with the 201 getting a more
> aerodynamic windscreen and engine cowling.
>
> We have no serious complaints at all about the airplane (well, in a
> rainstorm getting in without getting the seat wet is difficult,
> checking the fuel is hard on pantyhose sometimes) but finding a couple
> more inches of manifold pressure would be very handy when trying to
> get to 12000 feet quickly. Once there, we can sip 8 gallons an hour
> and move along pretty well.

You don't get a couple inches on the 201. You will hardly notice the
difference and most 201 owners remove the cabling since it adds
complexity to annual (having to drop the cowl and re-rig the cable
each time). In the pre-201's it adds 3/4 of an inch.
The 201 easily gets to 12,000 feet. I live at the foot of the Sierras
and sometimes cross at 16,000 without turbo. If you don't have it
already most of us consider an engine monitor to be minimum equipment
for take off. Add to that a fuel computer (I wouldn't own a plane
without one) and you can really manage your fuel.

-Robert, Mooney CFII

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
cavedweller > wrote:

> On Jun 6, 2:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >
> > Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
> >
> > Bertie
>
> They MUST move the coffee table..........

everybody wants to be a porn star
- krysta now

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article
> >,
> cavedweller > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 6, 2:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
>> >
>> > Bertie
>>
>> They MUST move the coffee table..........
>
> everybody wants to be a porn star


hmm, good title for a song..


Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> cavedweller > wrote in
> >> >> news:0abea02b-3d1c-4777-820c-
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Jun 6, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In B.C., my fave was "Curls".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> That was the cute girl, was it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Naw...he was the "hunk". Had a wavy pompadour hairdo.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK. She was just cute girl ( as opposed to the fat one?)
> >> >
> >> > i think one of the most expressive puppets on tv is molly
> >> > on the big comfy couch
> >>
> >>
> >> Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
> >
> > http://www.bigcomfycouch.us/
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Comfy_Couch
> >
>
> OK,. Then what's the name of the neocon puppet on Fox and Friends?

sorry but the fox channel is just a sea of static on my antenna
but i can get the pbs stations with the big comfy couch just fine

loonette and molly
a clown and her dolly
on the big comfy couch

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > cavedweller > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 6, 2:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
> >> >
> >> > Bertie
> >>
> >> They MUST move the coffee table..........
> >
> > everybody wants to be a porn star
>
>
> hmm, good title for a song..

krystas song is teen horniness is not a crime

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[cavedweller]

On Jun 6, 2:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> cavedweller > wrote in news:f3158953-7b36-40a7-8ca0-
> :
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > They MUST move the coffee table..........
>
> Wince!
>
> Bertie

No, Gretchen Carlson.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >> mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
>> >> -
sjc.supernews.net:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> cavedweller > wrote in
>> >> >> news:0abea02b-3d1c-4777-820c-
>> >> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Jun 6, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > In B.C., my fave was "Curls".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> That was the cute girl, was it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Naw...he was the "hunk". Had a wavy pompadour hairdo.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OK. She was just cute girl ( as opposed to the fat one?)
>> >> >
>> >> > i think one of the most expressive puppets on tv is molly
>> >> > on the big comfy couch
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is she the one on Fox n Friends in the morning?
>> >
>> > http://www.bigcomfycouch.us/
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Comfy_Couch
>> >
>>
>> OK,. Then what's the name of the neocon puppet on Fox and Friends?
>
> sorry but the fox channel is just a sea of static on my antenna


Lucky you.

> but i can get the pbs stations with the big comfy couch just fine



Again....


Bertie

[Scott Skylane]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Found it. This your guy?
>
> Looks like probably only one was made.
>
>
> http://www.schlattersinc.com/Foo_Mobile_PM.htm
>
> Bertie

*TWO* wheels?!?! Pshaww, how about this "one":

http://tinyurl.com/3zxn4k

(be sure to watch the linked video)

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Scott Skylane > wrote in news:KsGdnQ6Sje-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Found it. This your guy?
>>
>> Looks like probably only one was made.
>>
>>
>> http://www.schlattersinc.com/Foo_Mobile_PM.htm
>>
>> Bertie
>
> *TWO* wheels?!?! Pshaww, how about this "one":
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3zxn4k
>
> (be sure to watch the linked video)

That's pretty cool. I always thought those one wheel motorcyles you drive
from inside the wheel would be a blast to try too.


Bertie

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...

> That's pretty cool. I always thought those one wheel motorcyles you drive
> from inside the wheel would be a blast to try too.
>
>
> Bertie

Until you slam on the brakes!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> That's pretty cool. I always thought those one wheel motorcyles you
>> drive from inside the wheel would be a blast to try too.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Until you slam on the brakes!
>
>
>

Yeah, that could get interesting. especially if you were facing downhill!



Bertie

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...
> "Blueskies" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> That's pretty cool. I always thought those one wheel motorcyles you
>>> drive from inside the wheel would be a blast to try too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Until you slam on the brakes!
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, that could get interesting. especially if you were facing downhill!
>
>
>
> Bertie

Here you go: http://hitsusa.com/blog/66/one-wheel-motorcycle/