For the real engineers here

[[email protected]]

I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
energy an hour.

Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
at constant altitude.

It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
disagreements?

For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:f21210b7-96ff-44c6-9b4b-120e489e7682@
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> energy an hour.
>
> Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> at constant altitude.
>
> It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> disagreements?
>
> For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> one.
>

Here ya go...

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.aviation.homebuilt/msg06267.html

[[email protected]]

On Jun 25, 2:10 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:f21210b7-96ff-44c6-9b4b-120e489e7682@
> 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> > has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> > in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> > reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> > it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> > energy an hour.
>
> > Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> > pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> > horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> > an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> > prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> > at constant altitude.
>
> > It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> > disagreements?
>
> > For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> > long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> > Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> > one.
>
> Here ya go...
>
> http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.aviation.homebuilt/msg06267.html

Yeah, that gives some comfort that the decimal point at least is in
the right place. Thanks

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:f21210b7-96ff-44c6-9b4b-120e489e7682@
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> energy an hour.
>
> Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> at constant altitude.
>
> It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> disagreements?
>
> For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> one.

http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/da11.html

Even better


Lots of motorgilders have been built with some truly dinky engines and
flown quite well, not to mention the Columban Cri cri...


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:b6c58e3d-f0ee-4d52-842a-
:

> On Jun 25, 2:10 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:f21210b7-96ff-44c6-9b4b-120e489e7682@
>> 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds
and
>> > has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would
mean
>> > in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
>> > reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That
means
>> > it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds
of
>> > energy an hour.
>>
>> > Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
>> > pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
>> > horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot
pounds
>> > an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50%
efficient
>> > prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this
thing
>> > at constant altitude.
>>
>> > It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
>> > disagreements?
>>
>> > For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
>> > long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs
and
>> > Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
>> > one.
>>
>> Here ya go...
>>
>> http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.aviation.homebuilt/msg06267.html
>
> Yeah, that gives some comfort that the decimal point at least is in
> the right place. Thanks

BTW, your glider will need to be a good bit lighter to have anythign
more than marginal perfoemance. With that much HP you should be grossing
about 700 lbs max.



Bertie
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:56:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote in
>:

>I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
>has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
>in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
>reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
>it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
>energy an hour.
>
>Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
>pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
>horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
>an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
>prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
>at constant altitude.
>
>It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
>disagreements?
>
It looks reasonable to me, but I'm not qualified to judge.

>For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
>long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
>Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
>one.

Here's a solution for SI conversions:
http://online.unitconverterpro.com/

[rec.aviation.soaring added]

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 25, 11:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:56:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
> >I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> >has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> >in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> >reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> >it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> >energy an hour.
>
> >Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> >pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> >horsepower is *550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> >an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> >prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> >at constant altitude.
>
> >It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> >disagreements?
>
> It looks reasonable to me, but I'm not qualified to judge.
>
> >For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> >long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> >Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> >one.
>
> Here's a solution for SI conversions:
> * *http://online.unitconverterpro.com/
>
> [rec.aviation.soaring added]

What is the question? Sustainer gliders exist and are available from
most (all?) glider manufacturers. You need to factor increased drag of
the engine mast and maybe other things if a retractable mast, but 25:1
is far from state of the art today. You need to factor engine
efficiency at high density altitudes (most sustainer engines are very
simple and do not have altitude/mixture compensation so this can be a
significant issue) and some ability to climb a little would be nice.
Take a current state of the art sustainer like the ASG-29E for
example, uses a SOLO 2350 engine, 18 hp/13.5 kW. Nominal best L/D
(with engine retracted) is 52:1 with 18m wings.

Practical consideration with modern sailplane design will usual
preclude propellers as large as 8' diameter.

Darryl
(ASH-26E driver)

[[email protected]]

Thanks. As it happens this is a unique high endurance low level and
slow application, and I want to be sure I haven't missed anything
fundamental. It appears I have not (so far), but we all know when a
project is 95% done the most difficult half is still to come.

..



On Jun 25, 2:55 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 25, 11:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:56:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote in
> > >:
>
> > >I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> > >has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> > >in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> > >reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> > >it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> > >energy an hour.
>
> > >Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> > >pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> > >horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> > >an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> > >prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> > >at constant altitude.
>
> > >It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> > >disagreements?
>
> > It looks reasonable to me, but I'm not qualified to judge.
>
> > >For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> > >long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> > >Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> > >one.
>
> > Here's a solution for SI conversions:
> > http://online.unitconverterpro.com/
>
> > [rec.aviation.soaring added]
>
> What is the question? Sustainer gliders exist and are available from
> most (all?) glider manufacturers. You need to factor increased drag of
> the engine mast and maybe other things if a retractable mast, but 25:1
> is far from state of the art today. You need to factor engine
> efficiency at high density altitudes (most sustainer engines are very
> simple and do not have altitude/mixture compensation so this can be a
> significant issue) and some ability to climb a little would be nice.
> Take a current state of the art sustainer like the ASG-29E for
> example, uses a SOLO 2350 engine, 18 hp/13.5 kW. Nominal best L/D
> (with engine retracted) is 52:1 with 18m wings.
>
> Practical consideration with modern sailplane design will usual
> preclude propellers as large as 8' diameter.
>
> Darryl
> (ASH-26E driver)

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, that gives some comfort that the decimal point at least is in
> the right place. Thanks

You are feeding a troll.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 25, 3:44 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Yeah, that gives some comfort that the decimal point at least is in
> > the right place. Thanks
>
> You are feeding a troll.

I asked for information and got it. A "thank you" was a suitable
response, and I do not consider it feeding a troll, but a polite reply
to a civil answer. Maybe one person's troll is something else
elsewhere.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Darryl Ramm wrote:

>
>Practical consideration with modern sailplane design will usual
>preclude propellers as large as 8' diameter.
>
>Darryl
>(ASH-26E driver)

I took a ride in a Stemme motorglider several years back (50:1, IIRC). One
of it's coolest features, besides going high and fast, was that the propellor
would fold up and tuck into the nose cone when not in use.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell says...

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yeah, that gives some comfort that the decimal point at least is in
> > the right place. Thanks
>
> You are feeding a troll.

Maxine, *you* are the troll.

As everyone here realizes.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

You are a common liar.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell says...

> You are a common liar.

You are a common asshole.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Maxwell, ye tickle-brained dunce, snakes, in my heart blood warmed, that
sting my heart. Thou Judas, thrice worse than Judas, ye gurgled:

> If I learn from my mistakes, I'll learn a lot today.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell says...

> Your comments from a lying, cross posting, forging, asshole mean nothing.

Pleece to be poasting pr00f of any forgery or lying, frogger

> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.

You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim I'm
forging you.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

[Jim Logajan]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> In article >, Maxwell says...
>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
>
> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim I'm
> forging you.

Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.

Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish your
posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.

You should both get a room. Please.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Maxwell, ye pottle-deep rogue and peasant slave, lead apes in hell, ye
brooded:

> Thickheaded belle with gangling zipper ripper, bulging cojones, and
> humdrum ****-passage needs measly semen shooter for despicable
> buttplaying and vicious indoor sports.
>
> If you're interested in kinky sex, email me at
> mailto:luv2^fly99@live.^com.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> In article >, Maxwell says...
>>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
>>
>> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim I'm
>> forging you.
>
> Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
>
> Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish your
> posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
>
> You should both get a room. Please.

Both?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Jim Logajan
says...

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> > In article >, Maxwell says...
> >> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> >
> > You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim I'm
> > forging you.
>
> Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
>
> Maxwell doesn't understand

IAWTP!!!1!

> we all already know how to distinguish your
> posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
>
> You should both get a room. Please.
>

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Maxwell says...

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> >>
> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim I'm
> >> forging you.
> >
> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> >
> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish your
> > posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> >
> > You should both get a room. Please.
>
> Both?

Your ego is so big you'd never fit another person in there with you

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Maxwell, ye senseless stuffed man, thou damned tripe visaged rascal, ye
pressured:

> Maybe I'd be okay once you got to know me, but maybe you don't want to
> take that chance.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Maxwell, ye freakish bright defiler of hymen's purest bed, thou has no
more brain than I have in mine elbows, ye yielded:

> In ****ING LOVE LEG! article >, Maxwell
> ****ING ASS PLAY! TITTIES! says... TROLLOP! GERM! ****!
> SNATCH-PEDDLER!

> Your ****ING ANKLE SPANKER! PUSSY FART! ARSEFACE! **** FACE! PHLEGM!
> ****RAG! ego is so big ****ING JACKASS! you'd never fit another
> ****ING BLACK JOCK! MUFF! person in there with ****ING ASS-LICKER! you
> GANGBANG! CHICKEN-****ER!

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Give it up Bertie, we all know it's you. Just more Bertie Bull****.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Qex8k.4702$i55.1320
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yeah, that gives some comfort that the decimal point at least is in
>> the right place. Thanks
>
> You are feeding a troll.
>
>

You are choking on your own stupidity.



Excellent.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:siz8k.8845$rH1.1528
@newsfe20.lga:

> You are a common liar.
>
>
>
>

Really? How so?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> In article >, Maxwell says...
>>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
>>
>> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim I'm
>> forging you.
>
> Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
>
> Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish your
> posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.

Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:4hE8k.2276$%q.1279
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> Give it up Bertie, we all know it's you.

Well, as a matter of fat, it isn't,



Just more Bertie Bull****.
>

Actually, you're my best bud in that direction, fjukkkkktard.

Not that that little bit of info will slow you donw, of course. That's the
beauty of being you.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> >>
> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim I'm
> >> forging you.
> >
> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> >
> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish your
> > posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
>
> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..

Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3) etc.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
>> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
>> >>
>> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
>> >> I'm forging you.
>> >
>> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
>> >
>> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish
>> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
>>
>> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
>
> Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3) etc.
>

That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.

Better leave it the way it is.


Bertie

[Uli]

wrote:

> I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> energy an hour.
>
> Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> at constant altitude.
>
> It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> disagreements?
>
> For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> one.

well, seems to be correct. still, let me add some annotations:

- i'd calculate directly using power instead of energy. the installed power
you need is simply weight*sink speed/efficiency; in a formula:
P = W*w/eta = m*g*v/(E*eta) with the glide ratio E = Lift/Drag, m the mass
and g the gravitational acceleration

- i prefer SI units, for the simple benefit tp be able to calculate without
conversion factors. this eliminates a quite likely source of mistakes (ask
NASA...). a few years ago, while working in the US, i failed to calculate
the mass of a simple sheet of aluminum (don't laugh!); i had several
numbers for the material's density, but none in the combination of units
for volume and mass that i needed; so i decided it was safer to go via SI
and convert the mass back to ounces...

- the conversion hp<->kW is simple: 1 kW = 1.34 hp (= 1.36 german PS) or
roughly 4/3 hp


cheers
uli

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 4:09 am, Uli > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> > has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> > in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> > reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> > it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> > energy an hour.
>
> > Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> > pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> > horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> > an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> > prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> > at constant altitude.
>
> > It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> > disagreements?
>
> > For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> > long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> > Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> > one.
>
> well, seems to be correct. still, let me add some annotations:
>
> - i'd calculate directly using power instead of energy. the installed power
> you need is simply weight*sink speed/efficiency; in a formula:
> P = W*w/eta = m*g*v/(E*eta) with the glide ratio E = Lift/Drag, m the mass
> and g the gravitational acceleration
>
> - i prefer SI units, for the simple benefit tp be able to calculate without
> conversion factors. this eliminates a quite likely source of mistakes (ask
> NASA...). a few years ago, while working in the US, i failed to calculate
> the mass of a simple sheet of aluminum (don't laugh!); i had several
> numbers for the material's density, but none in the combination of units
> for volume and mass that i needed; so i decided it was safer to go via SI
> and convert the mass back to ounces...
>
> - the conversion hp<->kW is simple: 1 kW = 1.34 hp (= 1.36 german PS) or
> roughly 4/3 hp
>
> cheers
> uli
I wouldn't argue with you about using SI units in professional
communications -- I do that all of the time -- but in this case I
started out with English units and it was easy to stay within them.
Also, and importantly, the question I asked was more easily understood
by most pilots here, and the more useful answers came back in the same
units. First rule of communication -- speak the language the spoken to
are most likely to understand!

It would have been fun to give the airspeed in furlongs per fortnight,
or for the spectroscopically inclined, nm/sec.

I do appreciate your comments, thanks. Now let's give the thread back
to the little boys with their spray cans.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 4:09 am, Uli > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> > has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> > in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> > reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> > it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> > energy an hour.
>
> > Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> > pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> > horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> > an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> > prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> > at constant altitude.
>
> > It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> > disagreements?
>
> > For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> > long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> > Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> > one.
>
> well, seems to be correct. still, let me add some annotations:
>
> - i'd calculate directly using power instead of energy. the installed power
> you need is simply weight*sink speed/efficiency; in a formula:
> P = W*w/eta = m*g*v/(E*eta) with the glide ratio E = Lift/Drag, m the mass
> and g the gravitational acceleration
>
> - i prefer SI units, for the simple benefit tp be able to calculate without
> conversion factors. this eliminates a quite likely source of mistakes (ask
> NASA...). a few years ago, while working in the US, i failed to calculate
> the mass of a simple sheet of aluminum (don't laugh!); i had several
> numbers for the material's density, but none in the combination of units
> for volume and mass that i needed; so i decided it was safer to go via SI
> and convert the mass back to ounces...
>
> - the conversion hp<->kW is simple: 1 kW = 1.34 hp (= 1.36 german PS) or
> roughly 4/3 hp
>
> cheers
> uli
I wouldn't argue with you about using SI units in professional
communications -- I do that all of the time -- but in this case I
started out with English units and it was easy to stay within them.
Also, and importantly, the question I asked was more easily understood
by most pilots here, and the more useful answers came back in the same
units. First rule of communication -- speak the language the spoken to
are most likely to understand!

It would have been fun to give the airspeed in furlongs per fortnight,
or for the spectroscopically inclined, nm/sec.

I do appreciate your comments, thanks. Now let's give the thread back
to the little boys with their spray cans.

[Uli]

> I wouldn't argue with you about using SI units in professional
> communications -- I do that all of the time -- but in this case I
> started out with English units and it was easy to stay within them.
> Also, and importantly, the question I asked was more easily understood
> by most pilots here, and the more useful answers came back in the same
> units. First rule of communication -- speak the language the spoken to
> are most likely to understand!

my direct answer wasn't in another "language"; it was pretty straight, i
think. the formula i suggested is independent of units; so it can used also
if one calculates with imperial units.

you asked for an answer by "real engineers"; that's what you got.

i'm sorry if i confused anyone by giving additional information...

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Liar.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Liar. You're talking to yourself.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-25, > wrote:
> I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> has a glide angle of say 1 in 25.

That's not really a 'clean glider' - that's less than the performance of
an old wooden glider like a Slingsby Skylark. Modern training gliders
like the Puchacz have a glide of 30:1.

> Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only?

As a point of reference, the Ventus 2ct (a 'turbo', no it's not
turbocharged, but for some reason self-sustainers are called 'turbos'
here) is a 2 seat glider which is genuinely clean (around 45:1 glide),
with an all up weight of 600kg (around 1300 lbs or so), has a 20
horsepower engine. So you're in the right order of magnitude. It doesn't
have an 8 foot prop either (it's a teeny little 5 blade prop IIRC, and
the whole engine/prop retracts just behind the cockpit).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Sure bertie, cuz you know everyone, and you know everything.

You're damn near as smart as LeChaud.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:KEK8k.6004$Fj5.648
@newsfe23.lga:

> Sure bertie, cuz you know everyone, and you know everything.
>
> You're damn near as smart as LeChaud.


Oh smarter by several magnitudes. But obviously not as smart as you. You
got me sooo on the run


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:5DK8k.6002$Fj5.4738
@newsfe23.lga:

> Liar.
>
>
>

k00k.




bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:NDK8k.6003$Fj5.5048
@newsfe23.lga:

>
> Liar. You're talking to yourself.
>
>
>

Nope. But hey! Don't let me stop you from making an idiot of yourself!



Continue. Please


Bertie

[Frank Olson]

wrote:
> I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> energy an hour.
>
> Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> at constant altitude.
>
> It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> disagreements?
>
> For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> one.


It's obvious from the number and quality of the responses you've
received that this isn't an "engineering group". Try posting your
question in a more cerebral part of USENET. :-)

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Frank Olson" > wrote in message
news:T6Y8k.27927$kx.1170@pd7urf3no...
>
>
> It's obvious from the number and quality of the responses you've received
> that this isn't an "engineering group". Try posting your question in a
> more cerebral part of USENET. :-)

All things considered, I think he was just one of bertie's sockpuppets.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> "Frank Olson" > wrote in
> message news:T6Y8k.27927$kx.1170@pd7urf3no...
>>
>>
>> It's obvious from the number and quality of the responses you've
>> received that this isn't an "engineering group". Try posting your
>> question in a more cerebral part of USENET. :-)
>
> All things considered, I think he was just one of bertie's
> sockpuppets.
>
>
>
>
>

Bwawhahwhahwh!

All things considered?



God you're priceless!



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 10:19 pm, Frank Olson
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and
> > has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean
> > in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it
> > reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means
> > it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of
> > energy an hour.
>
> > Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a
> > pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A
> > horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds
> > an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient
> > prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing
> > at constant altitude.
>
> > It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> > disagreements?
>
> > For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> > long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> > Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> > one.
>
> It's obvious from the number and quality of the responses you've
> received that this isn't an "engineering group". Try posting your
> question in a more cerebral part of USENET. :-)

I got the verification I needed before the children took over the
thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was right.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I got the verification I needed before the children took over the
> thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was right.

The verification your needed?

It's 2008 and you obviously have an internet connection. Plug "motor glider"
into Google.com, and you'll get a 1000 times what you got here.

[Dave[_5_]]

I saw a clever motorglider a few years ago that had an engine on a
retractable mast - above and behind the pilot (it was a one-place).
The unique feature was that it had a one-blade propeller (there was a
counterweight on the other side), and some means of positioning the
prop after shutting down (so that the engine and prop could fold down
completely inside the fuselage). It was more than a sustainer engine-
I watched the aircraft take off and climb out unaided. Don't know the
type, but have several photos of it somewhere.

Dave

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

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

>
> > wrote in message
> .
> ..
>>
>> I got the verification I needed before the children took over the
>> thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was
>> right.
>
> The verification your needed?
>
> It's 2008 and you obviously have an internet connection. Plug "motor
> glider" into Google.com, and you'll get a 1000 times what you got
> here.


Except for your elequont poast, of course.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 11:58 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I got the verification I needed before the children took over the
> > thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was right.
>
> The verification your needed?
>
> It's 2008 and you obviously have an internet connection. Plug "motor glider"
> into Google.com, and you'll get a 1000 times what you got here.

Your contibution is duly noted, as are your social skills.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jun 26, 11:58 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > I got the verification I needed before the children took over the
>> > thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was
>> > right.
>>
>> The verification your needed?
>>
>> It's 2008 and you obviously have an internet connection. Plug "motor
>> glider" into Google.com, and you'll get a 1000 times what you got
>> here.
>
> Your contibution is duly noted, as are your social skills.
>

I'm thinking you just made volume 3. I'm going to guess sockpuppet column.



Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:56:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


>It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
>disagreements?
>
>For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
>long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
>Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
>one.

check out the french website for Michele(sp) Colomban's Luciole. it is
an ultralight single seater designed for the Briggs & Stratton engine.

also do a search for details of Leeon Davis's DA8. you'll be surprised
at how fast a Briggs and Stratton engine can pull an aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jun 27, 6:00 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 11:58 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
>
>
> >> ...
>
> >> > I got the verification I needed before the children took over the
> >> > thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was
> >> > right.
>
> >> The verification your needed?
>
> >> It's 2008 and you obviously have an internet connection. Plug "motor
> >> glider" into Google.com, and you'll get a 1000 times what you got
> >> here.
>
> > Your contibution is duly noted, as are your social skills.
>
> I'm thinking you just made volume 3. I'm going to guess sockpuppet column.
>
> Bertie

Gaining his list is neither an honor nor an insult: if he mattered,
his opinion might.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 27, 8:34 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:56:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
> >disagreements?
>
> >For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
> >long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
> >Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
> >one.
>
> check out the french website for Michele(sp) Colomban's Luciole. it is
> an ultralight single seater designed for the Briggs & Stratton engine.
>
> also do a search for details of Leeon Davis's DA8. you'll be surprised
> at how fast a Briggs and Stratton engine can pull an aircraft.
>
> Stealth Pilot



Thanks. I wanted to be sure I had not missed anything obvious in
thinking about power demands, and there's ample verification now that
I had not.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jun 27, 6:00 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:b02b73e6-b19a-4328-8f27-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 26, 11:58 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:a646cfdf-51ef-400c-a17e-9bc80b9350a8
@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.c
>> >>om
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> > I got the verification I needed before the children took over
>> >> > the thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price
>> >> > was right.
>>
>> >> The verification your needed?
>>
>> >> It's 2008 and you obviously have an internet connection. Plug
>> >> "motor glider" into Google.com, and you'll get a 1000 times what
>> >> you got here.
>>
>> > Your contibution is duly noted, as are your social skills.
>>
>> I'm thinking you just made volume 3. I'm going to guess sockpuppet
>> column.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Gaining his list is neither an honor nor an insult: if he mattered,
> his opinion might.
>

I'm insutled by your attitude. The list is a great honor.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:56:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>
>>It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious
>>disagreements?
>>
>>For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a
>>long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and
>>Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt
>>one.
>
> check out the french website for Michele(sp) Colomban's Luciole. it is
> an ultralight single seater designed for the Briggs & Stratton engine.
>
> also do a search for details of Leeon Davis's DA8. you'll be surprised
> at how fast a Briggs and Stratton engine can pull an aircraft.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Columban Luciole? Don't know that one. Any search I've instigated only
turns up airshows where the Cri Cri and a Caudron Luciole were both in
attendance.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
> >> >> I'm forging you.
> >> >
> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >
> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish
> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> >>
> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> >
> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3) etc.
> >
>
> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
>
> Better leave it the way it is.

He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups are
getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.

<snicker>

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > In article >, Bertie the
> > > Bunyip says...
> > >
> > >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> > >> :
> > >>
> > >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> > >> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> > >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
> > >> >> I'm forging you.
> > >> >
> > >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> > >> >
> > >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish
> > >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> > >>
> > >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> > >
> > > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3) etc.
> > >
> >
> > That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> >
> > Better leave it the way it is.
>
> He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups are
> getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.

maxwells silver killfile came down upon their head
maxwells silver killfile was all that they could see

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_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119
@notbxpats.edu:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >, Bertie the
>> > Bunyip says...
>> >
>> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
>> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
>> >> >> I'm forging you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
>> >> >
>> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
distinguish
>> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
>> >>
>> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
>> >
>> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3)
etc.
>> >
>>
>> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
>>
>> Better leave it the way it is.
>
> He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups are
> getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
>
> <snicker>
>

He's a one k00k urban renewal team.



Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119
> @notbxpats.edu:
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > In article >, Bertie the
> >> > Bunyip says...
> >> >
> >> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> >> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> >> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
> >> >> >> I'm forging you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
> distinguish
> >> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> >> >
> >> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3)
> etc.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> >>
> >> Better leave it the way it is.
> >
> > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups are
> > getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
> >
> > <snicker>
> >
>
> He's a one k00k urban renewal team.

she was black as the knight
louis was whiter than white
danger danger when you taste creme de brulee
louis fell in love overnight

rein est mauvais c etais bon
louis has the best marie he could
when he took her home to eat the cake for the bread
louis knew just where he stood

louis letat est moi louis
louis letat est moi lou-ai
louis letat est moi louis
louis louis theyre gonna chop off your head

there he stood in versailles
not knowing whats wrong from whats right
when he took her home to eat the cake for the bread
man he had a terrible fight

louis truly caused a revolt
wishing it was a dream
aint no difference if youre rich or youre poor
brothers you know youll all get reamed

louis letat est moi louis
louis letat est moi lou-ai
louis letat est moi louis
louis louis theyre gonna chop off your head

louis letat est moi louis
louis letat est moi lou-ai
louis letat est moi louis
louis louis theyre gonna chop off your head

louis letat est moi louis
louis letat est moi louis louis louis lou-ai
louis letat est moi louis
louis louis theyre gonna chop off your head

louis letat est moi louis
louis letat est moi lou-ai

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

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article -
sjc.supernews.net>, mariposas rand mair fheal says...

> In article >,
> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> > > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > > In article >, Bertie the
> > > > Bunyip says...
> > > >
> > > >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> > > >> :
> > > >>
> > > >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> > > >> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> > > >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
> > > >> >> I'm forging you.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish
> > > >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> > > >>
> > > >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3) etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> > >
> > > Better leave it the way it is.
> >
> > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups are
> > getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
>
> maxwells silver killfile came down upon their head
> maxwells silver killfile was all that they could see

If'n Maxine had the brains to config a killfile, rap would be a much
quieter place.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119
> @notbxpats.edu:
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > In article >, Bertie the
> >> > Bunyip says...
> >> >
> >> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> >> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> >> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
> >> >> >> I'm forging you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
> distinguish
> >> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> >> >
> >> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3)
> etc.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> >>
> >> Better leave it the way it is.
> >
> > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups are
> > getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
> >
> > <snicker>
> >
>
> He's a one k00k urban renewal team.

The poor dumb schmuck doesn't seem to realize that litses tend to be
self-perpetuating

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119 @notbxpats.edu:
>>
>> > In article >, Bertie the
>> > Bunyip says...
>> >
>> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > In article >, Bertie
>> >> > the Bunyip says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> >> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article >, Maxwell
>> >> >> >> says...
>> >> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast
>> >> >> >> claim I'm forging you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
>> distinguish
>> >> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2),
>> >> > Maxwell(3)
>> etc.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
>> >>
>> >> Better leave it the way it is.
>> >
>> > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups
>> > are getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
>> >
>> > <snicker>
>> >
>>
>> He's a one k00k urban renewal team.
>
> The poor dumb schmuck doesn't seem to realize that litses tend to be
> self-perpetuating
>

Well, he does seem to have given up. I would almost be tempted to say
that he's wised up, but, of course, that's impossible.



Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119
> > @notbxpats.edu:
> >
> > > In article >, Bertie the
> > > Bunyip says...
> > >
> > >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > >> :
> > >>
> > >> > In article >, Bertie the
> > >> > Bunyip says...
> > >> >
> > >> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> > >> >> :
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> > >> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
> > >> >> >> I'm forging you.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
> > distinguish
> > >> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> > >> >
> > >> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3)
> > etc.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> > >>
> > >> Better leave it the way it is.
> > >
> > > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups are
> > > getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
> > >
> > > <snicker>
> > >
> >
> > He's a one k00k urban renewal team.
>
> The poor dumb schmuck doesn't seem to realize that litses tend to be
> self-perpetuating

naughty or nice? that is the question
whether tis nobler to leave yon stocking with a plum
or to stuff it with coal and by stuffing it
it oppose the naughtiness aye theres the run
for would a stocking by any another brand smell as sweaty
alas poor santa i knew him well esther bunny
a fellow of infinite jest yet here he lies now
in drunken stupor in this nevada brothel
who now will know what shall be deemed naughty or nice
are we not men? if we fall do we not stand again?
for grid for goofy st mickey save us
avant-garde helvetica palatino black letter

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 >,
Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:

> In article -
> sjc.supernews.net>, mariposas rand mair fheal says...
>
> > In article >,
> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article >, Bertie the
> > > Bunyip says...
> > >
> > > > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > > > In article >, Bertie the
> > > > > Bunyip says...
> > > > >
> > > > >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> > > > >> :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> In article >, Maxwell says...
> > > > >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast claim
> > > > >> >> I'm forging you.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to distinguish
> > > > >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2), Maxwell(3) etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> > > >
> > > > Better leave it the way it is.
> > >
> > > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups are
> > > getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
> >
> > maxwells silver killfile came down upon their head
> > maxwells silver killfile was all that they could see
>
> If'n Maxine had the brains to config a killfile, rap would be a much
> quieter place.

but soft delights of man apprise this dawn
we ponder oft the journeyed steps afore
how now should tender foot on stony path
depart this den this shelter covered eaves
for yearning great is stay in safe within
yet milk is flowing not and eggs are ate
and sunday breakfast waits not for me or thou

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:

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119 @notbxpats.edu:
> >>
> >> > In article >, Bertie the
> >> > Bunyip says...
> >> >
> >> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >, Bertie
> >> >> > the Bunyip says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> >> >> >> :
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article >, Maxwell
> >> >> >> >> says...
> >> >> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast
> >> >> >> >> claim I'm forging you.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
> >> distinguish
> >> >> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2),
> >> >> > Maxwell(3)
> >> etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> >> >>
> >> >> Better leave it the way it is.
> >> >
> >> > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups
> >> > are getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
> >> >
> >> > <snicker>
> >> >
> >>
> >> He's a one k00k urban renewal team.
> >
> > The poor dumb schmuck doesn't seem to realize that litses tend to be
> > self-perpetuating
> >
>
> Well, he does seem to have given up. I would almost be tempted to say
> that he's wised up, but, of course, that's impossible.

the tiny box doth blare enticements forth
such garish sounds such rainbow spread of tints
the buxom maidens dance on molded steps
to spur their chosen knight to greater haste
so round and round the warriors chase their lists
these cars of nas what circles devil minds
so round and round these chariots doth race
such noise delights the simple minded folks
the paled skin and drinking pallid ales

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

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >, Bertie the
> > Bunyip says...
> >
> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119 @notbxpats.edu:
> >>
> >> > In article >, Bertie the
> >> > Bunyip says...
> >> >
> >> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >, Bertie
> >> >> > the Bunyip says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> >> >> >> :
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article >, Maxwell
> >> >> >> >> says...
> >> >> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast
> >> >> >> >> claim I'm forging you.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
> >> distinguish
> >> >> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2),
> >> >> > Maxwell(3)
> >> etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> >> >>
> >> >> Better leave it the way it is.
> >> >
> >> > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups
> >> > are getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
> >> >
> >> > <snicker>
> >> >
> >>
> >> He's a one k00k urban renewal team.
> >
> > The poor dumb schmuck doesn't seem to realize that litses tend to be
> > self-perpetuating
> >
>
> Well, he does seem to have given up. I would almost be tempted to say
> that he's wised up, but, of course, that's impossible.

Worst case - he's not the only nutcase here. Just the most entertaining

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in news:MPG.22d27f6d712a8cfb98b136
@notbxpats.edu:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >, Bertie the
>> > Bunyip says...
>> >
>> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> >> news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119 @notbxpats.edu:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >, Bertie
the
>> >> > Bunyip says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> >> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article >,
Bertie
>> >> >> > the Bunyip says...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> >> >> >> :
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article >, Maxwell
>> >> >> >> >> says...
>> >> >> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing
so.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast
>> >> >> >> >> claim I'm forging you.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
>> >> distinguish
>> >> >> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2),
>> >> >> > Maxwell(3)
>> >> etc.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Better leave it the way it is.
>> >> >
>> >> > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of
froups
>> >> > are getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
>> >> >
>> >> > <snicker>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> He's a one k00k urban renewal team.
>> >
>> > The poor dumb schmuck doesn't seem to realize that litses tend to
be
>> > self-perpetuating
>> >
>>
>> Well, he does seem to have given up. I would almost be tempted to say
>> that he's wised up, but, of course, that's impossible.
>
> Worst case - he's not the only nutcase here. Just the most
entertaining
>

Yeah, though the recent spitfire model airplane pilot sock showed some
promise..



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

Your comments from a lying, cross posting, forging, asshole mean nothing.

If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > In article >, Bertie the
> > > Bunyip says...
> > >
> > >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > >> news:MPG.22cff230abc55b6598b119 @notbxpats.edu:
> > >>
> > >> > In article >, Bertie the
> > >> > Bunyip says...
> > >> >
> > >> >> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> > >> >> :
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > In article >, Bertie
> > >> >> > the Bunyip says...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> > >> >> >> :
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> In article >, Maxwell
> > >> >> >> >> says...
> > >> >> >> >>> If you dislike being called a forger, then stop doing so.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> You are convicting yourself of lying every time you poast
> > >> >> >> >> claim I'm forging you.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Your name isn't Maxwell and you are obsessed up the gonzo.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Maxwell doesn't understand we all already know how to
> > >> distinguish
> > >> >> >> > your posts from his and he is obsessed up the gonzo.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Could you post a guide? I'm a bit confused at times myself..
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Maybe we start indexing them. Maxwell(1), Maxwell(2),
> > >> >> > Maxwell(3)
> > >> etc.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That would confuse Maxwell. He can only count to two.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Better leave it the way it is.
> > >> >
> > >> > He should be proud of himself. I notice that a couple of froups
> > >> > are getting more traffic now then they've seen in ages.
> > >> >
> > >> > <snicker>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> He's a one k00k urban renewal team.
> > >
> > > The poor dumb schmuck doesn't seem to realize that litses tend to be
> > > self-perpetuating
> > >
> >
> > Well, he does seem to have given up. I would almost be tempted to say
> > that he's wised up, but, of course, that's impossible.
>
> Worst case - he's not the only nutcase here. Just the most entertaining

bedeviled oft by weird and oddly folk
of oddest schemes and oddest varied thought
a springer panel semi-naked posts
in semi-rational in self triumph

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