yeehaa

[flybywire]

[Hans Holbein]

flybywire schrieb:

Do you measure the range of this vehicle in foot or in yards?
SCNR

[Lee[_2_]]

"flybywire" > rudely blurted out
:

> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>




Thanks for posting! I saved this picture a
couple of years ago and cannot find it on
any of about 10 Winchesters.

THIS TIME I'll rename it so I can find it!

[HEMI - Powered[_3_]]

Hans Holbein added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> flybywire schrieb:
>
> Do you measure the range of this vehicle in foot or in yards?
> SCNR

How about nautical miles?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

[Hans Holbein]

HEMI - Powered schrieb:
> Hans Holbein added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>> flybywire schrieb:
>>
>> Do you measure the range of this vehicle in foot or in yards?
>> SCNR
>
> How about nautical miles?
>
You mean this motor corresponds with the size of the fuel tank in a way,
this thing can be driven over a greater distance as you might throw it?

[HEMI - Powered[_2_]]

Hans Holbein added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>> Do you measure the range of this vehicle in foot or in yards?
>>> SCNR
>>
>> How about nautical miles?
>>
> You mean this motor corresponds with the size of the fuel tank
> in a way, this thing can be driven over a greater distance as
> you might throw it?
>
Beats me, I was making a joke. Since airplanes use nautical miles,
I thought maybe a cycle powered by a radial aircraft engine might
also. As to range, don't know how many gallons/hour one of those
old radials might consume.

Cheers!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"... If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do
it ..." - Abraham Lincoln in letter to Horace Greeley, 1862

[Hans Holbein]

HEMI - Powered schrieb:
> Hans Holbein added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>>> Do you measure the range of this vehicle in foot or in yards?
>>>> SCNR
>>>
>>> How about nautical miles?
>>>
>> You mean this motor corresponds with the size of the fuel tank
>> in a way, this thing can be driven over a greater distance as
>> you might throw it?
>>
> Beats me, I was making a joke. Since airplanes use nautical miles,
> I thought maybe a cycle powered by a radial aircraft engine might
> also. As to range, don't know how many gallons/hour one of those
> old radials might consume.
>

On my combat simulator program (Sturmovik) I can choose Kmh, mph or KIAS.
Are nautical miles base for the latter?
I think it can mean knots indicated airspeed but am not sure about it.

I dont think this Radials consumes to much.
With the estimated 10l he might come about 50 miles I believe.

But I have to commit, the beast looks awesome, pityfully no offroader.

[HEMI - Powered[_2_]]

Hans Holbein added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Beats me, I was making a joke. Since airplanes use nautical
>> miles, I thought maybe a cycle powered by a radial aircraft
>> engine might also. As to range, don't know how many
>> gallons/hour one of those old radials might consume.
>
> On my combat simulator program (Sturmovik) I can choose Kmh, mph
> or KIAS. Are nautical miles base for the latter?
> I think it can mean knots indicated airspeed but am not sure
> about it.

Had to Google KIAS, Knots Indicated Air Speed. I would say, yes,
nautical miles or knots would be the unit for this. Since I am not a
pilot nor do I play simulation games, I don't know if the one you
refer to differentiates between ground speed and indicated air speed
but whether it is in statute miles/hour or nautical miles/hour or
knots I don't know.

> I dont think this Radials consumes to much.
> With the estimated 10l he might come about 50 miles I believe.
>
This particular radial seems to be small and perhaps one prior to the
beasts of WWII but I doubt that ANY aircraft engine is going to be a
high mileage engine in normal use, it's displacement is just too
large. But, without knowing details, no intelligent comment can be
made here.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

[Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF]

"HEMI - Powered" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hans Holbein added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>> Beats me, I was making a joke. Since airplanes use nautical
>>> miles, I thought maybe a cycle powered by a radial aircraft
>>> engine might also. As to range, don't know how many
>>> gallons/hour one of those old radials might consume.
>>
>> On my combat simulator program (Sturmovik) I can choose Kmh, mph
>> or KIAS. Are nautical miles base for the latter?
>> I think it can mean knots indicated airspeed but am not sure
>> about it.
>
> Had to Google KIAS, Knots Indicated Air Speed. I would say, yes,
> nautical miles or knots would be the unit for this. Since I am not a
> pilot nor do I play simulation games, I don't know if the one you
> refer to differentiates between ground speed and indicated air speed
> but whether it is in statute miles/hour or nautical miles/hour or
> knots I don't know.
>
>> I dont think this Radials consumes to much.
>> With the estimated 10l he might come about 50 miles I believe.
>>
> This particular radial seems to be small and perhaps one prior to the
> beasts of WWII but I doubt that ANY aircraft engine is going to be a
> high mileage engine in normal use, it's displacement is just too
> large. But, without knowing details, no intelligent comment can be
> made here.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
>
> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
> problem!" - Ronald Reagan


In point of fact,
The engine of that bike is not old, its an Australian made 7 cylinder, 110HP
Rotec R2800 Radial.
Heres a link to the engine:
http://www.rotecradialengines.com/0RotecR2800/R2800.htm
Check here: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/0RotecR2800/R2800.htm#bike for
some vids of the bike running.

HTH
--

Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF
Innisfail
Queensland




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090121-0, 21/01/2009
Tested on: 22/01/2009 11:22:04 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Hans Holbein]

HEMI - Powered schrieb:
> Hans Holbein added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>> Beats me, I was making a joke. Since airplanes use nautical
>>> miles, I thought maybe a cycle powered by a radial aircraft
>>> engine might also. As to range, don't know how many
>>> gallons/hour one of those old radials might consume.
>>
>> On my combat simulator program (Sturmovik) I can choose Kmh, mph
>> or KIAS. Are nautical miles base for the latter?
>> I think it can mean knots indicated airspeed but am not sure
>> about it.
>
> Had to Google KIAS, Knots Indicated Air Speed. I would say, yes,
> nautical miles or knots would be the unit for this. Since I am not a
> pilot nor do I play simulation games, I don't know if the one you
> refer to differentiates between ground speed and indicated air speed
> but whether it is in statute miles/hour or nautical miles/hour or
> knots I don't know.

Im no pilot neither.

Im still learning all the things needed to go online for combat with
other weirdos. ;-)

The usual airspeed indicator is a tube on some undisturbed place at the
aircraft, the pitot-tube.
With lesser air pressure at increasing height you need more speed to
induce the pressure in this tube to indacate the airspeed.
So indacated airspeed IAS differs from true airspeed TAS which means the
speed realtively to the surface.
With no wind influence, as I recall the fomula is
TAS=IASx(1+ Heightx0,02/300)
But I might have forgotten something.
Its ~8% pus in 3000ft and ~44% in 20000ft
If I'm correct, in 20000ft you fly 540knots while your indicator shows
only 375knots.

Im not very comfortable with the anglo-saxon systems, but over a long
term I think the metric system will do the race.
Resistance is futile!
SCNR

[HEMI - Powered[_2_]]

Hans Holbein added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Had to Google KIAS, Knots Indicated Air Speed. I would say,
>> yes, nautical miles or knots would be the unit for this. Since
>> I am not a pilot nor do I play simulation games, I don't know
>> if the one you refer to differentiates between ground speed and
>> indicated air speed but whether it is in statute miles/hour or
>> nautical miles/hour or knots I don't know.
>
> Im no pilot neither.
>
> Im still learning all the things needed to go online for combat
> with other weirdos. ;-)
>
> The usual airspeed indicator is a tube on some undisturbed place
> at the aircraft, the pitot-tube.

Those things have been around since people first wanted to know how
fast they were flying!

> With lesser air pressure at increasing height you need more
> speed to induce the pressure in this tube to indacate the
> airspeed.

Yeah, has some things to do with relative air pressure across the
wing and at the particular place the pitot tube breaks the airflow.
Can't say I'm much of an aerodynamicist so I don't really
understand this stuff very well past playing with them with a small
wind tunnel in my undergraduate Engineering Fluid Dynamics class.

So indacated airspeed IAS differs from true airspeed
> TAS which means the speed realtively to the surface.
> With no wind influence, as I recall the fomula is
> TAS=IASx(1+ Heightx0,02/300)
> But I might have forgotten something.
> Its ~8% pus in 3000ft and ~44% in 20000ft
> If I'm correct, in 20000ft you fly 540knots while your indicator
> shows only 375knots.

I was thinking of something else, rather than the math used to
adjust real vs indicated air speed. I was thinking about the often
BIG difference between air speed and ground speed where either a
head wind or tail wind can cause the air speed indicator to be way
off compared to actual distance over the ground.

I can't fault your math as I've never delved into this stuff, nor
the changes that occur the closer the plane gets to Mach 1 and many
other factors affecting even the most basic flight characteristics.

> Im not very comfortable with the anglo-saxon systems, but over a
> long term I think the metric system will do the race.
> Resistance is futile!
> SCNR
>
You know, over here in The Colonies ALL of our measures are Metric
except that by law, things which are sold to consumers must also
carry a traditional or English conversion. This makes some very
strange numbers being printed on bottles of soda pop! And, I have
the same problem with Metric that you do with English/traditional
units. I can easily do the conversions, sometimes in my head with a
little effort, but I have never been able to think in metric - I
always have to do a conversion. Even my years of science in High
School and 4 years in Engingeering School weren't enough.

I doubt that the US will EVER really convert to Metric. Just too
much inertia from people resistant to change, thus there's no
political capital to utilize and much political danger so no pol
will risk a major proposal for change. So, we have dual units even
on things like our car speedometers, and of course, I have to have
two sets of wrenches in my tool box!

Have a pleasant day and enjoy your flight simulator!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

[Wayne Paul]

Hans,

Just one small correction to your post. TAS is the actual speed you are
traveling through the air. Ground Speed (GS) is the speed you are relative
to the surface. Wind is what make TAS and GS different.

Respectfully,

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

"Hans Holbein" > wrote in message
...
> HEMI - Powered schrieb:
>
> Im no pilot neither.
>
> Im still learning all the things needed to go online for combat with
> other weirdos. ;-)
>
> The usual airspeed indicator is a tube on some undisturbed place at the
> aircraft, the pitot-tube.
> With lesser air pressure at increasing height you need more speed to
> induce the pressure in this tube to indacate the airspeed.
> So indacated airspeed IAS differs from true airspeed TAS which means the
> speed realtively to the surface.
> With no wind influence, as I recall the fomula is
> TAS=IASx(1+ Heightx0,02/300)
> But I might have forgotten something.
> Its ~8% pus in 3000ft and ~44% in 20000ft
> If I'm correct, in 20000ft you fly 540knots while your indicator shows
> only 375knots.
>
> Im not very comfortable with the anglo-saxon systems, but over a long
> term I think the metric system will do the race.
> Resistance is futile!
> SCNR

[HEMI - Powered[_2_]]

Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

> In point of fact,
> The engine of that bike is not old, its an Australian made 7
> cylinder, 110HP Rotec R2800 Radial.
> Heres a link to the engine:
> http://www.rotecradialengines.com/0RotecR2800/R2800.htm
> Check here:
> http://www.rotecradialengines.com/0RotecR2800/R2800.htm#bike for
> some vids of the bike running.
>
Didn't know there were such things being built today, I thought it
was maybe a 1930s engine or something like that. What are these
things used for, aerobatic aircraft and the like? I don't follow the
aircraft industry at all but I can't remember ever seeing a modern
general aircraft plane with a radial engine these days.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

[HEMI - Powered[_2_]]

Wayne Paul added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> Hans,
>
> Just one small correction to your post. TAS is the actual speed
> you are traveling through the air. Ground Speed (GS) is the
> speed you are relative to the surface. Wind is what make TAS
> and GS different.
>
I knew about the obvious changes that head or tail winds make on
air speed vs. ground speed but never heard of the math equations
that Hans cited to describe indicated air speed. Guess it's true
that one learns new things every day!

>> Im still learning all the things needed to go online for combat
>> with other weirdos. ;-)
>>
>> The usual airspeed indicator is a tube on some undisturbed
>> place at the aircraft, the pitot-tube.
>> With lesser air pressure at increasing height you need more
>> speed to induce the pressure in this tube to indacate the
>> airspeed. So indacated airspeed IAS differs from true airspeed
>> TAS which means the speed realtively to the surface.
>> With no wind influence, as I recall the fomula is
>> TAS=IASx(1+ Heightx0,02/300)
>> But I might have forgotten something.
>> Its ~8% pus in 3000ft and ~44% in 20000ft
>> If I'm correct, in 20000ft you fly 540knots while your
>> indicator shows only 375knots.
>>
--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

[Hans Holbein]

Wayne Paul schrieb:
> Hans,
>
> Just one small correction to your post. TAS is the actual speed you are
> traveling through the air. Ground Speed (GS) is the speed you are relative
> to the surface. Wind is what make TAS and GS different.
>
> Respectfully,
>
Thank you.
The simulator still cant simulate wind influences, I hope it will come
with the next patch or with he "Storm of War" Simulation.