If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
"john smith" wrote in message ... In article , "Morgans" wrote: "john smith" wrote in message ... I just got a mailing from Cessna yesterday. Look here... www.cessnareasons.com What did you find interesting in this mailing, relevant (or even close) to this thread? According to the brouchure, it lists 43 reasons to buy a Cessna. Right! -- Jim in NC |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
... [...] That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a significant impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra surface area helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little difference. Actually, we're both incorrect. My statement was based on a theoretical understanding of friction in which the friction depends on the force over an area. Since tire pressure directly determines this, I assumed it had a direct effect on friction. I found at least one reference that says that physicists ignore the area over which the force is distributed, for the purpose of determining friction. It did say that's actually an incorrect assumption, but that it's "close enough" for most purposes. I didn't bother to look further to see just how far off this "close enough" assumption is. The reference didn't go into much detail on that regard. Beyond that, the same reference also had a discussion of tires on snow, oddly enough (I wasn't even looking for that specifically). They claim that increased tire pressure actually *reduces* friction, because packed snow has lower friction than unpacked snow, and higher tire pressures result in greater packing of the snow. So, tire pressure has a very significant effect on tire friction when driving on snow. But it's opposite what would be the case on a solid surface. So, chalk that point up for the anti-SUV crowd. I still think it's a silly argument. Pete |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message \
That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a significant impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra surface area helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little difference. Makes a big difference on packed snow and ice. Ice racers use inner tubes and run the tire pressures very low. Pump them up and they don't stick. moo |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-10-01, Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Morgans" said: and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive, so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows. Justice was served a couple of years ago in the Cottonwood Canyons (I don't remember which one, I think it was the one going to Brighton). Friends and I were carefully going up the canyon in a Volkswagon Jetta TDi with snow chains. The guy in the 4x4 behind us was obviously getting impatient, and went roaring by us. Half a mile later, we passed him - as he was trying to extract his truck from a ditch. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-10-01, Matt Whiting wrote:
Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them. However, they may tow it every weekend. Most folks with SUVs never tow anything at all. SUVs were popular where I used to live in Houston. I'd estimate from suburban driveways that about 1 in 10 SUVs ever towed anything at all, and about the same proportion ever used more than 4 seats - ever. Out of the 1 in 10 that had a trailer to pull, about half of those trailers could easily be towed safely by a normal midsize car. Most SUVs are bought not to offroad, tow, haul 7 passengers - but to look cool. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
TaxSrv wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote: Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit. Matt Sure, and Textron is profitable, but the impact of piston singles on their financials is insignificant, perhaps less than 1% of their $12 billion business. What I was trying to say is if they lose money on singles, as you theorize and so might I, they can still have a business reason to tolerate it and not uncommon in industry at all. In their latest annual report, they mention the singles only in passing, but as opposed to lengthy discussion of jets and other product lines, they don't state the amount of "segment profit" on the piston products. Maybe there ain't any? OK, I see what you were saying. I suspect it is mainly based on the personal desires of some Cessna executives as well as a marketing/strategic purpose to build brand loyalty in pilots early. I don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that catapulted Cessna to the top of the bizjet market relatively quickly. I suspect it was also at least partly due to all of the pilots trained in Cessna's who now fly for, or own, many of the companies that fly Cessna jets. Matt |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... [...] That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a significant impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra surface area helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little difference. Actually, we're both incorrect. My statement was based on a theoretical understanding of friction in which the friction depends on the force over an area. Since tire pressure directly determines this, I assumed it had a direct effect on friction. I don't recall area being a part of the thoeretical equation. My Physics book says that F=uN, where F is the total force due to friction, u (mu) is the coefficient of static or dynamic friction as the case may be, and N is the normal force holding the two surfaces together. Area isn't part of the equation. Now there are materials reasons that area does have an impact, that that isn't in the basic theory. I found at least one reference that says that physicists ignore the area over which the force is distributed, for the purpose of determining friction. It did say that's actually an incorrect assumption, but that it's "close enough" for most purposes. Actually, every reference I've ever seen ignores area, because it is only a factor in special circumstances and then it is related to the materials failing, not to the underlying theory of friction. I didn't bother to look further to see just how far off this "close enough" assumption is. The reference didn't go into much detail on that regard. That is because you are wrong and didn't want to further show that. Beyond that, the same reference also had a discussion of tires on snow, oddly enough (I wasn't even looking for that specifically). They claim that increased tire pressure actually *reduces* friction, because packed snow has lower friction than unpacked snow, and higher tire pressures result in greater packing of the snow. That is a somewhat specious description, but in any event tire pressure is at best a second or third order effect, it isn't a first order affect. So, tire pressure has a very significant effect on tire friction when driving on snow. But it's opposite what would be the case on a solid surface. So, chalk that point up for the anti-SUV crowd. Still wrong. Tire pressure is little affect. I still think it's a silly argument. Yes, when I'm shown to be wrong, I usually think it was a silly argument at that point as well. :-) Matt |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Dog wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message \ That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a significant impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra surface area helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little difference. Makes a big difference on packed snow and ice. Ice racers use inner tubes and run the tire pressures very low. Pump them up and they don't stick. Most also use studs or spikes. :-) Matt |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2005-10-01, Matt Whiting wrote: Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them. However, they may tow it every weekend. Most folks with SUVs never tow anything at all. SUVs were popular where I used to live in Houston. I'd estimate from suburban driveways that about 1 in 10 SUVs ever towed anything at all, and about the same proportion ever used more than 4 seats - ever. Out of the 1 in 10 that had a trailer to pull, about half of those trailers could easily be towed safely by a normal midsize car. Most SUVs are bought not to offroad, tow, haul 7 passengers - but to look cool. I can't speak for TX as I don't live there, but I don't think your stats hold true in PA. Matt |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Not to mention:
C130 C141 C5 C17 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1/72 Cessna 300, 400 series scale models | Ale | Owning | 3 | October 22nd 13 03:40 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Wow - heard on the air... (long) | Nathan Young | Piloting | 68 | July 25th 05 06:51 PM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |