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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
SAFE Winch Launching and automatic gearboxes
At 01:45 21 July 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 18:15 20 July 2009, bildan wrote: Constant tension during the climb phase is exactly what you want. Read George Moore's article in this month's Soaring Magazine. Tension telemetry is a great idea - someone please build it. A kite string or a winch rope forms a catenary arc due to it's weight and air drag. The tension on each end of a catenary arc is the same except for the rope/string weight difference if the ends are at different heights. If 2000 feet of Plasma rope were hanging vertically the tension due to its weight is zero at the bottom and only 20 pounds at the top - that difference doesn't matter much. I think we have established two facts, firstly that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the operation of a Skylaunch winch so I think your opinions on that subject can be safely ignored. I have driven many types of winch, for many hours, including the Skylaunch and I know that it works extremely well with none of the "faults" that you imagine it has. It is not the best winch I have ever driven but it is very close and the MVG is not an affordable option for most UK clubs. The MVG is also too complicated for use at most clubs, too many advance features. Now consider the following case. A glider at the top of the launch, the cable is exerting a force on the release hook of x pounds which you deem to be tension. This force is due almost entirely to the weight of the steel cable and is considerable. At the winch end the cable is being retrieved very slowly or not at all, the measurable tension at that end is close to or maybe even equal to 0. The force exerted at either end of the cable is totally different, that is the extreme case of course but, as a glider climbs the "tension" or force exerted on the release will increase as the glider takes more of the weight of the cable. Please explain how this increase can be measured or taken into account at the winch end. Please do not evade the question by discussing plastic rope. All the winches I have ever driven or observed have had something which takes care of the changing circumstances very well, we call that something a driver and a skilled driver does not need gizzmos to give a good launch. I am fast coming to the conclusion that the real problem here is that you are actually afraid of winch launching and if that is the case, don't do it. I note that you appear to have no answer to my questions, I can only conclude that you don't know the answer |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
SAFE Winch Launching and automatic gearboxes
Del C wrote:
..... Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is no good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at least until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines came along to defend them. .... Derek Copeland This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the War materiel support and post-war aid that the USA provided Europe, and in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the same heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while..... Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage: try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took TWELVE months.... Brian W |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
SAFE Winch Launching and automatic gearboxes
I should point out that Hitler gave up trying to invade the UK after the
Battle of Britain in 1940 and tried to invade Russia instead, so we at least achieved a draw against Nazi Germany before the US even entered the war. What we would not have been able to do without US help was to re-invade Europe in 1944, so the French have much more to thank you and us for, not that they generally show it! The Spitfire was initially built at Supermarine in Southampton and was developed before the war started, so less urgency in peacetime. It also incorporated a lot of new technology for the time and was somewhat more complicated to build than the Hawker Hurricane, which was available in much greater numbers at the time of the Battle of Britain, and in reality shot down far more German aircraft than the Spitfire. The Castle Bromwich works near Birmingham involved building an entire new factory, so it is not surprising that it took twelve months to come on line. See: http://tinyurl.com/5pfk6f Derek Copeland At 00:20 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote: Del C wrote: ..... Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is no good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at least until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines came along to defend them. .... Derek Copeland This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the War materiel support and post-war aid that the USA provided Europe, and in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the same heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while..... Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage: try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took TWELVE months.... Brian W |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
SAFE Winch Launching and automatic gearboxes
I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to meet a
UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that, as it was deemed to be grossly under powered. It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they American or British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then became the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war. Cheres Pete h At 05:45 25 July 2009, Derek Copeland wrote: I should point out that Hitler gave up trying to invade the UK after the Battle of Britain in 1940 and tried to invade Russia instead, so we at least achieved a draw against Nazi Germany before the US even entered the war. What we would not have been able to do without US help was to re-invade Europe in 1944, so the French have much more to thank you and us for, not that they generally show it! The Spitfire was initially built at Supermarine in Southampton and was developed before the war started, so less urgency in peacetime. It also incorporated a lot of new technology for the time and was somewhat more complicated to build than the Hawker Hurricane, which was available in much greater numbers at the time of the Battle of Britain, and in reality shot down far more German aircraft than the Spitfire. The Castle Bromwich works near Birmingham involved building an entire new factory, so it is not surprising that it took twelve months to come on line. See: http://tinyurl.com/5pfk6f Derek Copeland At 00:20 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote: Del C wrote: ..... Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is no good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at least until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines came along to defend them. .... Derek Copeland This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the War materiel support and post-war aid that the USA provided Europe, and in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the same heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while..... Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage: try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took TWELVE months.... Brian W |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
SAFE Winch Launching and automatic gearboxes
On Jul 25, 4:30*am, Peter Hardman wrote:
I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to meet a UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that, as it was deemed to be grossly under powered. *It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they American or British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then became the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war. Cheres Pete h At 05:45 25 July 2009, Derek Copeland wrote: I should point out that Hitler gave up trying to invade the UK after the Battle of Britain in 1940 and tried to invade Russia instead, so we at least achieved a draw against Nazi Germany before the US even entered the war. What we would not have been able to do without US help was to re-invade Europe in 1944, so the French have much more to thank you and us for, not that they generally show it! The Spitfire was initially built at Supermarine in Southampton and was developed before the war started, so less urgency in peacetime. It also incorporated a lot of new technology for the time and was somewhat more complicated to build than the Hawker Hurricane, which was available in much greater numbers at the time of the Battle of Britain, and in reality shot down far more German aircraft than the Spitfire. The Castle Bromwich works near Birmingham involved building an entire new factory, so it is not surprising that it took twelve months to come on line. See: http://tinyurl.com/5pfk6f Derek Copeland At 00:20 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote: Del C wrote: ..... Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is no good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at least until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines came along to defend them. .... Derek Copeland This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the War materiel support and *post-war aid that the USA provided Europe, and in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the same heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while..... *Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage: try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took TWELVE months.... Brian W Well if British technology is so superior, why do none of your winches use Rover or British Leyland engines??? :-) Can we get this ****ing match focused back on winches please? Pete |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
SAFE Winch Launching and automatic gearboxes
At 12:30 25 July 2009, vontresc wrote: Well if British technology is so superior, why do none of your winches use Rover or British Leyland engines??? :-) Basically because they are too small, due to our Government's punative taxes on motor fuels, which means we can't afford to run cars with big gas guzzling engines. 4.2 litre Jaguar engines and 3.5 litre Rover V8 engines have been used in winches in the past, but they are not powerful enough to launch the modern big heavy glass two-seaters. Derek Copeland |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
OT WWII Memoirs (was SAFE Winch Launching ...)
The Spitfire was a fine air defence fighter - flown by young men who
could fly several sorties over the Home Counties, then head out to the local pubs in the evening, to party. The Spitfire could not defend the heavy bombers needed to destroy the German war production effort. It had no legs.This role was meat and potatoes for the Mustang, once the American troops learned the need for flying high cover on those long range missions. Before I provoke even more hollow patriotism of the kind I already see too often in the US, I had better mention that I worked at Serck in the Tyseley (Greet) plant that made the Spitfire heat exchangers, and flew from Biggin where those boys sortied, and raised a glass in the same pub, and I was a member of the street picnics held all over the country to celebrate victory long years after hiding with my Mother under the kitchen table while being bombed, unlike I suppose, any of the "patriots" currently responding. Brian Whatcott Altus OK Peter Hardman wrote: I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to meet a UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that, as it was deemed to be grossly under powered. It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they American or British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then became the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war. Cheres Pete h At 05:45 25 July 2009, Derek Copeland wrote: I should point out that Hitler gave up trying to invade the UK after the Battle of Britain in 1940 and tried to invade Russia instead, so we at least achieved a draw against Nazi Germany before the US even entered the war. What we would not have been able to do without US help was to re-invade Europe in 1944, so the French have much more to thank you and us for, not that they generally show it! The Spitfire was initially built at Supermarine in Southampton and was developed before the war started, so less urgency in peacetime. It also incorporated a lot of new technology for the time and was somewhat more complicated to build than the Hawker Hurricane, which was available in much greater numbers at the time of the Battle of Britain, and in reality shot down far more German aircraft than the Spitfire. The Castle Bromwich works near Birmingham involved building an entire new factory, so it is not surprising that it took twelve months to come on line. See: http://tinyurl.com/5pfk6f Derek Copeland At 00:20 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote: Del C wrote: ..... Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is no good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at least until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines came along to defend them. .... Derek Copeland This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the War materiel support and post-war aid that the USA provided Europe, and in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the same heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while..... Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage: try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took TWELVE months.... Brian W OT |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
SAFE Winch Launching and automatic gearboxes
On Jul 25, 7:15*am, Del C wrote:
At 12:30 25 July 2009, vontresc wrote: Well if British technology is so superior, why do none of your winches use Rover or British Leyland engines??? :-) Basically because they are too small, due to our Government's punative taxes on motor fuels, which means we can't afford to run cars with big gas guzzling engines. 4.2 litre Jaguar engines and 3.5 litre Rover V8 engines have been used in winches in the past, but they are not powerful enough to launch the modern big heavy glass two-seaters. Derek Copeland The Rover V8 started as the Buick 215, later modified by Rover. My old SD1 was quite fast. Frank Whiteley |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
OT WWII Memoirs (was SAFE Winch Launching ...)
We Brits get tired of always being airbrushed out of history by Hollywood.
For example there were more British and British Commonwealth (e.g. Australians, Canadians) troops involved in the D Day landings than US troops, but you might not have noticed this if you watch 'Saving Private Ryan' and many other similar movies. Throughout WW2 we bombed Germany by night without fighter cover, using bombers such as the Lancaster and the Mosquito, which where less heavily amoured than a B17, but could carry a much greater weight of bombs as a result. In fact even the little unarmed twin engined Mosquito bombers made out of plywood could carry more bombs than a B17. I believe that they didn't show up very well on radar because of their construction, so they were probably the original 'stealth bomber' On entering the European war the USAAF was warned by the RAF that daylight bombing raids over Germany would be pretty suicidal, as they had already found out the hard way, but of course the Americans (as usual) thought they knew best and had better technology. The rest, Schweinfurt etc, is history! I have to say however that the US bomber crews who took part in such raids must have been very brave men, knowing that their tight, straight and level formations where sitting ducks for German radar predictive flak guns and a well organised fighter force. It was only towards the end of the war when the Mustangs shot down many German fighters that the odds became a little more favourable for them. Derek Copeland At 14:14 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote: The Spitfire was a fine air defence fighter - flown by young men who could fly several sorties over the Home Counties, then head out to the local pubs in the evening, to party. The Spitfire could not defend the heavy bombers needed to destroy the German war production effort. It had no legs.This role was meat and potatoes for the Mustang, once the American troops learned the need for flying high cover on those long range missions. Before I provoke even more hollow patriotism of the kind I already see too often in the US, I had better mention that I worked at Serck in the Tyseley (Greet) plant that made the Spitfire heat exchangers, and flew from Biggin where those boys sortied, and raised a glass in the same pub, and I was a member of the street picnics held all over the country to celebrate victory long years after hiding with my Mother under the kitchen table while being bombed, unlike I suppose, any of the "patriots" currently responding. Brian Whatcott Altus OK Peter Hardman wrote: I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to meet a UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that, as it was deemed to be grossly under powered. It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they American or British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then became the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war. Cheers Pete h |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
OT WWII Memoirs (was SAFE Winch Launching ...)
We Brits get tired of always being airbrushed out of history by Hollywood.
For example there were more British and British Commonwealth (e.g. Australians, Canadians) troops involved in the D Day landings than US troops, but you might not have noticed this if you watch 'Saving Private Ryan' and many other similar movies. Throughout WW2 we bombed Germany by night without fighter cover, using bombers such as the Lancaster and the Mosquito, which where less heavily amoured than a B17, but could carry a much greater weight of bombs as a result. In fact even the little unarmed twin engined Mosquito bombers made out of plywood could carry more bombs than a B17. I believe that they didn't show up very well on radar because of their construction, so they were probably the original 'stealth bomber' On entering the European war the USAAF was warned by the RAF that daylight bombing raids over Germany would be pretty suicidal, as they had already found out the hard way, but of course the Americans (as usual) thought they knew best and had better technology. The rest, Schweinfurt etc, is history! I have to say however that the US bomber crews who took part in such raids must have been very brave men, knowing that their tight, straight and level formations where sitting ducks for German radar predictive flak guns and a well organised fighter force. It was only towards the end of the war when the Mustangs shot down many German fighters that the odds became a little more favourable for them. Derek Copeland At 14:14 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote: The Spitfire was a fine air defence fighter - flown by young men who could fly several sorties over the Home Counties, then head out to the local pubs in the evening, to party. The Spitfire could not defend the heavy bombers needed to destroy the German war production effort. It had no legs.This role was meat and potatoes for the Mustang, once the American troops learned the need for flying high cover on those long range missions. Before I provoke even more hollow patriotism of the kind I already see too often in the US, I had better mention that I worked at Serck in the Tyseley (Greet) plant that made the Spitfire heat exchangers, and flew from Biggin where those boys sortied, and raised a glass in the same pub, and I was a member of the street picnics held all over the country to celebrate victory long years after hiding with my Mother under the kitchen table while being bombed, unlike I suppose, any of the "patriots" currently responding. Brian Whatcott Altus OK Peter Hardman wrote: I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to meet a UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that, as it was deemed to be grossly under powered. It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they American or British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then became the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war. Cheers Pete h |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Winch Launching in US | john hawkins | Soaring | 11 | June 10th 09 12:18 PM |
Winch Launching | Rolf | Soaring | 27 | January 7th 09 02:48 AM |
Ka8b winch launching | Jimmie L. Coulthard | Soaring | 11 | September 9th 08 08:38 AM |
Aerotow Fuel Costs & Winch Launching | Derek Copeland[_2_] | Soaring | 2 | May 26th 08 03:14 PM |
LIppmann reports a 950 meter winch launch with their Dynatec winch line - anything higher? | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 20 | December 27th 04 12:33 AM |