Global Flyer

Montblack wrote:
("Rich S." wrote)

What design considerations would come into play for homebuilt aircraft in
that environment? Recycling of worn-out or abandoned equipment would
reduce the cost.



Making mine out of gold foil. It's expensive, but easy to work with.

Hey, Part 103 is still 254 lbs. That's a Warrior up here :-)

Yeah, but your Warrior wings aren't going to do you any good up there.
Nor will your prop. Or your Lycoming. You may also want consider
upgrading to a pressurised ship. :-)

Montblack wrote:
("Rich S." wrote)

What design considerations would come into play for homebuilt aircraft in
that environment? Recycling of worn-out or abandoned equipment would
reduce the cost.



Making mine out of gold foil. It's expensive, but easy to work with.

Hey, Part 103 is still 254 lbs. That's a Warrior up here :-)

The best part is the key word in Part 103 is "weighs." There is an
important semantic difference between weight and mass, because 254
lbs weight in lunar gravity is quite a bit more airplane than 254 lbs
weight on earth... so much for the need for sport plane/sport pilot!

In article ,
Blueskies wrote:

"COLIN LAMB" wrote in message
link.net...

But, he does get credit for doing an outside loop.

Colin N12HS



A 1 G positive outside loop - that is a record in itself!

Nope. *THAT* has been done before. Many times.

B-1B crews did it in 1997.

Rutan's "Voyager" did it, with a 2-person crew, in 1986.

B-52 crews did it in 1980.

But the _first_ "1 G positive outside loop" was flown in NINETEEN FORTY NINE.
Feb.26 - March 2, to be precise. A Strategic Air Command B-50A, the "Lucky
Lady II". Flight duration: 94 hrs, 1 min.
cite: http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/chrono.htm

As for records: not only did they execute the loop, but they did four in-flight
refuelings *during* the maneuver!

Now, how many people do you know that can brag of *that*? grin

"Frank van der Hulst" wrote in message
...

Yeah, but your Warrior wings aren't going to do you any good up there. Nor
will your prop. Or your Lycoming. You may also want consider upgrading to
a pressurised ship. :-)

So . . . What are you going to use for thrust?

Rich S.

I am an engineer, and there is definitely a distinction between weight and
mass. Weight is a force, mass is a physical property of matter.

A spring scale measures weight (force) by referencing the objects weight to
a spring that exerts a force.

A balance measures mass by referencing a known mass to to mass being
measured. You can also determine the weight if you are measuring at 1G
since you know the weight of the known mass.

On the moon, the balance will give you the same results as on earth. The
spring scale won't...

Dean

Dean
"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
In normal everyday usage, weight is not the force due to gravity, it's the
amount of matter in the object you are referring to (aka mass). Check the
label on any product at the grocery store, it lists the net weight of the
product, not the mass. Only in engineering and scientific circles is there
any distinction made between the two terms, and that's only because some
scientist in the distant past was too lazy to come up with a new term for
"the force due to gravity". Long before spring scales were invented,
everything was "weighed" on a balance by comparing it to known standard
weights. A balance does not measure force. You can be certain that any
legal
document that refers to weight is not referring to any kind of force.

in article , Jim Carriere at
am wrote on 3/3/05 2:09 AM:

Montblack wrote:
("Rich S." wrote)

What design considerations would come into play for homebuilt aircraft
in
that environment? Recycling of worn-out or abandoned equipment would
reduce the cost.



Making mine out of gold foil. It's expensive, but easy to work with.

Hey, Part 103 is still 254 lbs. That's a Warrior up here :-)

The best part is the key word in Part 103 is "weighs." There is an
important semantic difference between weight and mass, because 254
lbs weight in lunar gravity is quite a bit more airplane than 254 lbs
weight on earth... so much for the need for sport plane/sport pilot!

--
Bryan Martin

Bryan Martin wrote:
In normal everyday usage, weight is not the force due to gravity, it's the
amount of matter in the object you are referring to (aka mass). Check the
label on any product at the grocery store, it lists the net weight of the
product, not the mass. Only in engineering and scientific circles is there
any distinction made between the two terms, and that's only because some
scientist in the distant past was too lazy to come up with a new term for
"the force due to gravity". Long before spring scales were invented,
everything was "weighed" on a balance by comparing it to known standard
weights. A balance does not measure force. You can be certain that any legal
document that refers to weight is not referring to any kind of force.

We'll just have to wait and see how the lunar courts choose to
interpret Part 103! The moon will become the new home for the "fat"
ultralights

On second thought, do we really want lawyers on the moon? That could
be opening the door to frivolous product liability lawsuits. Will
manufacturers be held accountable when, I'm just supposing here,
their airplanes malfunction without an atmosphere?

"Robert Bonomi" wrote

As for records: not only did they execute the loop, but they did four
in-flight
refuelings *during* the maneuver!

Now, how many people do you know that can brag of *that*? grin
++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sure Zoomie has done that several times! g
--
Jim in NC

Bryan Martin wrote:

In normal everyday usage, weight is not the force due to gravity, it's the
amount of matter in the object you are referring to (aka mass). Check the
label on any product at the grocery store, it lists the net weight of the
product, not the mass. Only in engineering and scientific circles is there
any distinction made between the two terms, and that's only because some
scientist in the distant past was too lazy to come up with a new term for
"the force due to gravity". Long before spring scales were invented,
everything was "weighed" on a balance by comparing it to known standard
weights. A balance does not measure force. You can be certain that any legal
document that refers to weight is not referring to any kind of force.

Yes, weight is the force due to gravity. What is wrong with listing the
net weight of the grocery product? Since scales are a common method of
determining the amount of many products, what purpose would there be to
listing the mass of the products?

Weight is the force due to gravity, so why do we need another term? And
if we had another term, why would we need weight?


Matt

Now how about if you guys quit that "my father is stronger than yours" game,
take a walk to the hangar and fly a litlle bit

Good flight

J.P.
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Bryan Martin wrote:

In normal everyday usage, weight is not the force due to gravity, it's
the
amount of matter in the object you are referring to (aka mass). Check
the
label on any product at the grocery store, it lists the net weight of
the
product, not the mass. Only in engineering and scientific circles is
there
any distinction made between the two terms, and that's only because some
scientist in the distant past was too lazy to come up with a new term
for
"the force due to gravity". Long before spring scales were invented,
everything was "weighed" on a balance by comparing it to known standard
weights. A balance does not measure force. You can be certain that any
legal
document that refers to weight is not referring to any kind of force.

Yes, weight is the force due to gravity. What is wrong with listing the
net weight of the grocery product? Since scales are a common method of
determining the amount of many products, what purpose would there be to
listing the mass of the products?

Weight is the force due to gravity, so why do we need another term? And
if we had another term, why would we need weight?


Matt

Jim Carriere wrote:

We'll just have to wait and see how the lunar courts choose to
interpret Part 103! The moon will become the new home for the "fat"
ultralights

You might wanna check the service ceiling on them before shuttling
them up to the moon though - I suspect the density altitude is above
most UL's service ceiling (have to get an altimeter calibrated from
infinity down to infinity minus 10 feet).

Mark "the prop's gonna be a problem too" Hickey