For the real engineers here

"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

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

Liar.




k00k.




bertie

"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

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. :-)

"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.

"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

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.

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.

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

"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