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 |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
aerodynamics of gliding
A physicist acquantance who wrote a book on Newton and aerodynamics said
that the mathematics was taken over from electrical theory because the equations balanced, but that they don't explain what is cause and what is effect. That's the feeling I get when you start talking about something called theta as if it were proof. Seems to me we have a new theology going here -- something akin to pre-milleniumism versus post-milleniumism. At 13:29 20 March 2009, wrote: You guys have proven 2 fundamental truths. 1) In any engineering discussion. If you don't define terms at the start, you just chase yourself around in a circle. 2) Pilots don't need to know much about aerodyanmics to fly well. Oh yeah, 3) Flight instructors explain these things more to make a point than to be accurate :-) Todd Smith 3S |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Aerodynamics of Towing
On 20 Mar, 14:38, Doug Hoffman wrote:
The Real Doctor wrote: On 20 Mar, 01:39, Doug Hoffman wrote: And lift(as we are using the term) without gravity is not possible. Aircraft in a 90 degree bank can still produce lift ... Without gravity how will you get the glider into a bank (or even to move)? *Answer = not possible. An engine. You'll notice that I wrote "aircraft" and not "gliders"... Ian |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Aerodynamics of Towing
On Mar 19, 6:08 pm, Doug Hoffman wrote:
I just wish the US would perform its conversion to metric units for *everything*. The sooner the better. But that job is being handled by our highly efficient government. Don't hold your breath. :-) Kind of a hijack, but what I wish is that aircraft hardware manufacturers would get their crap together and produce a coherent metric equivalent of the AN system of common aircraft hardware. The magic of the AN hardware system is not that they offer any particularly high strength (they don't; for the most part AN bolts are equivalent to Grade 5 hardware store bolts) or any particularly high precision (again, they're about the same as the bolts at Ace or True Value). The magic is that AN bolts have just enough thread for a nut and somewhere between 0" and about 0.125" of washers, and that they come in length increments of 0.125". Those two elements let you create a nice, tidy bolted joint of virtually any practical grip length, and not have the threaded portion of the bolt loaded in shear, and not have a bunch of threads hanging out of the nut. Furthermore, common AN hardware is very attractively priced, for the most part you can buy them from any of several aircraft parts outlets at the same or even lower prices as Grade 5 bolts at a mom&pop hardware store. By contrast, metric aircraft hardware has no coherent system of markings, thread lengths, and grip lengths. It averages twice or thrice the cost of AN hardware when you can find it, and is available from only a few outlets. When you need a replacement bolt for your European aircraft, you have virtually no choice but to order it directly from the manufacturer at huge markups and with huge shipping charges. I like the metric system, and I like metric hardware. I appreciate that even American cars are, by and large, assembled with metric nuts and bolts these days. But given the choice between about $500 worth of AN hardware per aircraft and twice or thrice that in metric nuts and bolts that offer no greater utility, hmmm, I think I'll go with the less expensive option. End rant. Thanks, Bob K. http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24 |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Metric Hardware ( was Aerodynamics of Towing)
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:08 pm, Doug Hoffman wrote: I just wish the US would perform its conversion to metric units for *everything*. The sooner the better. But that job is being handled by our highly efficient government. Don't hold your breath. :-) Kind of a hijack, but what I wish is that aircraft hardware manufacturers would get their crap together and produce a coherent metric equivalent of the AN system of common aircraft hardware. The magic of the AN hardware system is not that they offer any particularly high strength (they don't; for the most part AN bolts are equivalent to Grade 5 hardware store bolts) or any particularly high precision (again, they're about the same as the bolts at Ace or True Value). The magic is that AN bolts have just enough thread for a nut and somewhere between 0" and about 0.125" of washers, and that they come in length increments of 0.125". Those two elements let you create a nice, tidy bolted joint of virtually any practical grip length, and not have the threaded portion of the bolt loaded in shear, and not have a bunch of threads hanging out of the nut. Furthermore, common AN hardware is very attractively priced, for the most part you can buy them from any of several aircraft parts outlets at the same or even lower prices as Grade 5 bolts at a mom&pop hardware store. By contrast, metric aircraft hardware has no coherent system of markings, thread lengths, and grip lengths. It averages twice or thrice the cost of AN hardware when you can find it, and is available from only a few outlets. When you need a replacement bolt for your European aircraft, you have virtually no choice but to order it directly from the manufacturer at huge markups and with huge shipping charges. I like the metric system, and I like metric hardware. I appreciate that even American cars are, by and large, assembled with metric nuts and bolts these days. But given the choice between about $500 worth of AN hardware per aircraft and twice or thrice that in metric nuts and bolts that offer no greater utility, hmmm, I think I'll go with the less expensive option. End rant. Hi Bob, Yes. There may be some niche areas like aircraft hardware that would at least require legacy support for a period of years. Makes me wonder what Boeing/Cessna and others are doing now and plan to do in the future in that respect. Regards, -Doug Btw, American designed cars and trucks do more than just assemble with metric fasteners. Nominal dimensions are typically, e.g., 100 mm for a bracket width instead of 4.0". We call that "hard metric" design. Some user interface items like wheel lug nuts may still be SAE. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Metric Hardware ( was Aerodynamics of Towing)
On Mar 20, 4:58*pm, Doug Hoffman wrote:
Bob Kuykendall wrote: On Mar 19, 6:08 pm, Doug Hoffman wrote: I just wish the US would perform its conversion to metric units for *everything*. *The sooner the better. *But that job is being handled by our highly efficient government. *Don't hold your breath. *:-) Kind of a hijack, but what I wish is that aircraft hardware manufacturers would get their crap together and produce a coherent metric equivalent of the AN system of common aircraft hardware. The magic of the AN hardware system is not that they offer any particularly high strength (they don't; for the most part AN bolts are equivalent to Grade 5 hardware store bolts) or any particularly high precision (again, they're about the same as the bolts at Ace or True Value). The magic is that AN bolts have just enough thread for a nut and somewhere between 0" and about 0.125" of washers, and that they come in length increments of 0.125". Those two elements let you create a nice, tidy bolted joint of virtually any practical grip length, and not have the threaded portion of the bolt loaded in shear, and not have a bunch of threads hanging out of the nut. Furthermore, common AN hardware is very attractively priced, for the most part you can buy them from any of several aircraft parts outlets at the same or even lower prices as Grade 5 bolts at a mom&pop hardware store. By contrast, metric aircraft hardware has no coherent system of markings, thread lengths, and grip lengths. It averages twice or thrice the cost of AN hardware when you can find it, and is available from only a few outlets. When you need a replacement bolt for your European aircraft, you have virtually no choice but to order it directly from the manufacturer at huge markups and with huge shipping charges. I like the metric system, and I like metric hardware. I appreciate that even American cars are, by and large, assembled with metric nuts and bolts these days. But given the choice between about $500 worth of AN hardware per aircraft and twice or thrice that in metric nuts and bolts that offer no greater utility, hmmm, I think I'll go with the less expensive option. End rant. Hi Bob, Yes. *There may be some niche areas like aircraft hardware that would at least require legacy support for a period of years. *Makes me wonder what Boeing/Cessna and others are doing now and plan to do in the future in that respect. Regards, -Doug Btw, American designed cars and trucks do more than just assemble with metric fasteners. *Nominal dimensions are typically, e.g., 100 mm for a bracket width instead of 4.0". *We call that "hard metric" design. *Some user interface items like wheel lug nuts may still be SAE.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - While we're 'Ranting'.... Bob, that would be nice, wouldn't it? It took me 2 tries to get the right bolt from Grob when I went throught my control system a few years ago. DON'T get me started on US auto makers. I have two Dodge Trucks. I HATE the fact that evey time I get under one to work on it, I need to take BOTH metric and SAE tools. Pick a STANDARD! My favorite example was an exhaust stud on a 1998 Olds Intrigue. Engine side - SAE exhaust flange side - metric. Rant off. I feel better now. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
aerodynamics of gliding
On Mar 20, 1:32 am, The Real Doctor wrote:
Physicists, and particularly school physics teachers, traditionally get terribly upset by the idea of centrifugal force. Ian Physicsists make equally snarky comments about engineers, Ian. My engineering dynamics professor at UC, Berkeley was adamant in opposing the perpetuation of the centrifugal force myth. It's phony physics and can lead to seriously erroneous conclusions. Myles |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
aerodynamics of gliding
On 21 Mar, 05:21, Myles wrote:
On Mar 20, 1:32 am, The Real Doctor wrote: Physicists, and particularly school physics teachers, traditionally get terribly upset by the idea of centrifugal force. Physicsists make equally snarky comments about engineers, Ian. * Indeed. Bu hey, the mathematicians despise us all. My engineering dynamics professor at UC, Berkeley was *adamant in opposing the perpetuation of the centrifugal force myth. *It's phony physics and can lead to seriously erroneous conclusions. It's a perfectly useful tool if applied correctly. That normally means within a moving axis system, and getting there is not always simple. You always have to decide whether it's going to be easier overall to use the difficult model with the simple setup (stationary axes) or the simple model with the difficult setup (moving axes). It's the same in fluids - normally we model a glider by holding it still and letting the air move past, but that's not always the best way, or the easiest way. Mind you, I'm a typical lazy engineer, so for me best = easiest in about 99% of cases. Ian |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Metric Hardware ( was Aerodynamics of Towing)
On 21 Mar, 03:17, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
While we're 'Ranting'.... Bob, that would be nice, wouldn't it? *It took me 2 tries to get the right bolt from Grob when I went throught my control system a few years ago. You think that;s bad? Try getting specialist fasteners for old Polish gliders. Or, on the ground, getting fasteners in the odd 5mm-but-not- M5 thread that Citroen used. I've seen refurbished original Citroen nuts and bolts at €4 per item - not per set! Ian |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Metric Hardware ( was Aerodynamics of Towing)
At 11:44 21 March 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
You think that;s bad? Try getting specialist fasteners for old Polish gliders. Or, on the ground, getting fasteners in the odd 5mm-but-not- M5 thread that Citroen used. I've seen refurbished original Citroen nuts and bolts at =804 per item - not per set! I have to keep my Whitworth wrenches on hand when working on my Austin-Healey 100. Some of the basic stuff that came out of the parts bins, like suspension and transmission, uses Whitworth hardware, while the rest works with SAE stuff. It's still possible to buy Whitworth threaded fasteners, but you have to know where to look. Are there any British gliders left that are old enough to have used Whitworth hardware? Jim Beckman |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
aerodynamics of gliding
Myles wrote:
On Mar 20, 1:32 am, The Real Doctor wrote: ... My engineering dynamics professor at UC, Berkeley was adamant in opposing the perpetuation of the centrifugal force myth. It's phony physics and can lead to seriously erroneous conclusions. Yeah, yeah, centrifugal force is a reaction to a centripetal force, I know the difference,.... I don't care. The layman understands the former term and not the latter. To the typical student, I'll use the term "centrifugal". If he's a physicist, I'll say "centripetal". :-) Tony V. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seeking towplanes for Region 9 | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | May 17th 06 12:03 AM |
US:Restricted Towplanes | Judy Ruprecht | Soaring | 8 | November 5th 04 11:27 PM |
Standard Nationals Need Towplanes | C AnthMin | Soaring | 5 | July 14th 04 12:46 AM |
Take-upReels on Towplanes | Nyal Williams | Soaring | 9 | April 21st 04 12:39 AM |
Helicopters and Towplanes | Burt Compton | Soaring | 6 | September 11th 03 05:21 PM |