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 |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
Icebound,
Once having embarked upon it, however, we would like to get through it as safely as possible. :-) Frankly, that's most definitely not my primary goal in life. And it would make for an extremely boring life if it was. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
With NO changes in engine horsepower, NO changes in wing design, NO
changes in nothing else except a net NEGATIVE CHANGE in rudder area ... How (in an engineering sense) did they do that? Jim, it's an FAA thing. 'Nuff said. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-08-25, RST Engineering wrote:
With NO changes in engine horsepower, NO changes in wing design, NO changes in nothing else except a net NEGATIVE CHANGE in rudder area ... How (in an engineering sense) did they do that? There was another change - limiting the flap extension (IIRC) from 40 degrees to 30 degrees. Part of what decides gross weight is go around performance with full flaps. You can get a 100lb gross weight increase in some models of C172 just by limiting the flap extension to 30 degrees with a plate that prevents you moving the flap switch past the 30 degrees setting. -- 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" |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote: How (in an engineering sense) did they do that? Jim They got out their little engineers eraser and engineers pencil and changed the numbers. The 30 degree flaps didn't come along until way late in the 182's life...gross was up over 3000 pounds, IIRC, before the flaps were limited. -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Dylan Smith wrote: On 2005-08-25, RST Engineering wrote: With NO changes in engine horsepower, NO changes in wing design, NO changes in nothing else except a net NEGATIVE CHANGE in rudder area ... How (in an engineering sense) did they do that? There was another change - limiting the flap extension (IIRC) from 40 degrees to 30 degrees. No 182 is limited to 30 degrees. |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:17:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote: snip It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches farther aft too because the tail weighs more. Gotcha...I was thinking of something else and did a reference fart. There are 33s and then there are 33s and there is a big difference between useful load and CG. Early 33s (prior to 74) had roughly a 100# useful load while those after had a 1400# useful load. I don't know about the ones near the end of the production run. With the early ones you didn't have much worry about CG change with fuel burn either. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:18:25 -0400, Roger
wrote: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:17:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow" wrote: snip It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches farther aft too because the tail weighs more. Gotcha...I was thinking of something else and did a reference fart. There are 33s and then there are 33s and there is a big difference between useful load and CG. Early 33s (prior to 74) had roughly a 100# useful load while those after had a 1400# useful load. I don't Oops... That 1000# versus 1400#, but I'd guess every one figured that out any way:-)) Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com know about the ones near the end of the production run. With the early ones you didn't have much worry about CG change with fuel burn either. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger" wrote in message ... On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:18:25 -0400, Roger wrote: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:17:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow" wrote: snip It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches farther aft too because the tail weighs more. Gotcha...I was thinking of something else and did a reference fart. There are 33s and then there are 33s and there is a big difference between useful load and CG. Early 33s (prior to 74) had roughly a 100# useful load while those after had a 1400# useful load. I don't Oops... That 1000# versus 1400#, but I'd guess every one figured that out any way:-)) I understand the 33's with a IO-550 and Turbonormalizer max out at something like 3750 MTOW and have about 1350 useful load. The heavier weight from the engine & turbo do nice things for the CG, too. Add an oxygen system (installed under the co-pilots) seat and it's even better. -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time, running out of fuel and fuel gauges | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 29 | February 3rd 08 07:04 PM |
Engine running again, the good, bad and ugly | Corky Scott | Home Built | 34 | July 6th 05 05:04 PM |
It's finally running! | Corky Scott | Home Built | 19 | April 29th 05 04:53 PM |
Rotax 503 won't stop running | Tracy | Home Built | 2 | March 28th 04 04:56 PM |
Leaving all engines running at the gate | John | Piloting | 12 | February 5th 04 03:46 AM |