Confessions of a Dumb Guy

Most of you have never heard of Vernon Payne. He's best known as the designer
of a spiffy little biplane called the Knight Twister. Rag & tube fuselage,
solid spruce spars, plywood skins on cantilevered wings. Slicker than snot on
a door knob. First flew about 1929 and continues doing so today and very well,
too. Ask him nice, Vern would build you a set of wings. Fuselage, too.

For a short while when he was moving out of his place north of Escondido I
worked for Vernon. Not what you'd call a real job even though the sweat was
real enough. Mostly helping him prepare for the move, which involved finishing
a set a wings he was working on, prepping a fuselage and other minor chores.

Skinning a wing, Vern soaked each piece of plywood, fitted it to the wing and
let it dry in place. The old barn we worked in was good for that sort of
thing, hot and dry and no distractions other than Taddy, the shop cat who like
to watch.

After the ply had dried to the required shape Vern would check the fit with a
bit of chalk, make any adjustments. The fitted panels of the beautiful
double-tapered wings were glued all at once using Weldwood ‘Plastic Resin'
and nailing strips. Lots of nailing strips, most of which were also pre-molded
to match their particular rib, both of us working away with our tiny tack
hammers, taking our time but not wasting any, doing it right so we wouldn't
have to do it over.

And we'd talk. Vern had boots that was older than me but I wasn't no kid; I
knew who Gilmore was and the joke about aviation-grade horsemeat, which meant
Vern could talk without having to explain every other word. I suspect he
needed the companionship as much as the help, working all alone out there in
that old barn north of Escondido, having to finish those wings and move a
life-time of stuff because the Yuppies were kicking him out.

I usually had a sketch book with me, a life-long habit. Vern didn't like it
when he saw me sketching the engine arrangement of his latest project, a
two-place VW powered thing he called the Dolphin. I gave him the book, told
him to tear out anything he didn't want me to have. He flipped through it and
saw Taddy curled up atop the blueprint cabinet and a chiaroscuro study created
by a slice of sunlight falling across a steel tube fuselage. And of Vern too,
bent over the wing, pensive look on his face as he examines a tip rib smaller
than a pocket ruler. He gave me back the sketch book, didn't tear anything
out.

We got to talking about landing gear, which kind was best; that sort of thing.
It was an interesting subject to me because I'd just made a composite gear leg
out of wood, fiberglas and good intentions that busted all to hell when I did a
drop-test. Vernon told me how the CAA used to have a standard formula for
acceptable landing gear strength and a drop-test calculation based on the gross
weight, a Jesus factor and the stalling speed of that particular aircraft.
Then he said, ‘I just used the worse-case, which was fifty inches.' Later, I
made a note of that on the corner of a sketch of a landing gear. - - Worse
case = 50" - - I don't know exactly when that was. Back in the eighties.

About three years ago I wanted to compare the performance of different types of
landing gear for a particular design and made up a drop-tester that allowed
precise control of the height and the angle at which the wheel contacted the
ground. The gear leg bolted to a plate on the end of a long arm that was
raised by a little derrick using a screw-thread winch off a boat trailer. I
used a glider hook as the release mechanism and welded a tray to the top of the
arm so I could stack on plates of lead and scrap iron for the weight. It's
quite an affair. Really shook the ground when it hit. And busted everything I
tried. (Some of you may have seen pictures of the knee-action gear leg I
posted over on the Fly5k mailing list. There were a number of others. All
initially failed the drop-test.)

I soon became quite the expert at drop-testing. As I gained experience I began
to understand how the load enters into the structure and saw ways to make the
gear legs stronger without adding too much weight. But always some. It was
pretty obvious that most landing gear used on modern airplanes couldn't even
come close to that ancient CAA requirement. By the time I got something that
was strong enough to withstand the worse-case fifty-inch drop, it was huge.
And heavy. More suitable for the NYP with a full load of fuel than a
single-place do-it-yourself puddle jumper with a converted VW on the nose.
Fiberglas offered some advantages, as did oleo-pneumatic systems but their cost
and complexity put them far beyond the means of a first-time builder on a tight
budget. It was all rather discouraging.

A couple of days ago I was digging through a file looking for... I can't
remember what... when I came across a blurry copy of a 1930's article by Raoul
J. Hoffmann, the aeronautical engineer who crunched the numbers for Matty
Laird. Hoffman was one of my dad's heros and it was a good choice. The
article was titled ‘Landing Gear Shock Stresses' and included the usual
boilerplate formulae, a couple of graphs and a few column-inches of text. I'd
seen it before, hadn't looked at it too closely since I'd already decided to
emulate Vernon Payne's method of using the worse-case drop height. But as I
scanned the article something jumped out at me.

"...drop from a height in inches equal to .38 times the calculated stalling
speed in miles per hour... (but) ...not over 15 INCHES for conventional
airplanes."

FIFTEEN inches. Not fifty.

I sat down and ran the numbers. Maximum applied load not to exceed 5.5 times
the gross weight (I've been using 6.0). But the drop test need not exceed
FIFTEEN inches. I've been using fifty. No wonder my gear legs came out like
something off the Dreadnaught.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Taddy came to live with us after Vern and his wife moved into a place that
didn't allow pets. They would drop by now and then to say hello, more to Taddy
than us but they were nice visits. Vern passed away a few years ago but will
never be forgotten. His little bipe is a rare combination of art and science,
as was Vernon Payne himself.

Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
propellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.

-R.S.Hoover

Great tribute to the man.

There is a Twister (Nagle Twister, look in Reno race results) at 4n0 (Newman's Field) here in Kalamazoo, flown by Bill.
It is indeed a scooter.

--
Dan D.



..
"Veeduber" wrote in message ...
Most of you have never heard of Vernon Payne. He's best known as the designer
of a spiffy little biplane called the Knight Twister. Rag & tube fuselage,
solid spruce spars, plywood skins on cantilevered wings. Slicker than snot on
a door knob. First flew about 1929 and continues doing so today and very well,
too. Ask him nice, Vern would build you a set of wings. Fuselage, too.

For a short while when he was moving out of his place north of Escondido I
worked for Vernon. Not what you'd call a real job even though the sweat was
real enough. Mostly helping him prepare for the move, which involved finishing
a set a wings he was working on, prepping a fuselage and other minor chores.

Skinning a wing, Vern soaked each piece of plywood, fitted it to the wing and
let it dry in place. The old barn we worked in was good for that sort of
thing, hot and dry and no distractions other than Taddy, the shop cat who like
to watch.

After the ply had dried to the required shape Vern would check the fit with a
bit of chalk, make any adjustments. The fitted panels of the beautiful
double-tapered wings were glued all at once using Weldwood 'Plastic Resin'
and nailing strips. Lots of nailing strips, most of which were also pre-molded
to match their particular rib, both of us working away with our tiny tack
hammers, taking our time but not wasting any, doing it right so we wouldn't
have to do it over.

And we'd talk. Vern had boots that was older than me but I wasn't no kid; I
knew who Gilmore was and the joke about aviation-grade horsemeat, which meant
Vern could talk without having to explain every other word. I suspect he
needed the companionship as much as the help, working all alone out there in
that old barn north of Escondido, having to finish those wings and move a
life-time of stuff because the Yuppies were kicking him out.

I usually had a sketch book with me, a life-long habit. Vern didn't like it
when he saw me sketching the engine arrangement of his latest project, a
two-place VW powered thing he called the Dolphin. I gave him the book, told
him to tear out anything he didn't want me to have. He flipped through it and
saw Taddy curled up atop the blueprint cabinet and a chiaroscuro study created
by a slice of sunlight falling across a steel tube fuselage. And of Vern too,
bent over the wing, pensive look on his face as he examines a tip rib smaller
than a pocket ruler. He gave me back the sketch book, didn't tear anything
out.

We got to talking about landing gear, which kind was best; that sort of thing.
It was an interesting subject to me because I'd just made a composite gear leg
out of wood, fiberglas and good intentions that busted all to hell when I did a
drop-test. Vernon told me how the CAA used to have a standard formula for
acceptable landing gear strength and a drop-test calculation based on the gross
weight, a Jesus factor and the stalling speed of that particular aircraft.
Then he said, 'I just used the worse-case, which was fifty inches.' Later, I
made a note of that on the corner of a sketch of a landing gear. - - Worse
case = 50" - - I don't know exactly when that was. Back in the eighties.

About three years ago I wanted to compare the performance of different types of
landing gear for a particular design and made up a drop-tester that allowed
precise control of the height and the angle at which the wheel contacted the
ground. The gear leg bolted to a plate on the end of a long arm that was
raised by a little derrick using a screw-thread winch off a boat trailer. I
used a glider hook as the release mechanism and welded a tray to the top of the
arm so I could stack on plates of lead and scrap iron for the weight. It's
quite an affair. Really shook the ground when it hit. And busted everything I
tried. (Some of you may have seen pictures of the knee-action gear leg I
posted over on the Fly5k mailing list. There were a number of others. All
initially failed the drop-test.)

I soon became quite the expert at drop-testing. As I gained experience I began
to understand how the load enters into the structure and saw ways to make the
gear legs stronger without adding too much weight. But always some. It was
pretty obvious that most landing gear used on modern airplanes couldn't even
come close to that ancient CAA requirement. By the time I got something that
was strong enough to withstand the worse-case fifty-inch drop, it was huge.
And heavy. More suitable for the NYP with a full load of fuel than a
single-place do-it-yourself puddle jumper with a converted VW on the nose.
Fiberglas offered some advantages, as did oleo-pneumatic systems but their cost
and complexity put them far beyond the means of a first-time builder on a tight
budget. It was all rather discouraging.

A couple of days ago I was digging through a file looking for... I can't
remember what... when I came across a blurry copy of a 1930's article by Raoul
J. Hoffmann, the aeronautical engineer who crunched the numbers for Matty
Laird. Hoffman was one of my dad's heros and it was a good choice. The
article was titled 'Landing Gear Shock Stresses' and included the usual
boilerplate formulae, a couple of graphs and a few column-inches of text. I'd
seen it before, hadn't looked at it too closely since I'd already decided to
emulate Vernon Payne's method of using the worse-case drop height. But as I
scanned the article something jumped out at me.

"...drop from a height in inches equal to .38 times the calculated stalling
speed in miles per hour... (but) ...not over 15 INCHES for conventional
airplanes."

FIFTEEN inches. Not fifty.

I sat down and ran the numbers. Maximum applied load not to exceed 5.5 times
the gross weight (I've been using 6.0). But the drop test need not exceed
FIFTEEN inches. I've been using fifty. No wonder my gear legs came out like
something off the Dreadnaught.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Taddy came to live with us after Vern and his wife moved into a place that
didn't allow pets. They would drop by now and then to say hello, more to Taddy
than us but they were nice visits. Vern passed away a few years ago but will
never be forgotten. His little bipe is a rare combination of art and science,
as was Vernon Payne himself.

Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
propellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
'fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.

-R.S.Hoover

(Veeduber) wrote in message ...

Vern was a pro; he obviously said
‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.

And you were in such awe of the man (and that alone is a statement in
itself!) that you never considered whether it was even reasonable to
expect non-carrier-qualified landing gear to survive a four-foot drop.
He said fifty, it must be fifty.

A great lesson in epistimology - what we know, what we think we know,
and how we know it. Questioning - and not questioning - assumptions.
Great story - thanks!

Corrie

I know it's going to vary with the flexibility of the gear, but in the
references is there any spec for max G's a gear should handle?


On 10 Sep 2003 21:32:44 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

:
:Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
:Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
:wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
:around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
:fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
ropellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
:aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
:than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
:‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.
--
My name is Nobody

In article ,
wrote:
I know it's going to vary with the flexibility of the gear, but in the
references is there any spec for max G's a gear should handle?


precisely 1.2370814 more than it will *ever* be subjected to. grin




On 10 Sep 2003 21:32:44 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

:
:Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
:Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
:wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
:around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
:fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
ropellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
:aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
:than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
:‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.
--
My name is Nobody

"Veeduber" wrote ...
A couple of days ago I was digging through a file looking for... I can't
remember what... when I came across a blurry copy of a 1930's article by
Raoul
J. Hoffmann, the aeronautical engineer who crunched the numbers for Matty
Laird. Hoffman was one of my dad's heros and it was a good choice. The
article was titled 'Landing Gear Shock Stresses' and included the usual
boilerplate formulae, a couple of graphs and a few column-inches of text.
I'd
seen it before, hadn't looked at it too closely since I'd already decided
to
emulate Vernon Payne's method of using the worse-case drop height. But as
I
scanned the article something jumped out at me.

"...drop from a height in inches equal to .38 times the calculated
stalling
speed in miles per hour... (but) ...not over 15 INCHES for conventional
airplanes."

FIFTEEN inches. Not fifty.

You could have backed out the number from FAR23.473(d) but who reads the
regs.

(d) The selected limit vertical inertia load factor at the center of
gravity of the airplane for the ground load conditions prescribed in
this subpart may not be less than that which would be obtained when
landing with a descent velocity (V), in feet per second, equal to 4.4
(W/S)\1/4\, except that this velocity need not be more than 10 feet per
second and may not be less than seven feet per second.

Rich

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

In article , Veeduber says...
MAJOR SNIP of a good story:

Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience.
Much of that experience is negative; we learn to do things right by doing it
wrong. If fate gives us another shot at it, we do it differently the next time
around. Once we learn to do things right we become the local expert, the
fellow who can show you how to kill a grizzly with a spear or attach a
propellor to a pulley hub. But as Smokey Yunick once said, "Most experts
aren't." And I'd just proved him right because nothing leads us astray faster
than the things we THINK we know. Vern was a pro; he obviously said
‘fifteen' and I heard it as fifty.

Great story!!Just goes to show how sometimes we just don't hear right :-)
Thanks

Chuck S

Maybe that is Juan and zoomer's problem, huh?

Richard Isakson cited the present-day FAR's as saying:

load conditions prescribed in
this subpart may not be less than that which would be obtained when
landing with a descent velocity (V), in feet per second, equal to 4.4
(W/S)\1/4\, except that this velocity need not be more than 10 feet per
second and may not be less than seven feet per second.


----------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, that cleared things up :-)

For everyone else who didn't get it, the object of the message was to
illustrate that I DIDN'T check the numbers because I THOUGHT I already knew
them. (And being ex-Navy a four-foot drop-test sounded good to me :-)

----------------------------------------------

To put the matter into a more understandable perspective, my drop-tests were
generating loads on the order of 100,000 lb-ft of energy. Had I been using the
figures Rich cites (ie, 7fps) the loads would have been about 18,000 lb-ft.

Drop something a distance of 15" and it will be traveling about nine feet per
second when it hits the ground. With a drop-weight of 750 pounds that will
result in a load of about thirty thousand pounds, an amount that should have
been easily handled by the 5/8" axles, thin-walled tubing and quarter-inch
bolts used in my original landing gear.

-----------------------------------------

As a further point of interest the 15" height cited by Vernon Payne as the
worse-case according to 1930's CAA acceptance standards is well within the
envelop allowed for light aircraft under the modern-day standard cited by Rich.
(The modern-day worse case works out to about 19")

------------------------------------------

But that WASN'T THE POINT. Being aviation types I assumed everyone already
knew that stuff, that you'd start to smile when you saw the first mention of
FIFTY INCHES for a drop test and would be laughing along with me by the time I
got to the punch line.

However, if ANY of this is new to you, I suggest you hit the books. There's
only a couple of equations invovled here, one for the gravitational constant of
acceleration, the other for energy in motion. And if you think I'm a whiz kid,
the joke's on you :-) I managed to escape the rigors of a formal education by
going to sea at a young age.

-R.S.Hoover

- PS -- Reading over that, maybe the joke IS on you. Or on America. A lot of
the stuff I was taught in gammar school more than fifty years ago is now
considered College Level material. I was about eleven years old when they hit
us with 'Mechanics of Motion,' a chapter we were expected (and required) to
master before the Christmas break. Today, 'education' appears to have become a
largely SOCIAL activity of which the acquisition of knowledge is a mere
by-product, given little emphasis.

Nowadays they need a seventy dollar text book the size of a coffee table to
teach that one chapter. 'Newton's Laws' or some damn thing. Mostly white
space except for all the pretty pictures. Then they spend a full year
spoon-feeding that pap to youngsters already old enough to vote.

Americans may not be any less intelligent now as then but devoting a full year
to what every schoolboy picked up in a couple of weeks isn't what I'd call
smart. -- rsh

Veeduber wrote:

But that WASN'T THE POINT. Being aviation types I assumed everyone already
knew that stuff, that you'd start to smile when you saw the first mention of
FIFTY INCHES for a drop test and would be laughing along with me by the time I
got to the punch line.

No argument with what you posted, just an anecdote. I witnessed
some of the drop tests of the T-45 (they Navy's newest jet trainer).
The spec called for a 24 ft/sec sink rate endpoint. That's a drop
from about 9 ft. The drop fixture was surrounded by chain link mesh,
presumably to keep airplane bits from flying across the shop floor.
The mesh served its purpose on at least one test I saw. So did the
drip pans set to catch leaking hydraulic fluid g

Dave 'did you hear a thump?' Hyde

Sadly it's not much of a joke. At the rate things are degrading the next Dark
Ages aren't that inconceivable or that far off. There may be a lot more
collective knowledge today than there was 50 years ago (and I'm not too sure
about that) but the level of general knowledge among the population here in the
US - HAS - declined and is pathetic. (why else would the have to skew the SAT
scores 200 points to get the same numbers they did 20 years ago?)

One should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the way things that
directly effect his/her life work. Relying on the advice and productivity of
"professionals trained to do that" without even the most basic understanding
leaves one very vulnerable to both the laws of nature and your unscrupulous
fellow man.

For what it's worth I got the point of the original post, found it amusing and
entertaining. I almost went down the exact same path before I read the specs
in part 23, but my worst case was a "student's stall landing from 6 feet.
Thats how they got the number"
=================
- PS -- Reading over that, maybe the joke IS on you. Or on America. A lot
of
the stuff I was taught in gammar school more than fifty years ago is now
considered College Level material. I was about eleven years old when they
hit
us with 'Mechanics of Motion,' a chapter we were expected (and required) to
master before the Christmas break. Today, 'education' appears to have become
a
largely SOCIAL activity of which the acquisition of knowledge is a mere
by-product, given little emphasis.