In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:


There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
Why?

(400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)

OK. Give me a few examples...

860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
lbs.

But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.

To be fair, it was testing the negative G load.


And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.

If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
- at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)