![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899.. Bertie Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!! -- Dudley Henriques |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dudley Henriques wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899.. Bertie Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!! They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though... the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very first auto fatality. Bertie |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899.. Bertie Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!! They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though... the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very first auto fatality. Bertie Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500 Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a "vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100 feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY :-))) -- Dudley Henriques |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dudley Henriques wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899.. Bertie Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!! They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though... the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very first auto fatality. Bertie Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500 Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a "vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100 feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY :-))) Yeah, it's all what you're comfortble with. I've been over 100 on a bike and it felt fine, but the terrifying aspect is other road users. All it takes is some asshole in an SUV to be at the wrong place at the wrong time! I can;t even imagine doing aerobatics below 500 feet nowadays.. In fact, i doubt I'd do them below 1500 when I get going again. (the airplane is moving along anyway.. ) Bertie |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899.. Bertie Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!! They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though... the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very first auto fatality. Bertie Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500 Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a "vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100 feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY :-))) Yeah, it's all what you're comfortble with. I've been over 100 on a bike and it felt fine, but the terrifying aspect is other road users. All it takes is some asshole in an SUV to be at the wrong place at the wrong time! I can;t even imagine doing aerobatics below 500 feet nowadays.. In fact, i doubt I'd do them below 1500 when I get going again. (the airplane is moving along anyway.. ) Bertie That's good. Stay up there out of the marbles. It's a lot better on your health for sure. If I had it to do over again I'd take it up higher myself as the average air show fan wouldn't know the difference anyway. -- Dudley Henriques |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dudley Henriques wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899.. Bertie Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at 127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!! They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though... the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very first auto fatality. Bertie Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500 Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a "vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100 feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY :-))) Yeah, it's all what you're comfortble with. I've been over 100 on a bike and it felt fine, but the terrifying aspect is other road users. All it takes is some asshole in an SUV to be at the wrong place at the wrong time! I can;t even imagine doing aerobatics below 500 feet nowadays.. In fact, i doubt I'd do them below 1500 when I get going again. (the airplane is moving along anyway.. ) Bertie That's good. Stay up there out of the marbles. It's a lot better on your health for sure. If I had it to do over again I'd take it up higher myself as the average air show fan wouldn't know the difference anyway. Well, I won't be doing any shows anyway! Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mythbusters Episode and FMS | Marco Leon | Piloting | 19 | February 13th 07 05:45 AM |
..and another hour... | hellothere.adelphia.net | Rotorcraft | 7 | October 7th 04 11:26 AM |
Mythbusters and explosive decompression | Casey Wilson | Piloting | 49 | July 15th 04 05:56 PM |
MythBusters | Hilton | Piloting | 7 | February 4th 04 03:30 AM |
Mythbusters Explosive Decompression Experiment | C J Campbell | Piloting | 49 | January 16th 04 07:12 AM |