Stalls and Thoughts

On Mar 16, 9:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :

On Mar 16, 8:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:f3837d9c-94e5-4d9d-826c-





om:

On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:40d05f0f-d964-48e7-a3c2-981248eb3788

@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.co

m:

On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that
era were not afraid to show off the engines -- just like
motorcycles.

I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric
way. Might help get the price down under 100k.

Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very
safe The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that
encouraged various organisms to grow and moisture getting
trapped in the structure. Bellancas are pretty straightforward
from what I understand. At least compared to some really scary
structures like the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood
spars OTOH, are a good thing pretty much no matter where they
are.

Bertie

I haven't really looked, I suppose.

My dad is a fan of the Challenger.

The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big
hangar at VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine
came from a Lawn Boy... yikes.

No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.

Bertie

LOL

Yeah.. exactly.

It's not flying as much as being suspended from a temporary truce
with physics.

No Thanks.

Mind you, some of the thirties ones do appeal to me. The Longster,
The Church midwing and the Piet, for instance, but they're all
somehow real airplanes..

Bertie

By the man behind the Wimpy?!

The wimpy? The only Wimpy I know of is the fifties FF model.



Aeronautical genius, perhaps.

Marketing -- not so much.

"Wimpy 23Kilo on left downwind for 26..."

Got a link or a pic?

Bertie

Here you go: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM

Dan wrote:
On Mar 16, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Bob F." wrote in
:
That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have
thought of that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see
if that works." More likely story is they accidentally installed the
engines wrong and someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better
this way". You can see I have a lot of confidence in American
ingenuity.
Should have looked here first
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
This seems to be a pretty accurate account of the teething problems
the airplane had and the remedies they used. i'm pretty sure the prop
rotation was part of the buffet solution, but this article seems to
indicate otherwise.
bertie
LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
Me neither. I did find one farily hilarious account of the airpanes
early flights in an old period magazine. The story is abou tBen Kelsey
one of the test pilots, and his transcontinental flight. Apparenlty he
cracke the thing up on landing after some sort of harrowing experinece
which left him babbling and he had to be hospitalised, with G-men
gaurding his bed. The aritcle goes on for several pages about how fligt
at high speeds like the lightning achieved, was at the ragged edge of
what even a superhuman could withstand mentally.
Those were the days!
Bertie
Yeah. That entire gang out there at the Skunk Works were a hoot. Kelly
Johnson was a hell of a designer.

I'm sure that Johnson as well as others like Ed Heinemann and Jack
Northrop, Alex Kartveli, and Dutch Kindelberger all benefited from the
work done by Lippisch and the others who came before them.
I've always been intrigued by the work Lippisch did on tailless
aircraft. His work on wing design was WAY ahead of it's time.
--
Dudley Henriques

Any thoughts on why the canard never gained acceptance?

The Wright brothers thought it the optimal solution.


Dan Mc
The Wrights were a smart pair. They figured out a virtual ton of new
ideas that have stood the test of Canards have many advantages and
disadvantages. The military has latched on to Canards and have accepted
the dark side in favor of the increase in maneuverability the Canards
give the new fighters.
The GA market however seems to be experimenting with rather than
committing to Canards as the disadvantages in the commercial market
might be causing some concerns.
I think Rutan is the exception to the ruke here, and it appears they are
committed to Canard technology.
Just my opinion.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 16, 9:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Aeronautical genius, perhaps.

Marketing -- not so much.

"Wimpy 23Kilo on left downwind for 26..."

Got a link or a pic?

Bertie



I'll find out the type bipe in the hangar -- apparently the guy bought
it, flew it once, landed, and there it sits, 5 years later.

Gotta admire that level of trust, and avoid riding with that level of
poor judgment.


Dan Mc

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 16, 9:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:ca0601b1-0473-4def-ad4e-71fbad752b05
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.c
om:

On Mar 16, 8:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:f3837d9c-94e5-4d9d-826c-





om:

On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:40d05f0f-d964-48e7-a3c2-981248eb3788

@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.co

m:

On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that
era were not afraid to show off the engines -- just like
motorcycles.

I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and
fabric way. Might help get the price down under 100k.

Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an
airplane.Very safe The problem with old wooden wings is
twofold. Glues that encouraged various organisms to grow and
moisture getting trapped in the structure. Bellancas are
pretty straightforward from what I understand. At least
compared to some really scary structures like the Cessna
Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood spars OTOH, are a good
thing pretty much no matter where they are.

Bertie

I haven't really looked, I suppose.

My dad is a fan of the Challenger.

The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big
hangar at VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine
came from a Lawn Boy... yikes.

No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.

Bertie

LOL

Yeah.. exactly.

It's not flying as much as being suspended from a temporary
truce with physics.

No Thanks.

Mind you, some of the thirties ones do appeal to me. The Longster,
The Church midwing and the Piet, for instance, but they're all
somehow real airplanes..

Bertie

By the man behind the Wimpy?!

The wimpy? The only Wimpy I know of is the fifties FF model.



Aeronautical genius, perhaps.

Marketing -- not so much.

"Wimpy 23Kilo on left downwind for 26..."

Got a link or a pic?

Bertie

Here you go: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM



Ah, OK. I have seen this one before. Of course I know about George
Bogardus' "little Gee Bee".That;'s just been restored, in fact.

Don't forget that Wimpy was a much beloved character in those days. it
was common to name airplanes after them. Art Chester, for instance, with
the Jeep, and Steve Wittman's Buster and Bonzo. Les sodl a good few kits
in the thirties. Probably only Corben and Heath did any better in that
department.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...



Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...



Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.



Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and started a
legend that they all had one smaller than the other to compensate for
torque.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...



Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.


Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there were a
handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH but
they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra rotating
engines.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...


Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.



Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and started a
legend that they all had one smaller than the other to compensate for
torque.


Bertie
Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the common
belief :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...



Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.



http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html

And here'some more stuff saying more or less the same thing.

BTW, do you remember the guy with the yellow 38 who used to do a low
level deadstick aerobatic routine? Saw him at Rockford once but can't
remember his name.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...


Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.


Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there were a
handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH but
they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra rotating
engines.


Bertie

That's right on the Turbo Chargers. The Brits believed they wouldn't be
fighting at the altitudes where the Turbos were an advantage.


--
Dudley Henriques