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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
For the real engineers here
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:KEK8k.6004$Fj5.648
@newsfe23.lga: Sure bertie, cuz you know everyone, and you know everything. You're damn near as smart as LeChaud. Oh smarter by several magnitudes. But obviously not as smart as you. You got me sooo on the run Bertie |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Re Maxwell, Bertie's best little helper.
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:5DK8k.6002$Fj5.4738
@newsfe23.lga: Liar. k00k. bertie |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Froggery above
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:NDK8k.6003$Fj5.5048
@newsfe23.lga: Liar. You're talking to yourself. Nope. But hey! Don't let me stop you from making an idiot of yourself! Continue. Please Bertie |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
For the real engineers here
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
For the real engineers here
"Frank Olson" wrote in message news:T6Y8k.27927$kx.1170@pd7urf3no... It's obvious from the number and quality of the responses you've received that this isn't an "engineering group". Try posting your question in a more cerebral part of USENET. :-) All things considered, I think he was just one of bertie's sockpuppets. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
For the real engineers here
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
: "Frank Olson" wrote in message news:T6Y8k.27927$kx.1170@pd7urf3no... It's obvious from the number and quality of the responses you've received that this isn't an "engineering group". Try posting your question in a more cerebral part of USENET. :-) All things considered, I think he was just one of bertie's sockpuppets. Bwawhahwhahwh! All things considered? God you're priceless! Bertie |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
For the real engineers here
On Jun 26, 10:19 pm, Frank Olson
wrote: wrote: I'm thinking of a clean glider, one that might weigh 1500 pounds and has a glide angle of say 1 in 25. At 50 miles an hour, that would mean in an hour's time it might descend two miles (of course scale it reasonable numbers, I chose those for ease of calculation). That means it's losing about 1500 * 5280 * 2, or about 16 million foot pounds of energy an hour. Now if I add an engine swinging an 8 foot diameter prop, maybe as a pusher, the question is, how big an engine for cruise only? A horsepower is 550 foot lbs a second, or about 2 million foot pounds an hour. If all of that is correct, it suggests with a 50% efficient prop a little 16 horsepower engine could pretty much keep this thing at constant altitude. It passes the reasonableness test as far as I can see. Any serious disagreements? For those of you who do things in metric units? I went to school a long long time ago, and here in the US I can buy a little Briggs and Stanton (spelling?) engine with a horsepower rating, not a kilowatt one. It's obvious from the number and quality of the responses you've received that this isn't an "engineering group". Try posting your question in a more cerebral part of USENET. :-) I got the verification I needed before the children took over the thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was right. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
For the real engineers here
wrote in message ... I got the verification I needed before the children took over the thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was right. The verification your needed? It's 2008 and you obviously have an internet connection. Plug "motor glider" into Google.com, and you'll get a 1000 times what you got here. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
For the real engineers here
I saw a clever motorglider a few years ago that had an engine on a
retractable mast - above and behind the pilot (it was a one-place). The unique feature was that it had a one-blade propeller (there was a counterweight on the other side), and some means of positioning the prop after shutting down (so that the engine and prop could fold down completely inside the fuselage). It was more than a sustainer engine- I watched the aircraft take off and climb out unaided. Don't know the type, but have several photos of it somewhere. Dave |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
For the real engineers here
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
: wrote in message . .. I got the verification I needed before the children took over the thread. The early wheat to chaff ratio was ok, and the price was right. The verification your needed? It's 2008 and you obviously have an internet connection. Plug "motor glider" into Google.com, and you'll get a 1000 times what you got here. Except for your elequont poast, of course. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aerodynamic question for you engineers | Pete Brown | Piloting | 73 | January 28th 08 04:06 PM |
a question for the aeronautical engineers among us | Tina | Piloting | 10 | November 4th 07 12:56 PM |
Are flight engineers qualified to fly? | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 14 | January 23rd 07 07:39 PM |
UBC's Human-Powered Helicopter blades questions (kinda technical,engineers welcome) | james cho | Rotorcraft | 1 | October 23rd 05 06:47 PM |
Real-time real world air traffic in flight sims | Marty Ross | Simulators | 6 | September 1st 03 04:13 AM |