SAFE Winch Launching

At 01:45 21 July 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 18:15 20 July 2009, bildan wrote:

Constant tension during the climb phase is exactly what you want.
Read George Moore's article in this month's Soaring Magazine.
Tension
telemetry is a great idea - someone please build it.

A kite string or a winch rope forms a catenary arc due to it's weight
and air drag. The tension on each end of a catenary arc is the same
except for the rope/string weight difference if the ends are at
different heights. If 2000 feet of Plasma rope were hanging
vertically the tension due to its weight is zero at the bottom and
only 20 pounds at the top - that difference doesn't matter much.


I think we have established two facts, firstly that you have absolutely
no
first hand knowledge of the operation of a Skylaunch winch so I think
your
opinions on that subject can be safely ignored. I have driven many types
of winch, for many hours, including the Skylaunch and I know that it
works
extremely well with none of the "faults" that you imagine it has. It
is
not the best winch I have ever driven but it is very close and the MVG
is
not an affordable option for most UK clubs. The MVG is also too
complicated for use at most clubs, too many advance features.

Now consider the following case. A glider at the top of the launch, the
cable is exerting a force on the release hook of x pounds which you deem
to be tension. This force is due almost entirely to the weight of the
steel cable and is considerable. At the winch end the cable is being
retrieved very slowly or not at all, the measurable tension at that end
is
close to or maybe even equal to 0. The force exerted at either end of
the
cable is totally different, that is the extreme case of course but, as a
glider climbs the "tension" or force exerted on the release will
increase as the glider takes more of the weight of the cable. Please
explain how this increase can be measured or taken into account at the
winch end.

Please do not evade the question by discussing plastic rope.

All the winches I have ever driven or observed have had something which
takes care of the changing circumstances very well, we call that
something
a driver and a skilled driver does not need gizzmos to give a good
launch.
I am fast coming to the conclusion that the real problem here is that
you
are actually afraid of winch launching and if that is the case, don't
do
it.

I note that you appear to have no answer to my questions, I can only
conclude that you don't know the answer

Del C wrote:
.....
Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is no
good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self
defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at least
until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines came
along to defend them. ....
Derek Copeland


This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the
War materiel support and post-war aid that the USA provided Europe, and
in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century
British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the same
heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while.....

Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage:
try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six
months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich
satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took
TWELVE months....

Brian W

I should point out that Hitler gave up trying to invade the UK after the
Battle of Britain in 1940 and tried to invade Russia instead, so we at
least achieved a draw against Nazi Germany before the US even entered the
war.

What we would not have been able to do without US help was to re-invade
Europe in 1944, so the French have much more to thank you and us for, not
that they generally show it!

The Spitfire was initially built at Supermarine in Southampton and was
developed before the war started, so less urgency in peacetime. It also
incorporated a lot of new technology for the time and was somewhat more
complicated to build than the Hawker Hurricane, which was available in
much greater numbers at the time of the Battle of Britain, and in reality
shot down far more German aircraft than the Spitfire.

The Castle Bromwich works near Birmingham involved building an entire new
factory, so it is not surprising that it took twelve months to come on
line. See:

http://tinyurl.com/5pfk6f

Derek Copeland



At 00:20 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote:
Del C wrote:
.....
Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is
no
good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self
defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at
least
until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines
came
along to defend them. ....
Derek Copeland


This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the
War materiel support and post-war aid that the USA provided Europe, and

in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century
British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the same

heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while.....

Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage:
try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six
months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich
satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took
TWELVE months....

Brian W

I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to meet a
UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that, as it
was deemed to be grossly under powered.

It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they American or
British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then became
the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war.

Cheres
Pete h

At 05:45 25 July 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
I should point out that Hitler gave up trying to invade the UK after the
Battle of Britain in 1940 and tried to invade Russia instead, so we at
least achieved a draw against Nazi Germany before the US even entered
the
war.

What we would not have been able to do without US help was to re-invade
Europe in 1944, so the French have much more to thank you and us for,
not
that they generally show it!

The Spitfire was initially built at Supermarine in Southampton and was
developed before the war started, so less urgency in peacetime. It also
incorporated a lot of new technology for the time and was somewhat more
complicated to build than the Hawker Hurricane, which was available in
much greater numbers at the time of the Battle of Britain, and in
reality
shot down far more German aircraft than the Spitfire.

The Castle Bromwich works near Birmingham involved building an entire
new
factory, so it is not surprising that it took twelve months to come on
line. See:

http://tinyurl.com/5pfk6f

Derek Copeland



At 00:20 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote:
Del C wrote:
.....
Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is
no
good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self
defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at
least
until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines
came
along to defend them. ....
Derek Copeland


This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the

War materiel support and post-war aid that the USA provided Europe,
and

in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century
British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the
same

heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while.....

Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage:
try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six
months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich
satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took
TWELVE months....

Brian W

On Jul 25, 4:30*am, Peter Hardman wrote:
I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to meet a
UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that, as it
was deemed to be grossly under powered.

*It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they American or
British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then became
the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war.

Cheres
Pete h

At 05:45 25 July 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:





I should point out that Hitler gave up trying to invade the UK after the
Battle of Britain in 1940 and tried to invade Russia instead, so we at
least achieved a draw against Nazi Germany before the US even entered
the
war.

What we would not have been able to do without US help was to re-invade
Europe in 1944, so the French have much more to thank you and us for,
not
that they generally show it!

The Spitfire was initially built at Supermarine in Southampton and was
developed before the war started, so less urgency in peacetime. It also
incorporated a lot of new technology for the time and was somewhat more
complicated to build than the Hawker Hurricane, which was available in
much greater numbers at the time of the Battle of Britain, and in
reality
shot down far more German aircraft than the Spitfire.

The Castle Bromwich works near Birmingham involved building an entire
new
factory, so it is not surprising that it took twelve months to come on
line. See:

http://tinyurl.com/5pfk6f

Derek Copeland

At 00:20 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote:
Del C wrote:
.....
Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is
no
good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self
defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at
least
until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines
came
along to defend them. ....
Derek Copeland

This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the
War materiel support and *post-war aid that the USA provided Europe,
and

in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century
British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the
same

heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while.....

*Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage:
try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six
months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich
satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took
TWELVE months....

Brian W

Well if British technology is so superior, why do none of your winches
use Rover or British Leyland engines??? :-)

Can we get this ****ing match focused back on winches please?

Pete

At 12:30 25 July 2009, vontresc wrote:

Well if British technology is so superior, why do none of your winches
use Rover or British Leyland engines??? :-)


Basically because they are too small, due to our Government's punative
taxes on motor fuels, which means we can't afford to run cars with big
gas guzzling engines. 4.2 litre Jaguar engines and 3.5 litre Rover V8
engines have been used in winches in the past, but they are not powerful
enough to launch the modern big heavy glass two-seaters.

Derek Copeland

The Spitfire was a fine air defence fighter - flown by young men who
could fly several sorties over the Home Counties, then head out to the
local pubs in the evening, to party.
The Spitfire could not defend the heavy bombers needed to destroy the
German war production effort. It had no legs.This role was meat and
potatoes for the Mustang, once the American troops learned the need for
flying high cover on those long range missions.
Before I provoke even more hollow patriotism of the kind I already see
too often in the US, I had better mention that I worked at Serck in the
Tyseley (Greet) plant that made the Spitfire heat exchangers, and flew
from Biggin where those boys sortied, and raised a glass in the same
pub, and I was a member of the street picnics held all over the country
to celebrate victory long years after hiding with my Mother under the
kitchen table while being bombed, unlike I suppose, any of the
"patriots" currently responding.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK


Peter Hardman wrote:
I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to meet a
UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that, as it
was deemed to be grossly under powered.

It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they American or
British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then became
the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war.

Cheres
Pete h

At 05:45 25 July 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
I should point out that Hitler gave up trying to invade the UK after the
Battle of Britain in 1940 and tried to invade Russia instead, so we at
least achieved a draw against Nazi Germany before the US even entered
the
war.

What we would not have been able to do without US help was to re-invade
Europe in 1944, so the French have much more to thank you and us for,
not
that they generally show it!

The Spitfire was initially built at Supermarine in Southampton and was
developed before the war started, so less urgency in peacetime. It also
incorporated a lot of new technology for the time and was somewhat more
complicated to build than the Hawker Hurricane, which was available in
much greater numbers at the time of the Battle of Britain, and in
reality
shot down far more German aircraft than the Spitfire.

The Castle Bromwich works near Birmingham involved building an entire
new
factory, so it is not surprising that it took twelve months to come on
line. See:

http://tinyurl.com/5pfk6f

Derek Copeland



At 00:20 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote:
Del C wrote:
.....
Don't worry Peter! Bill thinks that anything not made in the USA is
no
good. He is from the country that came up with the supposedly self
defending B17 Bomber that your lot shot down in droves in WW2, at
least
until the long range Mustang fighters with UK designed Merlin engines
came
along to defend them. ....
Derek Copeland

This sentiment is unbecoming a UK citizen whose liberty depended on the

War materiel support and post-war aid that the USA provided Europe,
and
in particular Britain. If Americans sometimes talk like 19th century
British Imperialists, it is because they too have drunk deep of the
same
heady wine - world dominion - but only for a while.....

Even talk of war-planes can easily turn to one's disadvantage:
try comparing the Mustang, from first drawing, to first proto in six
months - compared with say the Spitfire assembly at Castle Bromwich
satellite factory from parts - first product out of the hangar took
TWELVE months....

Brian W

OT

On Jul 25, 7:15*am, Del C wrote:
At 12:30 25 July 2009, vontresc wrote:

Well if British technology is so superior, why do none of your winches
use Rover or British Leyland engines??? :-)

Basically because they are too small, due to our Government's punative
taxes on motor fuels, which means we can't afford to run cars with big
gas guzzling engines. 4.2 litre Jaguar engines and 3.5 litre Rover V8
engines have been used in winches in the past, but they are not powerful
enough to launch the modern big heavy glass two-seaters.

Derek Copeland

The Rover V8 started as the Buick 215, later modified by Rover. My
old SD1 was quite fast.

Frank Whiteley

We Brits get tired of always being airbrushed out of history by Hollywood.
For example there were more British and British Commonwealth (e.g.
Australians, Canadians) troops involved in the D Day landings than US
troops, but you might not have noticed this if you watch 'Saving Private
Ryan' and many other similar movies.

Throughout WW2 we bombed Germany by night without fighter cover, using
bombers such as the Lancaster and the Mosquito, which where less heavily
amoured than a B17, but could carry a much greater weight of bombs as a
result. In fact even the little unarmed twin engined Mosquito bombers made
out of plywood could carry more bombs than a B17. I believe that they
didn't show up very well on radar because of their construction, so they
were probably the original 'stealth bomber'

On entering the European war the USAAF was warned by the RAF that daylight
bombing raids over Germany would be pretty suicidal, as they had already
found out the hard way, but of course the Americans (as usual) thought
they knew best and had better technology. The rest, Schweinfurt etc, is
history!

I have to say however that the US bomber crews who took part in such raids
must have been very brave men, knowing that their tight, straight and level
formations where sitting ducks for German radar predictive flak guns and a
well organised fighter force. It was only towards the end of the war when
the Mustangs shot down many German fighters that the odds became a little
more favourable for them.

Derek Copeland


At 14:14 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote:
The Spitfire was a fine air defence fighter - flown by young men who
could fly several sorties over the Home Counties, then head out to the
local pubs in the evening, to party.
The Spitfire could not defend the heavy bombers needed to destroy the
German war production effort. It had no legs.This role was meat and
potatoes for the Mustang, once the American troops learned the need for
flying high cover on those long range missions.
Before I provoke even more hollow patriotism of the kind I already see
too often in the US, I had better mention that I worked at Serck in the
Tyseley (Greet) plant that made the Spitfire heat exchangers, and flew
from Biggin where those boys sortied, and raised a glass in the same
pub, and I was a member of the street picnics held all over the country

to celebrate victory long years after hiding with my Mother under the
kitchen table while being bombed, unlike I suppose, any of the
"patriots" currently responding.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK


Peter Hardman wrote:
I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to
meet a
UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that,
as
it
was deemed to be grossly under powered.

It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they
American
or
British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then
became
the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war.

Cheers
Pete h

We Brits get tired of always being airbrushed out of history by Hollywood.
For example there were more British and British Commonwealth (e.g.
Australians, Canadians) troops involved in the D Day landings than US
troops, but you might not have noticed this if you watch 'Saving Private
Ryan' and many other similar movies.

Throughout WW2 we bombed Germany by night without fighter cover, using
bombers such as the Lancaster and the Mosquito, which where less heavily
amoured than a B17, but could carry a much greater weight of bombs as a
result. In fact even the little unarmed twin engined Mosquito bombers made
out of plywood could carry more bombs than a B17. I believe that they
didn't show up very well on radar because of their construction, so they
were probably the original 'stealth bomber'

On entering the European war the USAAF was warned by the RAF that daylight
bombing raids over Germany would be pretty suicidal, as they had already
found out the hard way, but of course the Americans (as usual) thought
they knew best and had better technology. The rest, Schweinfurt etc, is
history!

I have to say however that the US bomber crews who took part in such raids
must have been very brave men, knowing that their tight, straight and level
formations where sitting ducks for German radar predictive flak guns and a
well organised fighter force. It was only towards the end of the war when
the Mustangs shot down many German fighters that the odds became a little
more favourable for them.

Derek Copeland


At 14:14 25 July 2009, brian whatcott wrote:
The Spitfire was a fine air defence fighter - flown by young men who
could fly several sorties over the Home Counties, then head out to the
local pubs in the evening, to party.
The Spitfire could not defend the heavy bombers needed to destroy the
German war production effort. It had no legs.This role was meat and
potatoes for the Mustang, once the American troops learned the need for
flying high cover on those long range missions.
Before I provoke even more hollow patriotism of the kind I already see
too often in the US, I had better mention that I worked at Serck in the
Tyseley (Greet) plant that made the Spitfire heat exchangers, and flew
from Biggin where those boys sortied, and raised a glass in the same
pub, and I was a member of the street picnics held all over the country

to celebrate victory long years after hiding with my Mother under the
kitchen table while being bombed, unlike I suppose, any of the
"patriots" currently responding.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK


Peter Hardman wrote:
I should also be remembered that the Mustang was originally built to
meet a
UK aircraft requirement specification, and was not accepted for that,
as
it
was deemed to be grossly under powered.

It didn't become a succesful aircraft until someone (be they
American
or
British) decided to fit a BRITISH ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN engine. It then
became
the most succesful piston engined fighter of the war.

Cheers
Pete h