Mild Aerobatics

And each engine on the 727 was attached with the same sort of 3-bolt
mechanism, only the bolts were "necked down" in the middle to provide a
positive shear strength. Theory was if the engine started shaking violently
enough, they wanted the engine to depart the airframe before it tore the
tailfeathers off.

I find nothing wrong with the beef in the area of the lift strut on the 100
series Cessnas. What's your problem, Jay?

Jim




"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
"Jay Honeck" wrote
Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
enough "there" there...

Each 10,000# engine on the B-707 was attached with three (3)
bolts the size of your small finger! Never lost one.

Bob

Jay Honeck wrote:

And for you die-hard Cessna fans, don't EVER look at the wing spar attach
points... You'll never do a steep turn in your 172/182 again!

I have. What is the problem? :-)


Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be enough
"there" there...

:-)

Ha, ha, ha. I guess being an engineer, I figured there was enough. :-)

Personally, I much prefer strut braced wings as any engineer (and many
non-engineers!) know that a triangle is one of natures favorites
structurally. A cantilever requires more weight for equivalent
strength. I always took great comfort looking out at those struts on my
182 when I was getting bounced around unmercifully over the Allegheny's
on a windy day.


Matt

Bob Moore wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
enough "there" there...


Each 10,000# engine on the B-707 was attached with three (3)
bolts the size of your small finger! Never lost one.

You never lost a bolt or a finger? :-)

I'm guessing there were used in double shear, if not more, which helps a
lot.


Matt

Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
enough "there" there...

Each 10,000# engine on the B-707 was attached with three (3)
bolts the size of your small finger! Never lost one.

At OSH several of us were examining "Aluminum Overcast" (the EAA B-17 that
is being re-built after a landing gear collapse), and we all shuddered after
looking at the engine-less nacelles and noting that those huge radial
engines were attached to the firewall with what appeared to be bicycle
parts...

In fact, the bolt holding my rear sprocket on my bicycle is BIGGER than the
bolts holding the motor mounts to the nacelle!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be enough "there" there...

In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the
wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I'm guessing there were used in double shear

Whazzat?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:49:13 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote:

"Mike Weller"
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:46:13 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote:

"Mike Weller" wrote in message
I knew a pilot with a Commanche that put 50 pounds of lead in the tail
cone. It made it go faster. Really not that much faster, but the
plane flew better. That was also a long time ago! And I loved flying
that Commanche.

How about spinning it?

Not a good idea. Even Cherokees take a lot of altitude to recover
from a spin.

I was being facetious. Did he do a W&B on the thing?

moo


I understand that, but it's a true story. Long ago, but not far away.

I've been a passenger on a Shorts Skyvan where to get the weight and
balance right we had to sit in the very back of the airplane.

Mike Weller

"Mike Weller" wrote in message
"Mike Weller" wrote in message
I knew a pilot with a Commanche that put 50 pounds of lead in the tail
cone. It made it go faster. Really not that much faster, but the
plane flew better. That was also a long time ago! And I loved flying
that Commanche.

How about spinning it?

Not a good idea. Even Cherokees take a lot of altitude to recover
from a spin.

I was being facetious. Did he do a W&B on the thing?

I understand that, but it's a true story. Long ago, but not far away.

I've been a passenger on a Shorts Skyvan where to get the weight and
balance right we had to sit in the very back of the airplane.

Point is that putting 50#s in the tail without doing a W&B is insane. I
would be surprised if it could recover from a stall if it was already at the
POH tail-heavy limit.

moo

Jose wrote:
Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
enough "there" there...


In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the
wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.

Not like you'd think. Pull the strut out from under a Cessna and the
wing falls to the ground faster than you can get out from under it.

In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.

Not like you'd think. Pull the strut out from under a Cessna and the wing falls to the ground faster than you can get out from under it.

Hmmm. Good to know. I always thought the strut was more for when the
wing is supporting the aircraft. Is the support set up so that if the
bolts fail on the ground, the wing will fall, or is there a little notch
that would hold it in place.

All in all, I think I'd prefer the wing to fall. It would let me know
that I probably didn't want to take it into the air.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.