aircraft brakes were never designed for stopping aircraft.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:59:50 -0500, Charles Vincent
wrote:

Ed Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker
wrote:


mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
those?

My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.

Ed Sullivan

There are still Model A's on the road today. I have a neighbor and an
uncle with bone stock model A's that are licensed and tagged and still
driven regularily on weekends.

Charles

Actually the mechanical brakes on the model A worked pretty good since
it was so light. For a real thrill the Model T was something else. The
brake band worked on the transmission, if the brake got weak you used
the reverse band.

On Aug 2, 6:16*pm, Ed Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:59:50 -0500, Charles Vincent





wrote:
Ed Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker
wrote:

mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
those?

My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.

Ed Sullivan

There are still Model A's on the road today. *I have a neighbor and an
uncle with bone stock model A's that are licensed and tagged and still
driven regularily on weekends.

Charles

Actually the mechanical brakes on the model A worked pretty good since
it was so light. For a real thrill the Model T was something else. The
brake band worked on the transmission, if the brake got weak you used
the reverse band.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right. The model A , and I think B, brakes were just as good as the
comparable hydraulic brakes. The problem with them was the need for
repeated adjustments to keep them operating equally on all wheels.
That adjustment is automatic in hydraulic ones.

Harry K

"Ed Sullivan" wrote in message
...
...
Actually the mechanical brakes on the model A worked pretty good since
it was so light. For a real thrill the Model T was something else. The
brake band worked on the transmission, if the brake got weak you used
the reverse band.

Model T brakes were never designed for stopping Model T's. They were
designed for holding the Model T while you cranked it. Just look how
ineffective they are with that skinny band that operated on the rear wheels
only.

;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-) :-) :-} ;-)
:-) :-}

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...

I am talking about light private aircraft here...

as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.

I notice that the OP has been missing from this thread for the last couple of
days. Perhaps he/she finally did some reading in 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735?

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...

I am talking about light private aircraft here...

as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.


I notice that the OP has been missing from this thread for the last couple of
days. Perhaps he/she finally did some reading in 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735?

Vaughn




Not likely.



--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:47:51 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
.. .

I am talking about light private aircraft here...

as I put it in the subject line aircraft brakes were never designed
for stopping aircraft. they were designed to hold aircraft.

I notice that the OP has been missing from this thread for the last couple of
days. Perhaps he/she finally did some reading in 14 CFR part 23 Sec. 23.735?

Vaughn


nup. been busy with a life. comments stand.
Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
comments stand.

Even though you have been proven wrong by multiple posters?

I hope I never fly with you, because you have exhibited a distinct propensity
for blundering on even when presented with new information that happens to
conflict with your view of the world. (Sometimes when suddenly encountering
unexpected cumulonimbi, the wise pilot does a 180.)

Vaughn


Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.



Will poofread for food.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker
wrote:

If the brakes were that good, that was a nice exception. The postwar
stuff I flew had lousy brakes. Like the Swift with the orginal
Goodyear brakes. The disk pucks were about as big around as a quarter.
I know they must have known those wouldn't stop the plane.
The Champ had weak brakes too. And just about any of the planes with
heel brakes were pretty weak. And the worst were the ones with
mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
those?
"juice brake" conversions were very common on the Model "A". Wasn't
stopping POWER that was critical, it was the BALLANCE. Buggers could
be all over the road before you got all 4 wheels drawing down evenly.
Had a 1928 Chevy National with mechanical brakes - they were pitiful -
outside bands on the rear deums for service brakes, expanding internal
shoes for the parking brake - and standard procedure was to pull the
hand beake and stop on the pedal at the same time if you REALLY needed
to stop.
Had a 1949VW Bug with mechanicals as well. Stopped fine after you
figured out which way it was going to head, and corrected for it
before putting BOTH feet into it.(mind you, it only did about 48MPH
wide open down hill with a tail wind)

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 20:00:57 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea
Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:

"Sliker" wrote in message
. ..
...
Plus, way back when, old light aircraft had crap for brakes. Back when
Stinsons, Swifts, and other postwar aircraft were built, there were no
Cleveland brakes. With those, and clones of them, you can stop just
fine.

Does a 1946 Cessna 120 qualify as a "postwar aircraft"? Brakes were good
enough for stopping hard enough to keep the tail in the air until you
stopped.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:56:57 -0700, Ed Sullivan
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:32:29 -0400, Sliker
wrote:


mechanical brakes. I hear that's pretty much what got the old Ford
Model A's off the road. They couldn't pass inspection with mechanical
the installed mechanical brakes. Is there anyone hear that drove
those?

My '34 Ford had mechanical brakes and if I'm not mistaken the '37 Ford
still had mechanical brakes, maybe even later.

Ed Sullivan
I believe 1939 was the last year for mechanicals on Ford (the last
holdout in the American market). 1940-1942 "juicers" were commonly
adapted to "A"s and other early Fords.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:32:15 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:






"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
.. .
comments stand.

Even though you have been proven wrong by multiple posters?


I've never even commented on most of the posts. why would I? they are
entitled to their opinions. besides the increased turnover in spare
parts helps to keep the cost down.

I was taught by a number of very high time instructors back in the
70's that insert subject line here, exactly as I posted in the
original post.

no poster has proven me wrong.

brakes are brakes and they can be used for many purposes. some cause
little wear while other uses so abuse the systems that they almost
melt. whether you see that as a design intent is no matter to me. I
dont care, but it seemed necessary to point out just what good
airmanship practise was.

when I put new pads on earlier this year I broke one so I actually
have one of the pads sitting 2inches from my space bar as I type.
I calculated that it has a surface area of no more than 1.57 square
inches. when you brake hard in the aircraft they get fitted to you are
using no more than 6 and a quarter square inches of pad to stop a one
thousand five hundred pound weight aircraft.
as for standing on the brakes sure it can be done but at some
considerable abuse to the braking systems.
the concept is one of half m vee squared's worth of energy being
converted to heat by 6 or so square inches of pad.

you're obviously far more conversant with the engineering than I am so
I defer to your superior skills.
Dont mind if I continue to get 5 or 6 years out of a set of pads
though.
Stealth Pilot