Re;chev longevity
J. Gareth Edwards
Jason E Simpkins
> those who think certified engines are that superior to say a small block Chev,need more physics
Certified engines weight much less than a small block Chevy. Thats the
big difference.
JS
Bruce Frank
: JS
With rather minor mods which have little impact on longevity Chev engines
can produce 1 to 1.25 HP/cid. At such HP levels there are aluminum block
350's which weight less than the equiv. HP air cooled certified engine.
And such Chev engines can be built for less than $10,000.
Bruce A. Frank, "Ford 3.8L Engine and V-6 STOL
b...@marlin.ssnet.com Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
*--------------------------------**----*
\ (-o-) / AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\_____/
/ \
O O
Johnny
>
>Jason E Simpkins (jsi...@mover.it.uswc.uswest.com) wrote:
>: In article <3scoqk$2...@ionews.io.org>, bou...@io.org (J. Gareth Edwards) writes:
>: > those who think certified engines are that superior to say a small block Chev,need more physics
>
>
>: Certified engines weight much less than a small block Chevy. Thats the
>: big difference.
>
>: JS
>
>With rather minor mods which have little impact on longevity Chev engines
>can produce 1 to 1.25 HP/cid. At such HP levels there are aluminum block
>350's which weight less than the equiv. HP air cooled certified engine.
>And such Chev engines can be built for less than $10,000.
Is there an echo in this hanger?
It is always refreshing to see some open minds.
BTW, did everyone see the completely awesome Rodec V-8 featured on page
32 of the June issue of sport aviation? I wish I could have made Sun n'
Fun and seen it in person. The JE_V8 is very similar... less chrome,
belt PSRU instead of gear, the turbos are back in there boxes for
now and I am prototyping with a 4 bladed MT instead of a 5 (mine spins
a little faster). Very nice. I'd loose the Fram filter if I were you though
Jim.
I also noticed the article said he is targeting the Lancair IV people with
a "come over and we will install the engine package for you" approach. I
wish him well.
-j-
rob...@delphi.com
>With rather minor mods which have little impact on longevity Chev engines
>can produce 1 to 1.25 HP/cid. At such HP levels there are aluminum block
>350's which weight less than the equiv. HP air cooled certified engine.
>And such Chev engines can be built for less than $10,000.
>
>b...@marlin.ssnet.com Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
in a real truck.
Too bad people don't do it before child bearing age. It would do wonders for
the gene pool.
Paul Lamar
Charles K. Scott
rob...@delphi.com writes:
> Putting an auto engine in an airplane is as stupid as putting an auto engine
> in a real truck.
>
> Too bad people don't do it before child bearing age. It would do wonders for
> the gene pool.
For those who are perception impaired, it's obvious Paul has no use for
auto engines used for aircraft powerplants regardless mounting evidence
they appear to be able to handle the job while burning less fuel and
producing more torque at the prop hub.
Rather than just "knee jerk" react in the negative to efforts to find
less expensive alternatives to engines that appear to be machined from
platinum, so expensive are they, I'd sure like it if more effort could
be expended towards discussion of solutions for obvious problems
instead of simply saying "It can't be done". Because not only can it
be done, it is being done. Let's remember that Steve Wittman, who
claimed patents for several types of landing gear now commonly used by
Cessna among others, and whose designs were models of lightweight
efficiency flew behind a Buick V-8 powered Tailwind that flew for so
long it's now a museum piece.
Where's your ingenuity, your "can do" attitude? To me, the EAA stands
for inventiveness and open minds. Their magazine, "Sport Aviation",
features new homebuilts each month that are experimenting with auto
engines. Obviously, EAA is solidly behind the use of auto engine for
experimental aircraft. Do you own stock in Lycoming or something?
Corky Scott
rob...@delphi.com
Steve Wittman died in that Buick V8 powered airplane. You won't
find it in a museum. It broke up in flight possible because it
ran into the wake of a B1 bomber. Properly designed airplanes
rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO! It was
probably over gross for the design. The tail separated from the
aircraft.
I think the gross weight of the O&O Special crept up on Steve after
he installed the heavier auto engine in an airplane designed for
a lighter.... real aircraft engine. At least I think it was a
factor. I have some stress information from a person that ran a
finite element analysis program on the Tail Wind structure and he
felt the design was marginal even with the lighter aircraft
engine.
Maybe someone needs to sue the EAA next time someone dies in an
light duty auto engine powered aircraft for not pointing out the
stupidity of putting such unsuitable engines in aircraft.
No Corky, no stock in Lycoming just common sense, self education
and years and years of experience with auto engines and aircraft
engines.
I think you are in love with the idea of finding a cheap way to
fly and to you that means auto engines. Well... the old saying goes
love is blind. Open your eyes Corky and take some mechanical
engineering classes there at Dartmouth. I know they must have
some.
Pay particular attention to torsional pendulums, metal fatigue,
vibrations and strength of materials.
Paul Lamar
Michael Kraus
>Steve Wittman died in that Buick V8 powered airplane. You won't
>find it in a museum. It broke up in flight possible because it
>ran into the wake of a B1 bomber. Properly designed airplanes
>rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
>out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO! It was
>probably over gross for the design. The tail separated from the
>aircraft.
Show me a factory built that can survive the wake turbulence of
a B-1.
>Maybe someone needs to sue the EAA next time someone dies in an
>light duty auto engine powered aircraft for not pointing out the
>stupidity of putting such unsuitable engines in aircraft.
This makes as much sense as suing the EAA for all the people who
died in homebuilts that had factory built engines in them for
daring to suggest people fly something that wasn't built by
Cessna. This is not what homebuilding is about. You sound just
like all the people who said building an EZ was foolhardy and
Rutan was bound to go down under a flurry of lawsuits. Am I the
only person with Deja Vu here?
Using a conversion is not for everyone. Some people want to stop
homebuilding when their airframe is complete, others want to do
it all themselves. If a person doesn't use safe practices in an
installation, it doesn't matter if it's certified or a conversion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Comdr. Data A.K.A. Michael Kraus
Member of the EAA, AOPA & AIAA
Any pointers to aircraft or aerodynamic technical information or
publications on the Internet, and in real-space would be appreciated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles K. Scott
rob...@delphi.com writes:
> Steve Wittman died in that Buick V8 powered airplane. You won't
> find it in a museum. It broke up in flight possible because it
> ran into the wake of a B1 bomber. Properly designed airplanes
> rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
> out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO! It was
> probably over gross for the design. The tail separated from the
> aircraft.
How's that? Steve and Paula were flying the Wittman O&O Special which
is a 235 hp Lycoming powered singlular design of Wittman's.
That was made clear in "Kitplanes", "Experimenter" and "Sport
Aviation", amongst many wild rumours in this group all of which you
apparently bought. Come to think of it, you had inquired early on if
it had been the Buick powered Tailwind he had crashed in.
Bit off the mark this time Paul.
Corky Scott
David M Parrish
>rob...@delphi.com writes:
>Corky Scott
Obviously, Steve Whitman was a very poor aircraft designer to have an
aircraft of his design fail in mid-air. And flying for twenty years
behind a Buick engine finally caught up with him - flying behind a
Lycoming.
No, more likely he died because of the excess weight and extreme vibrational
fatigue of the airframe caused by that nasty Bui- - er - Lyc- - er -
Oh, never mind.
---
David Parrish
Big smilies for some of the
humor deficient out there.
XSF
>
>Maybe someone needs to sue the EAA next time someone dies in an
>light duty auto engine powered aircraft for not pointing out the
>stupidity of putting such unsuitable engines in aircraft.
Now lets not jump on that band wagon, I had thought you more of an
objectivist than that Paul
craig earls
Dave Munday
>
> Steve Wittman died in that Buick V8 powered airplane. You won't
> find it in a museum. It broke up in flight possible because it
> ran into the wake of a B1 bomber. Properly designed airplanes
> rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
> out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO! It was
> probably over gross for the design. The tail separated from the
> aircraft.
>
> he installed the heavier auto engine in an airplane designed for
> a lighter.... real aircraft engine. At least I think it was a
> factor. I have some stress information from a person that ran a
> finite element analysis program on the Tail Wind structure and he
> felt the design was marginal even with the lighter aircraft
> engine.
>
>
Well, it seems clear that the O&O Special disintigrated tail first. The word
going around is that the point of first failure was a bolt holding the leading
edge of the horizontal stab on. It appears to have sheared its head. The real
strange part is that it was an all-thread bolt (That's a no-no) and Steve
SHOULD WELL HAVE known better. An unusual occurance like a large gust load
would still be required to cause the bolt to shear, but once it does half the
horizontal stab is going to snap up and cause a L-A-R-G-E pitching moment.
large enought to shread the plane instentaneously.
Dave Munday - dmu...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
PP-ASEL - Tandem Flybaby Builder - EAA-284 (Waynesville, OH) Pres.
Paul Lamar
The tail has a down load on it in normal flight. If anything it will "snap"
down. I heard that the entire rear fuselage separated.
Paul Lamar
drem...@fast.net
>
>
real aircraft engine.
I will probably get flame for this, but as I read this you give me the
impression of the class that says "if god meant us to he would have
given us wings." . Maybe you should go back to history class, if
the wright brothers had to wait for the FAA to approve their home
made engine they would still be waiting around and if you look
at the history of the aircraft engine you will see that it came from
the automobile industry, some of the certified aircraft had auto
engines under the cowling. for an example THE ATCed WILEY
POST had a FORDModel A.
If you want to fly 30 year old techonolgy that's fine, but get off of
backs about using some engines that are different then yours.
>
> I think you are in love with the idea of finding a cheap way to
> fly and to you that means auto engines. Well... the old saying goes
> love is blind. Open your eyes Corky and take some mechanical
> engineering classes there at Dartmouth. I know they must have
> some.
>
> Pay particular attention to torsional pendulums, metal fatigue,
> vibrations and strength of materials.
>
> Paul Lamar
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>
********************
Ralph L. Rizzo, III <flying, cars, races, leatherwork>
Tammy Rizzo <sci-fi, B5, writing, beading, spinning>
drem...@fast.net
********************
Dave Munday
> Dave Munday (dmu...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu) wrote:
> : Well, it seems clear that the O&O Special disintigrated tail first. The word
> : going around is that the point of first failure was a bolt holding the leading
> : edge of the horizontal stab on. It appears to have sheared its head. The real
> : strange part is that it was an all-thread bolt (That's a no-no) and Steve
> : SHOULD WELL HAVE known better. An unusual occurance like a large gust load
> : would still be required to cause the bolt to shear, but once it does half the
> : horizontal stab is going to snap up and cause a L-A-R-G-E pitching moment.
> : large enought to shread the plane instentaneously.
>
> The tail has a down load on it in normal flight. If anything it will "snap"
> down. I heard that the entire rear fuselage separated.
>
> Paul Lamar
>
I stand corrected.
The news, however, is the bolt shearing its head.
--
Johnny
>>Where's your ingenuity, your "can do" attitude? To me, the EAA stands
>>for inventiveness and open minds. Their magazine, "Sport Aviation",
>>features new homebuilts each month that are experimenting with auto
>>engines. Obviously, EAA is solidly behind the use of auto engine for
>>experimental aircraft. Do you own stock in Lycoming or something?
>
>>Corky Scott
>
>Corky,
>
>Steve Wittman died in that Buick V8 powered airplane. You won't
>find it in a museum. It broke up in flight possible because it
>ran into the wake of a B1 bomber. Properly designed airplanes
>rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
>out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO! It was
>probably over gross for the design. The tail separated from the
>aircraft.
Mass bullshit and outright lies deleted...
>Paul Lamar
The aircraft that Steve and Paula died in was the O and O special. This was an
airplane that Steve designed just to commute from Ocala (sp) to Oshkosh thus
the name O and O. This aircraft was a larger derivitive of the Tailwind design
and used an O-470, NOT a buick. Yes Paul, the same engine you adore so much.
There is mounting evidence that while flying thru the MOA they encountered
severe wake turbulence. There aren't very many aircraft that can take severe
turbulence when cruising above there maximum design cruising speed, and you
know it.
While at the AYA convention in Sunriver Oregon this last week, I spoke with
one of Steve and Paula's neighbors from Florida. This is the same person that
made the original "Steve and Paula are missing" call to flight service. He
said that they had just recieved copies of the radar transcripts and it shows
the speeds and the flight paths for several aircraft in that area at the time
that Steve's plane was there. LOTS of low altitude flight in excess of 400
MPH! Including one 300 MPH aircraft that intersects Steve and Paula's path.
After the crossing of the paths, Steve's path changes coarse and then
disappears, right where they found the wreckage.
I seriously doubt that the military will ever admit anything... you know how
they are. But all indications point clearly to yet another aircraft being
ripped to shreads by wake turbulence. There is no way to avoid it if the huge
aircraft is flying fast down low where we fly most of the time, and they are
there and gone before you ever have a chance to see them.
And yes Paul, most of Steve's designs are preserved, either in museums, or in
the air flying to and around airports everywhere.
Paul Lamer, seeing as how you can't see or hear anything around you anyway,
why don't you just follow your head and crawl the rest of the way up your ass.
At least far enough that your posts don't reach this group anymore!
-j-
Paul Lamar
I would think once the tail plane failed you would not get enough force to
seperate the aft fuselage as I heard happened. Kit planes said the O&O had
an O-470 but I have heard from others that it was the Buick. Who knows for
sure? Do you have any friends that are close to the family. Where are the
other planes that he owned? Magazines screw up with regularity.
I don't think the NTSB will do a full report on this accident.
Paul Lamar
Paul Lamar
: I will probably get flame for this, but as I read this you give me the
: impression of the class that says "if god meant us to he would have
: given us wings." . Maybe you should go back to history class, if
: the wright brothers had to wait for the FAA to approve their home
: made engine they would still be waiting around and if you look
: at the history of the aircraft engine you will see that it came from
: the automobile industry, some of the certified aircraft had auto
: engines under the cowling. for an example THE ATCed WILEY
: POST had a FORDModel A.
: If you want to fly 30 year old techonolgy that's fine, but get off of
: backs about using some engines that are different then yours.
Maybe you should go back to history class. The Wright brothers were too
smart to use an auto engine and they designed their own. The Model A
engine was more like an aircraft engine than any car engine ever made.
Large displacement slow turning.
Paul Lamar
Paul Lamar
: In article <Zaz+-Kf...@delphi.com>, rob...@delphi.com says...
: >>Where's your ingenuity, your "can do" attitude? To me, the EAA stands
: >>for inventiveness and open minds. Their magazine, "Sport Aviation",
: >>features new homebuilts each month that are experimenting with auto
: >>engines. Obviously, EAA is solidly behind the use of auto engine for
: >>experimental aircraft. Do you own stock in Lycoming or something?
: >
: >>Corky Scott
: >
: >Corky,
: >
: >Steve Wittman died in that Buick V8 powered airplane. You won't
: >find it in a museum. It broke up in flight possible because it
: >ran into the wake of a B1 bomber. Properly designed airplanes
: >rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
: >out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO! It was
: >probably over gross for the design. The tail separated from the
: >aircraft.
: Mass bullshit and outright lies deleted...
: >Paul Lamar
: The aircraft that Steve and Paula died in was the O and O special. This was an
: airplane that Steve designed just to commute from Ocala (sp) to Oshkosh thus
: the name O and O. This aircraft was a larger derivitive of the Tailwind design
: and used an O-470, NOT a buick. Yes Paul, the same engine you adore so much.
: There is mounting evidence that while flying thru the MOA they encountered
: severe wake turbulence. There aren't very many aircraft that can take severe
: turbulence when cruising above there maximum design cruising speed, and you
: know it.
Is there an echo in here. Did not I say that?
: While at the AYA convention in Sunriver Oregon this last week, I spoke with
: one of Steve and Paula's neighbors from Florida. This is the same person that
: made the original "Steve and Paula are missing" call to flight service. He
: said that they had just recieved copies of the radar transcripts and it shows
: the speeds and the flight paths for several aircraft in that area at the time
: that Steve's plane was there. LOTS of low altitude flight in excess of 400
: MPH! Including one 300 MPH aircraft that intersects Steve and Paula's path.
: After the crossing of the paths, Steve's path changes coarse and then
: disappears, right where they found the wreckage.
: I seriously doubt that the military will ever admit anything... you know how
: they are. But all indications point clearly to yet another aircraft being
: ripped to shreads by wake turbulence. There is no way to avoid it if the huge
: aircraft is flying fast down low where we fly most of the time, and they are
: there and gone before you ever have a chance to see them.
: And yes Paul, most of Steve's designs are preserved, either in museums, or in
: the air flying to and around airports everywhere.
: Paul Lamer, seeing as how you can't see or hear anything around you anyway,
: why don't you just follow your head and crawl the rest of the way up your
:ass.
: At least far enough that your posts don't reach this group anymore!
: -j-
Sheesss Johhny you could at least spell my name right. It is Lamar and not
Lamer. So I don't think I will take your word for it yet however... if it
turns out that the O&O had an O-470.... like Kitplanes said it did while
showing a picture of the Buick in the uncovered fuselage.... I stand
corrected.
Since this is not alt.rec.aviation.homebuilt I will not decend to your
level and insult you in kind.
Johhny, hurry up and test fly that V8 of yours so we don't have to put up
with your crude language anymore.
Paul Lamar
Michael Kraus
rob...@rain.org (Paul Lamar) writes:
> Kit planes said the O&O had
> an O-470 but I have heard from others that it was the Buick. Who knows for
> sure?
These were two different aircraft. The Buick powered Tailwind is still
intact.
Stu Fraley
>
> Properly designed airplanes
> rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
> out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO!
Any airplane moving faster than maneuvering speed can fall apart in severe
turbulence. It's entirely possible that this was a well-designed airplane
that was exceeding its maneuvering speed when it had an encounter with
wake turbulence from a really fast, really heavy bomber.
Stuart Fraley
Chris E. Becht
: Maybe you should go back to history class. The Wright brothers were too
: smart to use an auto engine and they designed their own. The Model A
: engine was more like an aircraft engine than any car engine ever made.
: Large displacement slow turning.
: Paul Lamar
Gee, Paul. Now I can finish my Corben. I feel vindicated in my
choice of engines now that you have given your approval. Oh Yeah.
200 pounds wet to put out 12-16hp. Now that's a REAL airplae engine!
--
Life is like a cow.
You get out of it what you put in. cali...@crl.com
But, umm... different somehow.
Michele Boland
> Sheesss Johhny you could at least spell my name right. It is Lamar and not
> Lamer. So I don't think I will take your word for it yet however... if it
> turns out that the O&O had an O-470.... like Kitplanes said it did while
> showing a picture of the Buick in the uncovered fuselage.... I stand
> corrected.
Regarding the O & O Special the June issue of "Experimenter" reports ( on page
3 ) that "Steve Whittman designed and built his O & O Special ( Ocala to
Oshkosh and vice versa). A larger Tailwind style homebuilt, it was powered by
a 225 hp Continental, with enough fuel on board to make the Florida to
Wisconsin run non-stop, typically in about 6 hours.
Michele
--
Michele Boland
________________________________________________________
| Be seeing you ! |
| EMAIL - mich...@onramp.net |
| homepage - http://rampages.onramp.net/~micheleb |
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lamar
: Paul Lamar (rob...@rain.org) wrote:
: : Maybe you should go back to history class. The Wright brothers were too
: : smart to use an auto engine and they designed their own. The Model A
: : engine was more like an aircraft engine than any car engine ever made.
: : Large displacement slow turning.
: : Paul Lamar
: Gee, Paul. Now I can finish my Corben. I feel vindicated in my
: choice of engines now that you have given your approval. Oh Yeah.
: 200 pounds wet to put out 12-16hp. Now that's a REAL airplae engine!
Did I say it was viable? That was the other guy. I said it was more like
an aircraft engine. I did not say I recommended it. It has powered some
Peat&pauls however.
Paul Lamar
Paul Lamar
: > Sheesss Johhny you could at least spell my name right. It is Lamar and not
: Michele
: --
OK OK it had a O-470 I stand corrected.
Paul Lamar
Paul Lamar
Paul Lamar
Paul Lamar
: >In article <BU99vaG...@delphi.com>
: Stuart Fraley
The wake turbulence accidents that I have heard about recently did not
result in inflight breakup. We had one here in so-cal at John Wayne. A
bis jet augured in when taking off behind a 757. Another Velocity spun in
inverted after being flipped by wake turbulence in Fl. If anybody can
document a case where wake turbulence actually destroyed the airplane I
would like to hear about it.
The stress analysis I referred to was not done on the O&O. It was done on
the Tailwind.
Paul Lamar
Charles K. Scott
> Kit planes said the O&O had
> an O-470 but I have heard from others that it was the Buick. Who knows for
> sure?
It wasn't just "Kitplanes" that is saying the O&O Special was O-470
powered, "Sport Aviation" and "Experimenter" have also run articles
with this information. The Buick powered Tailwind was not being flown
to Oshkosh. He did not install the Buick in the O&O Special.
Corky Scott
Chris E. Becht
: Chris E. Becht (cali...@crl.com) wrote:
: : Gee, Paul. Now I can finish my Corben. I feel vindicated in my
: : choice of engines now that you have given your approval. Oh Yeah.
: : 200 pounds wet to put out 12-16hp. Now that's a REAL airplae engine!
: Did I say it was viable? That was the other guy. I said it was more like
: an aircraft engine. I did not say I recommended it. It has powered some
: Peat&pauls however.
Sorry, half my dose of sarcasm seemed to miss it's target there.
The hp/wt quopted was for the Wright's engine. I don't believe that there
were any auto engines at the time suitable for conversion, but I feel
that the Bro.s W would have used one if there was. There's wasa
shoestring operation at best. I doubt they would have gone through the
trouble of designing their own engine (and doing a hash of it even by
contemporary standards) if they could have bought/modified anything on
the market.
My Ford should be putting out around 45hp @ 2100. Not only is it
historically accurate for the a/c, but I can afford to do a major
overhaul every annual if need be and still be under the cost of an O-200
over the projected life of the plane.
David Miller
: Maybe you should go back to history class. The Wright brothers were too
: smart to use an auto engine and they designed their own. The Model A
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: engine was more like an aircraft engine than any car engine ever made.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Large displacement slow turning.
I think this pretty well puts a wrap on Paul Lamar. Forgotten about the
tens of millions of small block V8's than idled at 600 and revved up to
3500 or 4000 RPM max, produced from the 60's through today, Paul? The
high revving engines were by and large European or recent developments,
mostly in pursuit of lighter weight and fuel economy.
--
David Miller Usual disclaimers apply
Maine State Government
Wasmund
a lot deleted...
>Steve Wittman died in that Buick V8 powered airplane. You won't
>find it in a museum. It broke up in flight possible because it
>ran into the wake of a B1 bomber. Properly designed airplanes
>rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
>out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO! It was
>probably over gross for the design. The tail separated from the
>aircraft.
There is at least one well reported near-miss between a RF4 Phantom and a Cessna 172
here in Germany. The 172 lost. 2 men died. (In my opinion the C172 is well
designed; although I don´t like it)
>Maybe someone needs to sue the EAA next time someone dies in an
>light duty auto engine powered aircraft for not pointing out the
>stupidity of putting such unsuitable engines in aircraft.
Aircraft engines also don´t last forever. And sometimes they have not enough power to
take off safely. (Happened yesterday in Germany: C172, Aircraft engine, well designed
aircraft etc. They hit trees on take-off. Burned....4 men died)
>No Corky, no stock in Lycoming just common sense, self education
>and years and years of experience with auto engines and aircraft
>engines.
>
>I think you are in love with the idea of finding a cheap way to
>fly and to you that means auto engines. Well... the old saying goes
>love is blind. Open your eyes Corky and take some mechanical
>engineering classes there at Dartmouth. I know they must have
>some.
>
>Pay particular attention to torsional pendulums, metal fatigue,
>vibrations and strength of materials.
>
>Paul Lamar
It is a good idea not to stop learning. But do we really need this hint? (Is metal in
aircraft engines free of metal fatigue? Do these engines not vibrate?)
Just another point: Why not use tank engines in aircraft? Was very common once....
Reinhard
>
>
>
Larry Elie
>From: stuf...@aol.com (Stu Fraley)
>Subject: Re: Wittman crash - possible cause
>Date: 2 Jul 1995 17:12:57 -0400
>>In article <BU99vaG...@delphi.com>
>>
>> Properly designed airplanes
>> rarely self destruct when confronted with severe turbulence. Go
>> out of control maybe yes.... self destruct... NO!
>Any airplane moving faster than maneuvering speed can fall apart in severe
>turbulence. It's entirely possible that this was a well-designed airplane
>that was exceeding its maneuvering speed when it had an encounter with
>wake turbulence from a really fast, really heavy bomber.
>Stuart Fraley
You're right about the maneuvering speed; wrong about the 'fast'. The WORST
wake turb is always caused by aircraft at high angles of attack (read slow and
or at heavy load). People used to just say slow. Not so. There was good
doccumented evidance (the Air Force re-considered some re-fueling procedures,
now cannot approach off axis) after a KC-135 in Desert Shield had two engines
on one side ripped off the wing at altitude. The cause was suspected wake
turb. from another KC-135, 4 miles ahead, 2 miles to the side and a thousand
feet above (the winds aloft were just right). If that one doesn't scare you
nothing will. BTW, the plane was landed safely w/o flaps (190 kts.) after
dumping the full fuel load. The plane did 2 full barrel rolls before control
was re-gained.
Larry Elie
le...@smail.srl.ford.com
Larry Elie
>From: cali...@crl.com (Chris E. Becht)
>Subject: Re: Re;chev longevity
>Date: 3 Jul 1995 06:26:12 -0700
>Paul Lamar (rob...@rain.org) wrote:
>: Chris E. Becht (cali...@crl.com) wrote:
>: : Gee, Paul. Now I can finish my Corben. I feel vindicated in my
>: : choice of engines now that you have given your approval. Oh Yeah.
>: : 200 pounds wet to put out 12-16hp. Now that's a REAL airplae engine!
>: Did I say it was viable? That was the other guy. I said it was more like
>: an aircraft engine. I did not say I recommended it. It has powered some
>: Peat&pauls however.
> Sorry, half my dose of sarcasm seemed to miss it's target there.
>The hp/wt quopted was for the Wright's engine. I don't believe that there
>were any auto engines at the time suitable for conversion, but I feel
>that the Bro.s W would have used one if there was. There's wasa
{deletions}
Actually, I have looked at their records. They DID try. In 1901/1902 they
contacted all the 'major' auto companies (the only one you would
probably recognise would be Oldsmobile) with their specs via mail; not one
replied. I don't think we (as an industry) would today if someone wrote
telling some requirements for his new time-machine design; too far out. Next,
(I think early in 1903) while working on their own engine, Glen Curtis (sp?)
approached them with one of his motorcycle engines-- and wanted them to build
HIM an airplane. The brothers declined. As you probably know, Curtis's
first planes used another of his motorcycle engines.
Larry Elie
le...@smail.srl.ford.com
Paul Lamar
: Paul Lamar (rob...@rain.org) wrote:
: : Maybe you should go back to history class. The Wright brothers were too
: : smart to use an auto engine and they designed their own. The Model A
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : engine was more like an aircraft engine than any car engine ever made.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: : Large displacement slow turning.
: I think this pretty well puts a wrap on Paul Lamar. Forgotten about the
: tens of millions of small block V8's than idled at 600 and revved up to
: 3500 or 4000 RPM max, produced from the 60's through today, Paul? The
: high revving engines were by and large European or recent developments,
: mostly in pursuit of lighter weight and fuel economy.
: --
: David Miller Usual disclaimers apply
: Maine State Government
What are you talking about here David. Do you mean 4000 RPM is low RPM?
What does idle RPM got to do with it?
Aircraft engines max out at 2700 RPM. Radials at about 2000 RPM and the
Ford model A, if memory serves me right, was 1600 RPM with 200 cubic
inches and about 50 HP +/- 25 HP :) That is why it lasted so long for it's
day.
Hey, I am far from wrapped up :) Stick around and you will see :)
Paul Lamar
Paul Lamar
Larry, I agree on the slow part.
All,
Here is a little more evidence that implies the O&O Special MAY
have been marginal when it comes to structural integrity. Notice
that all of these airplanes are of the high wing strut braced
type.
Gross Empty ratio Payload
Wittman O&O 1400 700 0.500 700
Cessna 185 3350 1687 0.504 1663
WagAero CUB alike 1400 720 0.514 680
Cessna 207 3800 1996 0.525 1804
Cessna 182 2950 1717 0.582 1233
Wittman W1 1425 840 0.589 585
Helio Super Courier 3400 2080 0.612 1320
Cessna 150 1600 1000 0.625 600
Wittman O&O special 50 pounds over gross.
Wittman O&O 1450 700 0.483 750
The big difference is the empty weight. Despite the fact that an
O-470 engine weighs more than a 90 HP O-200 engine, as probably
found in the Tailwind W1, the empty weight of the O&O Special is
140 pounds less than the empty weight of the TailWind W1! That
140 pound difference could neigh probably came out of the structural
weight. I think Steve was pushing the envelope here.
Some of these numbers came from the Augast Kitplanes article and
must of course be taken with a grain of salt.
I would really like to get to the bottom of this mysteries crash.
Paul Lamar
David A. Barnhart
>the airplane I would like to know about it.
There is a well-documented case (well-documented by the American
Bonanza Society) where a Bonanza was decending from altitude with
an airspeed near the top of the green arc (well above maneuvering
speed). It encountered the wake of a DC-9. While the aircraft
was substantially damaged, sufficient control remained to land
the aircraft without injury to the occupants. As I recall,
the tail of the airplane was very badly twisted. Again, as I
recall, this incident was during the infamous controversy over
the Bonanza's V tail, and helped lead the engineers to the
problem.
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744
Stu Fraley
Nevertheless, a B-1 is pretty heavy.
Stuart Fraley
Cheetah in the hangar,
RV-6 in the garage
Brian Case
>The tail has a down load on it in normal flight. If anything it will "snap"
>down. I heard that the entire rear fuselage separated.
>Paul Lamar
I would have to dig out some of may aerodynamics books to verify it,
but I believe this is not necessarily so. If I recall correcly, and
depending on the airfoil, as velocity increases the center of pressure
tyically moves back. So at higher cruising speeds it is possible that
the tail is actually producing lift.
Brian
bc...@micron.net
Jeff Willard
Jeff Willard
I saw your message regarding Auto Conversions in aircraft and the fact that your
E-Mail address says ford.com, perhaps you could be of some help to me.
I've been working for some time on a 2/3's P-51-D Mustang replica. I'm using a
Jaguar V-12 in it(No, the Lucas stuff is gone!)and have, for some time, been trying
to get ahold of basic technical drawings of the V-12 engine. Now that Jag is a part
of the Ford Family perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
The engine is done and running and I'm working on the Prop Reduction gearbox now.
The airframe is also finished sans bodywork and paint. I'm really only using the
Jaguar long block. I've built my own intake system, oiling system, ignition system
and cooling system. It runs great and sound pretty impressive with 12, 6 inch
straight pipes.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Jeff Willard - Harrisburg/York Pa.
jwil...@epix.net
David Miller
: : : Maybe you should go back to history class. The Wright brothers were too
: : : smart to use an auto engine and they designed their own. The Model A
: : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : : engine was more like an aircraft engine than any car engine ever made.
: : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: :
: : : Large displacement slow turning.
: : I think this pretty well puts a wrap on Paul Lamar. Forgotten about the
: : tens of millions of small block V8's than idled at 600 and revved up to
: : 3500 or 4000 RPM max, produced from the 60's through today, Paul? The
: : high revving engines were by and large European or recent developments,
: : mostly in pursuit of lighter weight and fuel economy.
: What are you talking about here David. Do you mean 4000 RPM is low RPM?
: What does idle RPM got to do with it?
Two points: first you mentioned that the model A was more like an
aircraft engine than any auto engine ever made. Since the model A engine
was, of course, an auto engine, I figured this pretty well put a wrap on
your cognitive abilities and logical capacity.
As for RPM, a 4000 RPM PEAK isn't that high. Hell, most of the buicks
turned all of 1500-1800 RPM at highway speeds. I call that low RPM, even
if they could be wound up to 4000 in first gear while accelerating.
: Aircraft engines max out at 2700 RPM. Radials at about 2000 RPM and the
: Ford model A, if memory serves me right, was 1600 RPM with 200 cubic
: inches and about 50 HP +/- 25 HP :) That is why it lasted so long for it's
: day.
They all lasted long for their day. That is to say maybe 10,000 miles
between overhauls. Points to be set every thousand. The engineering was
extremely poor by todays standards, and materials were a joke by todays
standards as well. Maybe it only spun 1600 RPM, but that was probably
high for it's day.
: Hey, I am far from wrapped up :) Stick around and you will see :)
Sorry Paul, this is likely my last post to you. You're simply not worth
bothering with because youv'e contributed nothing positive to any thread
I've read. You seem to be stuck in the sixties as far as both computers
and aero engines are concerned. You don't seem to recognize any advances
in either field.
Frankly I've no idea why you even bother posting in
rec.avaition.homebuilts - a group dedicated to doing things for
ourselves. You're obviously not interested in homebuilts, just flaming
anyone who is. All I can figure is you like trolling for flames.
I don't have the time to waste on the like of you. Welcome to my kill file!
Ron Natalie
: Aircraft engines max out at 2700 RPM.
: Radials at about 2000 RPM.
They are designed this way purely for the convenience of not having to
turn the prop that fast. My GO-435 redlines at 3500.
_Ron
Tom Jackson
Munday) wrote:
> Well, it seems clear that the O&O Special disintigrated tail first. The word
> going around is that the point of first failure was a bolt holding the leading
> edge of the horizontal stab on. It appears to have sheared its head. The real
> strange part is that it was an all-thread bolt (That's a no-no) and Steve
> SHOULD WELL HAVE known better.
Please, for the benefit of the ignorant, why is an all-thread bolt a no-no?
--
Tom Jackson Medical College of Georgia
Aztec N888SB Geriatric Service
DNL Augusta, GA 30912
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>I lost the post (I think it was this thread) about the Whitman crash. Someone
>claimed that Whitman had been going 400(!!!) at low altitude (I didn't know
>the box would go that fast, especially at low altitude, it's illegal (250 kts.
>is about 285 mph folks for below 5000 feet) and not a good idea where there
>might be birds(!!!).
I simply, flat-out, do not believe Wittman was going 400 KPH, MPH, or KTS
unless he was going straight down and even then...
>The other plane (B-1 bogey) passes at a right angle at
>300 mph (260 kts... just over the legal limit) probably in a turn (steep
>angle of attack whenever you pull G's)
I believe the incident happened in a MOA. Military aircraft may exceed
250 KTS below 10,000' in MOAs and when on a MTR. Within either a MOA or
an MTR millitary aircraft are only restricted to less than Mach 1 regardless
of altitude.
MOA = Military Operating Area
MTR = Military Training Route
greg
Larry Elie
I lost the post (I think it was this thread) about the Whitman crash. Someone
claimed that Whitman had been going 400(!!!) at low altitude (I didn't know
the box would go that fast, especially at low altitude, it's illegal (250 kts.
is about 285 mph folks for below 5000 feet) and not a good idea where there
up. Anyone have a idea what the manuvering speed of the O & O was?
Larry Elie
le...@smail.srl.ford.com
John Kahn
If that happens at *any* speed you're in big trouble.
John Kahn
Tech Pubs
Flight Control Systems
Canadair Regional Jet
Bombardier Inc.
Jeffrey M. Matthews
intrinsically wrong with an all-thread bolt. However, the sort of
hardware one really ought to be using in the primary structure just
isn't avaialble threaded over its entire length.
The good stuff--what you want when it really matters, has a tensile
strength of 120,000 to 180,000 psi, reasonable radii under the head,
and rolled threads. The threads extend for two or maybe three times
the diameter down the shank, so the majority of the bolt can carry a
greater shear load.
There is a lot of aircraft quality hardware out there in the 50,000
psi range, with sharp radii, and cut threads. It's not dangerous if
it's used where it was intended--in the secondary structure. It
tends to have more threads, even the whole length of the shank.
Then there's the in-between gotcha--the AN3C thru whatever bolts that
look just like the good stuff, but haven't the strength because they're
stainless, not the nickel-chrome usually encountered. There's a place
for them, too, but not as a direct replacement for the AN3- series.
As to whether that caused Steve Wittman's death, I'd rather believe
that Wilbur and Orville sent a flaming chariot to pick him up.
Jeff Matthews
Seaturbine
>Please, for the benefit of the ignorant, why is an all-thread bolt a
no-no?
Lots easier to crack-fail on a thread. Don't be cheap, and get the proper
shank length.
Douglas Karlsen
Turbine Seawind built.
Roger Thomas
>
> Please, for the benefit of the ignorant, why is an all-thread bolt a no-no?
Because:
1. The diameter of the bolt is reduced from its 'nominal' diameter because
of the reduced diameter at the root of the threads;
2. The thread is a 'stress raiser' like a nick or notch and will initiate
failure at *much* lower loads than can be sustained by the unthreaded shank
of the bolt;
3. The bolt bears on the side of the hole only on the crest of the threads,
leading to damage to the hole.
In short, you NEVER, *EVER* have 'threads-in-bearing'......
******************************
Roger Thomas (Mr) fax +61-79-309382
Mech.Eng.Dept., C.Q.U. 'phone +61-79-309545
Rockhampton Qld. 4702, AUSTRALIA R.Th...@cqu.edu.au
XSF
>Please, for the benefit of the ignorant, why is an all-thread bolt a
no-no?
The area near the head of the bolt is usually placed under a shear load.
The threads make the bolt less resistant to shear.
craig
jj...@dow.com
Please recheck the the data on the O&O Special, it can't possibly be
right. A two place tube,fabric, and wood airplane powered by either an
o-470 or E225 with enough tankage to carry six hours fuel would probably
have to gross around 2000 lbs with an empty of about a 1000. The Tailwind
barely meets normal category stress requirements, lightening it further
would be asking for it.
To compare, a friend of mine is building a GP4 powered by a LYC 540, with
enough fuel for a 1000 nm range ( Michigan to SUN'N'FUN Special) and
enough power to see 200KIAS. His gross weight will be 2200 lbs.
N34PEK
complete contact with the surfaces of the hole it passes through, and
stress is evenly distributed. A threaded shank concentrates loads where
the threads touch, especially in shorter holes where the bolt can move
slightly and bear at an angle to the hole.
N34PEK
bolts are threaded so that there is a radius to the thread, helping to
relieve stress. This is why it is a no-no to extend the threads on AN
hardware. Dressing threads is also risky, much cheaper to buy new and
replace a bolt than to replace a structure or, worse, a life. The rest of
the explanation was great.
Johnny
says...
No Larry!
I said the radar transcripts showed OTHER aircraft in the area going over 400!
I believe that Steve's neighbor said the O&O cruised about 160 mph. But I
don't know that for sure. May have been faster. The point was that whatever
caused the wake turbulence was probably out of site before Steve got there.
The plane was gone but the wake wasn't. This is part of the reason for the
speed limit below 10,000 ft. But the military typically ignores that limit. If
you were flying F-16's would you be keeping it under 250? Pretty tough.
Just a side note, When at the AYA convention last week, I took a little
excursion trip down to Kalamath International. Called the tower, and they
cleared me for basiacally a 5 mile straight in final. There was nobody in the
pattern or inbound or departing. I called in a 2 mile final as they had
requsted, and I was cleared to land. I am doing about 120 mph still, figured
with 10,500 ft. of runway I could just wait till I got there and then pull the
power. At about 1 mile out, as I am powering back, to get down to my regular
85 mph approach speed, I see out of the corner of my eye an F16 pulling about
a 9 G turn to get onto a downwind to land behind me. I am just estimating the
9 G's but at a 90 degree angle of bank and no loss in altitude the guy had to
be pulling hard. I didn't really realize till just then that this is how they
slow down. The guy had to have been doing at least 300 coming into the pattern
and then by powering back and slamming the high G turn, the aircraft slows
down fairly rapidly. He still went by me in the opposite direction so fast
that if you weren't looking at that instant, you never would have seen him.
So I land and take the first exit to the right, and stop to contact ground,
and while I am sitting there I look out the right side and there's the F16
over the numbers and flairing. Basically in the time it took me to fly a 2
mile final in a Grumman starting at 120 MPH, this guy came out of nowhere,
entered the pattern, flew a downwind, base and final, and then landed and
rolled by me with his nose pointing to the moon at about 100 MPH. It is pretty
easy to see why you can get into big trouble in a hurry flying thru an active
MOA. With the weight, speed and angle of attack these guys routinely use, I
would hate to get caught up in the wakes they must be putting out. I shutter
when I think of what a B1's wake would do to a light GA aircraft like most of
us fly. Hell. I get all thrown around when I land to close behind a Cessna,
when I hit the numbers and he doesn't. I have a feeling that no matter what
kind of bolt Steve used to hold the tail on, there still would have been
"General Airframe Disintegration".
-j-
Brian Case
>As to whether that caused Steve Wittman's death, I'd rather believe
>that Wilbur and Orville sent a flaming chariot to pick him up.
That might explain the radar blip!
Brian
Johnny
>
>
>> Sheesss Johhny you could at least spell my name right. It is Lamar and not
>> Lamer. So I don't think I will take your word for it yet however... if it
>> turns out that the O&O had an O-470.... like Kitplanes said it did while
>> showing a picture of the Buick in the uncovered fuselage.... I stand
>> corrected.
>
>
>Regarding the O & O Special the June issue of "Experimenter" reports ( on
page
>3 ) that "Steve Whittman designed and built his O & O Special ( Ocala to
>Oshkosh and vice versa). A larger Tailwind style homebuilt, it was powered
by
>a 225 hp Continental, with enough fuel on board to make the Florida to
>Wisconsin run non-stop, typically in about 6 hours.
>
>Michele
225 Conny... that is the O-470 is it not?
OK Greg thats your cue.
-j-
tj...@jtaa.lahabra.chevron.com
> The wake turbulence accidents that I have heard about recently did not
> result in inflight breakup. We had one here in so-cal at John Wayne. A
> bis jet augured in when taking off behind a 757.
> Paul Lamar
>
I believe this was a Westwind on final about three miles out(The 757 had
already landed). The craft went in directly in front of a BMW dealership
complete with customers. Salesmen were still getting psycological treatment 6
months later. This is the crash that took the lives of several key In-N-Out
restaurant executives. Apparently the pilot had been warned of the turb and
had twice been warned to slow down as to avoid the turb.
James Taylor
Orange County, CA.
Michael Kraus
sy...@lovenet.com (Johnny) writes:
> I see out of the corner of my eye an F16 pulling about
> a 9 G turn to get onto a downwind to land behind me. I am just estimating the
> 9 G's but at a 90 degree angle of bank and no loss in altitude the guy had to
> be pulling hard. I didn't really realize till just then that this is how they
> slow down. The guy had to have been doing at least 300 coming into the pattern
> and then by powering back and slamming the high G turn, the aircraft slows
> down fairly rapidly. He still went by me in the opposite direction so fast
> that if you weren't looking at that instant, you never would have seen him.
The 80-90 degree bank is normal for the F-16 and F-15 in the pattern,
even at speeds of ~200 kts. I've flown a Cessna out of an Air Base
quite a bit, and even being advised by the tower of an aircraft, I
often don't see them until they are actually in the pattern. They
aren't painted dove grey for no reason. It's to camoflage them from
other aircraft and people on the ground.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Comdr. Data A.K.A. Michael Kraus
Member of the EAA, AOPA & AIAA
Any pointers to aircraft or aerodynamic technical information or
publications on the Internet, and in real-space would be appreciated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lamar
I am just quoteing the Kitplanes article. I suspect these numbers myself.
Paul Lamar
Andrew Boyd
>I believe this is not necessarily so ... at higher cruising speeds
>it is possible that the tail is actually producing lift.
What Color Is The Sky On Your Planet Dept
-----------------------------------------
Most of us fly a/c that have the C of G ahead of the C of P:
^
|
|
|
C of G C of P Tail
| |
| v
V
As long as the C of G remains forward of the C of P (and
we're not doing violent outside loops!) the tail must provide
a net downforce. What a/c do you fly with the C of G *aft*
of the C of P?
>as velocity increases the center of pressure tyically moves back.
ok ... and what effect would that have, given the vectors above?
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
van...@delphi.com
>As to whether that caused Steve Wittman's death, I'd rather believe
>that Wilbur and Orville sent a flaming chariot to pick him up.
>
Jeff,
If you can write this kind of prose on a routine basis, please let us know
which aviation magazines you write for so we can subscribe!
B. Van Arsdell
Brian Case
>In article 6...@mis02.micron.net, bc...@micron.net (Brian Case) writes:
>>
>>
>> >The tail has a down load on it in normal flight. If anything it will "snap"
>> >down. I heard that the entire rear fuselage separated.
>>
>> >Paul Lamar
>>
>> I would have to dig out some of may aerodynamics books to verify it,
>> but I believe this is not necessarily so. If I recall correcly, and
>> depending on the airfoil, as velocity increases the center of pressure
>> tyically moves back. So at higher cruising speeds it is possible that
>> the tail is actually producing lift.
>>
>If that happens at *any* speed you're in big trouble.
>John Kahn
>Tech Pubs
>Flight Control Systems
>Canadair Regional Jet
>Bombardier Inc.
Not True. I did screw up though, the CP would halve to move forward
for the tail to be lifting. Non the less I have flown an aircraft with
the CG behind CP. How do I know, what else would explain that when
flaring to land I had to hold full forward stick to maintain attitude.
But the aircraft flew fine. I suspected that the CG was to far aft so
I made a point to keep me airspeed up so that the elevator world not
have the opportunity to stall. If I had slowed down during the flight
to the point that the elevator could no longer hold the tail up I
would have been in deep.
I certainly don't recomend trying this, it is flat dangerous.
But my point is that depending on the airfoil, the CP moves for and
aft depending on the airspeed. So a particular airfoil, might have the
CP move far enough forward at cruise to let the tail lift instead of
push down.
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian bc...@micron.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Crosby
: Brian Case <bc...@micron.net> wrote:
: >
: >>The tail has a down load on it in normal flight.
: >I believe this is not necessarily so ... at higher cruising speeds
: >it is possible that the tail is actually producing lift.
: What Color Is The Sky On Your Planet Dept
: -----------------------------------------
: Most of us fly a/c that have the C of G ahead of the C of P:
Sigh ....
remember the following:
1. The requirement of static stability is satisfied by having the CG ahead of
the AERODYNAMIC CENTRE, not the C of P.
2. The pitching moment about the AC is independent of angle of attack (by
definition), and nearly always negative. It increases in magnitude as the
speed, and thus the dynamic pressure, increases.
3. For many aircraft, this means that the tail is generating lift at low
speed and downforce at high speed.
Charles Crosby
DGrosse
no
fault of his own.
Marty