From Aus Cars.
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
From: Boxer on 8 Sep 2007 09:17 "Aeek" <aeeeeeek(a)tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:pr35e35iir813rooh1lfitevjjnof1ftql(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:56:05 GMT, "Boxer" <someone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>When I was flying a Cessna 182 I could never find the reverse thrust >>button >>so I just used the brakes on the wheels. > > Did think about light planes after posting. Q. How much speed to you > shed by maximising drag vs by using the brakes? Apart from flaps? I never thought to open the door during landing. Boxer
From: Resound on 8 Sep 2007 10:33 "Boxer" <someone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:OAuEi.32514$4A1.21103(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > > "Resound" <sacredchao(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message > news:46e227e5$0$19339$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "Aeek" <aeeeeeek(a)tpg.com.au> wrote in message >> news:0vkrd3hihhqp7qgdctomhog62fbbkf1dcu(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:29:17 +1000, vifer .@. wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:38:11 GMT, Aido <cb600shornet(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>http://www.fotothing.com/photos/f83/f83248eb0f132c80d9f1549945df3989_1f7.jpg >>>>> >>>> >>>>hmm...not much clearance between the seat and that rear tyre, should >>>>it expand with the CF forces. >>>> >>>>vifer >>> >>> Who knows what those tyres are likely to do, they are operating well >>> outside their designed parameters as aircraft tyres. >>> Even as a drag bike, the short run and low speed turning should be ok >>> but aircraft tyres aren't designed to have power go through them. >> >> Sure they are, it's just that the power usually goes from the ground to >> the hub rather than the other way around. I'm guessing the wattage >> dissapated by aircraft brakes after landing is a moderately horrific >> amount. >> > > Wattage? > > Joule! > > Boxer Overall, yes. Engines are rated in power though. At any given moment the brakes would be getting rid of x watts. Over the course of the landing this would amount to x joules. Either way, that sort of urge applied to a bike, even one that size, would be an interesting thing to watch.
From: Resound on 8 Sep 2007 10:35 "Aeek" <aeeeeeek(a)tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:qvv4e3d8273c51ug269dh09mb386d16fk5(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:41:33 +1000, "Resound" <sacredchao(a)bigpond.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Aeek" <aeeeeeek(a)tpg.com.au> wrote in message >>news:0vkrd3hihhqp7qgdctomhog62fbbkf1dcu(a)4ax.com... > >>> >>> Who knows what those tyres are likely to do, they are operating well >>> outside their designed parameters as aircraft tyres. >>> Even as a drag bike, the short run and low speed turning should be ok >>> but aircraft tyres aren't designed to have power go through them. >> >>Sure they are, it's just that the power usually goes from the ground to >>the >>hub rather than the other way around. I'm guessing the wattage dissapated >>by >>aircraft brakes after landing is a moderately horrific amount. > > Aircraft brakes are reverse thrust, the force doesn't go through the > tires. Same as when taking off. The tyres just have to survive the > incidental accelerations and hitting the ground, they are not part of > the drive train. Traction isn't what an aircraft tyre is about. I thought disc brakes were first developed specifically for aircraft. I also seem to recall reading something about heat soak from said brakes making tyres explode after a high speed emergency landing. I'm prepared to admit that I may have misremembered this.
From: Boxer on 8 Sep 2007 18:59 "GB" <gb0807(a)kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message news:13e69969b9pg38e(a)corp.supernews.com... > "Resound" <sacredchao(a)bigpond.com> wrote in news:46e2b2aa$0$14825$afc38c87 > @news.optusnet.com.au: >> Engines are rated in power though. > > IIRC, aircraft engines are rated in pounds of thrust. > > > GB > -- > "Most police misconduct occurs when citizens challenge an individual > officer's authority" (Reiss, 1971 c.in Jermier & Berkes 1979) Cessna 182, rated in KW or HP 182 - One 170kW (230hp) Continental O-470-R flat six piston engine driving a two blade constant speed propeller. TR182 - One 175kW (235hp) Lycoming O-540-L3C5D turbocharged flat six. 182S - One 170kW (230hp) Textron Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5. Boxer
From: G-S on 8 Sep 2007 22:25
GB wrote: > "Boxer" <someone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in > news:CPFEi.32657$4A1.23718(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au: >> "GB" <gb0807(a)kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message >> news:13e69969b9pg38e(a)corp.supernews.com... >> Cessna 182, rated in KW or HP > > Fair enough. I'm thinking large jet transports, not little > fellers. > I wouldn't call a C130 hercules a 'little feller', anything with a prop is generally rated by HP (or shaft HP). http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm Specs are down the web page a bit. G-S |