Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

Martin Skiby

No comment other than to say WOW. I think you missed the point.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> wrote:

"Some one could do the dive test...."

I will bronze and frame that statement.

The problem with stupid people is that they can not comprehend intelligence
above their own, and and while seeing the danger in a Kamikaze dive to 220 MPH
plus, they "cleverly" remove themselves from the danger by trying to let someone
else be responsible in case the wings rips off, and believe their request will
result in a test program where the whole flying community will enthusiastically
climb up to altitude, dive down and scream "Banzai".

It's pathetic but funny , the guy is unaware of it, , the guy actually think he
is really smart....and really have a legit case...and a really good theoretical
point to prove.........while most of us, smile , shake their heads, and roll
their eyes.

The fact that he doesn't want to do it himself, but are asking others, and with
that request, immediately got the chuckles way beyond him.

*****whats the result of the test***

Weeeeell.... eighty three of us made it through...
Two didn't survive, probably flutter....
...and one is still missing...

But we sure proved that your theory was right....what a were
absolutely right all the way....can I touch your hair?


From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 6:18:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea.  I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down.  :>)


On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:

Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to


Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Quickie Builders Association WEB site

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Join to automatically receive all group messages.