Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Oscar

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday 19/09/1948


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. From the autobiography of Dick Kingsland, DFC, 'Into the Midst of Things': Another interesting character in my block was Bob Hitchcock, whose dangerously poor flying capacity became patently obvious to everyone on our course. History shows that he was not taken off flying, and he was the captain of the aircraft which crashed while on approach for landing at Canberra in August 1940, killing all on board, including the Hon. J.V. Fairbairn, the Minister for Air and Civil Aviation, after whom the airport was subsequently named. Anybody who knew Sir Richard Kingsland, knew that he was ho
  2. I may be wrong here - Bruce will, I would hope, correct me if I am - but the actual rudder appears to me to be unchanged. That means that the CONTROL surface area and reaction loading to the fuselage remains the same (and the fin/fuselage connection loads, which for reasons I do not care to enter, need to be considered - I have discussed those concerns privately with Bruce) remain unchanged. This is a good thing from a structural POV; start changing the loads into an airframe and you very, very much need an experienced Aero Engineer to tell you if you are acting wisely or putting a round i
  3. Of course a steel triangulated space-frame absorbs energy. If it didn't, every such structure would simply fall apart when subject to load. This is akin to saying that water is wet. It is the rate of rise of the member fail-point (in part) that impacts the human frame. It is no damn use to you if the stresses upon (for example) your spine being transmitted from the space-frame relieve just AFTER your spine has broken. A tubular steel structure CAN be designed to fail - and in a complex structure, CAN be designed to fail progressively - within the envelope of human tolerance. FAA compl
  4. Possibly, the very large number of SR-22s that have crashed has finally impinged onto the media consciousness?
  5. Here's a few observations from someone who has watched engine developments closely over many years: 1): When the adjectives/adverbs in the commentary ( 'revolutionary', 'greatest', 'unmatched') etc. seem to outnumber the actual fact-bearing words used, it is BS 2) When the depiction is purely derived from CAD, it is BS 3) When there is no reliable evidence of results from tests undertaken by a reputable third-party testing organisation, it is BS 4) if the engine web-site contains any information as to how to invest in this miracle, it is a scam.
  6. You always have ONE in clean air for spin recovery???
  7. Red: a Glider IS an aircraft... However, not to be an irascible pedant for too long.. I don't know. BUT, military gliders (mostly troop carriers, but also for heavy weapons transport), were used quite a lot in WWII. Military glider - Wikipedia . They were not designed to soar, but to glide to land following release from a tow aircraft. The Me 321 was the mother of all. messerschmitt me 321 - Google Search: And it spawned the 'Gigant' the world's most fugly but imposing motor-glider: messerschmitt gigant - Google Search:
  8. May I be allowed a little romanticism here? Diverging somewhat from the main topic of the thread, but some might find it interesting. Blaniks were the most produced glider, ever. They were roughly speaking, the C172 of the Glider world. But when they were all grounded following the Red Bull Aerobatics Team crash in 2010, the only ones cleared for flying - anywhere in the world - were the Llewellyn-modded ones. He identified the mainspar and tail structural problems and designed fixes for them, in 1978 - . something like 32 years before the failure that grounded all the rest. They were
  9. A guttering candle stub? - Luxury. We had a drawing of a candle, which all 24 of us had to share, and it didn't work after dark.
  10. Bruce: what we did was a 'limit load' test, as advised by Alan Kerr. As I understand it, that is the expected 'ultimate' load that can be applied in flight due to aerodynamic pressure, it's not a structural 'fail' load, but I assume that Alan recommended it because it's the practical load for flight condition. Pretty obviously, you wouldn't want to test for structural fail, i.e. take your mods to the breaking point and then having to rebuild the whole fin.. I agree - a limit-load test is sufficient to guarantee that the fin will take whatever the flight loads can impose. There are a few
  11. There is a lot of opinion here, but not a lot of it is based on a knowledge of the actual Jab. structure. There is ONE expert in Australia on this, for the LSA55: Alan Kerr. He knows more even than Rod Stiff, since Alan did the structural validation of every Jab. from (I think) the LSA55 and derivative models through to at least the J160. I don't wish to be a 'smartarse' here - but Alan Kerr did the justification for certification / certifying tests on all of those. He has, in his files, the details of the loads, the test procedure, the results. If you look at the test videos on the Jab
  12. Not to pre-empt the next chapter to come... but with reference to my earlier comment that the tail-surfaces are very ineffective at providing control in the usual sense we think about them: (from the Wiki article: R101 - Wikipedia ): Flying around 800 ft (240 m) above the ground, it passed over Alexandra Palace before changing course slightly at the landmark clock tower of the Metropolitan Cattle Market north of Islington, and thence over Shoreditch to cross the Thames in the vicinity of the Isle of Dogs, passing over the Royal Naval College at Greenwich at 20:28. The airship’s progress, fl
  13. From indistinct memory, (I don't have Leasor's book on hand), a test prop on the R101 test engine broke loose, due to the huge torque pulses of the diesel engine, broke through its 'chain mail' safety cage and the hangar wall, and was found some vast distance away - perhaps as far as a half-mile, though that could be hugely incorrect. The engines on the R101, for maneouvering, had to be stopped and then re-started in reverse if they needed reverse thrust for docking etc. IIRC, each engine had a small 'starter' engine with a gearbox to spin the diesel up in the desired direction, and that r
  14. And there is a lot of good background stuff on the R100/R101 story - particularly the R101 crash - in James Leasor's 'The Millionth Chance'. The R101 project was an unmitigated disaster all the way through a combination of bureaucracy, politics and management, while the R100 was just about exactly the opposite. The scale of these things is just immense - I've been in the Cardington hangar, and they (seriously!) get cloud forming under the roof in some conditions!l
  15. The owners buy the dream. Then, the nightmare begins.
  • Create New...