That's why I prefer to land on grass strips - tires. If the plane is too
big, then don't fly it.
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 9:49 AM Floyd Thursby via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
> Back in the 70s when I worked as a summer intern at NASA Langley in the
> flight research dept I brought up
Unfortunately, airplane air speed and wheel speed, driven by a turbine
device at the rim diameter would not directly relate to a controlled speed
limit...
Loads of variables to consider in calculation of what "can happen" so whip
out the old K slide rule and sharpen your #2's, but gut calc's
After noticing that most jet aircraft have flat bottoms, and how often planes
overshoot runways, I thought of attaching something like brake lining to the
bottom of jets and attaching the bottom to hydraulic shock absorbers which
would lower the friction material covered bottom before landing.
> On September 1, 2018 at 1:38 PM G Mann via Mercedes
> wrote:
>
> Also, if you used air turbine device to spin up the wheels... how do you
> control tire rotation speed?
Max rpm should be a function of airspeed.
There's already a limit on the airspeed at which you can drop wheels...
Great thought. Now design the entire system without adding one ounce of
weight or another system that can fail to the aircraft. oops being
an aircraft, you need to also have a "redundant system" so if one wheel
spin up fails, a fail safe system can take over... can't have one wheel set
Build brushless motors into the hubs.
Power various aircraft functions while braking the plane, and use them to speed
match the wheels upon landing.
Call it hybrid drive technology and governments will mandate it whether it
makes sense in practice or not.
Mitch.
Back in the 70s when I worked as a summer intern at NASA Langley in the
flight research dept I brought up this idea, thought it would save on
tires. I had been flying for awhile at that point, and always cringed
at touchdown when I heard the tires squeal. Then being in the flight
research
As I recall from Test Pilot School days, it's been tried but it increased the
required runway length. Tires were cheaper than runways.
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig via Mercedes
...
> Several years ago I submitted to NASA Tech Briefs Idea Contest my idea of
> putting curved sheet
I remember reading about something on the order of Craigs idea back in the 707
era when tires had to be changed/recapped after 6 landings. IIRC there were
rubber/fabric "flaps" built into the sidewall(s) of the tires that spun the
wheels before touchdown. Probably read about it in Popular
Creative thought... it raises real practical questions about how to control
wheel speed at touchdown the angular loading is a real issue... watch
the blast of tire smoke that happens on landing and the long streaks of
tire rubber that gets scrubbed off while wheels are going from dead stop
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 21:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Mitch Haley via Mercedes
wrote:
>
> > On August 31, 2018 at 9:03 PM Craig via Mercedes
> > wrote: Several years ago I submitted to NASA
> > Tech Briefs Idea Contest my idea of putting curved sheet metal
> > "buckets", not unlike those of water turbines,
> On August 31, 2018 at 9:03 PM Craig via Mercedes
> wrote:
> Several years ago I submitted to NASA Tech Briefs Idea Contest my idea of
> putting curved sheet metal "buckets", not unlike those of water turbines,
> on the wheels of aircraft to spin up the wheels and tires when the landing
>
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:38:46 -0700 G Mann via Mercedes
wrote:
> Landing weights on commercial aircraft are often in the 400,000 lb
> range or above... Takeoff weights often exceed 750,000 lbs... add to
> the landing weight load, all factors such as side loads [ie cross wind
> loads] and landing
Landing weights on commercial aircraft are often in the 400,000 lb range or
above... Takeoff weights often exceed 750,000 lbs... add to the landing
weight load, all factors such as side loads [ie cross wind loads] and
landing speeds nearing 200 mph, so the tires at touch down are NOT turning,
then
> On August 31, 2018 at 5:55 PM Craig via Mercedes
> wrote:
>
> High rated bearings are intended for precision applications like aircraft
> instruments or surgical equipment.
>
>*** Lower graded bearings are intended for the vast majority
>of applications such as vehicles,
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Mitch Haley via Mercedes
wrote:
> I always thought ABEC 5 = Class 5 were darn smooth bearings.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABEC_scale
>
> It's the ABEC 1 stuff (class 6X) that you want to avoid.
>From the page at the link above (with emphasis
I always thought ABEC 5 = Class 5 were darn smooth bearings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABEC_scale
It's the ABEC 1 stuff (class 6X) that you want to avoid.
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To
> OK wrote:
> ... Class 2 aviation grade FAA-PMA bearings (Timken
> designates these with a -20629 suffix).
> Tighter tolerance and higher quality control than Class 4
> automotive bearings.
> Maybe try to source class 2 for MBs???
I like the idea! Probably need to replace the races with the
18 matches
Mail list logo
