|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> The Cafe >> Beringer /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1289389863 Message started by klx650sm2002 on 11/10/10 at 03:51:03 |
|
Title: Beringer Post by klx650sm2002 on 11/10/10 at 03:51:03 This is the Beringer 4 disc system, it's supposed to reduce gyroscopic inertia. What do you think ? http://www.beringerbrakes.co.uk/users/www.beringerbrakes.co.uk/upload/dscf0135.jpg Clive W :) |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Phelonius on 11/10/10 at 04:48:11 So how does adding another disc reduce gyroscopic inertia? They both are still going around in the same direction. Why would you want to reduce gyroscopic inertia? It would seem to me that gyroscopic inertia is one of the stabilizing powers that assists riders in control of the two wheel machine. All I see is more braking power due to more swept area. Sasquatch Jim |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by mpescatori on 11/10/10 at 05:23:42 +1 It's only useful when you have a single disc setup and cannot upgrade to dual discs. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by mick on 11/10/10 at 08:40:21 During WW11 they tested a device that would speed up wheels just prior to landing, supossed to make landing smoother,but it had the oppersite effect and almost ran the plane off the runway,it went everywhere but straight. Jerry are you out there ? |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Phelonius on 11/10/10 at 10:19:28 363238302F333E3732363E225B0 wrote:
Then why do they not have control problems on take off? the wheels are spinning as they leave the ground. They have got to have gyroscopic influence then too but they don't have problems. It your statement is correct, the mechanism that was used to spin the wheels must have been on a different axis and it was the influence, not the spinning wheels. Phelonius |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by verslagen1 on 11/10/10 at 11:08:43 1D252821222324383E4D0 wrote:
Then why do they not have control problems on take off? the wheels are spinning as they leave the ground. They have got to have gyroscopic influence then too but they don't have problems. It your statement is correct, the mechanism that was used to spin the wheels must have been on a different axis and it was the influence, not the spinning wheels. Phelonius[/quote] It's hard to land a plane on 2 tanks. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by mick on 11/10/10 at 11:45:07 546C61686B6A6D7177040 wrote:
Then why do they not have control problems on take off? the wheels are spinning as they leave the ground. They have got to have gyroscopic influence then too but they don't have problems. It your statement is correct, the mechanism that was used to spin the wheels must have been on a different axis and it was the influence, not the spinning wheels. Phelonius[/quote] the wheels will not have that effect if going around in mid air,besides the pilot can apply the breaks after becoming airborne. that is why the plane will not be effected before landing, only after touchdown.I dont have to ty and convince you ,it's a fact,try and google it. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Phelonius on 11/10/10 at 14:53:55 30343E3629353831343038245D0 wrote:
Then why do they not have control problems on take off? the wheels are spinning as they leave the ground. They have got to have gyroscopic influence then too but they don't have problems. It your statement is correct, the mechanism that was used to spin the wheels must have been on a different axis and it was the influence, not the spinning wheels. Phelonius[/quote] the wheels will not have that effect if going around in mid air,besides the pilot can apply the breaks after becoming airborne. that is why the plane will not be effected before landing, only after touchdown.I dont have to ty and convince you ,it's a fact,try and google it.[/quote] Google it under what phrase? Phelonius |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by mick on 11/10/10 at 17:40:56 hope this works. at least I found something. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At press time, we had received three responses to the reader who wanted to know why aircraft tires aren't configured with wind-catching profiles that would bring the wheels up to air speed before the plane lands (Sensors, January 2000). Here they are: Why don't airplanes spin up their landing gear wheels to land-speed before touchdown, or why don't tire designers make the tires automatically spin up using air flow? The best answer I've heard for this perennial question is that adding those huge gyroscopes (each wheel, multiplied by the number of wheels, and then there is the moment to calculate and on and on) to the plane right at the time when quick responsiveness (if a jumbo jet can be quickly responsive) is a safety hazard. It would make the plane unresponsive, and the pilots would no longer have that fingertip control required for maneuvering. Consider this experiment: take your front bicycle wheel off and hold it by the axle tips between your two hands directly in front of and in line with your body at chest height. Have a friend give it a really good spin-up and then try to run down a winding hallway without hitting anything while maintaining the wheel attitude directly in front of your body--i.e., turn the wheel for every turn you make in the hallway. See? Now you don't want your pilots trying to do that with a plane they are landing on a short runway with the planes wheels spun up, do you? Especially not with you aboard! Phelonius, the pilot applied the brakes after take off to stop any gyroscopic effect. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/10/10 at 17:43:30 Mick - I'll reply tomorrow when I'm in the office. It's hard to type much on this Blackberry. Jerry |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by LostArtist on 11/10/10 at 18:00:04 202F2329222F24282F382D2F384A0 wrote:
get a droid, then you'll know hard typing ;) |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Lupo on 11/10/10 at 18:06:54 7F786C222124677926242426140 wrote:
I like them. I'm sure it would improve braking but they look so trick! As far as reducing gyroscopic effect, perhaps it would apply if you replace larger diameter single disk for smaller dia. double. Seems the larger would still give better brake feel though. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Phelonius on 11/10/10 at 18:27:18 If you try the bicycle wheel expirement remember to tilt the wheel as you turn, the same as leaning the bicycle. Then it will work Phelonius |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by prsavage on 11/11/10 at 11:00:38 If gyroscopic effect didn't work while airborne, then you wouldn't be able to throw anything but a straight fastball while pitching. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/11/10 at 11:30:04 I know very little about the "pre-rotators" that were experimented with in the WW II and post war years on large aircraft. What I do know is that the experiments were discontinued because the added cost and complexity weren't worth the minor savings in tire wear. Airplane tires have a very short life. In the 1950s, as jets came into being, with landing speeds in excess of 150 mph, and with still more primitive tire compounds of that era, some airplanes were only getting about 15 landings per tire change. The issue is that when an airplanes lands, its tires have to speed up from zero to whatever the landing speed is in a fractional of a heartbeat. That scrubs a tremendous amount of rubber off of the tire. If you ever look at a runway, you can see what look like skid marks are the ends of the runway - this is the rubber that has been scrubbed off during each landing. Even today, runways are routinely closed now and then for a day's worth of rubber removal from the pavement. But as tire compound science developed, tire wear rates were significantly reduced, so the idea of having a device to get the tires rotating before landing just wasn't worth the added cost and complexity. But I know of no control difficulties found during those experiments, but they may have been there - I just don't know. Also, back when airplanes routinely landed on grass runways, the problem was no where nearly as big, because a tire will actually "scoot" or slide some on the grass, since grass has far less friction than pavement, and the tires could come up to speed over a longer period of time with far less scrubbing of the tread. Of course, nowadays, only the smallest of light airplanes still routinely use grass. As for pitching baseball curves, sliders, etc. is has a lot more to do with the areodynamics of a baseball and how the balls rotates leaving the pitcher's hand. We have a doc at our airport who used to be a pitching scout for the NY Yankees. He gives a wonderful talk to flying groups about the aerodynamics of pitching and his story weaves together aerodynamics with athletic prowess. As he waves his hand around, it's really neat to see how big a World Series championship ring is. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by mick on 11/11/10 at 11:58:06 Very good Jerry,The reason I am so sure of the gyroscopic effect on aircraft.As a young led I was into model building,I thought I was so smart when I went running to my Dad and told him my great idea for saving rubber on aircraft wheels. My dad was a aircraft mechanic that worked all through the war on Spits and Hurricans, The rubber situation in Britain during the war had gotten to the critical stage,didn't it all come from Burma then ? Anyway my dad went to tell me about these experiments that were done to save rubber .Spinning wheels was one of them,they tried on hurricans mostly ,they tried a slow speed ,and as close to landing speed as possable,each time the plane touched down it veered from side to side and was out of control for several seconds,along time in pilot speak . My Dad also held a patent for a device that helped stop the browning machine gun in the wings from jamming, just a simple little thing,hopefully saved some lives. He was paid a penny for the patent because it was made on company time. After the war My dad did go on and get his flying licence,single engine. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/11/10 at 12:32:54 Yo, mick - I wish I could have met your dad - we could have told some real tales and I could have learned a lot from him. Sounds like he was one of those great guys from his generation. I'm surprised that RAF worried much about tire wear on Spits and Hurricanes - weren't most RAF stations still basically large, sod fields during the early War years? And with the relatively light weight of a Spit or Hurricane, I wouldn't have thought that tire wear was a big deal, especially operating off of sod fields. The experiments I knew of related to bombers. As they weigh many times what a small fighter does, tire wear with them is more expensive, as they have more tires and they wear out so much faster with the weight. When our B-47 came along, tires were wearing out really fast, since it was the first jet bomber to be built in any large numbers, and it landed much faster than anything before it. Remember how it had the big drag chute that was deployed after landing to slow it down? Many fighters had them too, including my all time favorite, the F-4 Phantom. Brake technology wasn't that advanced then, and the drag chute was needed to slow down even using a 10,000 foot runway. The F-4 emergency procedure for a drag chute failure to deploy was mainly to stand on the brakes, bend over and kiss your posterior good bye, and hope that 47,000 pounds of iron screaming down the runway at 160 mph would come to a stop before you ran out of runway. If it did stop, the brakes were probably so hot that the landing gear was trashed, and you might even get a gear fire from the overheated hydraulic fluid in the braking system. The brake discs would get red hot and heat up the fluid to its flash point. Of course the tires were goners. The kind of stuff for 25 year olds; not old men. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by mick on 11/11/10 at 14:04:08 6768646E6568636F687F6A687F0D0 wrote:
I'm sure Jerry that testing on bombers was also carried out. Did you know that every citizen in Britain was obliged to turn in any scrap metal, mostly though it was not scrap, they came and took all iron railings around houses ,we were expected to hand over all alluminium pots and pans. It was about this time my dad took up motorcycling, you could own a car but to keep in running on two gallons a week was tough. he also rode bycles.Smoked a pipe and always carried a sketch pad and a small water color box. one of his fellow workers was a fantastic artist,and my dad and him became good friends ,he taught my dad to draw and paint on there lunch hour. His name was Reynolds not Joshuh. I had one of his paintings ,but it got badly smoke damaged in a fire. My dad had a dark side that is to personal to go into.But generally a very decent man,and a perfect father. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 11/11/10 at 14:24:59 Mick - I know that life was much tougher in England during the war than it was here - we never got bombed. But beyond that, we had only voluntary things like turning in your pots and pans, never compulsory. We had gas rationing too - some people like doctors, who made house calls then, were exempt, but it affected most people. We had meat rationing for a part of the war, but it ended before the Japanese surrendered. There was a big black market in gas and meat rationing stamps. My mother said the meat rationing was the worst - most people ate lots of meat then, naturally didn't know as much about diet and nutrition as we do now. Everything about WW II, from the absolute national togetherness about winning the war, to life on the homefront was a time, the likes of which we'll never see again. Can you imagine Americans ever again being so united toward a common goal? We had a bit of that feeling for a few weeks after 9/11, but then the conspiracy idiots surfaced, and once again Americans were b!tching about their government's policies and aims. How did we go so wrong? During WW II, FDR had his political foes, but when it came to winning the war, everyone was together. My dad started the war in the Navy, but soon transferred to the Army Air Corps, and finished out the war flying B-17s from England. He loved to talk about his experiences, unlike a lot of vets, but I think the infantry soldiers are mainly the ones who didn't talk as much as the flyers did. Flyers saw lots of carnage too - it wasn't all romantic chivalry when a German 30mm cannon shell or a hunk of flak ripped thru a B-17, tearing apart bodies as well as metal. They truly were the greatest generation. |
|
Title: Re: Beringer Post by mick on 11/11/10 at 14:31:53 Absolutly + 1 |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |