Weak bolts

[facthunter]

Put it in 'Off Topic' if you want to continue it. we've done that sort of thing before. Nev

[facthunter]

I think the Moderators have handled this before. I don't think it enhances the standing of rec flying on  an "organised aspect" and we do now have two  "headings' to cover this. sort of thing. Nev

[BrendAn]

Just now, facthunter said:

I think the Moderators have handled this before. I don't think it enhances the standing of rec flying on  an "organised aspect" and we do now have two  "headings' to cover this. sort of thing. Nev

Will they move this for me. I am trying

 

[BrendAn]

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I think the Moderators have handled this before. I don't think it enhances the standing of rec flying on  an "organised aspect" and we do now have two  "headings' to cover this. sort of thing. Nev

Reported it to the mods. They Will move it hopefully.

[Admin]

I am unable to move the topic to the off topic site Social Australia as they are separate sites and user lists

[turboplanner]

 

 

28 minutes ago, facthunter said:

C'mon enough of the Truck talk. It's like a Pi$$!ng contest. This forum is about aeroplanes. Nev

For once how about looking back through the thread to the point where people decided to go off topic. You more than anyone else should know that we did not to a safe place with the bolt discussion.

[turboplanner]

OK, let's just not talk about it then.

[BrendAn]

3 minutes ago, Admin said:

I am unable to move the topic to the off topic site Social Australia as they are separate sites and user lists

No worries. Close it then if you can. I don't want to cause trouble. No more than I normally do anyway.

[old man emu]

At 12:37 pm on 2/10/22 BrendAn indicated that his original question had been answered. 

 

Now it's time for those words of love and devotion oft heard in a house of ill-repute, "Next one!"

[facthunter]

 Everyone would have a better knowledge of THAT topic than I.  OME. Nev.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

 Everyone would have a better knowledge of THAT topic than I.  OME. Nev.

We need to talk about aircraft FH.

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 2/10/2022 at 8:42 PM, BrendAn said:

Off on another tangent now.

Why when I read aircraft specs is neg g is always lower than positive g in the airframe stress limits. 

Probably a dumb question but I don't know the answer.

 

The positive number needs to be higher. When you are flying along, you are at 1G, not zero G. Most GA manoeuvres, like turning, add positive G's rather than result in negative G's. Aerobatic planes have more even positive and negative G's. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Nev is right as usual, but I have wondered for years about the in-laws caravan and now I know more, so thanks turbs.

[BrendAn]

37 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

The positive number needs to be higher. When you are flying along, you are at 1G, not zero G. Most GA manoeuvres, like turning, add positive G's rather than result in negative G's. Aerobatic planes have more even positive and negative G's. 

Thanks. 👍

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was a story about the top Me190 pilot who had a strong ability to withstand negative "g"s . He used to escape by thrusting the stick forward and doing a bunt. Of course he was helped by the fuel injection, instead of a carburettor.

[facthunter]

You still need a special oiling system and fuel supply (Klunk tank principle.)  I can't see how a lot of negative"G"  doesn't damage everyone. Lying prone helps. Your eyes and brain pipes don't like it at all. and you can't put pressure socks on your head. Strong negative "G" feels awful. Nev