X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:29:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.64] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTP id 1918072 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:08:47 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.64; envelope-from=rtitsworth@mindspring.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=pUSmZIHS2il1jEn5wI7O+d/9Qaj+qpYjSytsKvx/Zrq35zA8bjjbAozbvlPQufWM; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [72.245.36.114] (helo=RDTVAIO) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HR0At-0007Ji-JP for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:07:55 -0400 From: "rtitsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: runway length now reaching unforeseen abstractions. X-Original-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:07:49 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <011501c76535$ed829aa0$84affea9@RDTVAIO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0116_01C76514.6670FAA0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcdlE5dEtLMydt09TdOteyvDdKlrrQAH3NHA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: X-ELNK-Trace: b17f11247b2ac8f0a79dc4b33984cbaa0a9da525759e26542add7af99a70e401d19ac89a44b1f8f4f966978d6047df59350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 72.245.36.114 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0116_01C76514.6670FAA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "In theory", the area of the contact patch is found from weight divided by inflation pressure. If the tire didn't have sidewall, belt, and tread stiffness, then the tire size wouldn't really matter much to contact patch at all. Even when considering the effects of tire stiffness, the increased contact area effectively reduces contact pressure (below inflation pressure). Of course the real word is much more complex than engineering simplification/theory and thus, size and shape does matter. Perhaps another "limit" to aircraft breaking is a byproduct of the tricycle gear configuration. Under hard braking, weight effectively shifts to the front (just like a car). However, since our planes only have brakes on the rear (main gear), braking is sub-optimal. Adding brakes to the front would (again in theory) probably double the braking capability and thus perhaps reduce roll out distance by 50%. However, given the castering nose wheel, individual right/left pedals, and relatively high center of gravity, even thinking about front brakes seems silly. _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Sky2high@aol.com . my 320 would have to use 17 inch tires to even come close to the contact patch of my 'vette. _____ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ------=_NextPart_000_0116_01C76514.6670FAA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

“In theory”, the area = of the contact patch is found from weight divided by inflation pressure.  If the = tire didn’t have sidewall, belt, and tread stiffness, then the tire size = wouldn’t really matter much to contact patch at all.  Even when considering the = effects of tire stiffness, the increased contact area effectively reduces contact = pressure (below inflation pressure).  Of course the real word is much more = complex than engineering simplification/theory and thus, size and shape does = matter.

 

Perhaps another “limit” = to aircraft breaking is a byproduct of the tricycle gear = configuration.  Under hard braking, weight effectively shifts to the front (just like a car).  However, since our planes only have brakes on the rear (main = gear), braking is sub-optimal.  Adding brakes to the front would (again in theory) probably double the braking capability and thus perhaps reduce = roll out distance by 50%.  However, given the castering nose wheel, = individual right/left pedals, and relatively high center of gravity, even thinking = about front brakes seems silly.

 

From: = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Sky2high@aol.com


… my 320 would have to use 17 inch tires  to = even come close to the contact patch of my 'vette.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL = at AOL.com.

------=_NextPart_000_0116_01C76514.6670FAA0--