X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-PolluStop-Diagnostic: (direct reply)\eX-PolluStop-Score: 0.00\eX-PolluStop: Scanned with Niversoft PolluStop 2.1 RC1, http://www.niversoft.com/pollustop Return-Path: Received: from relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.182.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c4) with ESMTP id 868265 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:48:32 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.165; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net Received: from filter02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (filter02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [66.133.183.69]) by relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD4737259C for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.182.165]) by filter02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (filter02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [66.133.183.69]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 25047-06-76 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (67-137-85-235.dsl2.cok.tn.frontiernet.net [67.137.85.235]) by relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA5937250F for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <425DCBB6.7030609@frontiernet.net> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:47:34 -0500 From: Jim Sower User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Gear-UP Landings - problem solved...? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0515-1, 04/12/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20040701 (2.0) at filter02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net But it *might* self destruct and knock off the case which would go through the prop. Who's gonna' test it? ... Jim S. Jack Beale wrote: > K, > > We don't know what will actually happen to a Nylon or Phenolic > ball when it hits the asphalt at 60 mph. Perhaps it would > self-destruct - perhaps it would only roll. > > Point is, it only has to work once to prevent damage to the > airplane. If it does get damaged, it's simple and cheap to replace > the ball... > > I kinda like the idea of a rollerblade with several rollers > contacting the runway at the same time.... > > Jack Beale > jack.beale@att.net > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Marvin Kaye > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:00 PM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Gear-UP Landings - problem solved...? > > Hi Jack, > > I've used these rollers in the glass industry for longer than I care > to admit > to. The reason they work nicely in an industrial application is > because they > don't have to spin real fast (generally) and the surface of the ball > stays > relatively nice and shiny allowing the bearings that it seats in to do > their > job. I'm afraid that with a nylon ball after its initial contact with > any > runway surface its exterior will be damaged so quickly that it won't > be able > to "float" on its bearings, and it will soon turn into another "hockey > puck".