Preserving polished aluminum

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 04:57:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:13:57 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:19:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 2:28 PM, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:

Anybody can fly an aeroplane, alright?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og&t=43s

Excellent. That's a great airplane, a Beech 18, I think. If you're gonna crash, that's a great airplane to crash in because of its monocoque construction its stresses are in the skin.

Go to 4:33. Bikes and planes work better when you add lightness.

Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little
over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
Very impressive. I wonder what its normal airspeed is (or would be with
full covering of the fuselage). And what sort of weather it may be
limited to. Any idea?

The Piper J-3 was built in a number of versions with engines ranging
from 40 to 65 hp. Catalog listed empty weight was 765 lbs, with the 65
hp engine. Cruising speed for the 65 hp version was stated to be 75
mph.

My father belonged to a flying club that owned a J-3, I believe with
the 40 hp engine, and a steam train could out run it is there was any
wind at all.

They were a bit rudimentary. No brakes and the fuel gauge was a float
attached to a wire that stuck up through the fuel tank cap :-)
--

And people wonder why I would never get in a private aircraft.

Actually the no brakes thing worked out pretty well on the grass strip
that the flying club used. To taxi took, maybe, half throttle to get
moving and if you went back to idle the thing stopped moving :-)

The wire on a float fuel gauge wasn't fool proof so most people would
just push down on the wire before cranking the engine and if it didn't
pop back up to it's original position they'd take the cap off and peer
in to see how much fuel they had. Here is a photo looking forward
showing the fuel gauge.
http://tinyurl.com/y9k8u8yj

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 8/10/2017 7:57 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:13:57 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:19:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 2:28 PM, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:

Anybody can fly an aeroplane, alright?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og&t=43s

Excellent. That's a great airplane, a Beech 18, I think. If you're gonna crash, that's a great airplane to crash in because of its monocoque construction its stresses are in the skin.

Go to 4:33. Bikes and planes work better when you add lightness.

Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little
over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
Very impressive. I wonder what its normal airspeed is (or would be with
full covering of the fuselage). And what sort of weather it may be
limited to. Any idea?

The Piper J-3 was built in a number of versions with engines ranging
from 40 to 65 hp. Catalog listed empty weight was 765 lbs, with the 65
hp engine. Cruising speed for the 65 hp version was stated to be 75
mph.

My father belonged to a flying club that owned a J-3, I believe with
the 40 hp engine, and a steam train could out run it is there was any
wind at all.

They were a bit rudimentary. No brakes and the fuel gauge was a float
attached to a wire that stuck up through the fuel tank cap :-)
--

And people wonder why I would never get in a private aircraft.

I did go up once in a J-3 that supposedly flew reconnaissance missions
in the Pacific in WW2. The most memorable part was that after some
banging and slamming, the pilot got the door to stay closed by hooking
some coat hanger wire onto it from the inside.


--
- Frank Krygowski

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Ashevilliot wrote:
Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y

That's an airplane trackstand, I'm impressed.

- ---
Lars Lehtonen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEvvKqsf7DSishcEgngTfUdOvLBPIFAlmN8S gACgkQgTfUdOvL
BPKy7Af/d741CWBT50BwuZPQxSvaCnWGIPEpSMD7qdfIutEzVrGyg3qlWu qUPJV3
xKZdjSe3mf+VICMdhdvhFU/kjlleFoK+r98ZHZnWdvedVt6PFyL7JxUKsUwqJ9dx
eAEmKZ1mGav/VtjVsLt+IZfD5M8imLqUeM+8oArDxOjPHmyreP8oxH+wW8eHcd 4b
MiebrJeKbmhs8lpNghzXcBnYr9aGxSWyMMMItiIUy5HABndeHK JBXtQtam0ztqDP
yl82hKciuASC/wVf7LiKQ+/AF6+M/KmBNKsYpLb02x3+b4H2awQzLDo/ugmKXuo1
A8qwJpzl7WO3Y/aFp4aGN5V7qZglfA==
=k7H7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 2:28 PM, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:

Anybody can fly an aeroplane, alright?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og&t=43s

Excellent. That's a great airplane, a Beech 18, I think. If you're gonna crash, that's a great airplane to crash in because of its monocoque construction its stresses are in the skin.

Go to 4:33. Bikes and planes work better when you add lightness.

Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
Very impressive. I wonder what its normal airspeed is (or would be with
full covering of the fuselage). And what sort of weather it may be
limited to. Any idea?

--
- Frank Krygowski

The lack of cover on the fuselage will add drag, probably 3 or 4 knots, or 5 mph. Such an airframe is said to be "dirty." My estimate is that with the big prop and 180 hp engine the aircraft will cruise at 80 to 90 mph. But then he's not set up to cruise. He's set up to win the contest, which he did with fire and poetry. Alaskans like to fly with the crows and eagles and cruise up and down the rough terrain and then put down where they can, often on a gravel beach or a tiny strip of land.

With a very clean airframe a pilot has been known to do 213 mph with a 65 hp engine. I saw it done by the late Mike Arnold in his AR-5.

https://youtu.be/FMvzzhLZtNg?t=893

Nick Jones got even more airspeed out of his Lightning Bug w/ 64 hp, probably because of a retractable nosewheel and Nick was an engineer while Mike was self-taught.

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.p...ightning%20Bug
(Yeah, he went to a higher hp engine, which was a real dog.)

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.p...ightning%20Bug

The secrets were
1. laminar flow airfoils
2. Wind tunnel data
3. Fairings
4. NACA ducts
5. Slick, lightweight composite construction using Rutan fiberglas

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:13:57 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:19:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 2:28 PM, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:

Anybody can fly an aeroplane, alright?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og&t=43s

Excellent. That's a great airplane, a Beech 18, I think. If you're gonna crash, that's a great airplane to crash in because of its monocoque construction its stresses are in the skin.

Go to 4:33. Bikes and planes work better when you add lightness.

Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little
over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
Very impressive. I wonder what its normal airspeed is (or would be with
full covering of the fuselage). And what sort of weather it may be
limited to. Any idea?

The Piper J-3 was built in a number of versions with engines ranging
from 40 to 65 hp. Catalog listed empty weight was 765 lbs, with the 65
hp engine. Cruising speed for the 65 hp version was stated to be 75
mph.

My father belonged to a flying club that owned a J-3, I believe with
the 40 hp engine, and a steam train could out run it is there was any
wind at all.

They were a bit rudimentary. No brakes and the fuel gauge was a float
attached to a wire that stuck up through the fuel tank cap :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Cubs had brakes since the late forties. In the 50's they got hydraulic brakes.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Ashevilliot
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:13:57 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:19:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 2:28 PM, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:

Anybody can fly an aeroplane, alright?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og&t=43s

Excellent. That's a great airplane, a Beech 18, I think. If you're gonna crash, that's a great airplane to crash in because of its monocoque construction its stresses are in the skin.

Go to 4:33. Bikes and planes work better when you add lightness.

Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little
over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
Very impressive. I wonder what its normal airspeed is (or would be with
full covering of the fuselage). And what sort of weather it may be
limited to. Any idea?

The Piper J-3 was built in a number of versions with engines ranging
from 40 to 65 hp. Catalog listed empty weight was 765 lbs, with the 65
hp engine. Cruising speed for the 65 hp version was stated to be 75
mph.

My father belonged to a flying club that owned a J-3, I believe with
the 40 hp engine, and a steam train could out run it is there was any
wind at all.

They were a bit rudimentary. No brakes and the fuel gauge was a float
attached to a wire that stuck up through the fuel tank cap :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Cubs had brakes since the late forties. In the 50's they got hydraulic brakes.

I can only comment on what I saw and the J-3 that the flying club
owned did not have brakes.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 7:42:49 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT), Ashevilliot
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:13:57 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:19:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 2:28 PM, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:

Anybody can fly an aeroplane, alright?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og&t=43s

Excellent. That's a great airplane, a Beech 18, I think. If you're gonna crash, that's a great airplane to crash in because of its monocoque construction its stresses are in the skin.

Go to 4:33. Bikes and planes work better when you add lightness.

Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little
over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
Very impressive. I wonder what its normal airspeed is (or would be with
full covering of the fuselage). And what sort of weather it may be
limited to. Any idea?

The Piper J-3 was built in a number of versions with engines ranging
from 40 to 65 hp. Catalog listed empty weight was 765 lbs, with the 65
hp engine. Cruising speed for the 65 hp version was stated to be 75
mph.

My father belonged to a flying club that owned a J-3, I believe with
the 40 hp engine, and a steam train could out run it is there was any
wind at all.

They were a bit rudimentary. No brakes and the fuel gauge was a float
attached to a wire that stuck up through the fuel tank cap :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Cubs had brakes since the late forties. In the 50's they got hydraulic brakes.

I can only comment on what I saw and the J-3 that the flying club
owned did not have brakes.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Oh, I'm sure you are correct. A few J-3's were manufactured in the thirties without brakes. Even when brakes were added, they were not much until they got to be hydraulic. The heel brakes on a '46 Taylorcraft are not strong enough to keep the aircraft from rolling forward during a full-throttle run-up. But they do slow it down, and sometimes a little differential braking can help get the tailwheel to swivel when you want to do a 360 on the ground to check for traffic or scare the hell out of your passenger. I know that from experience.

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:16:45 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 04:57:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:13:57 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:19:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 2:28 PM, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:

Anybody can fly an aeroplane, alright?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og&t=43s

Excellent. That's a great airplane, a Beech 18, I think. If you're gonna crash, that's a great airplane to crash in because of its monocoque construction its stresses are in the skin.

Go to 4:33. Bikes and planes work better when you add lightness.

Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little
over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
Very impressive. I wonder what its normal airspeed is (or would be with
full covering of the fuselage). And what sort of weather it may be
limited to. Any idea?

The Piper J-3 was built in a number of versions with engines ranging
from 40 to 65 hp. Catalog listed empty weight was 765 lbs, with the 65
hp engine. Cruising speed for the 65 hp version was stated to be 75
mph.

My father belonged to a flying club that owned a J-3, I believe with
the 40 hp engine, and a steam train could out run it is there was any
wind at all.

They were a bit rudimentary. No brakes and the fuel gauge was a float
attached to a wire that stuck up through the fuel tank cap :-)

That's a great fuel gauge and still successful. All you have to do is replace the cork (which sometimes gets saturated) with a hollow brass float from a Ford carburetor. The brass float has a countersunk bead around it so that it's easy to attach the wire.

--

And people wonder why I would never get in a private aircraft.

You just don't know what you've been missing.


Actually the no brakes thing worked out pretty well on the grass strip
that the flying club used. To taxi took, maybe, half throttle to get
moving and if you went back to idle the thing stopped moving :-)

It sounds like this aircraft did not have a tailwheel, that it had a tailskid which acted like a brake with the stick pulled all the way back.


The wire on a float fuel gauge wasn't fool proof so most people would
just push down on the wire before cranking the engine and if it didn't
pop back up to it's original position they'd take the cap off and peer
in to see how much fuel they had. Here is a photo looking forward
showing the fuel gauge.
http://tinyurl.com/y9k8u8yj

--
Cheers,

John B.

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/piper-cub

About 20,000 Cubs were manufactured up through 1947. When I was growing up they were everywhere and you could buy one for $1k. Now you can't find one for less than $40k, and a nice one is 50 to 60k.

I guess I'll shut up now and go take a bike ride. Thanks for the conversation.

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:33:33 AM UTC-7, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:16:45 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 04:57:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:13:57 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:19:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 2:28 PM, Ashevilliot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:

Anybody can fly an aeroplane, alright?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og&t=43s

Excellent. That's a great airplane, a Beech 18, I think. If you're gonna crash, that's a great airplane to crash in because of its monocoque construction its stresses are in the skin.

Go to 4:33. Bikes and planes work better when you add lightness.

Here's another great "tricked" Cub which won the shortest landing roll, Valdez, AK at just a little
over 10'. Empty weight on that delicate little thing is 800 lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
Very impressive. I wonder what its normal airspeed is (or would be with
full covering of the fuselage). And what sort of weather it may be
limited to. Any idea?

The Piper J-3 was built in a number of versions with engines ranging
from 40 to 65 hp. Catalog listed empty weight was 765 lbs, with the 65
hp engine. Cruising speed for the 65 hp version was stated to be 75
mph.

My father belonged to a flying club that owned a J-3, I believe with
the 40 hp engine, and a steam train could out run it is there was any
wind at all.

They were a bit rudimentary. No brakes and the fuel gauge was a float
attached to a wire that stuck up through the fuel tank cap :-)

That's a great fuel gauge and still successful. All you have to do is replace the cork (which sometimes gets saturated) with a hollow brass float from a Ford carburetor. The brass float has a countersunk bead around it so that it's easy to attach the wire.

--

And people wonder why I would never get in a private aircraft.

You just don't know what you've been missing.


Actually the no brakes thing worked out pretty well on the grass strip
that the flying club used. To taxi took, maybe, half throttle to get
moving and if you went back to idle the thing stopped moving :-)

It sounds like this aircraft did not have a tailwheel, that it had a tailskid which acted like a brake with the stick pulled all the way back.


The wire on a float fuel gauge wasn't fool proof so most people would
just push down on the wire before cranking the engine and if it didn't
pop back up to it's original position they'd take the cap off and peer
in to see how much fuel they had. Here is a photo looking forward
showing the fuel gauge.
http://tinyurl.com/y9k8u8yj

--
Cheers,

John B.

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/piper-cub

About 20,000 Cubs were manufactured up through 1947. When I was growing up they were everywhere and you could buy one for $1k. Now you can't find one for less than $40k, and a nice one is 50 to 60k.

I guess I'll shut up now and go take a bike ride. Thanks for the conversation.

What is sort of comical is that I've never flown a private aircraft but military regulations were that you always had to have two men on the controls of military aircraft so when the Aircraft Commander had to take a leak I would sit at the controls of a B52. The pilot even took it off of autopilot and let me fly it.

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 10:44:58 AM UTC-7, Ian Field wrote:
"John B." wrote in message
...

I've got quite a few aluminum bits and pieces from older bikes that
are pretty shoddy looking with nicks and dents and corrosion. I can
clean them up with a "flap" wheel and then polish then with the
usually buffing wheels and decreasing compound grits until they have a
high polish but once back on a bicycle again they seem to corrode
rather rapidly and in a few months end up looking sort of "splotched"
and dull, which of course is exactly what bare aluminum does in
contact with air.

I've tried a number of schemes to preserve the polish such as heavy
paste wax and even a coat of clear lacquer or in one case thinned
epoxy resin. This wasn't exactly successful as the wax disappears
quickly and the lacquer tends to chip and even the thinned epoxy tends
to flaked off in places.

Shimano seems to coat much of their aluminum bits with some sort of
"silver paint" which obviously isn't just that as it seems to last for
years.

I would prefer the look of highly polished aluminum (without the
corrosion) but that obviously will take considerable and continued
labour the way I am doing it at present.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how, or with what, to coat highly
polished aluminum to, at least, reduce the corrosion to a reasonable
level? Say a once a year polish?

Polished aluminium forms an oxide layer instantly, you need a polish that
leaves a film in place of what it takes off.


So are these things clearcoated or something?
https://www.google.com/search?q=amer...HYcgRqdh8K0qM: